|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kingdom not of this world?
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd like to revise my opinion of Anabaptists. I'd dearly like to return to my previously warm and open attitude towards them and the tradition they represent.
You can't seriously have revised your opinion of a denomination based on a single internet poster?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My own view is that you should stick to your model railways and blog about that.
You'd probably find more attentive readers within that constituency.
Oi! No dissing of model railways on this thread please (whether run by the State or by private enterprise ...).
Repent thou!
[ 28. December 2014, 17:06: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, mdijon, I haven't revised my opinion of an entire denomination based on the postings of one contributor. Of course I haven't.
I was writing hyperbolically ... it's something I do all the time ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
'All Cretans are liars,' and so on ...
I also knew that my comments on model-railways would draw the attention of Baptist Trainfan too. Not only is the clue in his title, but he's also been known to wax lyrical about railway engines on these boards at times.
For the record and FWIW, I don't have an 'issue' with Anabaptists at all. I used to be in a Baptist church (BUGB) and remain appreciative of all the contacts I have with Christians of a 'baptistic' persuasion.
I'm not against Baptists or Anabaptists.
The point I was making was that if anyone were going to 'put me off' Anabaptists it would be someone like Steve Langton. Not because he's a terrible bloke or anything of the kind ...
In the same way, if they don't mind me saying so, if anyone is going to 'put me off' Orthodoxy it's going to be Ad Orientem rather than Mousethief. That doesn't mean that Mousethief is any 'better' (or worse) an Orthodox Christian than Ad Orientem is ...
And my judgement on these points probably says more about me than it tells you about them.
Orthodoxy happens to be a Christian tradition for which I've got an awful lot of time - but the problem is, there are people involved ...
In theory, I'd have a lot of time for the Anabaptist position too ... but again, there are those tricky and pesky things called people involved with that as well ...
More seriously, whilst I do think that there are aspects of Anabaptism that deserve a hearing, ultimately it boils down to an over-realised (or dare I say, using Eutychus's least favourite Gamaliel phrase, 'over-egged') eschatology.
At best, it can demonstrate radical discipleship and admirable principles. At worst, it can become Pharisaical and pernickety - we don't have zips, we don't have computers - or more likely, we don't vote and thereby keep ourselves 'unspotted from the world' ... but essentially, we're the same as everyone else except we don't want to accept or recognise that ...
All Christian traditions have their strong points and their weak points - and often our greatest strengths are also our source of greatest weakness.
That applies right across the board.
That isn't to advocate a kind of non-commital, woolly approach ... no - but it is to acknowledge that we live between the 'now and the not yet', that we have to live with the tensions, work with the difficulties.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course I haven't... I was writing hyperbolically ... it's something I do all the time ...
You say "of course", there wasn't anything in your post to indicate you didn't mean it. It seemed like an unnecessary parting shot to me and didn't have any particular communicative value as hyperbole. To say a particular person might put you off a denomination doesn't really add anything to a reasoned discussion of why they are wrong.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I also knew that my comments on model-railways would draw the attention of Baptist Trainfan too. Not only is the clue in his title, but he's also been known to wax lyrical about railway engines on these boards at times.
Wot, me? Guilty as charged, m'lud! (My wife compains, too).
Re. "separation from the world" - years ago I attended a Bible study group of American ex-pat Evangelicals in Portugal. The theme of the study was "separation", which (to them) meant not taking part in the traditional shibboleths of drinking, smoking, etc. At the end of the study they all drove off in (what seemed to me) their expensive cars.
What intrigued me - even then, in 1979 - was that nothing was said about challenging capitalist values, or career ambition, or military assumptions, or political systems. Those aspects of "the world" never even entered their heads, it was all seen in terms of personal details of morality, satisfied of their "separation".
To be fair, Steve Langton has ben much more thoughtful than that ....
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The theme of the study was "separation", which (to them) meant not taking part in the traditional shibboleths of drinking, smoking, etc. At the end of the study they all drove off in (what seemed to me) their expensive cars.
To give another similar example - a friend of mine once observed after meeting with a bunch of Southern Baptists; "Those people talking about their body being a temple of the Holy Spirit .. how big is their temple?"
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I also knew that my comments on model-railways would draw the attention of Baptist Trainfan too. Not only is the clue in his title, but he's also been known to wax lyrical about railway engines on these boards at times.
Baptist Trainfan may be a fan of railways (which he shares with Steve Langton and me) but he doesn't rate all locomotives equally, which is just as well because while some locomotives are recognised as excellent by just about everyone, there are some that only their builders would rate worth more as machines than as scrap metal.
It's like that with doctrine, or anything else for that matter.
Steve,
Best wishes with the blog. Congratulations for trying in this and other threads; I think we all know what you are on about!
Sioni
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You say "of course", there wasn't anything in your post to indicate you didn't mean it. It seemed like an unnecessary parting shot to me and didn't have any particular communicative value as hyperbole. To say a particular person might put you off a denomination doesn't really add anything to a reasoned discussion of why they are wrong.
Perhaps not. I thought it was a 'fun' thing to post at the time. I won't die in a ditch over it. Steve might not even read it. He may be miles away by now sharing his wisdom on his blog or playing with his toy trains.
I'd rather he did the latter, to be honest, but it's not my call ...
I'm sorry my post offended you, but if you'd bothered to read on you'd have found that my sarky 'parting shot' also contained a hint that I hadn't given up on Anabaptists entirely.
Meanwhile, I'll readily agree with what's been said. Steve Langton is a heck of a lot more thoughtful than many 'US-style' evangelicals (and indeed 'UK-style' ones) but FWIW, to my mind he hasn't helped his own cause by restricting himself to carping about the sins and faults of others rather than seeking to demonstrate a 'more excellent way' in anything other than pretty broad, catch-all pietistic terms.
If he'd bothered to answer South Coast Kevin's questions properly - and had engaged with some of the challenges that others were making to his position rather than eliding them all the time then I wouldn't have given him such a sarky send-off.
[code]
[ 28. December 2014, 19:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Gamaliel, posting as a Shipmate here, if Steve Langton's posts of late have done nothing to endear me to the Anabaptist cause, yours since his announced departure from this thread have done nothing whatsoever to endear me to yours.
I suggest we either divert the conversation to discussing the views of people still taking part in it or let it rest.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If he'd bothered to answer South Coast Kevin's questions properly - and had engaged with some of the challenges that others were making to his position rather than eliding them all the time then I wouldn't have given him such a sarky send-off.
Not once did he engage with anyone. I particularly wish he would have answered by last two posts.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I'd have liked to have seen answers to those posts too, Ad Orientem.
To be honest, I've been wondering what my responses to those would be had they been addressed in my direction.
Anabaptists or no Anabaptists, a lot of Protestants would baulk at the 'baptismal regeneration' thing ...
I'm still trying to work that one out. If we take it to its logical conclusion then both Hitler and Stalin were 'born again' in the sense in which you are applying the term ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Steve, I'm still not clear what you think Christians and churches *should* do. You've given some of your thoughts about what is to be avoided - notably a state-supported church institution - but how do you think Christians should relate to the world, to nation states, political systems and so on? What, for you, are the signs that a church or an individual Christian is getting it right?
Are these the questions?
Christians need to be a testimony to the world don't they?
Various things come to my mind. Humility? Being a good employee? Taking the time to meet needs of others ? Driving considerately? Generosity in all it's forms?
Every now and then I meet someone who does it not just talk about it and they blow me away. I want to be like them.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anabaptists or no Anabaptists, a lot of Protestants would baulk at the 'baptismal regeneration' thing ...
I'm still trying to work that one out. If we take it to its logical conclusion then both Hitler and Stalin were 'born again' in the sense in which you are applying the term ...
Yes, in as much as the baptism they received left an indelible mark on their soul. But then we don't believe in once saved always saved. In fact it's not even the kind of terminology we would use, it's western, mainly protestant rationalism and badly wrong.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Thinking of what Gamaliel wrote, it strikes me that Steve has never worked out a fundamental problem within his view, which is how you run a society when a (large) majority of its members are professedly Christian. It's all very well being a radical alternative when you are only a tiny minority; but the whole thing changes when the "alternative" view is to not be Christian.
Inevitably such a society will have its institutions formed and informed by Christian values, even if these have not become formalised into the apparatus of state. Furthermore, for Christians living in such societies, isolation from stuff such as politics and voting would simply cause the State to collapse.
[ 29. December 2014, 08:53: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Every now and then I meet someone who does it not just talk about it and they blow me away. I want to be like them.
Absolutely, Jamat. But I was trying to find out what Steve believes about how Christians and churches should relate to the world in terms of political involvement, campaigning and the like. Through the whole length of this thread, I never got a clear sense of what Steve understood being part of 'a kingdom not of this world' to mean...
--------------------
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
Yes, I concur with what South Coast Kevin has said on the 'societal' issues - and with what Baptist Trainfan wrote before that.
That isn't to detract from the personal, individual responsibility issues that Jamat has - rightly - highlighted.
I have to say, I now regret some of the things I said to Steve Langton and the satirical tone I sometimes took with him ... but I was increasingly frustrated by his apparent inability to sketch out for us some kind of response to the issues South Coast Kevin and Baptist Trainfan have raised.
Both of them - like Eutychus - are believers within a 'credo-baptist' frame of reference. If they can frame some kind of rationale or response to this issues - or at least make a stab at it - then I don't 'get' why Steve was finding it so difficult ... but I appreciate that he is no longer here so it is probably counter-productive discussing what he didn't say ...
I'd imagine though, that he had the kind of 'personal' and individual responses in mind that Jamat has outlined.
Which is fair enough as far as it goes, but these things are by no means confined to any particular Christian tradition - I believe it's possible to find individuals of the kind Jamat describes everywhere and anywhere.
I think Baptist Trainfan is on the money on this one. In a society which is, or has been, majority Christian - even if largely nominally - and has been shaped to some extent by Christian values, then it's a 'dereliction of duty' on the part of individual believers to withdraw from the public sphere - if they did then the effect and influence of those values would diminish still further.
But Steve's no longer around to outline his views. I may go and look at his blog at some point.
Meanwhile, @Ad Orientem - yes, I thought about the 'once saved, always saved' thing after I posted that, but not all Protestants believe that - those of a more Arminian persuasion for instance.
But I can certainly see what you mean about Western and particularly Protestant 'rationalisation' - attempts to codify everything and pack it all into neat categories and formularies ... that is, indeed, a very Western trait.
Without, hopefully, straying into 'Dead Horses' territory, how would it be apparent that someone was 'indelibly' marked by their baptism - infant or otherwise?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-sacramentalist or anything of that kind ... I'm gradually feeling my way 'further up the candle' - as it were - particularly in my understanding of the eucharist.
But at the same time I'm inevitably influenced (perhaps indelibly ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) by the credo-baptist/Anabaptist and more generally Protestant milieu in which I've tended to operate hitherto.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Steve Langton having left the thread, please stop speculating about the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments; also his RL activities. Please stick to the discussions which the rest of you are having.
This is a rule we have for folks suspended and it seems appropriate to apply it in this case to someone who has voluntarily departed, at least for the time being. It is part of being courteous in your debating style - Purg guideline 5.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
how Christians and churches should relate to the world in terms of political involvement, campaigning and the like.[/QB]
It is a really interesting issue. Miller's play, The Crucible, comes to mind. Miller reflects the human failings intrinsic to a theocratic attempt at community. In the end, personal freedoms are curtailed. It is also clearly a mistake to associate a faith belief with right/ left politics but in microcosm a bit clearer. I worked at a Christian school for 9 years. The politics there were, let's say human. Overall, decisions that counted were made similarly to how they are made anywhere else, if the institution thought that a direction was best or a person was not doing a proper job they were pretty ruthless. Overall IMV a truly Christian institution is a chimera.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Aren't the problems with Steve's views solved by living in a secular non-established church society with a majority of atheists? That allows Christians to be the minority apart leading exemplary lives. I think that's been the usual historical role of Anabaptists.
Although I am assuming that a secular society could have Christians participate in leadership o f that society without them being "Constantinian".
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Buggered by even more atheists and Constantinians leading exemplary lives.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Steve has never worked out a fundamental problem within his view, which is how you run a society when a (large) majority of its members are professedly Christian. It's all very well being a radical alternative when you are only a tiny minority; but the whole thing changes when the "alternative" view is to not be Christian.
Inevitably such a society will have its institutions formed and informed by Christian values, even if these have not become formalised into the apparatus of state.
We may say that 'a (large) majority' of a society's members are 'professedly Christian' but what this actually means is hard to define. It doesn't necessarily mean that the people need religious specialists to speak on their behalf; or that they need 'churches' of any sort; or that a belief in any sort of g/God is required; or that it precludes dual/multiple allegiances to different religions or to apparently opposing world views. All things are possible, because there's no end of ways in which one may consider oneself a Christian. For this reason it's problematic to expect institutional churches of any sort to 'represent Christianity' rather than simply their own brand of it.
Moreover, it may be good for Christians to be present in every walk of life, but we can see from the American experience that Christian public figures rarely speak to the range of Christian experience or belief that exists. The Ship is full of moderate Christians who regret that Christian fundamentalists spend quite so much time in the public eye.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The same would equally apply to 'less institutional' churches - they'd only be able to represent their particular brand of Christianity rather than Christianity as a whole.
There's no such thing as an ideal situation - only in the realm of speculation can such a thing exist.
There are problems all ways round.
When the Queen goes on national TV at Christmas and testifies to her faith in Christ we can react to that in various ways.
We can say, 'Oh, goody, the fact that the CofE is Established enables her to do this ...'
Or we can say, 'That's all very well and good but the CofE shouldn't be Established ...'
Or we can be indifferent to it either way.
There are a whole range of options in terms of how we can react to that.
Note, though, that the Queen was talking about Christ's influence and example - something that can apply to all Christians of whatever church or denomination.
She wasn't promoting the CofE but the teachings and example of Christ.
Of course, it's not just a question of 'being in the public eye' and I don't particularly have any issue with evangelicals or any other Christian tradition getting noticed or 'being in the public eye' ...
I might have an issue, though, with some of the things they say and how they act as and when they do have a platform ... but that's another issue.
The Queen does some good stuff, the Queen probably does some bad stuff and the Queen undoubtedly does some indifferent stuff. Same as everyone else.
The same applies to churches of whatever stripe - however 'institutional' or less 'institutional' (whatever that means) they are ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The same would equally apply to 'less institutional' churches - they'd only be able to represent their particular brand of Christianity rather than Christianity as a whole.
Indeed. So why insist that the institutional nature of religious groups is especially valuable? It's only valuable to a fairly small constituency.
By 'institutional churches' I wasn't thinking of the CofE in particular. However, one could argue that the CofE is the bearer of an important cultural heritage so it should be specially supported or affirmed quite independently of its religious or spiritual purpose. For example, the secular French state pays for the repair of old RC churches even though state and church are supposedly strictly separate in France.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Buggered by even more atheists and Constantinians leading exemplary lives.
Exemplary in the sense of behaviour as in golden rule or exemplary in the sense of unselfish motivation?
'In the world' is not a choice a Christian has but if we are selfishly motivated then we are in fact of it as well, ergo,not Christian at all.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Surely, Jamat, it is ultimately only God who can 'judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart' as it were ... although I'd agree that we are given means and frameworks to help us ... but we are infallible and won't always judge and assess things correctly.
For all the proof-texts that evangelicals sometimes sprinkle around, I don't see any NT evidence that God despises or necessarily rejects the good things that people do - whether from a Christian base or otherwise.
Virtue is often its own reward.
That doesn't mean that people shouldn't be given the opportunity to hear and respond to the Gospel - of course not. We are not saved by our own works.
But I don't see anyone being smacked across the head by Christ or by anyone else in the NT for simply trying to do what they thought was best.
I s'pose the closest to that is the incident with the Syro-Phoenician woman, but even there, Christ is impressed with the answer he receives and effectively says, 'Ok, it's a fair cop ...'
Sure, it's right to try to assess and judge our own motives to ensure that we are motivated by genuine love and not trying to draw attention to ourselves etc.
But we aren't in a position to judge anyone else's motives - 'the Lord looks at the heart.'
We none of us have 'windows into men's souls'.
--------------------
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:
quote:
[/b]
Indeed. So why insist that the institutional nature of religious groups is especially valuable? It's only valuable to a fairly small constituency.
I'm not 'insisting' anything.
I'm not 'sold' on either Establishment or Disestablishment - there are pros and cons with both systems.
I must admit, that I'm not convinced that it is possible for churches to escape 'institutionalism' of some kind or other. I've seen that process at work with new churches that have gradually become institutionalised. It's an inevitable process and it's naive, in my view, to think that we can elide it.
If, on balance, I say that I think it's a good thing that the Queen has the scope to go on the telly on Christmas Day and talk about Christ - which I do - it doesn't necessarily follow that I'm comfortable with every other aspect of Anglican Establishment.
But we are where we are and we're between the now and the not yet.
I've yet to see any church model or system that doesn't have difficulties of some kind or other. The same applies to everything else.
We are all where we are and we have to work with the opportunities and constraints that wherever we are provides.
--------------------
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:
I'm not convinced that it is possible for churches to escape 'institutionalism' of some kind or other. I've seen that process at work with new churches that have gradually become institutionalised. It's an inevitable process and it's naive, in my view, to think that we can elide it.
Agreed, it's impossible to avoid. Both Troeltsch and Weber (as long ago as 1912) talked of the "routinisation of charisma" and the tendency of most radical sects to gradually accommodate to surrounding society.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We're ALL selfishly motivated. How enlightenedly?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
We are where we are, obviously.
Our church culture currently seems to be in a place of stasis, which is probably the result of late secularisation. There's so much anxiety and/or exhaustion among most Christians here that there's no taste for founding new sects (as dissatisfied Christians in 'routinised' churches used to do) or for switching to groups such as the Anabaptists. We either stick with the familiar or we give up on church life entirely.
I can see that this state of affairs makes things easier for church leaders who want to keep control of their congregations. Churchgoers who leave out of boredom or loss of faith are less of a threat than those devout believers who might once have left to found a rival movement that risked splitting the church in a noisy or painful fashion.
Church switching goes on, though, and Gamaliel seems to have more experience of that than most people, but I don't know if the benefits of doing so are as striking as they once might have been. Since few of us are driven by doctrines, maybe it's now more a question of taste than anything else. This is why I don't think there's much point in Steve or others focusing on biblical perspectives when arguing for de-institutionalised churches. We all have a different and very personal idea of what it means to be 'in/of the world', so what's the point?
Finally, it's apparent from threads like this and from the world in general that de-institutionalisation only occurs on a significant level if Christians are forced into it, so my low-key hope would be that the relevant Christian groups begin to reflect on it before it's imposed on them by circumstances. The Ship may not be the best place for such reflection, though.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think that's entirely the case, SvitlanaV2.
There is a 'new' house-church or new-church movement going on and only the other day I heard of another group I'd not been aware of before ...
Admittedly, I don't think this sort of thing is going on - at least in white Anglo-Saxon circles - as much as it was in the 1980s but it's still happening.
I think if you or I or any of us were involved with the mostly migrant congregations in London we'd report a different picture - new groups setting up and splitting and either imploding or multiplying left, right and centre.
I have to be honest, I don't really 'get' what you mean about churches somehow 'de-institutionalising' themselves. What does that involve? What does it look like, exactly?
To be blunt, I don't have any clearer impression of what you mean or what you'd like to see than I did from Steve Langton's posts calling for 'separation from the world' ...
I could understand, perhaps, what you mean if you were talking about churches selling off their buildings or adopting a more 'Quaker-ish' stance with no ordained/trained leaders as such ...
But the last time I looked the Quakers I know had a meeting hall and a fairly 'institutional' way of conducting their affairs.
I'm no clearer as to what you want or what you'd like to see than I was with Steve.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I'm not certain that an inward-looking discussion about how the various denoms order themselves or whether they have a building or not is particularly relevant to anyone not part of that denom.
I'd much rather (and the discussion I wanted from the off) talk about how we - our local and national churches engage with the State. My own - I have Anglican written through me like a stick of rock - has exclusive seats in the House of Lords and is the default, unthinking position of many (especially older) Britons. It also produced the cataclysmic Faith in the City report so hated by Thatcher. It also often has the last professionally-educated person left in many inner-city parishes.
So, for example can the CofE maintain its network of covering every household in the country if it wasn't the Established church?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On an admittedly far smaller scale, Doc Tor, the Church in Wales has continued to do so - at least in theory - since its Disestablishment in 1920.
I suspect a lot of Welsh people don't realise that the CinW is Disestablished ... and an North Walian Archdeacon once concurred with me when I expressed this view.
I get the impression from this thread and from off-thread conversations in real life, that some non-conformists feel somewhat 'disenfranchised' by the presence of CofE Bishops in the House of Lords ... 'How come THEY get a presence and we don't?'
- Whereas others take the view that at least there is SOME kind of Christian representation there.
Others would take the view that the House of Lords is an anachronism and should be dissolved.
I'd like to explore the issues you've raised too - how does any church - not just the Church of England - relate to the State and to the wider society?
Can it ever be more than purely 'symbolic' or token? Such as the presence of Jains, Sikhs and representatives of other faiths at the Cenotaph on November 11th each year alongside representatives of the various Christian churches ...
To an extent, I can sympathise with what I take to be SvitlanaV2's perspective ... which is that in many areas of the country the Christian presence is rapidly evaporating ... so these discussions are a luxury to some extent - fiddling while Rome (or Christendom) burns ...
The issue might be more one of survival than how churches can be involved with whatever's going on in society at large.
It's an interesting issue, though, this business about the CofE being some kind of 'spiritual NHS'. I've noticed a change in the approach that our local, evangelical vicar takes. When he was first here he was adamant about not taking communion around to little old ladies' houses - he'd rather get voluntary drivers to bring them to a fortnightly mid-week service ... but he seems to have mellowed on that.
Equally, it was clear that he regarded his pastoral responsibilities to lie more with his own congregation than anyone in the parish who didn't darken the door of his church from one year to the next ...
Which I can understand - as he tends to operate in a 'gathered church' kind of way. But as time has gone on, he has become more involved with people and groups beyond his immediate constituency of 'regulars'.
It's been interesting seeing this process slowly taking place ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There is a 'new' house-church or new-church movement going on and only the other day I heard of another group I'd not been aware of before ...
From what you've said previously there's obviously a lively Christian presence in your area, represented by various different kinds of churches. That's a rather unusual situation, I'd submit.
However, I get the feeling that you're not entirely happy about all this diversity where you live. Am I right?
quote:
I think if you or I or any of us were involved with the mostly migrant congregations in London we'd report a different picture - new groups setting up and splitting and either imploding or multiplying left, right and centre.
I'm not sure about that. I don't live in London, but I get the impression that the migrant congregations there are settling down now. Some are in the process of church planting, but this isn't the same as splitting or imploding. In any case, London is hardly representative of the country at large.
quote:
I have to be honest, I don't really 'get' what you mean about churches somehow 'de-institutionalising' themselves. What does that involve? What does it look like, exactly?
To be blunt, I don't have any clearer impression of what you mean or what you'd like to see than I did from Steve Langton's posts calling for 'separation from the world' ...
As I've said before, my feeling is that churches in some areas and in some denominations are and will continue to be fine regarding the maintenance of buildings, hiring ministers, speaking on behalf of fairly homogeneous middle class communities, having the resources to diversify or produce high quality in terms of worship, and pursue evangelism, etc.; but very many congregations in many areas won't be.
Therefore, to my mind, reflecting on the possibilities of working without (paid) clergy, without dedicated church buildings, without constant fundraising for maintenance, without rigid national structures that may hamper the need to respond quickly to local pressures on the ground may - again, in some circumstances - be worthwhile. I agree that what this means in practice isn't clear, hence the need for reflection. I imagine that the outcomes would be somewhat different depending on the environment.
You insist that de-institutionalised churches tend to evaporate. You may be right. But the recent history of British Christianity is leading me to the view that institutionalised Christianity is itself on the road to oblivion in many contexts. (Take note, please, that I'm not talking about your particular community, and I'm not arguing that anyone should go around driving congregations out of their churches! People will do what seems best for them.) That being so, it behoves us to think of ways in which some groups of Christians might operate otherwise.
You also say that informal church movements tend to institutionalise instinctively. That's also apparent. But I'm still waiting to read something that explains how this might happen sensitively and wisely in the post-Christian British landscape of the coming decades. Because this is what I'm hearing about: theological colleges and closing and amalgamating. Denominations are facing anxiety over clergy pensions. Congregational hierarchies are struggling due to a lack of lay candidates to fill posts. Church incomes are frequently strained by the burdensome cost of building maintenance, with the burden falling on congregations that are getting smaller. And denominations such as the Methodists and URC are closing huge numbers of buildings. I can't see how it's possible or reasonable for the newest church groups in general to drift mindlessly into more institutionalisation in this situation, although, again, some of the newer groups (the Redeemed Christian Church of God?) may find that it works for them, up to a certain point.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I've just read something which neatly encapsulates a concern I have about establishment and state-supported religion:
quote:
When a person is immunized against the flu, they receive just enough of the flu virus to trick their body into acting as if they had the real thing so that they build up a resistance to the real thing. So too, there is just enough truth in this certainty-seeking, contractual, belief-oriented, individualistic version of Christianity to trick people into thinking they have the real thing. They thus aren’t open to, or hungry for, true faith because they assume they already have it when they believe.
The author is talking about low-commitment Christianity rather than state / civic religion, but I think the same argument applies - that people are 'inoculated' against genuine faith in Christ by the existence of a state church, which makes them think they are already a Christian.
Link here
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The new group I was referring to wasn't anywhere near here. I'd heard about it on a visit to a large city in the north of England.
If we are talking about my immediate area, though, then yes, there are a fair number of churches to choose from - six, in fact, for a population of around 15,000. Seven, if we include a tiny Adventist group which meets on a Saturday with about a dozen people at most.
On the average Sunday I'd imagine you'd find around 750 people or so across all six churches.
That'd be about 250 Anglicans (across two parishes), perhaps 60 or 70 Penties, perhaps 40 to 60 at the URC and the rest spread between the Methodists and RCs.
All the churches are ageing ... and I'd suggest that it's only one of the Anglican parishes and perhaps the Penties to some extent, who are getting younger people involved.
How unusual this is, I don't know.
As for 'diversity', the Methodists and URC are barely distinguishable from one another (and could easily merge in my view) - the one Anglican parish is very low-church evangelical and the other liberal catholic - or 'catholic-lite'.
The Penties are quite moderate as Penties go and the RCs seem pretty ecumenical in outlook.
I don't know why you get the impression that I'm not happy about any of that.
I don't feel particularly happy where I am - because I find it all a bit simplistic ... but I see no guarantee that I'd feel happier anywhere else ...
Anyhow - I'm thinking my broadly than my own patch.
I agree with you that things are in a pretty parlous state by and large. Churches are struggling to stay open and to carry the overheads involved with maintaining ministers and buildings and so on.
There's quite an interesting Anglican/Methodist ecumenical partnership in a village near here which may be an example of the kind of instance/s you have in mind - they're raising funds for a building refurbishment which will give the old Methodist building a multi-purpose community function as well as being a place of worship.
They're going to sell off the old Anglican building.
I'm not disputing that high-maintenance, institutionalised ways of doing church are facing oblivion in many areas. I've never said otherwise.
I agree there's a need for reflection.
But, as you say, congregations will largely have to decide how to organise things for themselves - with whatever input there might be within their wider denominational or 'connexional' structures.
Some of the people who are now happily involved with the LEC I was telling you about were saying, 'Over my dead body ...' only 18 months ago. They've come a long way.
Yes, Bible Colleges are closing and amalgamating - and I think there's scope for more amalgamation, truth be told. I've done some freelance projects for a Bible College so I am aware of the issues they face.
I'm all for rationalisation, for multi-use facilities, for churches to organise themselves as they believe best.
I can't see where I've argued otherwise.
Reading your posts, I sometimes get the impression that you think everyone else is oblivious to these issues and are blithely carrying on as they head obliviously towards the abyss.
As far as I can see, there's all sorts of dicussion and reflection going on in all manner of churches and denominations ... there have been all sorts of initiatives ('The Decade of Evangelism' anyone?) - Messy Church, Back to Church Sunday and all sorts of other things besides.
No-one is going to come along and do a 'quick-fix' on Trout Street Methodist or St Saviour's by The Gasworks ... there are all sorts of complex issues to sort out in each case and I'm glad I'm not the person who has to sort them out ...
It's not a case of newer groups 'drifting mindlessly' into anything either. Newer churches, in my experience, are forever experimenting and trying to reinvent the wheel and they often go round and round and round in circles trying to do so.
People then get dizzy and fall off ...
All I'm saying is that a level of institutionalism is inevitable - however we cut it. I can see that in the community/voluntary groups I'm involved with as well as churches.
I s'pose the issue is what level of institutionalism can we settle for or how much do we need in order to keep the show on the road?
--------------------
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
Cross-posted with South Coast Kevin ...
Sure, I've heard that said many, many times, South Coast Kevin - and not just about the CofE but about the 'disestablished' US Christian scene too ... which is where that article comes from, of course.
It's often been said that the British have been given sufficient Christianity to inoculate them against it.
The question is, what do we do about it?
I started out nominally Anglican - and left when the confirmation classes started (although a lot of it stuck with me despite that) - I was 'born again' - to use the parlance - at university and after a short time with the Methodists (I wanted to suss them out) and visiting Baptist and other churches) I encountered the charismatic scene (in an Anglican context initially) and headed into house-church/'new church' restorationist territory.
I was there for 18 years.
I then spent 6 years, quite happily, in a Baptist setting which was mildly charismatic with some 'emergent' tendencies.
For the last 8 years (since I moved to this town), I've been involved with our evangelical Anglican parish which is trying to operate on a 'gathered' model ... although I'm sort of post-evangelical (or 'pre-catholic' ) these days ...
Whatever else that's done, I think it allows me to speak with some insight on how things work out in various settings.
My own 'take'/observations are that whatever the 'churchmanship', most churches are pretty 'intentional' these days ... other than at Christmas and Easter you don't tend to have people going purely out of 'tradition' or because of heritage/convention ...
Whatever they may or may not believe - and 'orthodoxy' (small o) seems to fluctuate across most churches, I find - even in those which are convinced that they are 'sound' ... - these days most people who are involved with church are there on a 'voluntarist' level.
No-one's forcing them to go.
Equally, levels of 'commitment', understanding, engagement and involvement fluctuate right across the board - irrespective of whether a church is 'established' or not.
Which is why I no longer believe the Establishment issue - as problematic as it undoubtedly is - to be the big, over-riding issue.
How do we encourage greater levels of depth, commitment and discipleship?
Well, I s'pose we must first demonstrate that ourselves - which is easier said than done, I suppose.
I always find St John Chrysostom's famous Easter Sermon encouraging though - the 'feast' is there for all - whether they've observed the fast or not, whether they've borne the heat and burden of the day or come along at the 11th hour ...
See: http://anglicansonline.org/special/Easter/chrysostom_easter.html
It's certainly the case that there are higher levels of 'nominalism' across the historic Churches than you might find across the 'newer' set-ups - but as the article you've linked to demonstrates - there are levels of nominalism in societies like the USA where a significant proportion of people claim to be 'born again' ...
So, I don't see Disestablishment in and of itself as a panacea against such a state of affairs.
What do I see as the answer?
I'm not sure there is one.
I've enough on dealing with my own sins and lethargy without going round trying to determine who is or isn't a Christian anywhere else ...
That's God's call, not mine.
--------------------
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
Intriguingly, a Nigerian Christian from a huge, revivalist style church over there, once told me that they loved coming to the UK because even though the churches were a lot smaller and less lively, they thought there were more genuine Christians among them ...
I don't know how they assessed that or judged that to be the case - but whatever view we take of that it suggests that revivalism and charismatic practices don't, in and of themselves, deliver the answer to nominalism and shallow levels of discipleship.
As to what does ...
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I think "institutional" is one of those things that is a very broad spectrum, and inevitable once any group of people exceeds a threshold in size. It started with the Church when the Apostles realised that they needed help caring for the poor in their community and appointed Seven people to that task.
In a more modern context, a group with a treasurer and bank account has become a form of institution. Even half a dozen believers meeting in a house with no group assets benefits from other institutionalised churches - the people who provide the translations and market for large print runs of Bibles, who write music, who produce commentaries and Bible study notes etc.
I don't think it's possible to realistically ask "should the church be an institution?", we have no choice about that. Of course, "what should the characteristics of the institutional church be?" is a very important question.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[...]
I don't know why you get the impression that I'm not happy about [what the churches are doing in my area].
[...]
Reading your posts, I sometimes get the impression that you think everyone else is oblivious to these issues and are blithely carrying on as they head obliviously towards the abyss.
The impression I get reading your posts is that the churches in your environment are quite active, yet you're still not entirely happy with the choices available to you. Moreover, despite your own moderate dissatisfaction with what's on offer where you are you're a bit cross with anyone who envisions anything being done a bit differently in their neighbourhood. This is where we're misunderstanding each other, I think.
Perhaps your long history of trying different churches has made you fairly cynical about almost all possible options? You've chopped and changed a lot and got fed up. But for many others a change may be as good as a rest.
Speaking for myself, I still feel that my duty is to work for the church, but I devoted too much money and effort to supporting an institutional church structure that wasn't fit for purpose. Maybe it's wrong of me, but I just can't warm up to the idea of doing more or less the same thing in more or less the same way again; but that's what almost all the institutional churches I know of seem to want. Who knows why.
As for the 'abyss' you mention, most churches have their plans and projects for the future. Under the right circumstances some of them will do okay. One does sometimes come across expressions of concern, in places like 'The Methodist Recorder', etc. But IME it's not the done thing for ordinary Christian folk to express too much concern about the future of the church.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think "institutional" is one of those things that is a very broad spectrum, and inevitable once any group of people exceeds a threshold in size. It started with the Church when the Apostles realised that they needed help caring for the poor in their community and appointed Seven people to that task.
In a more modern context, a group with a treasurer and bank account has become a form of institution. Even half a dozen believers meeting in a house with no group assets benefits from other institutionalised churches - the people who provide the translations and market for large print runs of Bibles, who write music, who produce commentaries and Bible study notes etc.
I don't think it's possible to realistically ask "should the church be an institution?", we have no choice about that. Of course, "what should the characteristics of the institutional church be?" is a very important question.
I don't see those characteristics of institutions as being harmful in themselves. Institutions are one thing but once they become institutionalised, they do become a problem. That is when inertia sets in and a great deal of effort goes into maintaining 'the church' which too often means devoting resources towards keeping things exactly as they are.
When anyone is disparaging of institutions, I think it is institutionalism that they criticise. The contrast is like that between authority, which is essential for effective leadership, and authoritarianism, which was the dominant character trait of the first half of the 20th century, and we don't want to repeat that.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not sure I have 'chopped and changed a lot', SvitlanaV2.
After my conversion at university I visited a few different types of churches over a period of about a year/18 months at most - and was then in one particular church for 18 years. After that, I was in another church for 6 years and I've been involved with our local parish church here since 2007.
So it's not as if I've chopped and changed every five minutes.
I've always had contacts in a wide range of churches, though - and have visited almost every kind of church I can think of (apart from the Copts and Ethiopians).
I can understand your frustrations at 'institutional' forms of church but agree with Alan Cresswell, that some form of 'institution' is inevitable. I don't see any way around that.
Sure, I can see scope for smaller groups meeting in houses and so on - but even these have to depend on institutions of some kind - as Alan Cresswell notes - Bible Societies or publishers and the like.
I remember South Coast Kevin outlining a model where these kind of 'service' institutions remained - rather like service hubs - whilst the churches themselves reorganised themselves more flexibly.
I can see some merit in that suggestion but even then such groups are bound to institutionalise at some point - once they grow beyond a certain level. And it'd take some kind of 'central control' - which indicates some kind of institution - to ensure that they planted out, divided or did whatever was necessary to keep things small and low-key.
If I do sound impatient on these boards it's because I've heard it all before ...
Perhaps I am a bit world-weary and cynical ... but I'm not really against anyone trying anything new or organising things differently - provided they don't see this as some kind of automatic panacea.
As it happens, though, I do believe that we are all inevitably headed towards a post-Christian, increasingly secularised society where flexibility is going to be key ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I certainly wouldn't be 'against' you or anyone else trying to 'do church' more flexibly or less 'institutionally' (were such a thing possible) - where you are, SvitlanaV2.
What I'm having difficulty with is that no-one seems any more able to articulate what this might look like in practice anymore than we got to the bottom of what it might look like to live 'in the world and not be of it' nor how churches should relate to society and the state from all the pages and pages of discussion preceding Steve's departure.
If you can give an idea of how such a 'de-institutionalised' church might look and function in your area then I'd be pleased to hear how you envisage it might be.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even half a dozen believers meeting in a house with no group assets benefits from other institutionalised churches - the people who provide the translations and market for large print runs of Bibles, who write music, who produce commentaries and Bible study notes etc.
Without meaning to imply that churches can be completely non-institutional, I don't think your point above is accurate. All those activities you noted are valuable, I agree, but they don't have to be carried out by churches.
You can have organisations that publish books and music, organisations that provide Bible translations and commentaries, and so on; but the people who work within those organisations could also belong to highly non-institutional churches. That's a point which gets missed in a lot of the criticism of simple / organic church, I think.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
Can you explain to me how we can be more 'flexible' yet become more institutionalised at the same time? How does that work?
If a new group has no money and hardly any members (since we're in a post-Christian culture with few conversions likely except among highly committed christianised immigrants) then where will this institutionalisation come from, and who will benefit? This is what doesn't make any sense.
Since few people have the inclination or the ability to give much money or time to the the church these days it would make more sense for most low-key groups to focus on the 'spluttering out' scenario rather than the 'let's send So-and-So to theological college and then build a church' scenario. So my perspective would be to work on a model of built-in obsolescence rather than trying hard to become more and more institutional to no purpose. The RCC and the CofE have had the best of that process.
As for how non-institutional churches would work; I did say to you that each area would develop in its own way. This is the advantage of non-institutional churches; they don't have to work with cookie-cutter structures that have to be applied in all circumstances without exception.
In our Churches Together network there are churches that have closed in the past few years. This leads to a loss of choice for worshippers, and not all go on to transfer their membership elsewhere. A new organic church plant would offer more choice, without requiring new buildings. It could 'associate' with CT (I don't know what level of institutionalisation is required for membership) and benefit from that kind of ecumenicalism. It could work on missions to Muslims, or to the elderly, or to those with mental problems (and some Christians in the area are suffering with such issues). The existing churches have their mission, but who says they can do it all themselves? Whether they'd appreciate such a fellowship in their midst is another matter, but I think they'd appreciate the participation of any willing and able Christians who were driven by love and humility rather than by isolationism and self-regard.
BTW, I do wish you'd stop referring to 'panaceas'. No one on these threads is offering any kind of church as a panacea, so it's very unhelpful of you to keep mentioning it.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
You can have organisations that publish books and music, organisations that provide Bible translations and commentaries, and so on; but the people who work within those organisations could also belong to highly non-institutional churches.
The problem is that these organisations are then unaccountable to the churches that they serve - this is an issue if you don't consider doctrinal clarity to be an issue.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
One of my family works for Campus Life. Experience is that churches look down on para church organisations. I agree with Alan the option is only what sort of institution the church becomes but the fascinating issue is that institutions have a life bigger than that of the individuals who make them up. That is where they continue to exist and morph despite the actual people who staff them continually coming and going. The people some of them can be marvellous as individuals but still quite ruthless in their roles as was shown in the Christian School I worked at. The welfare of the individuals was only a concern in as far as the School was affected. My conclusion is that no institution is Christian in essence. A bit cynical but thoroughly based in experience. Some of the expectations on the teachers trespassed hugely on their goodwill as individuals and this was taken for granted. Your burnout was your problem. In contrast a secular institution I worked at had a sabbatical system for loyal staffers.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
You can have organisations that publish books and music, organisations that provide Bible translations and commentaries, and so on; but the people who work within those organisations could also belong to highly non-institutional churches.
The problem is that these organisations are then unaccountable to the churches that they serve - this is an issue if you don't consider doctrinal clarity to be an issue.
In what way are they unaccountable, Alan? Actually, thinking some more, why do you see the need for any accountability beyond the basic fact of competition? (i.e. if churches / Christians don't rate a particular book, commentary, song or whatever, then they just won't buy it.)
Isn't there sufficient scope for accountability with each church (large or small, highly institutional or very flexible) being responsible to its members / attendees for the books etc. that it provides or recommends?
Personally, I don't feel that, say, Hodder & Stoughton have any responsibility or accountability to me. They produce and promote their books, I decide whether I'd like to buy / borrow them. It's my church leaders (and other Christian friends, for that matter) who I'd say have a responsibility to me, in terms of what books they suggest to me.
--------------------
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
Lots of issues here ...
Where to start?
@SvitlanaV2, don't misunderstand me, I've kept saying that we are all headed towards 'flexibility' and a more organic way of operating. I think that's inevitable as we head further into a post-Christendom and even post-Christian future.
And apologies for the 'panacea' accusations, I recognise that they are wide of the mark.
I s'pose we're both coming at this issue from different experiences. You've been frustrated - rightly - by institutional inflexibility. I've equally been frustrated by claims to flexibility and 'being led by the Spirit' and so on that haven't really led anywhere.
In my experience it's been the more ostensibly 'organic' forms of church that have tended to end up in glorious isolation ...
Although I think that trend no longer applies, by and large.
@Jamat - yes, I can certainly see what you are getting at. I've not had experience of 'Christian schools' but I have had experience of 'Christian companies' and 'Christian businesses' and they can be a heck of a lot worse than 'secular' ones from what I've found. I'd probably run a mile if someone offered me the opportunity to go into partnership in a 'Christian business' ...
@South Coast Kevin, the doctrinal accountability thing is an issue here ... you are assuming that there is sufficient theological nous and accountability within each congregation to ensure that things stay on track.
I'd argue that this isn't always going to be the case.
To give a tooty-fruity whacko-jacko instance, I know of an independent pentecostal/charismatic church in a conurbation near here which has an Israeli flag across its 'altar' - and where they no longer teach that Christ is divine. They have 'gone by the Bible' (as they see it) and because they don't have any meaningful links with anyone else they have begun to drift from recognised orthodox (small o) Christianity.
Of course, the whole panoply of Archbishops, bishops, archdeacons, deans and rural deans and so on ans so forth in the historic episcopal churches such as the CofE doesn't necessarily ensure doctrinal consistency, clarity or purity.
But, by an large, I'd argue that it's easier for smaller, independent, organic groups to develop whacky ideas and practices.
As far as the publishing houses and so on are concerned, of course there's nothing to stop people who work for Hodder & Stoughton, say, from belonging to some kind of organic fellowship. I'm sure there's nothing in their contracts of employment that say that they have to belong to the CofE, the Methodists, RCs or whoever else ...
But what worries me about the overly 'market-driven' approach that you seem to be advocating here is that the kind of books and titles that may start to predominate might end up rather skewed in terms of themes and topics.
When I used to attend a particular Bible week regularly, I noticed how the range and quality of the books on display became narrower over time. Initially, there was a breadth of material - admittedly from within the broad evangelical spectrum - but gradually it narrowed down to particular - and often questionable - material from particular stables.
In a more 'organic' setting, what's to stop the leadership advocating or promoting titles that put forward an idiosyncratic agenda?
Those are the sorts of concerns I'd have, and I'd suggest - on the basis of experience - that these concerns are well-grounded.
--------------------
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
We're probably heading into tangential territory and onto topics we've previously rehearsed on other threads - about organic ways of developing churches etc ...
But to address SvitlanaV2's question about how it's possible to balance flexibility with the institutional.
I think this is possible - bearing in mind that I believe that each and every church is an 'institution' and that the idea of a non-institutional' church is an oxymoron or a non-sequitur ...
I suppose a LEP - local ecumenical partnership - could be an example of flexibility within well-worn routes and tracks.
Some of the 'Fresh Expressions' initiatives might fall into this category too.
I don't see why an historic or 'traditional' church can't be flexible in its approach - within its particular guidelines and modus operandi of course. I mean, the RCs were pretty flexible here in the UK between the Reformation and Catholic Emancipation in the 1820s. They didn't have church buildings for several hundred years. They met in one another's homes - or, in Ireland, out in the open air.
Heck, even the Orthodox in rural Greece have come up with a solution to the problem of priests being thin on the ground - the priests consecrate the elements for the eucharist and then a duly appointed lay person administers them out in the country churches - at least, that's what I've heard.
So, I can't see how it is beyond the wit of man for the CofE - for instance - to develop a system for rural parishes that both respects its tradition of having an ordained minister/priest to preside at communion and allows flexibility in terms of its regularity and 'reach'.
All it takes is a bit of imagination.
Surely?
All that said, I've heard priests in all kinds of episcopal settings - Anglican, RC and Orthodox - complaining about inertia at an episcopal level. 'The Bishops all agreed it was a good idea ... then nothing happened ...'
I can't speak for the Methodists, but one area there which seems to be crying out for some flexibility is the circuit system. Someone is just settling into their stride somewhere when - whoosh - they get whisked off somewhere else ...
I know that doesn't always happen and I know Methodist ministers who have been in post for a long time in one place ... but it's an example of a system that was initially developed for good reasons but which can easily stifle rather encourage ...
As for managing decline or 'built-in obsolence' - from what I can see, that's a position that many church leaders/clergy find themselves in - not only in the CofE but also across some of the 'older' non-conformist groups.
There could well be scope for more 'organic' forms of church to develop alongside these groups - but there's no guarantee that these organic groups are going to remain externally focussed and act in an inclusive and outward-looking way.
If they can, then great. But my experience hasn't led me towards a great deal of optimism in that respect.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
