|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kingdom not of this world?
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@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.
My vision (to use a rather grand word, sorry!) is of churches where each member is encouraged to engage with God and read the Bible for themselves, with the leaders providing guidance and direction, rather than firm authoritarian leadership.
I'd hazard a guess that the independent pentecostal/charismatic church you mentioned has firm leadership where the members are discouraged from thinking for themselves and challenging the theological views of those in charge.
Also, I don't envisage churches abandoning 'any meaningful links with anyone else'; my vision (urgh) is for churches where people are encouraged and empowered to seek spiritual input from a wide variety of sources - books, podcasts, other churches' activities, deep spiritual relationships with folks from other Christian traditions. I'm just very sceptical of hierarchical institutions where doctrinal boundaries are set from the top.
--------------------
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
In my experience it's the smaller, independent groups which tend to be the most authoritarian - although I can understand your suspicion of heirarchies and things being determined 'from the top'.
There's a balance somewhere.
From what I've seen of the Orthodox and RCs - two churches which are particularly heirarchical in structure - is that, on the ground, they tend to allow more wriggle-room and leeway - 'ekkonomeia' if you like - than one might expect.
That said, I've certainly come across pretty controlling and sticklers-for-detail priests in such settings - particularly some of the Orthodox priests who've converted from other settings and have become liturgical fascists almost ...
You seem to assume, though, that if people are encouraged to read and study for themselves then they will automatically come to the right kind of conclusions.
I'm all for people being allowed/encouraged to think for themselves - but that doesn't mean I expect them to come up with sensible views every time.
Without singling your particular group out for scrutiny, I've heard some pretty daft things said from Vineyard platforms and heard of pretty daft things happening within Vineyard congregations - and I'd consider a lot of Vineyard theology (or what passes for theology) to be iffy and flawed.
Not those aspects they share with everyone else, of course, but some of the home-grown views ...
Although I'd certainly expect to see some of the dottier stuff modifying itself over time.
However we cut it, the only reason that the rest of us have any impression at all as to what constitutes small-o orthodox Christian teaching is because we've inherited this from the older - and more heirarchical traditions.
If it hadn't been for the Ecumenical Councils then we wouldn't have the general Nicene/Chalcedonian yardsticks that we all use.
It's one thing to say, 'Ah, but we have the Bible ...' but so do the whacky group I was telling you about. They claim to go by the Bible and the Bible alone and look where it's led them ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
But yes, I don't doubt that the leadership there are very controlling and that people aren't encouraged to think for themselves but are spoonfed what to think and believe by the leadership.
I tend to agree with Tom Smail when he said that if we have a whopping big elastic band around our waists which secures us to the main thrust and channel of the wider Christian tradition then we can afford to wander up side-alleys and by-ways ... because the centrifugal pull of the elastic band will always drag us back towards the centre.
Unless it snaps, of course. I think there's a lot of 'give' in the elastic band before it will snap ... but I wouldn't want to chance it too much out in DIY land ...
--------------------
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 tend to agree with Tom Smail when he said that if we have a whopping big elastic band around our waists which secures us to the main thrust and channel of the wider Christian tradition then we can afford to wander up side-alleys and by-ways ... because the centrifugal pull of the elastic band will always drag us back towards the centre.
Of course, there might be times when the person wandering off into the side-alleys has a genuine new revelation or insight from God, and starts tugging the rest of the Church in that direction. It's not easy and there's probably going to be a lot of band-snapping involved.
But hasn't that happened over such past topics as the recovery of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, slavery and racism? And isn't it also happening today with certain Defunct Equine issues?
While one must respect the gathered wisdom and tradition of the older institution, it isn't always right.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You seem to assume, though, that if people are encouraged to read and study for themselves then they will automatically come to the right kind of conclusions.
I'm all for people being allowed/encouraged to think for themselves - but that doesn't mean I expect them to come up with sensible views every time.
I don't assume it, or expect people to come up with sensible views every time, definitely not. But I trust God to guide his people if they are seeking him for themselves, in a mutually accountable community with others who are doing the same thing. ISTM that top-down imposition of doctrine, and reliance on those in leadership (what one might call 'clericalism') both mitigate against an accurate discernment of God's will.
EDIT - following from Baptist Trainfan's comment, isn't it often the case that new revelation from God (e.g. on the iniquity of slavery) comes from outside the church hierarchy, and indeed meets significant resistance from the hierarchy?
[ 31. December 2014, 12:06: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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.
My impression of LEPs is that they exist basically for the purpose of preventing the dispersal or one or more congregations. They don't become flexible in terms of mission, merely in their institutional working. They may blend worship styles (although LEPs usually involve fairly 'traditional' congregations anyway) but are rarely known for offering distinctive ways of being church.
As for FEs, I think they should be much more numerous. The trouble is that only well-heeled churches with lots of resources and manpower seem to be able to run them. An organic fellowship only needs to start with a couple of people and a safe corner to meet.
One acknowledged problem with trying to develop new fellowships or ways of being as part of settled congregations is that you have to battle against traditions and ingrained habits and assumptions. And congregations may feel, with some justification, that if church leaders are working to build up a new alternative fellowship then the established congregation will have to take a back seat for a while. They may not appreciate this.
quote:
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.
This is true. But it's not the situation you seemed to be referring to previously. You were saying that informal groups must become more institutional. My concern is that this normally happens at the expense of flexibility within those groups. But yes, long established denominations can and do set up alternative fellowship groups that have a certain degree of freedom.
quote:
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 ...
The circuit system is the perfect example of how a church structure prevents flexibility and freedom.
quote:
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.
No, that's not right. The historical churches expected to go on for ever, and they experience decline and church closure as a failure, even if church leaders quietly see the management of decline as inevitable. IMO that's not what 'built-in obsolescence' means.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not sure the slavery example fits as neatly as we might think ...
Elsewhere on these boards IngoB (and they don't come much more traditionalist than he does) alluded to the often overlooked issue of opposition to slavery within the RCC. There was certainly a vein of disapproval of slavery going way back in some RCC - and indeed Orthodox - quarters ... although this voice wasn't always as clear as it could have been.
It was certainly the case that Roman Catholic Mexico abolished slavery before the largely Protestant USA did.
I take the point that both South Coast Kevin and Baptist Trainfan are trying to make, though -
And, for the record, I do believe that South Coast Kevin's church has a wider elastic band around its waist than the one I was alluding to earlier which is going way beyond the 'stretch'/break point as far as I can see ...
I'm not necessarily arguing for Big T Big Church heirarchies in the Magisterium or Big T Tradition sense ... what I am saying is that we've all taken our cues from these to some extent or other ... I tend to be rather 'paleo-orthodox' on that point ...
But the alternatives do seem to come down to a kind of 'Pope in his own parish' approach (arguably the Anglican position) or the 'Pope in the pulpit' approach that is the de-facto position of many of the more Reformed preaching-shops as it were ... or else some kind of collective 'Me and my mates as our own personal Pope' approach which seems to be what South Coast Kevin is favouring.
I daresay that we all find ourselves somewhere or other along that continuum.
--------------------
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 SvitlanaV2:
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.
I've just seen this comment, SvitlanaV2 - could you explain it a bit for me, please? If you mean what I think you might mean, then I like it!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think that ostensibly 'organic' groups try hard to become 'institutional' - I just think that such groups inevitably become institutional whether they want to or not.
It just happens.
We can't avoid it.
We can no more avoid becoming institutional in some way than we can avoid getting older.
It's a fact of life.
But I'd be interested, like South Coast Kevin, in hearing what you mean by 'managing' obsolesence 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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...some kind of collective 'Me and my mates as our own personal Pope' approach which seems to be what South Coast Kevin is favouring.
I wouldn't phrase it like this, but aren't we all ultimately responsible for our own spiritual development and faith journey? We should walk in deep, authentic community with others, of course, but I can't delegate responsibility for the state of my soul to a pastor, a bishop, an author, or any kind of mentor. So in that sense, each of us is absolutely 'our own personal Pope', ISTM.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think anyone is advocating that you abdicate personal responsibility and hand it over to someone else - nor do I think that's what any of the more 'Catholic' or sacramental traditions actually teach.
Neither is it anything that is specifically taught by any of the charismatic evangelical outfits - although the US 1970s 'discipleship' and 'shepherding' movements did cross a few lines in this respect ...
It can, of course, happen in practice almost anywhere - I'm sure we've all come across people who defer to a priest, pastor, friend, relative or whoever else rather than trying to stand on their own two feet.
I was teasing to a certain extent - taking the standard canard that more Catholic Christians tend to bowl at Protestants - that 'each Protestant is his own Pope ...' and widening it out to include Kevin's mates as well as Kevin himself ...
The more serious point I'm trying to make is that there is a wider, collective sense to all of this - 'that believed everywhere and by all' - and that it's not just about us and our own particular circles but the wider 'tradition' that we have all inherited - the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant etc ...
I think we'd all go along with that to a certain extent - even if we don't have as 'specific' and 'realised' a view of it as Ad Orientem and Mousethief will.
I s'pose that also brings us back round to the issue of how we react/relate to the wider society around us ... 'No man is an island, entire of itself ...' - and why I don't think that withdrawal from the world into some kind of 'holy huddle' is a particularly smart move.
Although, conversely, I don't have a problem with monastics and with abbeys, convents, retreat-houses and the like.
It's another of these both/and things ...
--------------------
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
quote:
The circuit system is the perfect example of how a church structure prevents flexibility and freedom.
Having been in congregations where the same minister has served for 25 years, and Methodist churches where there were new ministers in the Circuit every year or two bringing new ideas and approaches, I know which model I prefer.
The Methodist system has a lot going for it. It means a congregation gets to experience a variety of people in the pulpit - ministers and local preachers from throughout the Circuit. Ministers get to lead worship in different churches. And, with a regular turnover of ministers in the Circuit bring in new blood. It should allow much greater flexibility and freedom to experiment with new approaches.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
Incidentally, I'm not Alan. Having said that, I'll deal with your issues in a somewhat different order:
quote:
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.
The problem with the market mechanism is that it often doesn't allow for unpopular but useful, or niche views to be expressed. As it stands, the smaller publishing houses - usually tied to a denomination directly, or indirectly via seminary - serve as a kind of corrective in terms of things that are able to be published to the likes of Harper Collins, Zondervan etc.
It is *exactly* the approach that you subscribe to above, extended across more than one church (after all - even your organic church has church leaders in the above).
Historically, a lot of the smaller publishing houses have been set up because of exactly this issue - by groups dissenting from the majority opinion, who needed a vehicle to spread their own views.
[Now obviously I would have a wider critique of the current situation that would encompass Gamaliel's points about doctrinal accuracy, but I realise you wouldn't subscribe to it in quite the same way, and so will restrict my interaction to the above.]
[ 31. December 2014, 13:30: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It should do - in theory - Alan - but as SvitlanaV2 can probably tell us from bitter personal experience, it can also become a stranglehold in itself - and I've heard plenty of Methodists say the same.
I'm all for having elastic bands, but not when they get caught around our necks rather than being secured around our waists ...
It seems to me that the flexibility of the circuit system is fine - if it's allowed to be flexible ...
All too often it isn't ... from what my Methodist friends tell me.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Having the chance to work as a local preacher is cool, and I value that option. But it's not normally possible for a minister to reinvigorate a church in just a few years, especially if he or she is hardly ever there.
Regarding the inevitability of institutionalisation, the impression I'm getting here is that Christians naturally get richer and richer, and just can't wait to plop their money into church coffers. But how can a budding fellowship institutionalise if there's no money?
There seems to be something quaintly old-fashioned about all this. It's as though capitalism were still in the ascendancy. This may still be the case in China, Brazil, or certain English commuter towns with booming house prices. Otherwise I'm not sure that the Protestant work ethic is still inevitably placed to lead to upward mobility and greater church institutionalisation. Maybe we have to adapt Weber's model a little bit.
Admittedly, this conversation has made me feel I've missed out by not witnessing this famous process in action. Being at the fag end of things is probably far less dramatic....
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can't remember whether it was South Coast Kevin or myself who got Alan Cresswell and Chris Stiles mixed up ... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Howbeit, here's something else to throw into the equation.
Whilst I'm all for people thinking for themselves and studying for themselves, I think we have to accept that not everyone wants to be able to do that. What do we do then?
Sure, plenty of people who were put off study at school can suddenly find a new lease of studying life later on - I've seen that happen time and again through people involved in Adult Education of one form or other.
But not everyone wants to study - nor has the inclination or capacity. How do they fit in? What can churches - organic or otherwise - offer them?
I'm reminded of the famous story of Jean Vianney - the Cure d'Ars - who remembers an old, illiterate peasant in his village parish who used to come into the church and sit there looking at the crucifix - the figure of Christ on the cross.
One day, Fr Vianney asked him what he was doing and he replied, 'Oh, I come in here and I look at him and he looks at me ...'
It's easy to get all prickly and Protestant about that, but this was where the guy was 'at' - and I'm sure God in Christ met with him there.
I've sometimes spoken on these boards about my Great Aunt Nell - one of 12 and severely disabled - she was literally corkscrewed right round towards the end of her life, with her head facing over her back.
She was couch-bound for much of her life and used to lie there dribbling into a hankie. Yet her face would light up whenever we visited as kids and even though it was hard to make out what she was saying she exuded love.
I still treasure the Book of Common Prayer she gave us when we left for Australia as '£10 Poms'.
Like all my mother's aunts, hers was a kind of 'folk-Anglicanism' that you rarely encounter these days. And none the less real for that. She was steeped in the Prayer Book and the vicar would bring her communion once a week. At her funeral he said he'd learned more from her about patience and long-suffering than anything he'd been taught at seminary.
What was she doing? Was she giving up personal responsibility to a priest or bishop?
No - she was reaching out from where she was towards God and towards others.
And - as Doc Tor would no doubt note - thanks to the parochial system here in the UK, there was a priest on hand to minister to her spiritual needs through word and sacrament.
I'm not using that instance, in and of itself, to argue for Establishment or anything of the kind - simply to state that this is one aspect of it.
On the organic church thing - I'm still not convinced that a bunch of people meeting in someone's front room can somehow avoid becoming an 'institution' of some kind. Even it's only 'a bunch of people meeting in someone's front room' institution.
--------------------
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
Who's said anything about money?
You're the one who has brought that up.
I'm simply suggesting that any group will 'normalise', 'stablise' and 'institutionalise' over time.
I've seen Gypsy churches in Spain where nobody's had any money and they still seemed pretty institutionalised to me.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whilst I'm all for people thinking for themselves and studying for themselves, I think we have to accept that not everyone wants to be able to do that. What do we do then?
Ah, but I don't think I was speaking of merely 'thinking... and studying for themselves'. My point is that each of us is responsible for the state of our soul and our spiritual development. That's a far bigger point than thinking and studying, I'd say, and indeed encompasses the things you mentioned with your Great Aunt and the old, illiterate peasant.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Historically, a lot of the smaller publishing houses have been set up because of exactly this issue - by groups dissenting from the majority opinion, who needed a vehicle to spread their own views.
Great! If a Christian or a group of Christians with the resources to do so wish to subsidise the production of materials to spread their views, I'm all for that. My point was just that it doesn't have to be churches that do this, and I think maybe it shouldn't be (because it dilutes what a church is really for).
[ 31. December 2014, 13:56: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But not everyone wants to study - nor has the inclination or capacity. How do they fit in? What can churches - organic or otherwise - offer them?
Or often - the time. Yes, that is what occurred to me also, and ISTM that in that sense the 'organic' church (presumably soon to be the 'authentic' church, followed by the 'artisinal' church') is a fundamentally middle class pre-occupation.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
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.
I've just seen this comment, SvitlanaV2 - could you explain it a bit for me, please? If you mean what I think you might mean, then I like it!
Well, it's just the idea that you're focusing on trying to meet just a few of the needs where you are, or where you go, rather than trying to build a big edifice (physical or institutional) that's meant to last for centuries, regardless of where or how you might be most useful.
There's nothing newfangled or middle class about the realisation that institutional churches are often slow to react to changing local circumstances. Church historians and sociologists have made the same point. But being flexible enough to respond to those circumstances means accepting from the start that you might have to leave, or pass the work on to someone else, or stop meeting in the same way or with the same people, because a new stage has to begin.
Most churches don't work on this basis; leaving is treated as failure, a last resort, etc. And there's usually a large building to dispose of, which creates another level of anxiety.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
How does that work?
Well, being 'institutional' doesn't necessarily imply having one's own building ... although the Gypsy church I visited in Spain did have one - or at least the use of an empty space in a block of flats which the local council allowed them to use as a meeting place.
The house-church/'new church' I was involved with eventually got hold of its own building - but for years it met in hired halls - and yes, that required money.
I'd argue that even if it hadn't and even if it eschewed buildings and simply met in people's homes it'd have still have been institutionalised.
How could it not have been?
You're the sociologist around here, you'll be well aware that the family unit is often regarded as an 'institution' in sociological terms.
By 'institutional' I mean that it quickly developed its own jargon, mores, often unconscious 'cues' and ways of operating. The thing had only been going for about 4 or 5 years when I got involved and already by that time it had developed its own distinctive jargon and ways of conducting its operations.
You appear to hold the view that 'institutionalism' only applies to churches with physical plant and resources.
I'm suggesting that it goes deeper than that - it can be seen in the way people speak, the way they conduct themselves, those things they consider important and so on and so forth.
If I started meeting with a group of friends in my living room then before long we would develop our own particular 'culture' and modus-operandi. Gradually, that would become an established or 'institutional' way of operating.
I really don't see what is so contentious about this assertion. All human groups and societies have their own particular 'cultures', tone and ways of operating - be it the local tennis club, a mosque, Hindu temple, house-church, political party or whatever else.
Of course, a group that meets in someone's house rather than in its own building or hired-hall is going to remain more flexible and less rigidly institutional than one that goes for plant and property - but that doesn't mean it's any less of an 'institution' in the sociological sense.
--------------------
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
Pretty much what I thought you were getting at, SvitlanaV2, thanks. And it's an approach I'm thoroughly in favour of. In slightly fancy terms, I like the expression 'ecclesiology follows missiology' - our concept of church should follow from and be driven by our concept of mission, both in global terms and at the local level.
Globally - our mission (or rather, God's mission) is to bring about his rule, his kingdom, on earth; and the way church is 'done' needs to facilitate this. Locally - church patterns, structures etc. need to fit with the cultural context and life patterns of the people who we're trying to reach with God's good news. (For example, a church meeting at 10.30am on Sunday is not much good to people with children who do sporting and other activities on Sunday mornings.)
--------------------
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
Let me give you an example of what I mean ...
The Gypsy church I visited in Spain was very 'formally Pentecostal' ... the men sat on one side of the room, the women on the other. The style of music was quite 'flamenco' in feel with distinctive Spanish sounding guitars and that kind of clapping on the off-beat that the Spaniards go in for.
I liked the music.
The prayers and responses were very stylised though - with 'Amens' and 'Alleluias' adhered to just as rigidly as any written liturgical responses you'd be likely to find in an Anglican, Orthodox or RC context.
In fact, it was pretty obvious what the format was going to be - it was all 'true to type'.
I've observed the same thing in black-led Pentecostal churches - there's a kind of formulaic Pentecostalism in operation. You know exactly what's going to happen next.
All charismatic and apparently spontaneous practices become routinised over time.
They become institutionalised.
That's got nothing to do with money or the lack of it.
It's simply a facet of human behaviour.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Remember that it is totally correct English to refer to "the institution of Marriage"
Institutions are the formal ways of doing things. The setting up of legally enstablished organisations to carry out things is just the Western way of creating institutions.
The reason why buildings are associated with institutions is because the creation of a legal established organisations is the one way that an organisation can own something rather than individuals. That says something about ownership as an institution. Needless to say things can be institutions without owning any buildings.
Actually I am worried that anti-institutionalism far from destroying institutionalism is actually making institutions less accountable and accruing power into the hands of fewer people. The institutions created in the twenty-first century are markedly less accountable than the institutions created in the nineteenth.
Jengie
[ 31. December 2014, 14:42: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
I'll accept that every group in human society might be described as 'institutionalised' to some extent. But the nuances obviously matter somehow, or else this discussion wouldn't be happening.
Do you think the CofE, the Methodists or the Adventists, etc. have anything to worry about regarding the 'less' (rather than non-, if you like) institutionalised church groups? If not, then what does any of this matter? People will do what they like, depending on their means. That's freedom.
[ 31. December 2014, 14:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
(For example, a church meeting at 10.30am on Sunday is not much good to people with children who do sporting and other activities on Sunday mornings.)
Which is a pretty middle-class example.
It's an issue predominantly middle-class churches face.
The reality is, whatever time of day you meet you are going to run the risk of excluding someone or other.
You might as well say that we shouldn't have church services on Christmas Day because members of the health and emergency services aren't able to attend because they are on duty.
I can see the point you're making, but unless you had stacks of churches in the same area all meeting at different times then I don't see how we can get over this one.
I've told you all before about the time in our restorationist set-up when it was decided (by the elders of course) that we weren't going to meet on Sundays but would meet regionally on mid-week evenings. The idea was that we'd spend our weekends getting to know people outside the church that we could then invite to meetings mid-week ...
Of course, that didn't happen.
All that happened was that we became less visible in our communities and we lost a load of people.
We reverted to meeting back on a Sunday. The church never quite recovered numbers-wise from that experiment.
Not that it's all a numbers game, of course.
But you can see why I'm somewhat cynical and difficult to convince can't you? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Do you think the CofE, the Methodists or the Adventists, etc. have anything to worry about regarding the 'less' (rather than non-, if you like) institutionalised church groups? If not, then what does any of this matter? People will do what they like, depending on their means. That's freedom.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
No, of course not.
Why should I think that there's a 'threat' involved?
If people want to experiment with less 'institutional' forms of church then fine, that's up to them. All I'm saying is that they'll end up more 'institutionalised' than they think they are.
I can see what you're getting at with the need for flexibility - people moving on, things morphing, closing down if necessary - I don't know what the Orthodox do whenever any of their churches become redundant. Once they consecrate a church-building that's it - it's meant to continue having that purpose ad infinitum or until it falls down ...
If one isn't wedded to that kind of more sacramental approach then it strikes me that there is room for more flexibility than is usually the case - and very 'non-sacramental' non-conformist churches can be the worst - in my experience - for not countenancing change or pulling out of of large, cavernous chapels that are no longer fit for purpose ...
So, yes, I'll meet you half-way on that one.
--------------------
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:
If people want to experiment with less 'institutional' forms of church then fine, that's up to them. All I'm saying is that they'll end up more 'institutionalised' than they think they are.
I suppose today's groups need to be more thoughtful and intentional about what level of institutionalisation they're happy with in concert with the goals they hope to achieve. I think some groups end up trying to do too much, which will lead to a multiplication of official roles and tasks, and a thinning out of effectiveness in some respects.
Many people here will reject the idea of specialisation, but I can't see how a church in a society like ours can meet the needs of everyone in our pluralistic communities. I'm always suspicious of the churchy slogan 'All are welcome'. It's idealistic, and implies that everyone can feel at home in a particular church environment. That's highly unlikely.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, that's a conundrum.
I'm not particularly a fan of 'specialist' churches - bikers' churches, cowboy churches, Elvis-fans churches, surfer churches, Goth churches ...
Or whatever else ... but I think you're right from a pragmatic perspective. Not everyone is going to feel welcome everywhere and the Pandora's Box of diverse types of church is a fact of life now and we can't put the lid back on even if we wanted to ...
I'd be very happy, by the way, if some kind of organic church community could get underway where you are and if you could get involved and feel part of it ...
I'm be thrilled on your behalf.
I think we live in 'interesting times' and I'm sure we'll see some interesting experiments in church life in future - even in some surprising places.
I think we're all in for a bumpy ride though ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Gamaliel
I'll accept that every group in human society might be described as 'institutionalised' to some extent. But the nuances obviously matter somehow, or else this discussion wouldn't be happening.
Of course the nuances matter, and in that sense what Jengie Jon says is highly apposite. It's often the case that in more 'organic' settings that the actual leaders end up with far more actual power than they would in a much more formal and hierarchical setting. Simply because the means and control of power are invisible. If and when the minister in my church goes off the rails, there are obvious routes down which I could go - in many other settings I've been in, that was far from clear (and in the most extreme case the minister only disappeared when he was finally committed).
quote:
Do you think the CofE, the Methodists or the Adventists, etc. have anything to worry about regarding the 'less' (rather than non-, if you like) institutionalised church groups? If not, then what does any of this matter? People will do what they like, depending on their means. That's freedom.
Well, not everyones first question is 'how does it affect me'. It matters in the sense that it is what this thread is about.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Great! If a Christian or a group of Christians with the resources to do so wish to subsidise the production of materials to spread their views, I'm all for that. My point was just that it doesn't have to be churches that do this, and I think maybe it shouldn't be (because it dilutes what a church is really for).
Why? Isn't the church supposed to teach the faith? It starts to be deeply problematic if the church then effectively outsources this, to someone with no two way relationship of accountability with the people in the church - this is exactly the same issue I'd have with Willow Creek claiming that people should be 'self feeders'.
I'd say that in this case you have an even bigger problem - with totally unaccountable people outside the church effectively setting the agenda based on their ability to control a large market segment.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The marketisation and commodification of the Christian 'worship music' scene is a case in point.
Market forces have driven what has effectively become a multi-million dollar industry where a pleasant tune and singalongable words matter far more than doctrine, catechesis and even sound common sense.
Be careful what you wish for, South Coast Kevin!
I'm sure your particular leaders are pretty benign - but they'll have bought into a particular theology and agenda that might not necessarily be balanced at all points.
In fact, from what I've seen of the Vineyard and from the writings of some of its major figures, I'd say that there are certainly imbalances there - in terms of an over-realised eschatology in some areas.
It's a tricky area, right enough - and I'd say the same about Rick Warren and Willow Creek - there's not a lot of 'roughage' there ... it's all sloppy pottage.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I s'pose I've got nothing against these 'new' or 'newish' groups presenting old things in a more modern form - or using modern methods/techniques of communication and so on ...
Or presenting stuff in an engaging way.
It's just, I dunno ... these attempts always seem to bring some kind of imbalance in with them ...
Perhaps it was ever thus.
I'm not sure inertia is the answer either - or trying to keep things the same as they were in the 10th century or the 16th century or whenever else ...
--------------------
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'd say it wasn't as simple as that - they weren't just meeting in a way that was convenient they were confirming to a set of revivalist expectations - as well as worshipping in a way that fitted with their particular musical culture and style.
There was a cookie-cutter template of Pentecostalism for them just as much as there is/was for the Afro-Caribbean churches here in the UK from the 1950s onwards.
None of this stuff happens in a vacuum.
--------------------
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
How can an organic set-up can be all that 'unbalanced' when the CofE and the Baptists are just around the corner to provide a bit of mainstream ecumenical common sense....? Very few British church groups these days live in a vacuum, surely?
Regarding the Gypsy church and the black-led Pentecostal churches you mentioned, it should probably be said that these churches were not, I suspect, trying to be 'non-institutional'. They were simply Christians meeting together in a manner that happened to be convenient, faced with a lack of other spiritually and culturally appropriate alternatives. And the 'black Pentecostals' were probably already part of an established American denomination and hence under a degree of external control.
When most people talk about non-institutional or organic churches there's usually an intention to maintain a certain kind of structure or practice. However, I'm sure there's some overlap between what you've described and a more intentionally organic set-up. The various proponents of small group church life get their ideas from everywhere.
As for what I might be able to do here, well, these folk might do better with a more devout 'prophet' from another town. I think some of them are tired of my face! Maybe I'll come back here at a later date when I have more skills (if not money) to be inevitably 'institutional' with. Someone will have to take on the delicate responsibility of deciding which sofa the men should sit on!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
That's weird! Gamaliel seems to have responded to an earlier version of my post that I deleted!
Anyway, let's agree that we all have our traditions. That being so, there's not so much for any of us to disagree about.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hey - what happened there?
I could have sworn there was a SvitlanaV2 post I was responding to ...
--------------------
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'm not necessarily disagreeing, SvitlanaV2 - I'm just an awkward so and so!
I think what it boils down to for me are the practicalities and the acceptance - which I think you share - that whatever we do is going to have pros and cons about it.
Life is messy. We have to deal with that.
Which is one of the reasons why I kept on at poor old Steve Langton - it's as if he had some kind of idealised 'vision' of church purity and commitment that couldn't be articulated in real, flesh and blood, out on the street, into the shit terms.
South Coast Kevin is able to articulate a 'vision' - and yes, I cringe at the term too, Kevin but I know what you mean.
As far as it goes, I think South Coast Kevin's vision is fair enough - and I could see it working in some settings - but not right across the board.
No disrespect to South Coast Kevin, I have a lot of time for him - but the 'vision' he articulates has always struck me as one that could only work if everyone of us were the same as him - similar age and life-experiences, similar educational background and so on.
That's why I tease him about it being a vision for 'South Coast Kevin and his mates' - because it's effectively a 'people like us' vision.
It wouldn't work for anyone who wasn't like him.
That's fine, as long as he recognises that - which I think he does to some extent - but it's when it's put forward as some kind of universal panacea that it strays into what I see as 'Steve Langton' style territory - ie. an idealised but ultimately unrealisable dream.
Doing away with Popes, bishops, parish priests, denominational committees and whatever else we may disapprove of isn't going to create the kind of idealised 'New Testament' church community that South Coast Kevin and others envisage.
For a kick-off, it's based on an idealised view of what the NT church was actually like - and also all that would happen would be that new Popes, new bishops, parish priests, denominational committees and whatever else would arise in their place - only under different names.
I'm sure that's happened already in the kind of churches and networks that SCK is involved with - only, as Chris Stiles has said - these structures are less visible and obvious in those sort of settings.
That doesn't mean that the leaders are wicked and evil - any more than parish priests and denominational committees and so on are wicked and evil (hmmm ... steady on, I'm not so convinced about the latter ...)
The status quo might be bust, but whatever we replace it with is also going to be bust - because we are all bust ...
That's not a recipe for pessimism. It's a liberation from the kind of unreal pressures that an over-realised eschatology brings in its train.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
How can an organic set-up can be all that 'unbalanced' when the CofE and the Baptists are just around the corner to provide a bit of mainstream ecumenical common sense....? Very few British church groups these days live in a vacuum, surely?
I think you would be amazed at the extent to which they do. Whenever I go to one of these multi-church meetings, I usually see at least one instance of someone surprised to meet someone else who goes to the church just down the road from them - which they have invariably never been to. And that's with a self selecting crowd of people who would be more connected than normal.
Churches with absolutely no contact with each other is very much the norm. Sufficiently so to allow an underlying feeling of 'god's chosen people' to spring up.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Yet I thought we were almost all more ecumenical these days.
The Churches Together network I've been a part of has been praised for the extent to which the different churches have been willing to work together. Maybe this means churches in many other places are less united.
Ironically, as much as I fear for the future of the Church in parts of my city, it's probably true that church decline often makes churches more willing to be ecumenical. Towns and regions with higher levels of church attendance may feel far less inclination to come together. The perceived need simply isn't there.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think the mileage varies. I'm often surprised how little the people from the evangelical Anglican parish here have to do with the other churches in town ... and that's not the current vicar's doing - he'd encourage them to get involved with Churches Together etc ...
To some extent it goes back to the previous incumbent who very much kept himself (and the parish ) to himself - but I think it's also to do with the fact that some church cultures create 'walls' around themselves.
In some evangelical settings the church becomes the focus for almost everything - people's social lives and everything else. They don't get involved with anything outside of church-based activities because they don't have time to do anything else.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I suppose that some of your successful evangelical congregations might garner some good PR by being publicly chummy with the MOTR Methodists, etc., but would anyone really care, on the whole? Our culture values politeness, and cooperation is valued if deemed essential, but people don't normally hang out with someone they don't have much to say to, unless they have no choice.
In our CT network, I get the impression that the division is between older Christians and younger ones rather than between congregations. Youth activities are particularly likely to be ecumenical. Again, this is perhaps down to need; one church in particular has the resources, the leadership and the numbers of young people to be able to offer something that the other churches can benefit from.
The evangelical churches in your area might participate more if they felt that they were offering something of value to the others, rather than being expected to 'join in' for the sake of it.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Not sure that follows in this case. I gave you what I thought was the reason - busyness combined with exclusivity on the epart of a previous imcumbent
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Look, I've attended churches in tesm ministries where the other churches in the team might as well have been on the other side of the world. I suspect that most lay people focus on what is going on at their own shack first and don't give much of a thought to anything outside it except perhaps on special occasions like an ecumenical Good Friday walk. Ecumenism is IME largely for clergy and a minority of 'professional' lay people.
--------------------
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
If you want to get different types of Christians together at an event, make sure you lay on some good food. People will get off their bums and face the cold night if there's the promise of tasty nosh at the other end.
What people don't want to do is attend meetings and take minutes, etc. Younger Christians especially have no interest in that.
[ 01. January 2015, 21:49: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If you want to get different types of Christians together at an event, make sure you lay on some good food. People will get off their bums and face the cold night if there's the promise of tasty nosh at the other end.
And something to drink besides tea and coffee. Plenty of people, adults even, prefer a cold drink and it doesn't have to be booze: helps if it isn't (there, bet you didn't expect me to say that!)
quote:
What people don't want to do is attend meetings and take minutes, etc. Younger Christians especially have no interest in that.
Oh I don't know. Every now and again you meet someone who is interested in meetings, minutes etc. They may even be young. Make them secretary. Do not under any circumstances allow them to be chair or even participate in meetings or you will be snowed under by points of order, suspensions of standing orders, Chatham House Rules and all that shit.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Look, I've attended churches in tesm ministries where the other churches in the team might as well have been on the other side of the world. I suspect that most lay people focus on what is going on at their own shack first and don't give much of a thought to anything outside it except perhaps on special occasions like an ecumenical Good Friday walk. Ecumenism is IME largely for clergy and a minority of 'professional' lay people.
That's because there seems to be very little point to ecumenism. Has there been any major unifications between Churches?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I'd agree with you that the kind of old-fashioned pursuit of institutional unity is mostly (not always: depends on specific situations) pointless. But for those of us who acknowledge Christians of other traditions as being nonetheless Christians, it can make sense to work together.
[ 02. January 2015, 07:36: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
That depends upon one's ecclesiology, of course, though I don't think you necessarily need a low ecclesiology to recognise others as Christian, even if you don't believe them to belong to the Church. Many Protestants are horrified when they hear that. "If you don't believe I'm part of the Church don't you think I'm a Christian then?", "I never said that".
[ 02. January 2015, 07:51: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Ad Orientem, you could start with the Church of South India, but 20 years before that there was the Uniting Church of Canada and in the seventies, the Uniting Church here. Perhaps the Maronite Church? There were of course the Uniate Churches of the Balkans and Ukraine, perhaps elsewhere in that general region, back into communion with Rome but despised by those who did not make the move. Who knows, one of these days some of the various Russian Orthodox Churches abroad (not using an Abroad) might even wave to those walking along the opposite side of the street.
[ 02. January 2015, 08:59: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
