|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Priest is a Walking Sacrament
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
Gamaliel
quote:
There isn't a culture of 'house-hold' religion here in the UK ... nor even in the USA these days. What we've got is an emphasis on the personal and the atomistic.
We have a very different culture to that of South America which is more family and community oriented.
Where there is a family element - as in the US megachurches - the emphasis is more on 'who has got the best youthwork or kids' programme'.
Our local evangelical Anglican parish is effectively marketing itself as a 'family' affair with Messy Church and things you do together as a family with your kids.
very true, the last bit made me think of the recent National Trust advertising campaign.
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm sure that would be a start ... how about starting a website or a blog on these issues?
However we cut it, though, we still need some kind of 'institution' even if it is a minimalist 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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Baptist shipmates will correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard - from Baptists - that the 'bucking the trend' thing is more that the rate of decline has been slower and that, like other denominations - what growth there has been is largely among predominantly ethnic-minority congregations in the large cities.
That said, I do think there is much to commend in the Baptist model when it works well.
However, as with the independent evangelical and charismatic churches, the Baptists also suffer from something of a 'revolving-door' syndrome.
I'm not sure what the answer is to 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
What I said in my last post was that Fresh Expressions were having some success. The institutional churches should obviously keep on with these and other initiatives. However, there should also be more informal networks. Not every initiative should be institutional, i.e., by being sanctioned from on high.
As for the Baptists, whichever way you look at it they seem not to have resigned themselves en masse to the gradual decline of Nonconformity. For that alone, I admire them. True, they benefit from multicultural congregations in the cities - but that's a reality for practically all churches in the cities! And the revolving door experience seems to be a feature of most busy, evangelistic churches. Early Methodism went through the same thing. I'm sure it's easier if things are more settled, but can any of us expect our churches to be 'settled' these days? There are some congregations that can flourish by keeping everything on an even keel, but they must be in the minority. They benefit from environmental/social factors that may not be relevant elsewhere.
I expect that a good percentage of people tend to move on from FEs or other contemporary forms of alternative church (just as they may move on from the Baptist churches, or wherever), although it's very soon to put a number on it. The book I quoted from above has some early figures regarding FEs.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
(Word of warning: all the below is just my impression of what's been happening in Baptist-land and shouldn't be taken as in any way "authoritative"!)
I think Baptists (at least BUGB*-affiliated Baptists - it's quite possible to be a Baptist not be part of BUGB) have become aware in recent years of the decline, not least because BUGB found themselves with a massive hole in their finances a few years ago. So conversations/discussions/arguments about change within the denomination have been taking place and changes, at least structural ones, have been happening. For example, there's been a fairly significant rationalisation at BUGB's HQ in Didcot, in response to what many saw as an over-centralised structure. Some power has been devolved to the regions (such as decision-making on "Home Mission" grants to support churches); there was also a suggestion that regions could be linked into "super-regions" (that's not the official title, I can't remember what it is), though whether this has happened, I'm not sure.
There's also been a push for more "pioneering" forms of church and ministry to be recognised and emphasised and to see ourselves less as a denomination and more as a "movement" (though that feels fairly cosmetic to me). So, for example, BUGB now brands itself as "Baptists Together" rather than BUGB. The emphasis is being placed more and more on "incarnational" church rather than "attractional" church (which is a bit of a bummer if your church, like mine, is more "attractional" in nature).
Now, I'm not sure what to make of this. Personally, I think the critique that some had of BUGB being this over-weening, over-centralised bureaucracy that was impeding churches' attempts to "do" mission was a bit of a caricature: it certainly never felt that way to me, though other people's experiences may differ. For some, the changes will have gone too far, for others, not far enough. Certainly from a financial point of view, my understanding is that BUGB is in a better position than it was, but this doesn't tell us whether decline has slowed or even stopped in any other ways.
But I think it's fair to say - at least for me - that Baptists haven't simply carried on the way they were in the face of difficulties and are seeking to do something about it. Whether what we've done is sufficient or not, I don't know. But I think there has been some attempt, however faltering, to grasp the nettle and actually begin to change things.
*Baptist Union of Great Britain - which, confusingly, doesn't include Scotland.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's about 7 or 8 years since I was in a Baptist church, Stejjie, but what you say rings true. I didn't have that much exposure to the central HQ down at Didcot but my impression of it wasn't of some kind of bureaucratic monster ...
To all intents and purposes we weren't that 'aware' of it on a day-to-day basis, anymore than your average Anglican parish is that au fait with what's going on at a Diocesan level unless there's a problem or some difficulty or other.
The Methodist circuit-system seems far more apparent - and potentially constraining - to me.
As for SvitlanaV2's point about initiatives not having to be 'sanctioned from on high' and 'official' and so on ... fair enough - that's an aspiration that is all very well and good until you come up against the need to finance and resource things.
Just suppose there was some kind of grass-roots initiative between the Methodists and Baptists, say, in Town X. All very commendable.
What happens when it gets to a scale where it needs an input of funds - some kind of grant applications, perhaps?
Unless the individuals involved are going to dig deep into their own pockets then there's going to have to be some kind of 'official' sanction or backing - either to bid for an injection from 'central' or 'regional' funds - or to make official grant applications to this that or the other funding body - if it's some kind of community initiative, say.
It depends on the nature of the initiative, I suppose. Not everything needs a rubber-stamp at diocesan, or synod or regional or whatever level it happens to be within whatever church or denomination, network or 'stream' we're talking about.
But if we're talking about initiatives of sufficient scope and size to require some kind of funding or support in terms of wider resources then I can't see how we can get around the 'official' aspect ... and that applies to the more ostensibly 'informal' churches just as much as it does to the more avowedly formal ones.
One wonders what these informal initiatives are of which SvitlanaV2 and South Coast Kevin speak.
I don't get much impression of what they might be or might actually involve - except they're meant to be spontaneous and grass-rootsy without much by way of organisation.
Having something organisation-lite sounds wonderful, until you actually try to organise something and then you realise how much organisation is involved ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I'm not sure what the problem is, really. Few churches are itching to support lay initiatives with cash, so many are bound to remain small. And if a small home-based fellowship does expand its remit and is taken over by church officials at a later date does that undermine the work of the founder? That's normally perceived as a win-win situation by the Church's standards, even if it's not what the founder envisaged or hoped for.
But not everything has to swallow up money. I'm part of a care home fellowship that was started decades ago by a Methodist laywoman who still runs it today. She invites local clergy to lead worship, but she often does it herself, and I've done it occasionally. This requires a little expenditure on useful books, and there's a small collection for charity, but what's required most of all is time and a concern for people, not money.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure - but look at the context, SvitlanaV2. That fellowship is in a care home - it's a pretty circumscribed environment. I'm not knocking it - I'm sure it does very valuable work and I'm sure there are lots of similar initiatives around that go relatively unseen and unsung.
But a care-home fellowship is rather different from the kind of things that some 'organic church' proponents are suggesting. It's a low-cost, low maintenance example. There are other examples, I'm sure, which wouldn't be quite so light on resources.
--------------------
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
And I wasn't just thinking of money ... the kind of organic, grass-roots fellowships of the kind that South Coast Kevin champions and envisages seem to be incredibly labour-intensive to me. Perhaps that's a good thing ... I don't know ... but for them to work effectively it would occupy almost all the waking hours of those involved with them ...
At least if they were to expand beyond a couple of pals meeting in Starbucks to chew the fat and encourage one another ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
For instance, in the 1851 Church Census it was found that there was almost an equal number of practising Anglicans as there were Christians of non-Anglican churches - everything from Rome through to the Salvation Army - all the Wesleyans, Baptists, Congregationalists etc etc and including the very minority groups such as the Catholic Apostolic Church and the Swedenborgians
That would be difficult seeing that The Salvation Army came into existence in 1878 after it's predecessor, the Christian Mission, founded in 1865, changed its name.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...the kind of organic, grass-roots fellowships of the kind that South Coast Kevin champions and envisages seem to be incredibly labour-intensive to me. Perhaps that's a good thing ... I don't know ... but for them to work effectively it would occupy almost all the waking hours of those involved with them ...
Try to think of it as 'church as family'; and I mean family that looks like a close-knit supportive flesh-and-blood family, not family in the pseudo sense that 'church as family' can easily drift into.
Those of you with large, close-knit extended families - do you spend anywhere near all your waking hours with them? I expect not. Are they the only people you socialise with, share your life with, do fun things together with? Again, I doubt it.
Likewise, ISTM, with a close-knit church 'family' - the people we're sharing our lives with are our closest friends, confidants and supporters, but we don't spend so much time with them that other relationships are crowded out. That would be distinctly unhealthy and disastrously non-missional.
--------------------
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:
A care-home fellowship is rather different from the kind of things that some 'organic church' proponents are suggesting. It's a low-cost, low maintenance example. There are other examples, I'm sure, which wouldn't be quite so light on resources.
I think we differ on what constitutes 'organic church'. My understanding is that it requires a lot of time and effort, but not particularly resources, except perhaps books and training for the founders. (But there isn't a great deal of information out there to spend money on.)
However, I'm sure that alternative forms of church in general can be expensive to set up if you have to pay to rent a building, refit a church, install quality musical equipment or buy materials for messy church, for example. And of course, institutional alternative worship usually requires the leadership of a paid minister or layperson. Organic fellowships are normally set up and run by volunteers.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
(Word of warning: all the below is just my impression of what's been happening in Baptist-land and shouldn't be taken as in any way "authoritative"!)
But I think it's fair to say - at least for me - that Baptists haven't simply carried on the way they were in the face of difficulties and are seeking to do something about it. Whether what we've done is sufficient or not, I don't know. But I think there has been some attempt, however faltering, to grasp the nettle and actually begin to change things.
Yep that's a pretty good assessment. Other POV's will vary about whether it's OK, too little or too late or a combination of it all. This correspondent (having been in and around BUGB churches for 30 years) recognises and values some of the changes but is concerned about the loss of our specific identity: we talk more about leaders and less about servants, we seem to value the pioneers in new places but fail to recognise the 90% of churches who are keeping on, keeping on faithfully where they are.
BUGB seems to be holding its own and will possibly continue to do so. There are clouds on the horizon - I don't thing the futures project has gone far enough but I'm glad we're out of the Coffey/Edwards praxis.
Matters of human sexuality and sexual practice will hit BUGB and may prove to be deeply wounding even divisive. It isn't being handled well and the Council had/has no authority to speak as they did. The view from the top in Didcot is permissive, the overwhelming view from the churches is not. The unanimous view from BME Baptist Churches is that BUGB moves anyway towards liberalisation, then they will be out. Others will follow - among them some of the biggest and most influential of our churches.
Baptist churches should be able to move quickly to respond to changing needs given our lack of hierarchy and local decision making. In practice, we have perhaps lost a little in that we have often claimed to stand with the poor and broken - and in practice we do: most often on the mission field overseas. Where Baptists tend to lose out is an unwillingness seemingly to grapple with the issues of poverty and politics on our doorstep. Try shopping your local MP who won't support the idea of living wages - that's a start!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Mudfrog - my bad as the Americans would say.
I was thinking of some later figures - not the national census that was done of church attendance in 1851.
If I remember rightly there were some regional analyses done which showed that the growth/emergence of the Salvation Army had been the most significant development since previous studies were undertaking.
So I think I was conflating the two.
There were certainly statistics around for Christian Mission/Salvation Army growth in the late 19th century - some of it spectacularly meteoric - which I'm sure you know.
--------------------
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 South Coast Kevin:
Try to think of it as 'church as family'; and I mean family that looks like a close-knit supportive flesh-and-blood family, not family in the pseudo sense that 'church as family' can easily drift into.
Those of you with large, close-knit extended families - do you spend anywhere near all your waking hours with them? I expect not. Are they the only people you socialise with, share your life with, do fun things together with? Again, I doubt it.
Likewise, ISTM, with a close-knit church 'family' - the people we're sharing our lives with are our closest friends, confidants and supporters, but we don't spend so much time with them that other relationships are crowded out. That would be distinctly unhealthy and disastrously non-missional. [/QUOTE]
Sure - I can see what you're getting at but I regarded church as 'family' for years and years and years ... I no longer do so. At least, not to the same extent.
I'd far rather knock around with people outside church that I've got more in common with. I have no desire whatsoever these days to get involved with a close-knit house-group or anything of that kind.
That said, there are certainly Christians around that I'd regard as very special, very close and among my closest friends/confidantes. They aren't in my church but in other churches.
Our vicar and his acolytes are always banging on about the 'church family' and it leaves me cold. They aren't my family. I don't have anything against them but I don't want to spend a great deal of time with them.
It might be different if I were in a church where I felt more at home - but even then ...
--------------------
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:
...there are certainly Christians around that I'd regard as very special, very close and among my closest friends/confidantes. They aren't in my church but in other churches.
I'd be very tempted to call these people your de facto church family - the Christians who most deeply know you, and all your joys, struggles, hopes and frustrations. Presumably these people are the Christians who are most strongly influencing you, and whom you are most strongly influencing. IMO they are your church family, in reality.
--------------------
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
Sure, that'd occurred to me too.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that fellow Christians aren't our brothers and sisters - of course they are.
I'm all for close-fellowship too - and have benefitted from that - however, I do think that the levels of fellowship found in many evangelical charismatic churches can incline towards the claustrophobic.
There's a balance of course.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
@Exclamation Mark
"Coffey/Edwards praxis" I've heard the names but what do/did they stand for?
"BME Baptist Churches"?
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
'BME' means 'Black/Minority/Ethnic'. This was a reference to Baptist churches whose membership is largely non-white. The Ship rarely mentions the challenges presented by such congregations in the West, but the reality is that in the large British cities many of the churches will be multicultural and/or majority non-white, which adds an extra layer of complexity to the issues that we like to discuss here.
For example, over half of churchgoers in Central London are now non-white, and in Greater London the figures are also fairly high. The Baptists have a higher proportion of black members than most other indigenous denominations, so any cultural differences regarding DH issues or other theological matters are perhaps more problematic in their denomination than in others.
Whether 'BME' ministers have a distinctive influence on their congregations in this respect is an interesting question.
[ 11. October 2014, 00:18: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Twangist: Coffey/Edwards refers to the last two General Secretaries of the Baptist Union, David Coffey and Jonathan Edwards.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Twangist: Coffey/Edwards refers to the last two General Secretaries of the Baptist Union, David Coffey and Jonathan Edwards.
OK, so what were their values/policies that the BU is moving away from? (If I've read EM correctly)
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'BME' means 'Black/Minority/Ethnic'. This was a reference to Baptist churches whose membership is largely non-white. The Ship rarely mentions the challenges presented by such congregations in the West, but the reality is that in the large British cities many of the churches will be multicultural and/or majority non-white, which adds an extra layer of complexity to the issues that we like to discuss here.
For example, over half of churchgoers in Central London are now non-white, and in Greater London the figures are also fairly high. The Baptists have a higher proportion of black members than most other indigenous denominations, so any cultural differences regarding DH issues or other theological matters are perhaps more problematic in their denomination than in others.
Whether 'BME' ministers have a distinctive influence on their congregations in this respect is an interesting question.
Thanks
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's also worth bearing in mind that there are figures which show that 60% of all church-goers under the age of 25 are concentrated in the Greater London area - which suggests that a significant proportion will be in BME churches.
The rest will be spread pretty thinly across the rest of the UK.
SvitlanaV2 is right, the BME church issue doesn't crop up on Ship very often - largely, I suspect, because few UK Shipmates are actually from that particular background.
We're largely white and middle class, although some of us do trumpet our working-class credentials (sometimes unconvincingly it seems to me) ...
On the BUGB thing, I'm vaguely aware of changes in the Coffey era - but not entirely sure what they actually entailed ...
On the organic church thing and @SvitlanaV2 - I'm not entirely convinced I've got a different idea of 'organic church' to you - what my main concern is in that respect isn't around issues you've raised but the expectation in some quarters that if only we could be more 'organic' (whatever that means in practice) then somehow we'd see and experience revival and all would be fine and dandy.
A care-home fellowship is a good thing, but it doesn't equate across to some of the expectations that certain of the more revivalist proponents of 'organic church' are expecting.
All I'm saying is that as soon as any organic groups grows beyond a bunch of mates meeting in Starbucks to indulge in some pietistic navel-gazing over their lattes (which is unfair of me, but there we go ... ) then it has to think about things like resources and finances.
None of which grow on trees.
And that applies to time as well as money.
--------------------
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'd be impressed if the sorts of engagement I'm thinking of grew big and important enough to be absorbed by the Church and then get money thrown at it. I doubt very much that this would be the outcome.
Perhaps it's a question of context, though. I'm generally thinking of a post-Christian context where the churches have more than enough to do already and not a lot of money to do it with. H
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Oops! I think I failed to press the edit button above. What I meant to say was this:
I'd be impressed if the kind of engagement I'm thinking of grew big and important enough to be absorbed by the Church and then get money thrown at it! Your more usual claim is that these things fizzle out eventually. This would be the most likely outcome for individual lay fellowships, I think. Most people, whether inside or outside the Church, simply wouldn't care what these fellowships were doing.
The interesting question is whether these fellowships would become new denominations in themselves. This has happened in the past, but it's not necessarily so advantageous today. ISTM that this process is most useful for the independent BME churches mentioned earlier. They may want or need to convince the wider society that they're respectable, organised churches rather than badly-run cults, and institutionalisation would help them achieve this.
However, in many areas where church plants are most needed there's very little spare Christian money floating around, few middle class lay Christians willing to roll their sleeves up, and the clergy available are already overworked, so for new church fellowships in these places to drift towards an expensive hierarchical model without good reason doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
[ 11. October 2014, 22:56: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
ISTM that this process is most useful for the independent BME churches mentioned earlier. They may want or need to convince the wider society that they're respectable, organised churches rather than badly-run cults, and institutionalisation would help them achieve this.
That's pretty much the case for a (fair) number of BME churches that have joined the BUGB.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
1. On the BUGB thing, I'm vaguely aware of changes in the Coffey era - but not entirely sure what they actually entailed ...
2. .... the expectation in some quarters that if only we could be more 'organic' (whatever that means in practice) then somehow we'd see and experience revival and all would be fine and dandy.
A care-home fellowship is a good thing, but it doesn't equate across to some of the expectations that certain of the more revivalist proponents of 'organic church' are expecting.
All I'm saying is that as soon as any organic groups grows beyond a bunch of mates meeting in Starbucks to indulge in some pietistic navel-gazing over their lattes (which is unfair of me, but there we go ... ) then it has to think about things like resources and finances.
None of which grow on trees.
And that applies to time as well as money.
1. It's post Coffey that the major changes have come about - although one could argue that the seeds of liberalisation in BUGB were sown in DC's (as he was known in Didcot) time.
2. I'm with you here. It's unrealistic - what I'd call magic wand theology: you wave it about a bit and it's all ok. IME it won't be because it can't be for all the reasons you list.
There's a desire to pioneer but to pioneer what? Perhaps we're seeing the church mirror society here: people get involved for a short term project (a church "plant" for want of a better term) for typically 3 or so years, then move on. Gone are the days when people are in it for the long term. Now it's meeting with people with whom you have something in common: where did learning from/engaging with people who are "different" from you go to?
To keep such things alive, something "new" always has to be happening or around the corner. Sometimes it does of course but sometimes you get the syndrome that is all too well known on these pages -- churches imploding (e.g. Lakeland, Victory church) on the back of hype not hope.
Most of us keep on keeping on as we know that real life isn't a succession of news and betters but of confronting the olds and here nows.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's post Coffey that the major changes have come about - although one could argue that the seeds of liberalisation in BUGB were sown in DC's (as he was known in Didcot) time.
Might I suggest that you expand on this as we don't all quite know what you're getting at (that includes me!)
However I'm not quite sure you're right - methinks that Baptist Church House and the "centre" has a long history of being more liberal than many of the churches. That was certainly the case when Bernard Green was General Secretary in the late 80s - there were quite a number who argued against his ecumenical stance. And then there was Michael Taylor's famous Assembly intervention on the Humanity of Christ - that was back in 1971 and clearly the "powers-that-be" invited him to speak knowing at least something of his views ...
You could even argue that the same thing was true in the "Downgrade Controversy" of 1887, when Spurgeon accused the BU of "giving up the atoning sacrifice, denying the inspiration of Holy Scripture, and casting slurs upon justification by faith". In other words, there is quite a lot of precedent for your complaint.
One thing I do know about the Coffey era is that Myra Blyth, who was Deputy General Secretary (and hardly a card-carrying Evangelical, by the way) was most upset when her post was abolished and replaced by a "manager". In her opinion this represented a fundamental shift of principle from the "spiritual" to the "organisational", which she decried.
[ 12. October 2014, 07:53: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
There's a desire to pioneer but to pioneer what? Perhaps we're seeing the church mirror society here: people get involved for a short term project (a church "plant" for want of a better term) for typically 3 or so years, then move on. Gone are the days when people are in it for the long term. Now it's meeting with people with whom you have something in common: where did learning from/engaging with people who are "different" from you go to?
To keep such things alive, something "new" always has to be happening or around the corner. Sometimes it does of course but sometimes you get the syndrome that is all too well known on these pages -- churches imploding (e.g. Lakeland, Victory church) on the back of hype not hope.
My understanding is that the early days of any church movement tend to attract the kind of people who like to build things. When those days are over and the more settled stage begins, those people find themselves out of place.
Perhaps this issue seemed less obvious in the past because there were simply more people involved to do the work at the later stages. But today the numbers of people who join overall are lower, so when the 'builders' (or the 'pioneers', as you might call them) move on, their loss is felt more keenly.
Some studies have genderised this problem (and class is also relevant). Church movements that initially appeal to young(ish) men will become more female over time, as the 'builders' find their skills less relevant and leave, while the women stay. Women can be builders, of course - although ISTM that fewer of today's new church movements and plants in the UK are started by women than used to be the case in the past. I don't know why that is.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've been thinking a bit more about 'lay-led' or grass-roots projects within the churches I know or have had experience of, SvitlanaV2.
The conclusion I've come to is that I can think of some highly successful and indeed impressive initiatives that have come from the pews or the plastic chairs as it were - to do with issues around childcare and protection, adoption/fostering issues and various relief and development projects internationally.
I can't think of any 'organic' church-planting activity as such - although I have been involved with church-planting attempts and initiatives in the past.
I come back to my point that a 'care-home fellowship' is one thing, an 'organic church' development something else again and a lot more difficult to 'pull-off'.
Unless I'm missing something, I can't see how it can be otherwise. I'm not necessarily thinking about expensive plant and top-down heirarchical models here.
A 'care-home fellowship' is a 'care-home fellowship', a church which sets out, however informally and in as low a maintenance way as possible, to extend across a wider constituency than that ie. beyond the care-home - is going to face inevitable choices and decisions that will, sooner or later, lead it into more 'institutional' territory.
I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
--------------------
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
Well, sooner or later there'd have to be a rota for getting the tea bags in - we wouldn't want to create a culture of dependency!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Heh heh ...
I sang with the Methodist choir today - two services and about a million hymns.
I thought I'd lend them a hand. I'm not sure I'll be in a hurry to do so again ... my vocal chords are shot ...
The minister made a quip about if we do something twice it becomes a tradition ...
I reckon there's a lot in that.
We can be as organic as we like but sooner or later we've got traditions, we've got committees, we've got structures ...
However we do church there's a lot more to it than meeting in someone's house over a cuppa and a few print-outs from some faddy book or other about how to do 'organic church' ...
Anyhow - enough teasing ... I'm going to be away for a few days so I hope things have developed organically by the time I'm back.
--------------------
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:
The minister made a quip about if we do something twice it becomes a tradition ...
As many times as that?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I'm hardly objecting to tradition as such; I don't know where religion would be without tradition!
Nevertheless, the irony is that the current liberated post-modern society seems to offer far fewer examples of diverse Christian traditions than we might expect. I can't see the point of trying to emulate every other church when none of the churches are doing particularly well outside their heartlands. If your church plant is likely to fail, perhaps it's better to fail courageously, having carved your own path and tried something a little different! (Nothing's new under the sun, but some things are new to some people.)
The house churches of the 80s wanted to conquer the nation but were unsuccessful; my view is that today's new churches should accept and prepare theologically for their limitations from the very beginning, rather than drifting towards being big, organised and powerful, then having to orchestrate a dignified retreat when decline sets in a few years or decades down the line.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The house churches of the 80s wanted to conquer the nation but were unsuccessful; my view is that today's new churches should accept and prepare theologically for their limitations from the very beginning, rather than drifting towards being big, organised and powerful, then having to orchestrate a dignified retreat when decline sets in a few years or decades down the line.
I think a lot of the organic / simple / emerging / whatever-the-heck-it's-called church movement is thoroughly on board with this view, SvitlanaV2. The idea is that new churches and groups should be encouraged - the pioneering spirit, if you like - but, equally, these new forms shouldn't be formalised and held on to tightly. What was relevant and fresh at one time and place might well be obsolete and tired at another time and / or place.
I know this can sound really weird and unsatisfactory to people who see unity in institutional terms, but this is recasting unity as being about having a shared purpose, not a shared structure or leadership. The form is secondary to the mission.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
As I've told you before, I'm a member of an Alt.worship group in the Netherlands (although I don't live there anymore I still consider myself a member). We don't consider ourselves the salvation for church decline (although we are growing). We aren't overly concerned with keeping ourselves 'fresh' either. It just feels as a good way to express / strenghten our faith for us, so we do what we do.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The house churches of the 80s wanted to conquer the nation but were unsuccessful; my view is that today's new churches should accept and prepare theologically for their limitations from the very beginning, rather than drifting towards being big, organised and powerful, then having to orchestrate a dignified retreat when decline sets in a few years or decades down the line.
I think there's a lot of wisdom in this.
The trouble is, it doesn't make for a particularly rousing rallying cry ...
As realistic as it undoubtedly is.
On the innovation thing ... perhaps I'm old and past my sell-by date, but I'm still finding it hard to envisage what these 'new' things are supposed to look like ...
After all, there are only so many ways one can 'do' church - I'd imagine.
If there were all sorts of wonderful ways of doing it that hadn't been thought of or attempted before then surely someone would have done it by now?
I'm finding it hard to envisage what something so spectacularly 'new' would look like ... people standing on their heads to receive communion?
There's nothing particularly 'new' about people meeting in homes or developing so-called contemporary styles of worship (none of which are as 'contemporary' as they claim to be as far as I can make out ...)
Sure, people are, by and large, passing the older forms of churchiness by ... and we've not developed anything that seems to flow with the zeitgeist.
My main concern with the newer/more experimental side of things is that it easily becomes faddish and exhausting.
As far as the charismatic side of things go, I've not heard or seen anything that has particularly struck a chord with me that's come from that side of things for quite some considerable time ...
Other than the recovery, in some quarters, of traditional spiritual disciplines ...
Which might be the answer to some extent ... traditional, tried and tested 'means' expressed in contemporary ways. I dunno.
--------------------
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 must thank you for previous posts in which you've talked about the trajectory of many evangelical house churches in the 80s. Very instructive. We should learn from the past.
The past shows that there's nothing new in the world, just things that are old to you and new to me, and vice versa. But it also shows that all kinds of congregations can stumble and fail. The landscape doesn't reveal the number of church buildings that have been demolished in the past; but a bit of digging into local church history shows that that there were loads of them. And I could draw up a list of existing church buildings in my city that have long been converted to other uses.
IOW, there's no stability, really. The mainstream denominations have been around for a long time, but individual congregations do come and go. 'Alternative' church leaders burn out, but lay workers (and often even clergy, e.g. in the RCC) in traditional churches too get worn down and weary because there's noone willing or able to replace them. I'm a Churches Together secretary, and I'm aware that no one denomination is protected.
No individual or group has all the answers. That might not be a great 'rallying cry', but neither you nor I would claim to be looking for one, so we don't have a problem, do we?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Just thinking aloud, SvitlanaV2.
I agree with you that there's no such thing as 'steady state'. We're always in a state of flux and change.
I s'pose the point I was making was one that was in broad agreement with the one you'd made ... that it would behove new church set-ups to bear in mind that they too might prove transitory ... rather than seeing themselves as somehow God's last word on any matter ... which was essentially how the house-churches of the 1980s saw themselves.
The rallying-cry comment wasn't aimed at you, necessarily, but at those who might wish to rally behind such things ...
I don't know whether I've mentioned this before, forgive me if I have, but I once heard an RC priest observe - after he'd returned from a conference on such issues - that the average life-span of a religious order (the Cistercians say) was about 600 years, whilst that of a Protestant denomination was about 200 - 300 years and that of a 'new church' was less than a single generation - essentially the lifespan of its leadership.
--------------------
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
Yes, you did mention those figures earlier in the thread.
Unfortunately, the longevity of the RCC isn't much help if you live in a parish where the RC priest is sick and elderly, and where the mission of the local church doesn't line up with your or your family's needs. But to you that's probably a dreadfully Protestant and 'consumerist' way of looking at it!
My impression is that the historical churches do well at pastoral work with the elderly, and are generally good at a more reflective, sedentary approach. So perhaps the ideal trajectory is a bit like yours; we should spend our youth in the dynamic 'alternative' churches, and transition to the more traditional ones in middle and old age. Then the denominational longevity of a particular 'new' congregation won't matter.
[ 01. November 2014, 13:00: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That's one way of looking at it.
Then everyone would be like me and I'd feel very smug and self-satisfied.
Thanks for the tip!
On the RC thing - I don't know enough about how RC parishes function on the ground so I can't comment on whether or not they are selling people short.
My impression is that in most inner-city areas RC parishes are generally migrant ones.
Here, our local RC parish is relatively small but very active. In one of the nearest bigger towns the RC parish is very multicultural - but that's less the case here where most of the faithful seem descended from a handful of local RC families who stuck with things and built it up self-sacrificially from scratch. I can forgive them the tacky plastic iconography because I know something of the background.
--------------------
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
The point is that RCC clergy in the UK and elsewhere are ageing and in short supply. Perhaps this doesn't bother most RCs because they don't necessarily have high expectations of a dynamic, active priesthood, but this isn't going to convince charismatic evangelicals or proponents of organic church that the RC way is the best way!
I'm glad that the RC parish where you are is doing well, but their success couldn't be replicated everywhere. People have to develop their own way of being and doing church for the situation in which they find themselves, rather than waiting for the RCC to do brilliant things for everybody.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
The typical RC parish does not include only the 'ageing' clergy.It is indeed the 'people of God on their way through life and on to eternity'.There are the old and the young,the rich and the poor,the devout and the curious, the chewers of the altar rails and those who turn up at funerals.All have to be accommodated and considered.All have to be reminded in some way of the joy of the Gospel and brought,if possible, to a real encounter with Jesus Christ.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
What the heck?!
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The point is that RCC clergy in the UK and elsewhere are ageing and in short supply. Perhaps this doesn't bother most RCs because they don't necessarily have high expectations of a dynamic, active priesthood, but this isn't going to convince charismatic evangelicals or proponents of organic church that the RC way is the best way!
I'm glad that the RC parish where you are is doing well, but their success couldn't be replicated everywhere. People have to develop their own way of being and doing church for the situation in which they find themselves, rather than waiting for the RCC to do brilliant things for everybody.
Who is talking about replicating our local RC parish anywhere else? They've got their problems just as everyone else has ... all I'm saying is that they've done very well over the years to build a parish from a very small base and against all the odds.
I admire them for that.
I'm by no means suggesting that they have a template that can be franchised elsewhere nor that what they are doing is some kind of model for anyone else to follow - such as charismatic evangelicals or whoever else.
Who is talking about the RCC doing 'brilliant things for everybody'?
These people didn't wait around for the RCC to do anything either - they simply got on with it and raising sufficient funds over the years to carve out an RC parish where one hadn't previously existed.
I don't know why you keep harping on about these larger and more venerable churches such as the RCC or the Anglicans as if somehow they don't face similar issues to anyone else.
All kinds of churches are struggling. Because our local RCC parish managed to establish itself from a standing start doesn't mean that it's going to carry all before it ...
I'm just making a few observations and acknowledging that they've done well to get themselves established, that's all.
--------------------
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 also don't think we can generalise about what RCs do or don't want from their priests.
I know an RC lady locally who - rather unusually perhaps - drives four miles to another town to attend Mass there because she likes the priest.
The local RCs seem to have an ambivalent attitude towards their priest - they think he's a good bloke but feel he's a lot better with toddlers and young kids than he is with adults.
He is a nice guy, rather otherworldly perhaps ...
I haven't a great deal of direct experience of everyday RC parish life - I tend to come across our local RCs at ecumenical gatherings and some Lenten activities. So I couldn't begin to comment on what they do or don't expect from their priesthood.
My impression, though, is that it doesn't seem to differ massively from the expectations that Anglicans or non-conformists might have of their clergy/ministers ...
They want them to be good pastors, good listeners and good all-rounders.
So their expectations are probably just as unrealistic as anyone else's ...
--------------------
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
Gamaliel
You're the one who brought the RCC into it. I had no intention of referring to them, but you wanted to restate the point that RCC has lasted a long time while new churches often only last as long as the leader.
I assumed from this that you thought the RCC had something to teach the new churches. Or perhaps that Christians in the new churches ought to join the RCC. I'm not sure what your point was otherwise, because I certainly haven't said that the RCC is incapable of doing anything well.
The existence of an organic church community should't negate the ministry of a local RC parish church. Indeed, the two types of church are likely to attract rather different kinds of people, so I don't see why there would be a problem.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The point I was trying - and obviously failing - to make was that my local RC parish developed organically ... from very small beginnings with a few faithful families who formed the nucleus of a fledgeling parish.
My point was that this was an organic process and yet one which derived from and drew upon an old and venerable tradition.
That's all.
The 'let's all be trendy and talk about organic church brigade' don't have a monopoly on being organic.
That's all I'm saying.
--------------------
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 'let's all be trendy and talk about organic church brigade' don't have a monopoly on being organic.
That's all I'm saying.
Ah. I think we've already agreed that there's nothing new under the sun.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
