|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: .....because the church needs more misogyny.
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The first extract comes from a novel - mainstream, not particularly religious - church is for funerals and Christmas type background. And I quoted it because I winced in recognition at the toe-curling truth of that description. The passage goes on to describe the regulars at coffee complaining. If regular church goers find the service an embarrassment, how on earth are they going to encourage others to come in?
Secondly, I'm not saying that the church should portray itself as atheist, because I don't think Robin Ince is correct in his black and white atheistic scientism. The atheism comments about the Reverend Richard Coles came from the conversation about the virgin birth and nativity narratives which were described as almost certainly written in later to fulfill the prophecies in the Jewish texts. Which is really not a controversial point of view to most thinking Christians. That's not saying the church should become atheist.
The perception of most non-Christians I meet is that Christians believe in the Bible as inerrant truth and that creationism and homophobia are sine non qua*. Until that perception changes I don't think churches stand a chance of broadening their appeal.
* indispensable truths
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Is there a reason why you'd rather not share the name of the novel? I'm actually quite interested in modern British novels that talk about the Christian faith. Most of them are, of course, quite critical of organised religion (although there probably isn't much criticism about the paucity of men in the pews).
It's interesting that you feel people want a 'traditional' experience of worship, while preferring a modern, myth-friendly theology. As I say, I think there is some call for this from sophisticated people with high aesthetic tastes. But the opposite is also true: churches with a more modern worship style yet a more traditional theology also have their fans.
Regarding the popular image of Christianity, I'm not sure that it's one solid thing. In the media (well, in The Guardian, anyway) you often come across a certain mockery of stereotypical 'wishy-washy' CofE vicars who won't be pinned down on anything, except for social justice matters. It would seem that the fire and brimstone creationists of popular imagination must be cartoon characters imported from American culture, because our own home grown variety are hardly more visible or media-friendly than your ordinary, moderate Anglican Christian.
(Lots of Jehovah's Witnesses clogging up the streets these days, but apparently they're not creationists. Conservative on sexuality though.)
[ 06. December 2015, 02:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The perception of most non-Christians I meet is that Christians believe in the Bible as inerrant truth and that creationism and homophobia are sine non qua*. Until that perception changes I don't think churches stand a chance of broadening their appeal.
But it seems to me that that churches which preach those things are the successful churches both in terms of numbers and in terms of individual commitment.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I think we are in a cleft stick here.
1. Dawkins and his cronies have successfully sown the idea that Christians are all anti-intellectual fundamentalists. The media have, to an extent, abetted this; or just given out the idea that it is reactionary and ineffectual.
2. There are people who are undoubtedly attracted to churches which preach simple certainties in a complex world. Those who preached a more nuanced message seem to struggle.
3. The "worship experience" provided by many so-called "progressive" churches is unattractive and dull: it neither relates to modern culture nor offers a traditional numinosity.
And so on ...
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Curiosity Killed, what the fictional woman you quote is saying, is that churches should be providing services designed those who aren't there rather than those who are, just on the off-chance that they might occasionally turn up - though they probably won't. I've heard many different permutations of this, and I don't agree with any of them.
Indeed, I'd go further and say that if she doesn't go regularly, she's given up any title to complain that it has changed since she was last there. After all that style didn't keep her when she was last going. Churches should have the guts to say that and say it bluntly.
We're basically about God, not about giving the occasional visitor a rosy glow that reminds them of childhood.
The same goes for politely not mentioning that we happen to believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection because it might frightened the horses.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I suspect that the big "successful" churches are student churches and if you looked at what was actually going on with, for example HTB, there would be a more nuanced story.
HTB is within a ten minute walk of the following higher education institutions:
- Imperial College (total number of students 16,000, although that number is across a number of sites, the South Kensington site had 8,000 students in the 1980s),
- the Royal College of Art with 1700 students
- the Royal College of Music with another 800 students.
With a total of at least 10,000 students, possibly 18,000, studying within a few yards of HTB a 12% church attendance figure, as given Wikipedia for UK church attendance in 2012, would mean 1,200 to 2,160 students per week should be attending HTB and or its satellites.
HTB doesn't look that successful when those sorts of comparisons are made.
(The RCM and RCA figures came from wikipedia)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
We're basically about God, not about giving the occasional visitor a rosy glow that reminds them of childhood.
Exactly - and that's why people don't go - they don't believe in God!
Our Church does all sorts of good, worthwhile work for the homeless, lonely etc. But they also do good, worthwhile work for the community. Community choir, toddlers group, art group, keep fit for the over 60s, indoor bowls and more. Not outside organisations using the building but Church run stuff. The minister goes into primary schools and invites choirs, recorder groups etc to play in services.
There is an underlying hope that some people who attend the various provisions and invited services will 'come to faith' and thus start coming to Church.
Some do.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Curiosity Killed, what the fictional woman you quote is saying, is that churches should be providing services designed those who aren't there rather than those who are, just on the off-chance that they might occasionally turn up - though they probably won't. I've heard many different permutations of this, and I don't agree with any of them.
Indeed, I'd go further and say that if she doesn't go regularly, she's given up any title to complain that it has changed since she was last there. After all that style didn't keep her when she was last going. Churches should have the guts to say that and say it bluntly.
But changing the programme hasn't kept people in church either. Attendance at Church of England services has halved over the last 40 years. So you can't argue that change has helped.
Those changes also drive people away who might have come back when whatever was keeping them away: young family, weekend sporting fixtures, visiting family elsewhere to care at weekends, overwhelming work life ends.
There is another ongoing issue of churches moving to more and more lay involvement. People cannot just attend and recharge their faith, returning to being salt and light in their work places. Because the church needs those people to work in the church too to keep it going. Another damn good reason for staying away.
quote:
We're basically about God, not about giving the occasional visitor a rosy glow that reminds them of childhood.
As Boogie says, who wants to believe in a God who tells us, according to many churches, to be misogynist and homophobic? What is so special about the God so portrayed that makes anyone want to come to church?
quote:
The same goes for politely not mentioning that we happen to believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection because it might frightened the horses.
That is a distortion of what I wrote, which was that the nativity accounts are recognised to be later additions and almost certainly included to fulfill the predictions in the Old Testament. There's a lot of textual evidence of the resurrection - including the change in the behaviour of the disciples. Less so for the Virgin Birth - and that is mainstream.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Can I just say that it is quite odd - and possibly some kind of copyright issue - to quote from a published work without citing the reference, CK.
I can see no rational reason why you'd do that.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I suspect that the big "successful" churches are student churches and if you looked at what was actually going on with, for example HTB, there would be a more nuanced story.
HTB is within a ten minute walk of the following higher education institutions:
- Imperial College (total number of students 16,000, although that number is across a number of sites, the South Kensington site had 8,000 students in the 1980s),
- the Royal College of Art with 1700 students
- the Royal College of Music with another 800 students.
With a total of at least 10,000 students, possibly 18,000, studying within a few yards of HTB a 12% church attendance figure, as given Wikipedia for UK church attendance in 2012, would mean 1,200 to 2,160 students per week should be attending HTB and or its satellites.
HTB doesn't look that successful when those sorts of comparisons are made.
(The RCM and RCA figures came from wikipedia)
That's absurd. Most people today commute to popular churches, there is no sense that a large church is reliant on their traditional parish boundaries.
Given that many Anglicans either passionately love or violently hate things like HTB, it is highly likely that people from a good distance are commuting to services and that others are commuting away.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Changing the programme hasn't kept people in church either. Attendance at Church of England services has halved over the last 40 years. So you can't argue that change has helped.
[...]
There is another ongoing issue of churches moving to more and more lay involvement. People cannot just attend and recharge their faith, returning to being salt and light in their work places. Because the church needs those people to work in the church too to keep it going. Another damn good reason for staying away.
Methodist and URC worship has remained quite traditional on the whole, but this hasn't prevented a disastrous decline in membership and attendance figures. I agree, though, that 'traditional' in the CofE sense is a different kettle of fish in many respects.
As for lay participation in church life, this is clearly inevitable if you have fewer and fewer people attending, and fewer clergy. In that regard you have a vicious circle. But OTOH, I do think many British people often fail to realise that churches don't run themselves. They complain about the lack of community 'support' from churches without thinking that someone actually has to be committed to doing the work - and certainly not themselves - and that it has to be paid for. Maybe this way of thinking arises out of the misconception that the government pays for the upkeep of churches.
[ 06. December 2015, 13:04: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Even within the churches, people are quick to complain when "they" haven't done something ... but are far less willing to muck in themselves. (e.g. "They used to decorate the church so nicely at Christmas - but now they've let things go a bit").
[ 06. December 2015, 13:10: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But changing the programme hasn't kept people in church either. Attendance at Church of England services has halved over the last 40 years. So you can't argue that change has helped.
That's not quite the sequitur it appears to be. How things were didn't kept the fictitious woman and her demographic believing and practicing. I can remember those days. They'd already largely left.
We have no idea - we can have no idea - whether in the intervening years how things were would have attracted a different demographic from the reduced one that now practices and believes. The decline might have been less. The effect on the demographic that it used to not-appeal to, suggests that it would be just as likely to have been a lot more.
quote:
Those changes also drive people away who might have come back when whatever was keeping them away: young family, weekend sporting fixtures, visiting family elsewhere to care at weekends, overwhelming work life ends.
Are you saying what has made them cease to attend was (a) changing the style of services or (b) pressure of young families, visiting, sports work and all sorts of other things that seem more important than church on Sunday?
They aren't the same thing unless you can say that people wouldn't have given up on churchgoing if the services had carried on like they were in the fifties, that services as they were then would have competed successfully with all those other things in a way that services as they are now don't.
There is no evidence for that. If they had been able to do that, they would have done.
But that isn't really what I'm disagreeing with. What I've no time for is the notion that those who don't go to church think they have any title to tell us what we should be doing despite the fact that they aren't there and have no intention of being there.
quote:
There is another ongoing issue of churches moving to more and more lay involvement. People cannot just attend and recharge their faith, returning to being salt and light in their work places.
Apart from theology about 'whole body ministry etc, where else do you think churches are going to find people to do all the work involved in keeping them going?
I agree with what Baptist Trainfan has just said.
quote:
Because the church needs those people to work in the church too to keep it going. Another damn good reason for staying away.
quote:
We're basically about God, not about giving the occasional visitor a rosy glow that reminds them of childhood.
As Boogie says, who wants to believe in a God who tells us, according to many churches, to be misogynist and homophobic? What is so special about the God so portrayed that makes anyone want to come to church?
God is God and remains so, everlasting and unchanging, whether the churches are representing him or misrepresenting him. quote:
quote:
The same goes for politely not mentioning that we happen to believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection because it might frightened the horses.
That is a distortion of what I wrote, which was that the nativity accounts are recognised to be later additions and almost certainly included to fulfill the predictions in the Old Testament. There's a lot of textual evidence of the resurrection - including the change in the behaviour of the disciples. Less so for the Virgin Birth - and that is mainstream.
I'd bear with 'are argued by some' but "are recognised" is as dogmatic a statement in its direction as a young earth creationist is in theirs.
[ 06. December 2015, 14:17: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is another ongoing issue of churches moving to more and more lay involvement. People cannot just attend and recharge their faith, returning to being salt and light in their work places.
I agree with this and have felt it recently. I have to work hard (and often feel bad) to refuse to do more and more 'stuff' for Church, which is often supremely unsuited to my talents and abilities. I want to turn up, be refueled, and go home.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Baptist Trainfanposted by Baptist Trainfan quote:
1. Dawkins and his cronies have successfully sown the idea that Christians are all anti-intellectual fundamentalists. The media have, to an extent, abetted this; or just given out the idea that it is reactionary and ineffectual.
I agree, that is how some of the media portray the Church - and until recently I'd have argued that this was entirely false; however, having nw been on one of the "facilitated conversations" to do with the Pilling Report I am no longer so certain that this description is entirely unfair. What I found among some of our more evangelical brethren was a rigidity and uncharitableness that took the breath away, and was every bit as repellent as the certainties voiced by fundamentalists of other creeds and beliefs. Indeed, in their condemnation of homosexuality some of their comments, shorn of identifiers, could have come from the daesh.
I agree that the media casts clergy (in particular) as vacillating and ineffectual, but that is how so many clergy are. quote:
2. There are people who are undoubtedly attracted to churches which preach simple certainties in a complex world. Those who preached a more nuanced message seem to struggle.
Indeed - and to some people who attend those churches the idea that nuances (shades of grey, if you will) exist is anathema. Yes, it is simple and, as voiced by some with approval, one "knows where they stand", but they are monocultural and entirely closed to new ideas or other opinions. quote:
3. The "worship experience" provided by many so-called "progressive" churches is unattractive and dull: it neither relates to modern culture nor offers a traditional numinosity.
Not just "progressive" churches! There is a total lack of realisation among clergy that churchgoing is now seen by the majority as just another 'leisure activitiy' and that they therefore need to actively pitch to attract people. First and foremost, that means services that are properly prepared, well thought-through, shorn of 'lets-be-modern' cringe-making gimmickry. To put it bluntly, the church is in competition with other 'leisure activities' and just snootily repeating the mantra 'we are different and above that' won't put people in pews.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
As Boogie says, who wants to believe in a God who tells us, according to many churches, to be misogynist and homophobic? What is so special about the God so portrayed that makes anyone want to come to church?
As it happens, I touched on some of these issues in today's sermon, which was about the Annunciation. Using some material from feminist theologians, I asked whether the story really portrays a bullying, abusive male God having his way with a vulnerable Mary who has little option but to give her consent, and whether it has been used by the Church as the rationale for portraying women as little more than the submissive bearers of men's babies.
(That's not where I ended up, as it happens: I suggested that Mary did have the ability to refuse her designated role and thus exercised considerable power over the outcome of the whole salvation saga; I also suggested that she was well aware of knew difference between submitting to "lords" and to God).
So far I've had a positive response although I certainly took the congregation to an unfamiliar and uncomfortable place. I do think that these questions need to be asked if we are to be authentically Christian in today's society.
[ 06. December 2015, 15:13: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
I don't think "the church" has realized how different people's lifestyle and finances are, compared to e.g. our grandparents. Families have two breadwinners, or only one parent. There aren't enough hours in the day or days in the week. If a family has lots of money, the kids have to be trucked across town to the right school and to other activities every day. If a family is short of money, the parents work long hours and can't afford child care.
Asking people to give up a huge chunk of one of their free days is a huge demand. How about e.g. a decent dinner, child care, and a stimulating and supportive program for adults on a Wednesday night instead?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Perhaps the "Ask not what the Church can do for you, but what you can do for the Church" approach is completely wrong.
If we really believed that this is the way of salvation, that we are invited to spend time with the Creator of the Universe, and if we approached our Sunday mornings as though that was what we are facilitating, we'd all want to be there more than anything else in the week.
I know it's not like that, and it will never be the case that it will be like that every week, but if we went to church expecting that, and if we designed what happens when we get there to help mediate that, in stead of what it's currently like, we'd look forward to it as the one thing we really wouldn't want to miss. Perhaps even our children would complain that football was getting in the way of their being able to be there.
In the gospels, crowds follow Jesus wherever he goes. He has difficulty escaping them to get a bit of peace and quiet.
Even in Corinth, one gets the impression that their meetings were something they were all keen to go to.
What's changed, when, why and how?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It is surely not a matter of faith that services have to be on a Sunday morning.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Some of the congregations mentioned at the beginning of Revelation appear to be somewhat short of wonderful.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Perhaps the "Ask not what the Church can do for you, but what you can do for the Church" approach is completely wrong.
Been there, got the t-shirt saying Burn Out. When I tried to reduce involvement so I could stay upright, I got abused, bullied really, for putting something in abeyance for a couple of months until I could pass something bigger onto others, because I wasn't just walking away but handing things over. And I had consulted how to reduce my involvement. That abuse meant that I didn't just reduce what I was doing but handed everything (it was a lot) to others over 3 months and walked away entirely to get a break and let the new people make things their own. Some things were never picked up and I still get asked about them if I attend.
When I considered going back that abuse didn't help. Nor did the women bishops debate, nor same sex marriage. Because I found myself in discussion with others, outside the church, and found I couldn't justify either decision to them or me.
quote:
If we really believed that this is the way of salvation, that we are invited to spend time with the Creator of the Universe, and if we approached our Sunday mornings as though that was what we are facilitating, we'd all want to be there more than anything else in the week.
Coming out of a service frazzled after being grabbed by all and sundry in the Peace to pass on complaints and services where I couldn't relax because I ended up covering anything and everything at short notice did nothing to my time with God. Particularly when the services were built with no space anywhere.
quote:
I know it's not like that, and it will never be the case that it will be like that every week, but if we went to church expecting that, and if we designed what happens when we get there to help mediate that, in stead of what it's currently like, we'd look forward to it as the one thing we really wouldn't want to miss. Perhaps even our children would complain that football was getting in the way of their being able to be there.
Trust me, i really don't miss church. I am so damn tired from my current job that the lie in on a Sunday morning and time to catch up with work is far far better than being wound up by naff services. I still go for uniformed group parades and believe me, they are still naff, nothing to encourage me back. I miss the numinous but there aren't many services around that aim for that stillness and peace. And two hours travel to reach them when I'm already tired isn't something I want to do.
quote:
<snip>
What's changed, when, why and how?
I suspect it is a false perception that it was ever like that.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Coming out of a service frazzled after being grabbed by all and sundry in the Peace to pass on complaints ...
That's definitely not what the Peace is for!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
I would like to go to Baptist Trainfan's church please. That's all. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I would like to go to Baptist Trainfan's church please. That's all.
If it was the sermon he preached yesterday (that he referred to above) that particularly interested you, I have just added it to the church website, and you can read it here
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
It was! Well, that and his attitude to the peace. Thanks very much for that - I'll enjoy reading it.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I kinda like the idea that the Angel Gab had tried, but been rebuffed, by Betty, Sharon and Lisa and is sitting around wondering who else there is to ask. And Lo! Twas Mary what agreed to the deal.
I don't think it happened like that at all, btw.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
