|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should the CofE focus on church planting?
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
Surely the point of the Church of England is to offer an alternative to the Church of Rome for everyone in the country via the parish system. That's always been its mission.
So no, it shouldn't get involved in church planting. It should leave that to the independent churches who are called to do it, and are effective, agile and experienced. The C of E should concentrate on how it fulfils its own mission within its means.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
But the CofE has planted churches in the past. As the population has grown and moved around it's opened churches in new places of urban settlement - although some have argued that in the twentieth century it didn't keep up with these developments. Newish housing estates in my region don't often seem to have a CofE church nearby.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Surely the point of the Church of England is to offer an alternative to the Church of Rome for everyone in the country via the parish system
Are you speaking to us from the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Surely the point of the Church of England is to offer an alternative to the Church of Rome for everyone in the country via the parish system. That's always been its mission.
I thought its mission was to be the established church for England, providing a "Christian presence in every community," in which case it would seem proper and appropriate to fulfill that role in whatever manner the times and communities call for.
And I'm curious—does the Roman Catholic Church in England operate on the territorial parish system anymore? Catholic parishes still exist on this side of the pond, but Catholics regularly attend and are registered with a church other than their parish church. The territorial parish seems to only have administrative significance. Other groups use the term "parish," but without any territorial meaning. The only group I'm aware of over here that operates on anything like a true territorial parish system are the Mormons.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
As ever, there's a kind of both/and not either/or thing going on here ...
The aim of having a Christian presence in every community is surely a laudable one, and it's not one that necessarily means that there should be a blanket application of a traditional parish model.
Where the traditional parish model seems to be working - or at least holding its own for the time being - then fine, work with that.
Where it isn't, then there are surely other options.
A Christian presence could take the form of a LEP (Local Ecumenical Partnership) for instance, or some kind of 'shared space'.
Heck, it could even be some kind of skete or 'base-community' - provided it was one with an outward-looking focus and not some kind of enclosed order.
I'm not sure how the RC parish system works but some RC religious orders seem able to become 'embedded' in the wider community to a certain extent.
On the 'chaplaincy' thing, I hadn't understood that to mean that the State should fund such initiatives. I'd taken it in the sense that ExclamationMark was suggesting, that assets could be sold off in order to fund some of these projects.
Of course, nobody's going to suggest that the CofE sell off Winchester Cathedral or anything like that, but there's a lot of plant tied up that isn't pulling its weight. There's room for a lot more flexibility and creativity in that respect.
As regards styles and churchmanships ... I don't see this as either a pro or anti-evangelical thing.
Take each case as it comes.
If an evangelical outfit tried to plant a new church in this town, I'd be vehemently opposed to it - unless it happened in partnership with the existing evangelical expressions that are already operating here.
On the other hand, if an evangelical outfit opened up some work on a housing estate in a large town where there was little existing Christian input, I would applaud the initiative, even if I had some reservations about aspects of their approach.
Where I live there are some large-ish housing estates and the Pentecostals are doing some work in them already. So I wouldn't support the idea of someone else coming in and doing it, unless they were working with the local Penties in some way.
It all depends on a whole range of factors, rather than, 'we want evangelicals here' or 'we don't want evangelicals here ...'
Although I can understand why evangelicals like EM may sometimes feel 'got at' or patronised by some on the non-evangelical side of things.
To use what I hope isn't too painful or personal an analogy drawn from my current circumstances ... as my wife's cancer treatment continues there are certain evangelicals I wouldn't want within a mile of us - and some I'd quite happily tell to 'sod off' and leave us alone. Conversely, there are others I'd be happy to have around because I know they've got plenty of wisdom and insights that we could find helpful at this time.
It varies on a case by case level. 'The wind bloweth where it listeth.'
As far as the CofE goes, I do see the need for greater flexibility and a 'reading of the signs of the times' as EM puts it - however, and it's a big however - what I don't want to see is managerialism and copy-cat 'let's do what this, that or the other successful evangelical church in a completely different context is doing ...'
One of the things the CofE - by its very nature and position - does suffer from is a degree of inauthenticity when it attempts to borrow and adapt procedures and emphases from other sources rather than allowing them to arise organically out of its own tradition.
What do I mean by that?
Well, much as I quite like the current proliferation of icons and even shrines and so on in Anglican cathedrals and city-centre churches, there's something a tad pastiched about the whole the thing ... It's all a bit bolt-on.
Likewise, when I look at some of the New Wine style Anglican charismatic stuff they seem to be borrowing and absorbing influences from across the independent charismatic spectrum - often uncritically and often without due consideration to the context.
I'm not saying that our traditions are sacrosanct, but they do need to arise organically out of who we are and what our particular 'charisms' and callings are.
I could envisage authentic forms of Anglican church planting that would remain true to certain elements of Anglican ethos and DNA - but I don't underestimate the difficulties involved.
Does any of that make 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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the 'chaplaincy' thing, I hadn't understood that to mean that the State should fund such initiatives. I'd taken it in the sense that ExclamationMark was suggesting, that assets could be sold off in order to fund some of these projects.
It was Eutychus who proposed that the state pay for Christians and other religious groups to do chaplaincy work.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm currently looking to hand over more responsibility in our church, and have my eye on a young couple or two who I think might manage to pull off something approaching the same model.
I really would prefer that to them falling for the con trick over here that is living on a pittance "for the Lord" thinking Jesus is going to come back before you're 40 and waking up too late to the realisation you have basically no money for your kids' education and no pension, after you've gone past your sell-by date to be paid to lead a shiny church (and your only future on the scrapheap is to try and rebrand yourself as a "life coach" or some such...).
In the UK early middle age would be the ideal time for a couple of full-time leaders from an independent church to join the CofE. Lots of new ordinands in the CofE seem to be middle aged, and I get the impression that quite a number of them come from other denominations.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It was Eutychus who proposed that the state pay for Christians and other religious groups to do chaplaincy work.
Tell it not in Gad, as Gamaliel would say, but that's because they already do in not a few countries. Including, in oh-so-secular France, some money for for prison chaplaincy overheads and, in the armed forces, full-time paid positions.
If it can be presented as saving money, and dreaming wildly as I pointed out I was, I see no reason why they shouldn't buy this sort of system on a broader scale.
[ 21. August 2016, 17:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
There have been growing CofE churches for over a decade - mainly in cities. There's a trend of decline (D) in what the Guardian article calls "mainstream" CofE churches. The counter trend is growth (G) and church plants (P) which will include fresh expressions, starting new/adding to existing congregations in current church estate. By definition there will come a day when G+P will be grater than D. Whatever is left at the end of that process will be the new mainstream. Just a question iof when that process ins its course, and how much G+P impacts the population of the U.K. as a whole.
There are huge missional benefits of the parish system, not least giving the church a local presence and base of operations.
So I'm more optimistic about the value of church planting than some others on the thread; although we need to make sure we plant churches that are missional, and made of people that want to improve the overall wellbeing of the communities they serve. I know some very good examples of this from within and without the Anglican communion.
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
For values of missional that include......?????
One of those words I'm very happy to be able to avoid.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Surely the point of the Church of England is to offer an alternative to the Church of Rome for everyone in the country via the parish system. That's always been its mission. ...
Years ago, a schoolteacher told me not to start a statement with 'surely' because when one does, the answer is usually 'no'. As far as I'm concerned that applies here. The point of the Church of England is to be the default Christian household for those called to be Christians who happen to be in England.
The biggest issue for the faith in England at the moment isn't whether the CofE is being faithful to its heritage, fond though I personally happen to be of that. It is that the tide is out on Christian faith. Most people don't believe. The calling of all churches, whether CofE or not, is to do everything we can to change that, in season and out of season, by all means that may move people from outside to inside the household of faith.
It is a legitimate question to ask of any endeavour whether it is doing that, where it is productive or counterproductive, whether it is making disciples or preventing that.
I've got queries about whether it is a good practice to plant fresh initiatives in places where there are already working, functioning and active churches. That is duplication and is often divisive - though what one does about an area where the existing churches aren't effective and are satisfied with not being, I'm not sure.
I've also got queries about how effective some initiatives are in producing fruit that lasts rather than springs up but is burnt off when things get difficult. I think 'the tradition' has a great deal to offer in encouraging the former rather than the latter.
But if 'the way we've always done things' had worked, we wouldn't be where we are now.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Where I live there are some large-ish housing estates and the Pentecostals are doing some work in them already. So I wouldn't support the idea of someone else coming in and doing it, unless they were working with the local Penties in some way.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've got queries about whether it is a good practice to plant fresh initiatives in places where there are already working, functioning and active churches. That is duplication and is often divisive - though what one does about an area where the existing churches aren't effective and are satisfied with not being, I'm not sure.
I understand the desire to avoid rivalry and division, but I do feel that having a range of churches within reasonable distance is better than relying one one to do everything, especially if they each have a very different identity and mission. (I speak as someone who lives in area of high population density.)
I agree there's not much point in having three struggling MOTR mainstream congregations, each with a similar demographic, within a few streets of each other. But these days they'd merge into one church. Either that, or one or two of them would just close and the members would scatter.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I wouldn't attend my home parish - never mind run the music there - if I stopped playing at my present shack for the simple reason that the liturgies are shambolic, the congregation is cliquey and frequently rude, the standard of preaching is dreadful and invariably aimed at the 7-10 year old market (not that there are any children in church), and the present incumbent is discourteous and dishonest.
In another organisation I belong to, membership retention is regarded as important, if not more so, than membership recruitment. L'organist summarises succinctly why so many churches lose congregations. Above all, it is down to the personality of the vicar. A charismatic (not in the evangelical sense) vicar will inspire the congregation to move forward and bring along those who might have reservations about the direction of travel.
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
A Christian presence could take the form of a LEP (Local Ecumenical Partnership) for instance, or some kind of 'shared space'.
Please God, no.
LEP's generally spend more time in arguing about what they're doing as opposed to doing it.
My neck of the woods has a few LEP's with several basic models. The ones which work best have a distinctive one denomination style/flavour. That makes them not LEP's in my book.
The others spend too much time arguing about quotas, boundaries etc
Otherwise it's all sense in your post: see what's needed, answer the questions people are asking, don't take a model off the shelf (adapt), be flexible. Don't let the hierarchy take over - travel light, make sure your can relate to the people you are trying to reach.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Should the CofE focus on church planting? yes but not exclusively in the sense of setting up new churches - some of the best planting I've seen has been replanting an existing congregation by refocusing its aims and goals by making its approach more geared to its context.
By the way, that is across the theological spectrum not just evangelicals (although that's the churches I know best). Fresh Expressions happen in existing churches too and they often produce the greatest impact - new vitality plus a trusted tradition and all that
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
IME when adults choose to go elsewhere yes, they are attracted to come to a church with a certain type and standard of music, but that is usually after they have made the decision not to attend or to leave their own parish church, sometimes voluntarily but also by being asked to go elsewhere by clergy.
Speaking of the church with a choir that attracts people from outside the parish: this can arise when members of the choir also live outside the parish and IME the reasons for adult singers to travel to sing elsewhere are not solely musical.
Again using the adult members of my own choir as reference, the split is 12 parish/ 13 not; of the non-parish, over and above musical considerations the reasons for them being with us are:- asked to leave by own parish incumbent 4
- not in sympathy with musical style of home parish 4
- clergy bullying and homophobia 2
- weren't churchgoers, came to us through 'bring-and-sings' 4
- joined through children being in junior section 3
The 'home' parishes of these people ask (in one case expect) them to take over for things like Christmas carol services but are unfriendly and unwelcoming if they give in to pressure or wheedling. In my own case, I can almost guarantee that the incumbent of my own parish church will call asking me to bail them out at Christmas - but the call will arrive around 10th December (which is far too late) and the attitude will be very much that it is my duty to dig them out of a hole and, no, there won't be a fee involved.
I wouldn't attend my home parish - never mind run the music there - if I stopped playing at my present shack for the simple reason that the liturgies are shambolic, the congregation is cliquey and frequently rude, the standard of preaching is dreadful and invariably aimed at the 7-10 year old market (not that there are any children in church), and the present incumbent is discourteous and dishonest.
I wouldn't dispute any of this: I know it happens (and have had enough experience in mediation to confirm it). There is though, another side.
Others' mileage will vary on why people opt out from one church to join another. The presenting issue or the given explanation isn't always (IME), the real issue.
One persons' "not in sympathy with music style" is another's "unwilling to change"; "asked to leave" can mask a whole range of things from a lack of teamwork to power games and controlling behaviour. One take on things might be "homophobic bullying" but is seen in another's eyes as questioning certain behaviours which are, or are perceived to be, a poor example from someone active in leading worship.
Every minister will make mistakes in trying to address pastoral issues. What one might see as confrontation isn't the intent at all but, what is heard, is not always what is said.
Quite often what happens is that a new minister will seek to address issues that others have been content to overlook for all sorts of reasons - not least a quiet life. The people concerned (rightly) feel affronted as it's not been perceived as a concern in the past; they feel attacked and leave. That's understandable, but not quite fair: the concern has always been there but the previous response to it was inaction - for all sorts of reasons, perhaps not least the inability or unwillingness of previous ministers to confront it.
I think what I'm saying from life experience is that the "blame" rarely lies in one direction. It's way way more complex than that. Sometimes any conversation is enough for someone to decide that they are no longer part of this set up - in which case it may, just, have hit the raw nerve of the truth. It can even be embarrassment at being caught out.
A story gets woven with enough of the truth to be partially verified. The natural human assumption is accept the lot, if you can a bit. Many of the "facts" get obscured and the net result is that things which need to be (and which can be fixed) never are: it's too costly for the person to do it. In some cases this becomes serial behaviour and the individual never stays long in one place - there's always some problem and it always seems to be someone else that causes it.
It can happen in any church and any tradition: I've seen it as often in pentecostal/charismatic circles (whole denominations get planted on the basis of division) and MOTR social justice set ups (we can't agree on which project to support, we can't agree who will lead which part of he service and whose liturgy we'll use).
I've got to the point where, if someone joins this church from another local one (rather than moving in to the area), I am a little more wary. If they then want to become involved at a more rapid pace than is healthy for someone finding their way in a new environment, I ask more questions and tell them I'm contacting their previous church. The latter has occasionally resulted in an immediate explosion which serves to confirm my concerns. In the vast majority of cases it's all valid and healthy, though.
I'm not saying that any of the above is true in this case L'Organist but things are not always what they seem or as they are presented. Cut a bit of slack to the others involved too - they will be hurting as well. There are control freak and power driven church leaders as well as control freak and power driven church members.
The main thing is that people are not lost to the Kingdom and that you encourage others to join. It's also beneficial that others respect your tradition and praxis - and that is reciprocated by you too. The worst thing is when a church becomes sniffy about what others do - the way they do it may need work and help (offer it to them) but what they do is what they do.
In the event that people are rude, unhelpful, do things that strokes them not God - we all have to be careful that in trying to help we don't repay them with rejection too. I don't know at what point it comes but if a church is really toxic we should be part of leaching the poison. That may include closure in the worst cases and a kind of spiritual resuscitation in another and new expression of church.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I wouldn't dispute any of this: I know it happens (and have had enough experience in mediation to confirm it). There is though, another side.
Others' mileage will vary on why people opt out from one church to join another. The presenting issue or the given explanation isn't always (IME), the real issue...
Every minister will make mistakes in trying to address pastoral issues. What one might see as confrontation isn't the intent at all but, what is heard, is not always what is said.
Quite often what happens is that a new minister will seek to address issues that others have been content to overlook for all sorts of reasons - not least a quiet life. The people concerned (rightly) feel affronted as it's not been perceived as a concern in the past; they feel attacked and leave. That's understandable, but not quite fair: the concern has always been there but the previous response to it was inaction - for all sorts of reasons, perhaps not least the inability or unwillingness of previous ministers to confront it.
Yes, all very true. In fact, often what happens is:
a. even though everyone has been putting up with whatever the presenting bad behavior is, often they are really sick of it and pressuring the new pastor to do something-- but of course s/he doesn't have the history or relationship with the offensive person that would help make the confrontation easier.
b. even though conflict management is part of the pastor's job, not all are trained for it, and very few are comfortable with it. We are people pleasers who don't like to confront-- but we know it's part of the job. As a result, we often do it poorly-- we put it off, we hedge, we try sideways measures, and then when we absolutely have to, we confront and are so uncomfortable we word things poorly or unclearly or laugh awkwardly out of sheer discomfort.
It's not out of callous disregard that this happens, it's often out of awkward discomfort/ inexperience.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
