|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: New ways of being church
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
This is a phrase I've come across a number of times, most recently on S of F.
What does it mean?
There seems to be some implication or implied criticism of something in using "church" as an abstract noun, like justice or love, rather than a definite noun, the church.
What is going on here?
Who used it first?
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I'd refer you back to the FE thread in Eccles. There's Emerging Church as well, which is a wider concept, as it includes setups by and for people within the church who are struggling to cope with it, whereas FE is specifically aimed at the unchurched.
Besides that there's the somewhat funda^h^h^h^h evangelical Simple Churches movement. Google would be your friend.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Thanks - I've now got Aleksandr Orlov the Compare the Market meerkat lodged in my head!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
This is a phrase I've come across a number of times, most recently on S of F.
I use this phrase quite a lot, to mean church as something other than meeting in a special building to hear a sermon and sing some songs.
What exactly that 'something other' is, covers a lot of ground - I guess the definition (at least for me!) is more in terms of what it isn't than what it is.
The fact that it is 'new ways of being church' (not 'doing church') is important to me, as it tries to capture the idea that church is not something one goes to or something one does at certain times each week, but rather it's a community one is part of.
But, yes, it is a rather vague term...
--------------------
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
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
...as it tries to capture the idea that church is not something one goes to or something one does at certain times each week, but rather it's a community one is part of.
Church has always been about this - it isn't anything "new."
It is the idea that "Church" is a sort of "service provider" (like AutoGlass) which is new - yet, sadly all too common nowadays.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
This is a phrase I've come across a number of times, most recently on S of F.
I use this phrase quite a lot, to mean church as something other than meeting in a special building to hear a sermon and sing some songs.
What exactly that 'something other' is, covers a lot of ground - I guess the definition (at least for me!) is more in terms of what it isn't than what it is.
The fact that it is 'new ways of being church' (not 'doing church') is important to me, as it tries to capture the idea that church is not something one goes to or something one does at certain times each week, but rather it's a community one is part of.
But, yes, it is a rather vague term...
Commenting to point out that many Christians do go to church for something other than singing songs and to hear a sermon if we are members of a church that has weekly Eucharist - the sermon is certainly not a big deal at my church and we have services without either singing OR a sermon!
And to echo Mark Betts, the church has always been about being a community.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
...as it tries to capture the idea that church is not something one goes to or something one does at certain times each week, but rather it's a community one is part of.
Church has always been about this - it isn't anything "new."
Sorry for being unclear, Mark - the particularly new bit (IMO) is the church meeting being something other than sermon, singing, Eucharist (quite right, Jade Constable) etc. What I was getting at with the part of my comment that you quoted was that the new ways thing is not just about changing church meetings, although that is part of it. So I like it that you said 'being church' and not 'doing church'. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I don't 'do' church, I am not 'church' as in 'being' church. I am part of the Church and there are many many things we do.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Repeat after me:
I be church;
You be church;
He/She/It be church;
We be church;
You be church;
They be church.
Now, tell me to which conjugation you belong...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
Isn't the ungrammatical turn of phrase designed to make you think about what the word "church" actually means? That's the essence of the concept in a nutshell: thinking afresh about the meaning, purpose, mission and presentation etc of the body of Christ. How does it look/feel to outsiders? To insiders? Is this always good or can things be changed sometimes to help reach more people and help the reached ones grow?
Incidentally, South Coast Kevin, if you go too far down the line of defining church by what it isn't you run the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and ending up with something that isn't anything.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
For me there is a need to rethink church completely, the model we are running on say its hey day in the late nineteenth century and has not adapted to the changes in society since. Most people who talk about New Ways of being Church often mean new ways of worshipping, but I am not sure that worship is what is broken. At its heart worship is the response of the committed community. That means that it is not an attractant in itself. People who are participating in it are socialised into that participation.
What is wrong is we are working on a model that suggests that churches are run by multi-generational families, that children who grow up stay around, marriages are stable as is employement etc. Therefore it is normal to have multi-generational communities and for people to be in and around the church buildings a lot of the time.
It does not work because the lifestyle it presumes no longer exists.
Evangelism is only part of the change, we also need to think of the ways we (the Church) develop and sustain contact with people who become involved. It is actually very easy to loose the church going habit if that is the only contact that sustains your faith.
So in a sense I want to start people thinking about what it means to belong to the Church in the modern world. What sort of things should we expect of members? What sort of contact is necessary? Can we find ways of keeping in contact when people spend two out of three weekends visiting grandchildren? How do we help people who move to elsewhere to find a place to worship? Do you need to have fellowship with other Christians even when you do not make Sunday worship? Do you need to find ways of supporting regular private devotion?
I do not have the answers I am only just beginning to get to grips with the questions.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
What JJ said, but I think that quite often the worship itself is, and should be, up for re-evaluation.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
I have observed that, when people talk about "new ways" of being church, the "old ways" that they are often reacting against aren't really the full picture of what church is/could/should be.
Also it sometimes seems like an excuse to not do the "old ways" that they don't like....
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
I have observed that, when people talk about "new ways" of being church, the "old ways" that they are often reacting against aren't really the full picture of what church is/could/should be.
But often isn't, hence the unrest.
quote:
Also it sometimes seems like an excuse to not do the "old ways" that they don't like....
And why not? Liturgical types don't go to churches with praise bands, and hands in the air Charevos aren't often found at Solemn Mass. So why should those of us for whom neither does much not seek out the like-minded to find a way that does work for us, just like everyone else does?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
I have observed that, when people talk about "new ways" of being church, the "old ways" that they are often reacting against aren't really the full picture of what church is/could/should be.
But often isn't, hence the unrest.
Yeah - just don't rebrand it as "new" when it's as old as the hills just neglected!
quote:
Also it sometimes seems like an excuse to not do the "old ways" that they don't like....
And why not? Liturgical types don't go to churches with praise bands, and hands in the air Charevos aren't often found at Solemn Mass. So why should those of us for whom neither does much not seek out the like-minded to find a way that does work for us, just like everyone else does?
I wasn't really thinking of worship styles more things like enageing (or not) with people of differant socio-economic backgrounds etc
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
One of the major points of the Reformation was to get "the church" to work in the language of "the people".
Liturgical form is as much "language" as is the spoken word. Why should anyone insist that High Mass is the only "language" of the church (as at least two priests in my deanery do), or for that matter, megachurch choir&preacher-in-front-of-seated-spectators or MOTR hymn sandwich?
It isn't exactly a class thing so much as a "please speak to me" thing. Our little Anglican outpost in a Baptist (well, Baptist is the largest group among the few who attend church, anyway) county has kept going because as the elderly die off, there is always a new seeker or whatever-you-call-them who appears and finds a place amongst us. But we don't expect that our "language" will appeal to a lot of the possible church-goers, let alone the non-churched. We serve a niche and do what we can.
For many of our incomers, what we do is "a new way of being church" - but I have to echo the comments about community upthread - we wouldn't be in business if we didn't know each other pretty well.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And why not? Liturgical types don't go to churches with praise bands, and hands in the air Charevos aren't often found at Solemn Mass. So why should those of us for whom neither does much not seek out the like-minded to find a way that does work for us, just like everyone else does?
I wasn't really thinking of worship styles more things like enageing (or not) with people of differant socio-economic backgrounds etc
@Karl: Because it's not about us. It's about engaging with others (as Twangist said).
In an increasingly post-modern society should we still be dictating "this is the truth" from six feet above contradiction? Isn't it more po-mo to say, "This is my truth, show me yours," and engage in conversation.
quote:
As Jengie Jon said:
I do not have the answers I am only just beginning to get to grips with the questions.
It could be that, in po-mo style, there are no answers, or that my answer may not be yours. To find out what the other person's answer is we have to talk to them and ask their questions.
It is all part of being all things to all people, which is not a new way of being church at all.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
It could be that, in po-mo style, there are no answers, or that my answer may not be yours. To find out what the other person's answer is we have to talk to them and ask their questions.
It is all part of being all things to all people, which is not a new way of being church at all.
At the heart of the Alpha FORMAT - and let's ignore the content for the purposes of this thread - is the recognition that people want to work things through for themselves in a group. Note that this doesn't necessarily legitimate the po-mo assumption that nothing can be known. But then we tend to expect them to transition to 'church' being sitting being talked at.
Viola argues that this is totally wrong - and resurrects the approach of both the Quakers and Plymouth Brethren of church being open meetings with all free to contribute. But Viola's other emphasis is that relationships are all; he argues that the earliest churches met in homes, not synagogue type places BY CHOICE*: if the church really is the family of God, it's being remarkably dysfunctional by its members never actually getting together to talk in any meaningful sense.
Personally I have no hesitation in arguing that meetings in home during the week should have a higher priority that the Sunday gathering; our overwhelming tendency to go the other way is, for me, the biggest failure of the modern church.
----------
* I don't think this claim is fully sustainable, and the nature of Roman society would have meant that there was an implicit hierarchy in a home meeting that we don't get.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Personally I have no hesitation in arguing that meetings in home during the week should have a higher priority that the Sunday gathering; our overwhelming tendency to go the other way is, for me, the biggest failure of the modern church.
Hear hear! That guy Frank Viola is one of several people writing and speaking about 'new ways of being church' and the chapter titles in his book 'Reimagining Church' probably give a good indication of the areas in which some rethinking could be done. Most of the chapter titles begin with the word 'Reimagining':
Reimagining the church as an organism
...the church meeting
...the Lord's Supper
...the gathering place
...the family of God
...church unity
...leadership
...oversight
...decision-making
...spiritual covering
...authority and submission
...denominational covering
...the apostolic tradition
That gives a fair summary of the issues that people involved in the 'new ways' thing are talking about, I think.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Personally I have no hesitation in arguing that meetings in home during the week should have a higher priority that the Sunday gathering; our overwhelming tendency to go the other way is, for me, the biggest failure of the modern church.
I would have no problem with this view if it were not for the fact that from the very earliest witnesses on, there is consistent evidence that Christians met on the Lord's Day.
If this is now to be turned on its head, there has to be a really good reason for it.
ISTM that any new way of being Church has to demonstrate its continuity/consistency with older ways of being Church. Otherwise it will end up not being Church at all.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Personally I have no hesitation in arguing that meetings in home during the week should have a higher priority that the Sunday gathering; our overwhelming tendency to go the other way is, for me, the biggest failure of the modern church.
I would have no problem with this view if it were not for the fact that from the very earliest witnesses on, there is consistent evidence that Christians met on the Lord's Day.
If this is now to be turned on its head, there has to be a really good reason for it.
ISTM that any new way of being Church has to demonstrate its continuity/consistency with older ways of being Church. Otherwise it will end up not being Church at all.
But given that those meetings 'on the Lord's day' were in homes, you are being interestingly inconsistent in this argument ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) OK - I know what the logic of tradition says, but the Jerusalem church met 'daily' in the temple, whilst in Hebrews we are told to 'But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.' Heb 3:13
AFAICS Viola's model of church life ticks more boxes than the tradition that we've inherited, which has been undermined by changes in society. These mean that the church must now work to create 'community' that historically existed 'naturally'.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Personally I have no hesitation in arguing that meetings in home during the week should have a higher priority that the Sunday gathering; our overwhelming tendency to go the other way is, for me, the biggest failure of the modern church.
I would have no problem with this view if it were not for the fact that from the very earliest witnesses on, there is consistent evidence that Christians met on the Lord's Day.
If this is now to be turned on its head, there has to be a really good reason for it.
There is. The following spring to mind:
1. The fact that many people have to work on Sundays now;
2. The fact that there are many activities, especially for children and young people, that take place on a Sunday morning. Of course, one could just say it's a matter of priorities; I'd prefer that we can actually fully participation in the society in which we're called to be salt and light, rather than hide away from it.
These point to a need for more flexibility in our meeting together.
quote:
ISTM that any new way of being Church has to demonstrate its continuity/consistency with older ways of being Church. Otherwise it will end up not being Church at all.
Indeed - the point where I part company with Viola is having experience of a Simple Church inspired by his thinking, which had very little continuity and was totally befuddled, to be honest, when faced with some bread and wine. Well, grape juice.
[ 30. November 2012, 10:37: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The following spring to mind:
1. The fact that many people have to work on Sundays now;
2. The fact that there are many activities, especially for children and young people, that take place on a Sunday morning. Of course, one could just say it's a matter of priorities; I'd prefer that we can actually fully participation in the society in which we're called to be salt and light, rather than hide away from it.
These point to a need for more flexibility in our meeting together.
If you could demonstrate that there was nothing else to do on the Lord's Day in the early Church, I could accept the argument. But the Lord's Day was not a day set aside for worship or rest in either the Jewish or Gentile communities where the first churches met. They had to do so in addition to, and possibly despite, their everyday activities.
This is why I still think it's legitimate to ask people to prioritise an hour or so of their Sunday for the Lord and to meet with God's people.
ES - I don't see why the meeting venue or size of the meetings has anything to do with it. Either Christians meet on the Lord's Day or they do not. House groups/churches should surely be doing this as well as their social or study meetings on other days.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Yes but they
1) Met in the evenings because people were working during the day. I do not see any tendency in churches to move over to an evening only pattern.
2) Were not likely to be the other side of the country due to visiting. That is people while living in a place tended to stay fairly local on the whole.
3) The really early church met every day! There was no one day in seven about it. When there was a special day it seems to have been a Saturday due to Jewish context.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The following spring to mind:
1. The fact that many people have to work on Sundays now;
2. The fact that there are many activities, especially for children and young people, that take place on a Sunday morning. Of course, one could just say it's a matter of priorities; I'd prefer that we can actually fully participation in the society in which we're called to be salt and light, rather than hide away from it.
These point to a need for more flexibility in our meeting together.
If you could demonstrate that there was nothing else to do on the Lord's Day in the early Church, I could accept the argument. But the Lord's Day was not a day set aside for worship or rest in either the Jewish or Gentile communities where the first churches met. They had to do so in addition to, and possibly despite, their everyday activities.
This is why I still think it's legitimate to ask people to prioritise an hour or so of their Sunday for the Lord and to meet with God's people.
Did my post not predict this reaction and respond to it?
It is a simple fact that you make it unnecessarily difficult for people if you force them to choose between, say, football practice, which may be a major part of the social life of two of the children in a particular family, or church. I suppose that if people choose the football practice you can sit and sneer that it's their problem with their priorities, but that attitude actually achieves fuck all.
Your sig is most appropriate.
[ 30. November 2012, 10:59: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The following spring to mind:
1. The fact that many people have to work on Sundays now;
2. The fact that there are many activities, especially for children and young people, that take place on a Sunday morning. Of course, one could just say it's a matter of priorities; I'd prefer that we can actually fully participation in the society in which we're called to be salt and light, rather than hide away from it.
These point to a need for more flexibility in our meeting together.
If you could demonstrate that there was nothing else to do on the Lord's Day in the early Church, I could accept the argument. But the Lord's Day was not a day set aside for worship or rest in either the Jewish or Gentile communities where the first churches met. They had to do so in addition to, and possibly despite, their everyday activities.
This is why I still think it's legitimate to ask people to prioritise an hour or so of their Sunday for the Lord and to meet with God's people.
Did my post not predict this reaction and respond to it?
It is a simple fact that you make it unnecessarily difficult for people if you force them to choose between, say, football practice, which may be a major part of the social life of two of the children in a particular family, or church. I suppose that if people choose the football practice you can sit and sneer that it's their problem with their priorities, but that attitude actually achieves fuck all.
Your sig is most appropriate.
When you are prepared to respond with some courtesy to my post, I will reply to yours.
For the moment, I will point out that there is more to building bridges than kidding people that being a Christian is easy. And when you have evidence that I either sit or sneer when it comes to engaging with our communities, then you are welcome to call me to Hell for it.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Changing service times helps a lot of people (also relevant for people who rely on public transport which in some areas is very unreliable on a Sunday). When I'm at my parents' even I have to attend a midweek said Eucharist because the Sunday buses are so awful (my parents live in semi-rural Hampshire, I attend a church in the nearest town as the local CoE church, and there is only one, is awful).
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The following spring to mind:
1. The fact that many people have to work on Sundays now;
2. The fact that there are many activities, especially for children and young people, that take place on a Sunday morning. Of course, one could just say it's a matter of priorities; I'd prefer that we can actually fully participation in the society in which we're called to be salt and light, rather than hide away from it.
These point to a need for more flexibility in our meeting together.
If you could demonstrate that there was nothing else to do on the Lord's Day in the early Church, I could accept the argument. But the Lord's Day was not a day set aside for worship or rest in either the Jewish or Gentile communities where the first churches met. They had to do so in addition to, and possibly despite, their everyday activities.
This is why I still think it's legitimate to ask people to prioritise an hour or so of their Sunday for the Lord and to meet with God's people.
Did my post not predict this reaction and respond to it?
It is a simple fact that you make it unnecessarily difficult for people if you force them to choose between, say, football practice, which may be a major part of the social life of two of the children in a particular family, or church. I suppose that if people choose the football practice you can sit and sneer that it's their problem with their priorities, but that attitude actually achieves fuck all.
Your sig is most appropriate.
When you are prepared to respond with some courtesy to my post, I will reply to yours.
For the moment, I will point out that there is more to building bridges than kidding people that being a Christian is easy. And when you have evidence that I either sit or sneer when it comes to engaging with our communities, then you are welcome to call me to Hell for it.
If the cap doesn't fit, then don't wear it. Do find the point where I specifically said that you, specifically, sneer. I do find your "it's just a matter of priorities" attitude unhelpful, however, and maintain that for many people, it most definitely is a wall, not a bridge.
Meanwhile, I'd thank you for not equating what I see as facing the reality of modern life with "kidding people that Christianity is easy."
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Changing service times helps a lot of people (also relevant for people who rely on public transport which in some areas is very unreliable on a Sunday). When I'm at my parents' even I have to attend a midweek said Eucharist because the Sunday buses are so awful (my parents live in semi-rural Hampshire, I attend a church in the nearest town as the local CoE church, and there is only one, is awful).
But it's that approach of going along to a building to spectate as somebody says some words is what Viola is most critical of. Do you have any meaningful relationships with the people you are in the audience with (choosing my word deliberately)? If you were taken seriously ill next week, would you tell them? I may be wrong, but I doubt it. I'm sure it's valid worship for YOU, but is it meaningfully fellowship? Is it fulfilling the command 'exhort one another every day'. I'm dubious that my weekly attendance at a Sunday service fulfils that, let alone an intermittent one.
Viola seems to undervalue that element of a service, but the fellowship element is often totally absent. We need to do better given our horrendously atomised society.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Yes but they
1) Met in the evenings because people were working during the day. I do not see any tendency in churches to move over to an evening only pattern.
2) Were not likely to be the other side of the country due to visiting. That is people while living in a place tended to stay fairly local on the whole.
3) The really early church met every day! There was no one day in seven about it. When there was a special day it seems to have been a Saturday due to Jewish context.
Jengie
1) Interestingly, we find that evening services are very poorly attended, and usually by people who have already worshipped in the morning. YMMV.
2) That is why there are churches/worship opportunities in almost every place, or at least accessible to the vast majority of people who are prepared to organise their Sunday around their worship
3) If only... We have a couple of people who do come to Mass each day, and engage in formal/informal fellowship around that. They are growing well in every way.
I think my resistance to making things convenient for all (although it never actually is) arises from a conviction that we are dealing with a faith community not a membership organisation. (In this part of the world, the membership organisations have all reduced and trimmed their identities to suit the convenience of possible members, so that there is nothing distinctive left to join.) By the time people come to faith and have expressed their commitment through confirmation (or an equivalent) I would expect them to make it a priority, at least for an hour on a Sunday.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
By the time people come to faith and have expressed their commitment through confirmation (or an equivalent) I would expect them to make it a priority, at least for an hour on a Sunday.
Sorry I've not made clear the core of Viola's complaint, which is that what happens on a Sunday in the average church is nothing close to real fellowship; that it, rather than somewhere where such fellowship DOES occur, is made the priority, is the point I'm making. Of course in practice both should be present, but if a choice has to be made, Sundays lose out.
However the real issue is that in a lot of churches there is NO real fellowship - no place where you can share the issues that are winding you up in a safe and Christian environment. Nowhere where you can safely ask the idiot question that's been bugging you for weeks which if you asked it openly might get you laughed at. Nowhere where you experience 'the family of God'. That's certainly my experience of going to mainstream church on a Sunday YMMV.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Lets take my big break above. Getting worship right is NOT going to keep people connected to the Church! Worship in some is the core activity but only ever makes proper sense in terms of wider commitment. When being a Christian is reduced to one hour on a Sunday then it is NO LONGER IMPORTANT enough for most people to care. This means in itself worship is bound to FAIL.
Therefore I have come to a conclusion that in the modern age a Just one service where we do everything is a failure to disciple people!
19th Century Non-conformity for example had
- Two services on a Sunday (Church family on the morning and an evangelical outreach entertainship one on the evening)
- Sunday School on the afternoon.
- Mid Week Bible study
- Mens and Women's fellowship group
- Other social groupings such as drama
- charitable outreach work
It was totally possible to be a church seven days a week! That was making contact with members of the church and strengthening commitment. Alright they could play tennis at the Church tennis club and talk nothing of religion, but they knew the friends that were there would also be in church on Sunday so if they wanted to see them then the needed to be in church. I know one person who came to a particular congregation at least in part because it had a badminton club. She was a member elsewhere, but finding the travel difficult, but being able to play badminton with people she also saw at church made the double connection and drew her in.
Remember worship is "worth ship", at its core is a right relating to God and to others, not the singing of hymns, the reading of the Bible or the Sacraments. These are form but it needs to make a difference outside the actual act to be genuine worship. Otherwise in worship we are like a man who looks in a mirror and then goes away and forgets what we look like. The taking out of that reassessment into our lives is done through community and it is community that draws us back to worship, the knowledge of our need to sort out who we are in relationship to God. However community I am not in contact with is community to which I do not belong.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Yes but they
1) Met in the evenings because people were working during the day. I do not see any tendency in churches to move over to an evening only pattern.
2) Were not likely to be the other side of the country due to visiting. That is people while living in a place tended to stay fairly local on the whole.
3) The really early church met every day! There was no one day in seven about it. When there was a special day it seems to have been a Saturday due to Jewish context.
Jengie
1) Interestingly, we find that evening services are very poorly attended, and usually by people who have already worshipped in the morning. YMMV.
2) That is why there are churches/worship opportunities in almost every place, or at least accessible to the vast majority of people who are prepared to organise their Sunday around their worship
3) If only... We have a couple of people who do come to Mass each day, and engage in formal/informal fellowship around that. They are growing well in every way.
I think my resistance to making things convenient for all (although it never actually is) arises from a conviction that we are dealing with a faith community not a membership organisation. (In this part of the world, the membership organisations have all reduced and trimmed their identities to suit the convenience of possible members, so that there is nothing distinctive left to join.) By the time people come to faith and have expressed their commitment through confirmation (or an equivalent) I would expect them to make it a priority, at least for an hour on a Sunday.
I do understand where you're coming from. But what do I say to my son when he wants to do football practice, which only happens from 9 to 11am on a Sunday morning? "Sorry. Church is more important. You can't play football."? This is just by way of example.
Moreover, you say "By the time people come to faith and have expressed their commitment through confirmation..." - but how will they get to that point if they've had to make church the only priority on a Sunday morning from the beginning?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
One of the major points of the Reformation was to get "the church" to work in the language of "the people".
For many of our incomers, what we do is "a new way of being church" - but I have to echo the comments about community upthread - we wouldn't be in business if we didn't know each other pretty well.
Except that I doubt if any of your incomers think of it in terms of "new ways of being church" because that turn of phrase is one that does not seem to exist outside of the church. It's as if even when the church is trying to be "with it" it has to invent its own language rather than use the language of "the people".
Just think of saying "news ways of being nightclub", or "new ways of being office", or "new ways of being audience" to realise how silly it can sound.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
What Karl said:
But I's go further, because the insistence on Sunday worship is making a clear message: To those whose children play Sunday football it says, "If you want to be a Christian you must do things our way or you can fuck off." One of the great evangelistic positions of our time.
It is not about us. It is not about the way we do things. It is about the Gospel message and about the people we would present it to.
The Gospel remains the same as it has always been, but the world changes, and one of the great things about the Christian church is the way she has constantly tailored the way she presents the Gospel message to the way people will understand it.
To soccer dads it could be meeting on a weekday. To others it could be a place they can discuss the faith over a pint rather than listen to a sermon in a cold church.
It isn't about convenience,it's about evangelism, spreading the faith. If the motivation is convenience then it probably won't work.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Two points to add - one specific, one general.
Specifically - I'd love to think I could use church to avoid having to be a soccer dad if that happens. Except that I couldn't; it wouldn't work, for reasons already reheared.
Generally - it's really, really frustrating to see where people have identified issues with church as it currently stands and have got off their arses and done something about it to have their efforts written off as worthless or worse by those comfortable in their traditions. It's really getting so very, very, fucking tiresome.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But what do I say to my son when he wants to do football practice, which only happens from 9 to 11am on a Sunday morning? "Sorry. Church is more important. You can't play football."? This is just by way of example.
The minister of my last church had this problem, but with basketball. He let his kids do the basketball, but I think they had to agree to go to a church youthclub at some other time of the week. (They wereolder than your children at this point.) This would have been with a different denomination, probably.
One can understand how in some ways the stricter churches avoid creating anxiety and confusion by laying down the law on which leisure activities can be practised, and when. The parents and children all know what the deal is, and just have to put with it. The parents can stay or go, and the children are obliged to obey their parents. Things are a lot clearer.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I'd like to think we can aim for better than clarity.
I'm in fairly belligerent mood over this whole issue, as you might guess.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Except that I doubt if any of your incomers think of it in terms of "new ways of being church" because that turn of phrase is one that does not seem to exist outside of the church. It's as if even when the church is trying to be "with it" it has to invent its own language rather than use the language of "the people"...
People outside the church talk about "new ways of doing spirituality", which may or may not include Christianity. Perhaps the established church needs to learn to come to terms with this sort of 'mixed-economy spirituality', because that's approximately the direction that the rest of society is going.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
Do they? I've just googled the phrase and it came up with a nil return.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Karl admits to being in a belligerent mood.
We all know what he is 'against'. He has spelt it out at great length.
God knows what he wants by way of "Church".
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Karl admits to being in a belligerent mood.
We all know what he is 'against'. He has spelt it out at great length.
God knows what he wants by way of "Church".
We can always restart that Hell thread if you want to make this personal, matey.
Or you can piss off. Or you can make a useful contribution. Your choice.
[ 30. November 2012, 15:48: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Changing service times helps a lot of people (also relevant for people who rely on public transport which in some areas is very unreliable on a Sunday). When I'm at my parents' even I have to attend a midweek said Eucharist because the Sunday buses are so awful (my parents live in semi-rural Hampshire, I attend a church in the nearest town as the local CoE church, and there is only one, is awful).
But it's that approach of going along to a building to spectate as somebody says some words is what Viola is most critical of. Do you have any meaningful relationships with the people you are in the audience with (choosing my word deliberately)? If you were taken seriously ill next week, would you tell them? I may be wrong, but I doubt it. I'm sure it's valid worship for YOU, but is it meaningfully fellowship? Is it fulfilling the command 'exhort one another every day'. I'm dubious that my weekly attendance at a Sunday service fulfils that, let alone an intermittent one.
Viola seems to undervalue that element of a service, but the fellowship element is often totally absent. We need to do better given our horrendously atomised society.
Er yes, actually, I do have meaningful relationships with people both at the church I attend while at my parents', and my church while I'm at uni. That is why I do not attend the most local CoE church when at my parents'. Why do you feel you can presume what my relationship with others is at my churches??
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
[ 30. November 2012, 16:23: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Organic...that's the key.
Local churches must allow space for "new ways of being church" or whatever trendy phrase you want to use to develop. The new will look different at different places. One size fits all won't work. In some places, the new might look like the older. What doesn't make sense to me is deciding what the new looks like and then replacing the old with it.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Organic...that's the key.
Local churches must allow space for "new ways of being church" or whatever trendy phrase you want to use to develop. The new will look different at different places. One size fits all won't work. In some places, the new might look like the older. What doesn't make sense to me is deciding what the new looks like and then replacing the old with it.
Spot on.
Although the language of this very recent address may strike you as "charismatic" ™ , I'm inclined to to think that Graham Cray agrees with you both in principle and in practice. I heard him speak on this point three of four years ago and although experiences may have changed some things, it looks to me that his core understanding is the same as it was then.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I'd be more impressed with "ways to do church" old or new if the discussion started from "why do we do church, what is it for?" When it starts with form instead of function, with "we have to meet Sunday morning because that's what people in a totally different era totally different culture did, that's putting form ahead of function or mistakenly assuming what is functional for a different culture is functional for us too.
If we start with "why do we do church?" we'll have contradictory answers, there is no one agreed concept of why we do church; but from there we can, in our several different understandings, come up with approaches (old and new) that fulfill the functions in ways that communicate with our own culture.
For one quick example, I think Sunday evening is the ideal time for the main service in our culture -- not because it is some symbolic day of the week but because for most of the population Sunday evening closes out the weekend and prepares for the work or school week. And we need a way to provide "doing church" for shift workers for whom Sunday evening (or any one specific rigid time) is not reasonably functional.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hezekiah
Apprentice
# 17157
|
Posted
As much as this thread is providing a very interesting discussion, surely the OP was asking why the definite article has been dropped?
In all of the responses so far I can't see any that have explained why 'new ways of being church' is any better than 'new ways of being the church'.
--------------------
2 Kings 3:27
Posts: 36 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Because that's how people into that sort of thing talk. They are also fond of gerunds. Don't ask me why.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hezekiah
Apprentice
# 17157
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Because that's how people into that sort of thing talk. They are also fond of gerunds. Don't ask me why.
Facebook-style 'like'
--------------------
2 Kings 3:27
Posts: 36 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
It's because they don't approve of 'traditional' language (Latin/BCP) but are happy to replace it with a recondite form of Newspeak that God doesn't understand.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
