|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Do we need a new breed of churches?
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
It's been said before that it's far easier to create a new church with a new vision than it is to change the entrenched values and attitudes of an existing congregation.
This being so, do we need an era of church planting to create the sorts of churches that have a more tolerant and affirming understanding of homosexuality (or indeed any other of the DH issues)? What would be the special challenges and advantages of doing so?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's been said before that it's far easier to create a new church with a new vision than it is to change the entrenched values and attitudes of an existing congregation.
I'd say that it's not easier, just faster. The easiest way to change a congregation's view on social issues like that is to simply sit back and wait for the older generation to die. For example, there were a large number of churches opposed to granting women the right to vote in the late 19th / early 20th centuries. By the mid 20th century it was incredibly hard to find a church that officially held this position.
A similar example can be made in the case of Segregation and the Southern Baptist Church. (Actually any white Protestant church in the American South prior to the 1960s, but the Southern Baptists are the ones most closely associated with support of Segregation.) Despite teaching that integration is un-Christian and similar during the Civil Rights era, today we get the SBC issuing anti-racist statements. This was accomplished not by changing congregants entrenched values, but simply by the older racist generation dying off.
In other words, if you just wait long enough you'll have a new church with a new vision anyway.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I can see what you're saying. The problem in the British context, though, is that the historical churches are aging faster than the surrounding population, so there isn't necessarily much of a younger cohort waiting in the wings to take over and change things. And some of the young ones who are still there are more conservative than the generation above them.
Some of the evangelical congregations could move in the direction you suggest, but since they have a relatively young age profile, it's going to take longer for the current generation of leaders to die!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's been said before that it's far easier to create a new church with a new vision than it is to change the entrenched values and attitudes of an existing congregation.
This being so, do we need an era of church planting to create the sorts of churches that have a more tolerant and affirming understanding of homosexuality (or indeed any other of the DH issues)? What would be the special challenges and advantages of doing so?
I'm slightly unclear if you mean free church-planting, or under the umbrella of for example the CofE? If it's the former then presumably there's nothing stopping people who want to do it anyway...
If we had a genuine free-market approach *within the CofE* surely we should be able to plant whatever church somebody wants? Ie, in answer to your question, there might be something in that, but only on the basis that Reform or FiF were also at liberty to pitch up in a parish and do it too.
I'm not for a second arguing for any of this seriously, but surely if we're going to get the maximum number of people into pews don't we want to be actively planting liberal churches into conservative bastions *and indeed vice versa*?
I know loads of FiF types driving miles every sunday to go to an "acceptable" church and equally AffCath types doing likewisec because their local shack is FiF. And carloads of both trying to go somewhere that isn't high enough. I can't comment on the evangelical side of things because it's not really my bit of the candle.
I've often actually wondered what the true balance of the Conservative-Liberal line on DH would be if (anecdotally) so many people on both sides of the line weren't de-churched.
I would expect the Liberal side to "win" by a country mile in numbers of churches but it genuinely wouldn't surprise me if having an FiF church (for example) on their doorstep instead of 15-20 miles away brought some more current non-church attenders out of the woodwork. Unsure how Watch, for example, would cope with even a modest overall growth in FiF church numbers though!
I would suspect, from nothing more than observation and gut feel, that many people don't go to church because they think the church isn't liberal on the DH issues. I also think that a smaller but not small-enough-to-be-ignored-by-any-means number don't go because their local church is liberal. The enthusiasts on both sides of course get in their car and go miles to somewhere that suits them, but that doesn't address those who don't have a car, or whose faith was perhaps "weak" enough that not being able to get wanted they wanted on their doorstep has killed it.
On the WO question, for example, ISTR that just this question was addressed by a particularly loopy suggestion that each parish/benefice/town should be mandated to have at least one male priest in the team. Obviously it was completely unworkable but it did make me think.
Particularly in a town I lived in a couple of years ago where the priest was a woman, the three associate priests were women, and the five priests in the nearest villages were also all women. None of the churches had a congregation of more than about 40, and the main church was in a town of 35,000 (and until the evos pitched up and planted it was the town's only church). For info I was one of the 40 in the town church so I'm emphatically *not* railing against WO myself here. Every church within the 5 mile radius of the town centre (about 6 in total) was slightly more than half way up AffCath.
There's no diversity there, and what is there doesn't seem to be working for people beyond the congregations. The conevo church plant launched 6-7 years ago, inevitably enough gets about 200...
I think overall that everything should be tried - plant liberal churches and see if that has any effect; but if we're being honest we should be open to planting full on DH conservative catholic and conevo churches too to see if they work. I'm not sure current worshippers in many places would be happy with that though.
As an interesting thought experiment (and certainly NOT something I'm advocating for), how would you feel if FiF expanded massively, planted churches all over the place, and turned out to be what hugely rejuvenated the CofE?
I mean, I don't think for a minute it would be, but what I'm asking is *what if* the popular solution to the decline of the CofE turned out to be offering a balanced choice and ensuring that everyone had access to Open Evo, Conevo, AffCath, MoR and FiF provision within 2 miles of their front door, and the current problems are that in an era of cafeteria choice they haven't got that?
What if the future isn't increasing the supply of full-on liberal churches, but increasing the ability of people to access the whole spectrum?
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I'm slightly unclear if you mean free church-planting, or under the umbrella of for example the CofE? If it's the former then presumably there's nothing stopping people who want to do it anyway...
The advantage of doing this in the CofE is that the CofE is already a broad church. Also, the CofE is a well recognised 'brand' (and a brand with more money at its disposal), which might be important for some people.
Whether CofE or independent, I do wonder why there haven't been more attempts to plant deliberately tolerant new churches. Maybe Fresh Expressions has tried to do so in a few cases, but I've never heard of anything.
quote:
I'm not for a second arguing for any of this seriously, but surely if we're going to get the maximum number of people into pews don't we want to be actively planting liberal churches into conservative bastions *and indeed vice versa*?
Possibly. It would be interesting to know if liberal congregations do well in the kinds of middle class suburban or semi-rural areas where evangelical churches are numerous and popular.
quote:
I would suspect, from nothing more than observation and gut feel, that many people don't go to church because they think the church isn't liberal on the DH issues. I also think that a smaller but not small-enough-to-be-ignored-by-any-means number don't go because their local church is liberal. The enthusiasts on both sides of course get in their car and go miles to somewhere that suits them, but that doesn't address those who don't have a car, or whose faith was perhaps "weak" enough that not being able to get wanted they wanted on their doorstep has killed it.
This is an argument for more church planting! Not everyone is willing or able to go to a church that's far from where they live.
quote:
Particularly in a town I lived in a couple of years ago where the priest was a woman, the three associate priests were women, and the five priests in the nearest villages were also all women. None of the churches had a congregation of more than about 40, and the main church was in a town of 35,000 (and until the evos pitched up and planted it was the town's only church). For info I was one of the 40 in the town church so I'm emphatically *not* railing against WO myself here. Every church within the 5 mile radius of the town centre (about 6 in total) was slightly more than half way up AffCath.
There's no diversity there, and what is there doesn't seem to be working for people beyond the congregations. The conevo church plant launched 6-7 years ago, inevitably enough gets about 200...
No diversity.... It also throws up the unspoken difficulties that many (but not all) female clergy have in growing their churches. Women are less likely to be church planters, but are more likely to be liberal on homosexuality. So if there's going to be a 'new breed' of more tolerant churches there will have to be more support and training for female lay and ordained leaders.
quote:
I think overall that everything should be tried - plant liberal churches and see if that has any effect; but if we're being honest we should be open to planting full on DH conservative catholic and conevo churches too to see if they work. I'm not sure current worshippers in many places would be happy with that though.
Like yourself, I certainly do think that much more diversity in theology, style and approach is necessary, so church planting of the present and the future should take that into account. My focus here is on homosexuality because this is the topic that seems to be causing the most visible level of anxiety in churches at the moment. In reality, negative attitudes towards it may not be a significant factor in church growth or decline, but atittudes obviously have some impact.
I don't know the CofE well enough to be able to say much about FiF, although googling shows that they do have some churches fairly close to where I live. I don't hear much about them, despite being involved in ecumenical things. They seem to keep themselves to themselves.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Well, Metropolitan Community Churches basically are explicitly gay-friendly church plants? But actually in terms of worship tend to be charismatic evangelical or at least charismatic influenced, just gay friendly charismatic. So I think confusing liberal in an AffCath/TEC type of way with being LGBT friendly is not especially helpful - all churchpersonships contain LGBT people, I know plenty of gay evangelicals.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It also runs the risk of turning church-planting into a single issue activity.
There are some CofE parishes that specifically badge themselves as being gay-friendly - and have hints to that effect on their websites - but it tends to ne coded rather than stated explicitlt.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It also runs the risk of turning church-planting into a single issue activity.
There are some CofE parishes that specifically badge themselves as being gay-friendly - and have hints to that effect on their websites - but it tends to ne coded rather than stated explicitlt.
The ones who are part of Inclusive Church are certainly explicit about it.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Some churches are positive, but on the whole it seems rather hit and miss. This is why it might be useful to establish a greater diversity of churches that actually have a coherent and openly affirming theological position.
This would be easier outside the CofE. Although the CofE has the most obviously pro-gay wing of all the historical churches in England it's holding back from changing its official teachings (and its legal position) because its voices of tradition are loud, and some of them are at the very top of the institution.
But putting the CofE to one side, I just think that on this issue as on others more choice is necessary.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some churches are positive, but on the whole it seems rather hit and miss. This is why it might be useful to establish a greater diversity of churches that actually have a coherent and openly affirming theological position.
This would be easier outside the CofE. Although the CofE has the most obviously pro-gay wing of all the historical churches in England it's holding back from changing its official teachings (and its legal position) because its voices of tradition are loud, and some of them are at the very top of the institution.
But putting the CofE to one side, I just think that on this issue as on others more choice is necessary.
So what about MCC churches then? They do a lot of work with LGBT asylum seekers too, esp those from East and Central Africa.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
How would that work, SvitlanaV2? Should all gay-friendly Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, RCs or whatever else leave their existing churches to form new ones?
That would simply lead to tiny splinter groups. What would it achieve?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There is also an RC splinter-group which is very pro-gay ... it's so tiny no-one seems to be aware of it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How would that work, SvitlanaV2? Should all gay-friendly Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, RCs or whatever else leave their existing churches to form new ones?
That would simply lead to tiny splinter groups. What would it achieve?
And it would remove gay-friendly influence from those churches. Certainly in the churches which are likely to approve of same-gender marriage soon if they haven't already, and not splinter because of that, this seems to be a bit pointless.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I've heard of the MCC, but I haven't seen any of their churches in my city (or anywhere else, actually). Their strongholds may be in other places.
I'm not arguing for 'splinter groups', but neither do I put unity on a pedestal. If people aren't happy and don't feel valued in a church, or if denominational teachings about sexuality are hindering evangelism or pastoral work in a particular context, then I don't think it's a huge tragedy if a group chooses to move on and establishes the appropriate churches elsewhere. It doesn't mean the leavers have to hate their parent church for ever; it may simply mean they have a different calling.
I don't see the point of the constant anger and anxiety about homophobic churches when church planting could help to overcome this problem in the short and perhaps in the long term too. I know that the 'CofE/Methodist/Baptist/etc.' branding is important for a lot of people, but nothing lasts forever. These denominations are not what they were. In 100 years they might not even exist, so why not begin to create the churches of the future?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've heard of the MCC, but I haven't seen any of their churches in my city (or anywhere else, actually). Their strongholds may be in other places.
I'm not arguing for 'splinter groups', but neither do I put unity on a pedestal. If people aren't happy and don't feel valued in a church, or if denominational teachings about sexuality are hindering evangelism or pastoral work in a particular context, then I don't think it's a huge tragedy if a group chooses to move on and establishes the appropriate churches elsewhere. It doesn't mean the leavers have to hate their parent church for ever; it may simply mean they have a different calling.
I don't see the point of the constant anger and anxiety about homophobic churches when church planting could help to overcome this problem in the short and perhaps in the long term too. I know that the 'CofE/Methodist/Baptist/etc.' branding is important for a lot of people, but nothing lasts forever. These denominations are not what they were. In 100 years they might not even exist, so why not begin to create the churches of the future?
Don't you live in Birmingham? MCC Birmingham
They're all over the country.
I think the idea that church planting will remove homophobia from churches is bizarre. You are aware that there are theological differences between those denominations, right? And that many LGBT Christians are in denominations/church groupings (eg FIEC churches) where there are just not the resources or the confidence to plant new gay-friendly churches? What about changing churches from the inside?
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Churches that are on the cusp of approving SSM are obviously not worth leaving for this particular reason. But the denominations mentioned above may not all be in this group. Perhaps it depends on the time scale we have in mind.
Peter Brierley feels that homosexuality will cease to be an issue in many evangelical churches over the next 50 years. However, evangelical churches are already split into many denominations (or many different forms of 'non-denominationalism'). Not all will reach the same position, and some may take much longer. Meanwhile, new evangelical movements are likely to continue appearing over time. It would be bizarre if none of them wanted to publicly assert a more positive theological position on this issue.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It also runs the risk of turning church-planting into a single issue activity.
There are some CofE parishes that specifically badge themselves as being gay-friendly - and have hints to that effect on their websites - but it tends to ne coded rather than stated explicitlt.
The ones who are part of Inclusive Church are certainly explicit about it.
Our place is. We're leading worship at Pride Cymru tomorrow, and doing the prayers at the LGBT thanksgiving service on Sunday night. Nice thing is, though, we are genuinely diverse - not all gay by any means.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Pomona
Ah, so that's where the MCC is! Not a prominent spot, TBH. But I'll look out for it.
I don't think that church planting will remove homophobia. But it will create churches that are less homophobic from the start, rather than condemning people to a lifetime of struggle and possible unhappiness in churches whose teachings about homosexuality they disagree with.
Church planting these days doesn't have to be about great expense; what about cafe churches? However, if you're looking for the megachurch experience or the atmosphere of an ancient site of traditional worship it'll be difficult, true.
[ 14. August 2015, 20:13: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Pomona
Ah, so that's where the MCC is! Not a prominent spot, TBH. But I'll look out for it.
I don't think that church planting will remove homophobia. But it will create churches that are less homophobic from the start, rather than condemning people to a lifetime of struggle and possible unhappiness in churches whose teachings about homosexuality they disagree with.
Church planting these days doesn't have to be about great expense; what about cafe churches? However, if you're looking for the megachurch experience or the atmosphere of an ancient site of traditional worship it'll be difficult, true.
Where did I mention expenses? I'm talking about people for whom a gay-friendly church plant would mean a church of one.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It also runs the risk of turning church-planting into a single issue activity.
There are some CofE parishes that specifically badge themselves as being gay-friendly - and have hints to that effect on their websites - but it tends to ne coded rather than stated explicitlt.
The ones who are part of Inclusive Church are certainly explicit about it.
Our place is. We're leading worship at Pride Cymru tomorrow, and doing the prayers at the LGBT thanksgiving service on Sunday night. Nice thing is, though, we are genuinely diverse - not all gay by any means.
If it's the church I'm thinking of (there seem to be a few inclusive churches in Cardiff unsurprisingly) I know it via a member of the congregation.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Where did I mention expenses? I'm talking about people for whom a gay-friendly church plant would mean a church of one.
I thought you were including 'expenses' in this statement below:.
quote:
Many LGBT Christians are in denominations/church groupings (eg FIEC churches) where there are just not the resources or the confidence to plant new gay-friendly churches?
And I wasn't proposing that each individual, or each congregation should just go off and start their own church. But I do see grounds for churches being set up that deliberately address this topical issue as part of their vision.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Where did I mention expenses? I'm talking about people for whom a gay-friendly church plant would mean a church of one.
I thought you were including 'expenses' in this statement below:.
quote:
Many LGBT Christians are in denominations/church groupings (eg FIEC churches) where there are just not the resources or the confidence to plant new gay-friendly churches?
And I wasn't proposing that each individual, or each congregation should just go off and start their own church. But I do see grounds for churches being set up that deliberately address this topical issue as part of their vision.
Sorry, I meant resources in the sense of manpower/human resources.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I was also wondering if there are in fact evangelical movements that are planting more affirming churches at the moment? Or are there signs that this might happen in the future?
For example, is Steve Chalke's church in London planting daughter churches in other places?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I was also wondering if there are in fact evangelical movements that are planting more affirming churches at the moment? Or are there signs that this might happen in the future?
For example, is Steve Chalke's church in London planting daughter churches in other places?
Not than I'm aware of. Most missional communities are ok with leadership being male or female but I'm not aware if any who are particularly affirming. That may reflect the roots of such set ups and tbh it may be more of not being concerned about an issue as opposed to actively affirming.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I can understand 'not being concerned', but considering how much fuss and anxiety has surrounded this issue in Western churches, it's curious that enterprising church planters haven't entered what looks like a gap in the market for positively gay-friendly churches.
Such churches wouldn't need to exclude straight members; ordinary layfolk who are leaning in a positive direction, of which there may be many, would be able to get involved too, just as they do when any church plant is in its early days.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
One of the problems is the unfriendliness of other churches. Even in areas where there are gay friendly churches they may choose not to promote that fact because being targeted by other local churches is not really something they want to have to deal with. It doesn't add to the friendliness.
A local suffragan bishop promoting a form of evangelical Christianity that had member churches refuse to be part of the diocesan Chrism mass when the bishop was seen as too gay friendly makes for complicated local relationships without putting necks on the block.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I understand what you're saying, but this sounds like a problem that's specific to the CofE. Difficult to solve those problems in an acceptable way.
However, independent evangelical churches, some of which don't try very hard to be chummy with every other church in the neighbourhood, wouldn't have the same problems, in theory.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I understand what you're saying, but this sounds like a problem that's specific to the CofE. Difficult to solve those problems in an acceptable way.
However, independent evangelical churches, some of which don't try very hard to be chummy with every other church in the neighbourhood, wouldn't have the same problems, in theory.
In theory no - in practice yes. Missional "plants" from these sources tend to remain closer to the parent. Since the underlying theology is generally non affirming (e.g of non celibate relationships for LGBT's), the new community is therefore more likely to remain non affirming.
I'm involved to some degree in the missional community world and am not aware of any affirming new communities. That's not to say they aren't there just that my sample is limited to con evo, charis evo, where there don't seem to be any.
As for the point about gay friendly churches having to deal with opposition - I'd have thought that only the baptists and independent churches remain pretty sniffy.
[ 17. August 2015, 06:45: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
So you are not aware of any Confessing Anglican CofE churches? Or of the views of Anglican Mainstream? Or that groups of churches within a diocese have previously refused communion with their bishop over his support for homosexuals in a letter and are agitating about his successor.
Then there are reports like this one which suggests that the CofE has more chance of surviving as it is established and has a strong evangelical wing, compared to TEC, the CiW and CoS. Which is going to point away from affirming groups, as does Archbishop of Canterbury's response to the Episcopal Church resolution on marriage?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Oasis certainly has churches elsewhere (Oasis Whitby is involved in Greenbelt this year) but I don't know to what extent they are church plants or whether Oasis started with churches in different places.
And unfriendliness towards gay-friendly churches is most definitely not only an Anglican thing. A friend is an associate pastor of a gay-friendly Baptist church and her church has been targeted by other churches in the area.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Then there are reports like this one which suggests that the CofE has more chance of surviving as it is established and has a strong evangelical wing, compared to TEC, the CiW and CoS.
Point of accuracy, that report says nothing of the CofS but of the Episcopal Church of Scotland. They are different bodies and very different in size. You have just basically done the equivalen of a Scot calling the URC the CofE.
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Jengie - I don't understand you, I'm afraid. It talks of the extinction of the Piskies and the CofW (which it says are already under the "extinction threshold") by 2043, and of the CofE by 2100.
Very demoralising, I agree - although it's not totally pessimistic about the CofE.
[The future of the URC is, of course, another matter ... even if you can make head or tail of "What the Spirit may be saying to the Churches"].
[ 17. August 2015, 16:54: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Precisely but Curiosity Killed says "CofS" hence my response.
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Apologies, I didn't refer back to the article when I was putting that response together because I got distracted part way through by a work call (yes, I'm at home on my home computer, yes, it's the school holidays and I'm not being paid, so no, I'm not playing on work time). The article refers to the Scottish Episcopal Church, and I do know the difference, so I should have known better.
The point I was trying to make was that those mainstream churches will have less incentive to plant affirming churches when they are less likely to survive in the long run, according to that work.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Unfriendliness towards gay-friendly churches is most definitely not only an Anglican thing. A friend is an associate pastor of a gay-friendly Baptist church and her church has been targeted by other churches in the area.
What do you mean by 'targeted'?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Precisely but Curiosity Killed says "CofS" hence my response.
Whoops ... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
I suspect this is going to happen naturally, and painfully, without deliberate church planting per se but via splits. I think that there's a lot of churches which appear to be solidly behind a pro-DH position where a so-far silent minority (or even majority) will start to be vocal. It may not even be about being vocal so much as becoming more aware. I envisage a series of tipping points that forces the issue for a lot of people.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Church-sect theory proposes that new church movements tend to graduate from being in high tension with the dominant culture to becoming more relaxed and more in tune with the culture.
Becoming more tolerant on matters of sexuality is likely to be part of such a development in a number of evangelical churches. The text-book reaction to that, as you imply, will be that some people in those churches will find it hard to see such developments taking place, and will break away to found new, stricter churches.
One could criticise this theory, but for the sectarian Protestant groups (as opposed to the RCC and state churches like the CofE) it seems to hold water. It also explains why we don't see evangelical church plants that deliberately set out to minimise the church/culture gap on matters of sexual morality. The gap gradually closes of its own accord as the church constituency changes, and in response to what's happening in the society at large.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SvitlanaV2: Church-sect theory proposes that new church movements tend to graduate from being in high tension with the dominant culture to becoming more relaxed and more in tune with the culture.
I'm not sure about this. After all, intolerance against homosexuality was pretty much the cultural norm, and this only started to change a couple of decades ago. That's rather a lot shorter than the Evangelical movement has existed.
I've studied rather a lot about what you call 'church-sect theory' (mostly related to the Pentecostal movement in Latin America). I have doubts if tenstions with the relevant culture are the correct dimension to analyse this process through. Most 'sects' aren't obsessed that much with being different from society, but much more with being different from the main group they've split off from. That's their main reference (and yes, in most cases, these differences gradually relax over time).
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Intolerance against homosexuality was pretty much the cultural norm, and this only started to change a couple of decades ago. That's rather a lot shorter than the Evangelical movement has existed.
Homosexuality obviously wasn't a focus for evangelical churches in the past, because both churches and culture agreed that it was unacceptable. But it has become much more culturally acceptable now, which has influenced how some Christians think and feel about it. In the past, other issues would have been through the same process.
In the UK there have probably been fewer church splits in recent decades than in Brazil. It seems that most of the newer Pentecostal churches here are not the result of recent splits but have been set up by immigrants as outposts of already existing denominations. Other churches will simply be started independently rather than being a conscious breakaway from something else.
It would be interesting to see some figures about British church splits in recent times, though. Of course, not all splits occur because of theological differences, but may be about leadership squabbles, or personality clashes, etc.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I've often seen you make a distinction on the Ship between religious groups that are in line with the dominant culture and groups that are in tension with it. I have doubts that this is a very useful tool for analysis.
First, we'd have to establish what the term 'dominant' means. I remember a long discussion a couple of months ago on the Ship about whether feminism is dominant in Western society. I guess in some ways it is, feminism certainly has won some important victories in the last 100 years or so, and the people who fought for these victories should be celebrated. But obviously there is still a long way to go before all of feminism's goals are reached. So, is feminism dominant? What does that even mean in this case? And is it helpful to draw conclusions from theories about feminism's 'dominance'? I doubt it.
And of course, society changes. Views that are subversive one day can become dominant the next, and vice versa.
Even if you could define what 'dominant' means and make a snapshot of society within time, you'd still get a rather confused picture. Going back to the Evangelical / Pentecostal movement in Latin America, I feel that in some aspects they are counter-cultural (a rather important example is that they don't drink alcohol), but in other aspects one could argue that they are more in line with modern consumerist mass-media society than the more traditional churches.
So is this movement in line with dominant culture, or in tension with it? Yes. No. Both. Whatever. I don't see this as a helpful tool of analysis that can be used to reach general conclusions.
quote:
SvitlanaV2: Of course, not all splits occur because of theological differences, but may be about leadership squabbles, or personality clashes, etc.
There is a rather famous example in São Paulo in the eighties of a church that was called The Disciples of the River Jordan, or something like that. It was led by a married couple where the husband was the pastor and the wife did the finances. The couple divorced because of rather mundane domestic struggles, and she went on to found another church right across the street, called The Real Disciples of the River Jordan. There is a famous picture that shows both church signs on opposite sides of the street, I hope I can find it on the internet some day.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've often seen you make a distinction on the Ship between religious groups that are in line with the dominant culture and groups that are in tension with it. I have doubts that this is a very useful tool for analysis.
First, we'd have to establish what the term 'dominant' means.
[...]
Going back to the Evangelical / Pentecostal movement in Latin America, I feel that in some aspects they are counter-cultural (a rather important example is that they don't drink alcohol), but in other aspects one could argue that they are more in line with modern consumerist mass-media society than the more traditional churches.
I'm unqualified to argue with you about what is or isn't culturally 'dominant' in Latin America, but find it hard to accept that the concept of cultural dominance is entirely unhelpful in the contexts that I know.
We're all aware that this is a complex postmodern world where each community has to deal with a subtle interplay of possibly conflicting cultural and social influences. I haven't denied that. But it doesn't eliminate the reality of cultural and social dominance in some (often significant) respects by some cultural elements or groups of individuals in society.
You and I may have to disagree on this, but such is life.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SvitlanaV2: You and I may have to disagree on this, but such is life.
I have the feeling that the term 'post-modernism' is thrown about a bit too much here sometimes.
What you seem to do on the Ship is simply declare some religious groups to be in line with dominant culture, and other groups to be in tension with it, and then draw conclusions from this about the future of these groups, without giving a hint of what you base all of this on.
I don't see why I should accept any of this. It certainly isn't in line with any 'church-sect theory' I know. And I don't think that my refusal to believe you is post-modernism.
Put simplistically, post-modernism is the rejection of all Big Stories. I just reject your big story, for which you haven't given a shred of evidence.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What you seem to do on the Ship is simply declare some religious groups to be in line with dominant culture, and other groups to be in tension with it, and then draw conclusions from this about the future of these groups, without giving a hint of what you base all of this on.
What I actually say is that some groups experience more tension with the culture and some experience less, and that the movement tends to be from high tension to low tension. (The opposite apparently also happens, but it seems to be rarer). I also suggest what may happen to the various groups in the future as a result. Of course, lots of stuff may or may not happen, and I'm no prophet; I simply like considering what the future may be like, based on current projections (not predictions). But plenty of things could change in the life of the church.
I'm hardly original in doing any of this, BTW! My ideas come from various scholars who've studied these things. My focus tends to be on England in particular, or the UK in general. (I have some interest in developments in the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa, but I have more reading to do, and less information is available in any case). I fully accept that what I have to say may make no sense regarding Latin America, or the Netherlands. Regarding this thread, It would be fascinating to hear about gay-affirming congregations and church plants in any of those countries.
If you want references for some of the concepts I raise the following links may be of interest:
http://wiki.thearda.com/tcm/theories/churchsect-cycle/
http://www.truthunity.net/the-human-side-of-unity/religious-innovation-and-church-sect-theory/the-viral-ministry
http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/stark_holyclubs.pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=E811206648E3E908CBACB373E857C126?doi=10.1.1.475.6086&rep=rep1&type=p df
The examples used here are mostly American, but the experience of British Methodism is often used as a sort of template for the process (refs are available). I should say that I'm a Methodist myself, and have no problem admitting that this is a low tension denomination, by British standards. This isn't to say that Methodism has it easy in British culture; by no means. Low tension churches face significant challenges, as the above articles suggest.
Regarding dominance, England has a state church. It's hard to argue that this doesn't indicate cultural dominance of a significant type. Indeed, the cultural dominance of the CofE has probably increased, because the Nonconformist churches that once saw themselves as its rivals have in most cases declined far more rapidly. The newer evangelical churches have become influential in some circles, but remain far less visible than the CofE . However, in some parts of England, active members of other religions are numerically dominant, while churches of all types are marginal when compared with the widespread dominant indifference to organised religion. There is information about this online and elsewhere.
I'm not sure what else I've written that you think needs justification so I'll leave it at that for now.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I think that this issue of cultural "tension" and church "success" is an intriguing one.
For instance, here in Britain, the most "successful" churches seem to be those preaching an Evangelical message. In some ways this is counter-cultural, as it involves a meta-narrative and often declares that it is the only truth about God. At other times it can be very conforming, by promising benefits of peace of mind, hope, and possibly financial certainty to those who respond. The extremely unsettling message of hell-fire and eternal punishment, so "beloved" by our ancestors, seems to be downplayed, possibly because early death is much less of a reality than it used to be.
These churches, however, are extremely conformist in their informality, music, publicity, and organisation - often deliberately so as they see this as being an aid to the propagation and acceptance of their message.
Conversely the "main line" churches often preach a message which is far less in tension with the culture. I accept, of course, that there is going to be a difference between the short anodyne homily to be heard at some rural parish churches, and the full sermon with all the trimmings which one might encounter at a thoroughgoing and avowedly liberal Methodist or URC church!
But the worship and general "tone" of worship are far less conformist than in the Evangelical churches, whether the church adopts the complete package of "bells and smells" or whether it is simply keeping to its traditional "hymn sandwich" of yore. This tension may be deliberate ("We want people to experience the otherness of God") or it may simply express an unwillingness to change. Indeed it can be seen as a virtue: "We're not going down the line of using that awful Evangelical rubbish"!
I find it intriguing that many of the self-defining "progressive" church maintain a very traditional style of worship - possibly because they equate modern worship with Evangelicalism. Equally it is the theologically more conservative "Fresh Expressions" which have often shown the most innovation in this area. What would happen if a "liberal" church could adopt a more creative and culturally-relevant style of worship? That is something I have yet to see.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
P.S. (Missed edit window): to "These churches, however, are extremely conformist in their informality, music, publicity, and organisation" please add "approaches to ethics and political matters" - though this isn't always the case, especially where they encompass large numbers of younger people.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Nor, of course, is it the case that mainline churches always preach a message which is more aligned to the culture (and I'm sure you weren't suggesting that it was). But perhaps- I don't know- this is more common at a rather elite level- I'm thinking of some (not enough) of the CofE/CinW Bishops or somewhere like Hinde St Methodist Church.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Baptist Trainfan
I too often wonder why the non-evangelical mainstream congregations are less likely to engage with popular musical styles, or to have 'worship bands'.
Regarding the Methodists, there are various reasons that present themselves. The circuit system seems to restrict innovation, because when you have a stream of different preachers in your pulpit its easier if they just stick with what everyone expects. (Craske and Marsh's book on the future of Methodist mentions this.) Also, the age profile of British Methodists, including their lay preachers, is likely to discourage attempts to engage with popular culture. The small size and financial weakness of most Methodist churches may also be relevant.
More generally, I suspect that the very cerebral culture of the leadership in many historical churches works against adopting cultural forms that appear to be base and undignified in the worship of God. (John Drane talks about this in his book on the 'Mcdonaldisation' of the church.)
With the Methodists, I wonder if there's an additional (class-related?) anxiety borne of feeling always in the shadow of the CofE. There's a Methodist striving towards appearing 'respectable' that the CofE doesn't have, because the CofE will always be the respectable choice, no matter how many wacky things it does in the name of worship, or mission, etc....
Interestingly, Pomona notes above that the MCC's worship is popular in style, despite its 'liberal' position on sexuality. This is probably because it's a new church, without the burden of tradition or the demands of long-serving elderly members to consider. Perhaps it was founded by people who were mostly from evangelical backgrounds?
Finally, perhaps it should be said that despite the tolerance of commercialisation and aspects of popular culture in evangelicalism, the great majority of churchgoers in the UK are still non-evangelicals, according to the Tearfund report of 2007.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
One thing we sure as [something] need is a vibrant alternative to the apparently endless expansion of the HTB franchise. Is that what you were referring to earlier as the Mcdonaldsisation of the church?
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Strangely enough, no.
'McDonaldisation' suggests dumbing down, unhealthy fast food rather than a healthier, slower meal that you have to take the time to appreciate. In this sense, it would obviously be a critique of overexuberant, popular evangelical churches. But the book I mentioned isn't referring to this sort of thing. What it criticises is the the routinised, pre-packaged, unsatisfying fare offered by many ordinary churches. Not much is said about evangelicalism directly, though I'm sure the criticisms would be relevant to many of the less adventurous evangelical churches too.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
