The Church is so much more than just a group of Christians, trust me on this guys, let me coax you out of reformation based reductionism and restorationism
. Sorry if Im too radical 
for me, christianity is a community religion. but that's probably my theology - not particularly focused on personal salvation, but a togetherness in god. i see 'the kingdom' as being a great big scrum(?) of people all on the same god vibe, not individuals proclaiming they've been saved and trying to do the same for others.
as for the church as it stands, i think it's gone too far to be redeemed. i'm hoping for some kind of shedding of old skin in which the big institutionalised behemoth of 'the church' will crumble to reveal beautiful little creatures instead. i really can't see any other way forward.
the church is dead, long live the church!
but there are also a lot of people who are not happy doing it that way...i don't really think you stop being connected to a community if you aren't connected to a church...you can still be nourished and enlightened by various sources besides a sermon on sunday, and still try to exhibit the light in your community. you're still encountering people in situations that require you to enact or reject what you claim is your belief structure. what does it take outside the org. church to reinforce that structure is the question.
i think it's unconvincing to suggest people who are not integrally involved in an org. church are misled...any more than we should think that everyone who attends church is right on the mark. it would be nice for there to be more mutual support between the two camps. i don't know why it has to be one or the other.
Church for me is just christians getting together. It does not matter where, when, how many (or what for really!).
This is church.
Even in the big wide scary secular world people are defining their groups as Church (eg. "Faithless - God is a DJ" - This is my Church...) or people say that a social group or pub has become their church.
When I get together in our small gruop, or all together on Sunday then this is church.
But I also have a network of beliving friends across the city who are also Church to me!
This does not mean that I would stop being "part of my Church", but that I have been forced to think wider than just that.
Neil
I have given up on the non-established non-institutional non-ordered church, and have difficulty seeing the point of doing anything outside it.
but community is essential to christianity - the question is, what should the community of communities look like? does it require centralised power structures, or are other things possible [and more in tune with the gospel]? the network seems to be an emerging 21st century form with definite possibilities.
remember, church as institution is largely the legacy of its adoption of roman imperial power structures in the 4th century!
Conversation between Soviet communist party official and Russian Orthodox priest.
Official: "Your church will be extinct in 20 years. Look at your congregations - all old women! When they all die, you will have nobody left."
Priest: "Ah, that's where you're wrong. When those old women die, they will be replaced by more old women!"
I think there is something in that. A youthful membership isn't the only sign of a church's strength and potential for constant regeneration.
i find myself in substantial (total? do i do that?! i'll have to read it again...!) agreement with the column - and it is about the forms our christian community takes, which really when you strip it all back can be pretty much anything.
if anything, my only difficulty with the column is that i do not share the reaction to institution because the context i am part of is a community of believers who are confident enough to not mind people acting on their 'well, there's no particular reason to do this like that, i'm going to do this instead', and it's still church in a kind of loose not institutional way. stuff i do is part of church only in the sense that i'm doing it and i'm part of church, in particular the retreat a few of us are about to do. it's loosely known about and prayed for and encouraged by my church community as a creative expression of friendships and faith, but nobody has any desire to suck the life out of it by naming it as a Project of Our Congregation. nor would they do that when i go out or stay in with friends. some of my friends think the world of god and some of them don't.
the challenge is framing your expression of church around your life of faith (the 'your' being plural), rather than the other way about. i think that having a go and having that sort of thing in mind is a pretty good way to go. and admitting that all expressions of church are jsut somebody making it up as they go along and hoping for the best. personally i like that.
)
surely any group of christians actually match that crietria? we don't need man-made rules, denominations and ordinations to be one people in god.
Apostolic - all Christians are sent out. The Church is Apostolic by definition. And the amount of "apostolic teaching" is pretty limited (and most of us find ways around it anyway)
Catholic - yse, I believe that all who worship the God of Jesus Christ in sincerity are part of the God's people. So, yes, there is one Church, but there is not (because of human failing and the way organisations work) one institution that can bear that name.
An institution may help in the transmission of these aspects, but it is contingent upon and subservient to them, not a prerequisite.
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian:
surely any group of christians actually match that crietria? we don't need man-made rules, denominations and ordinations to be one people in god.
How delightfully Reformed of you. I believe we do, that the Visible Church is a major part of the partnership between man and God.
quote:
Origionally posted by Dyfrig
"Historic" - well, yes, the Church does depend rather on the historical event of Jesus Christ - but are its other historical events absolutely necessary? For example, does it really invalidate the faith of 21st century communties of Christians if circa 1550 a Swedish bishop didn't have both feet on the floor during a consecration or that Benhamin Hoadley was a disgrace to the title of "Bishop"?
I believe thay are absolutely necessary, because I believe the Church is a growing and evolving thing, and those historical events and continuities are a vital part of the Visible churches being. Even the mistakes and major cock-ups. However I am not going to try and apply Modernist understandings to a a mystical idea; so proving a sientific link of touch to the apostles is fairly irrelevent. The idea though, the story is all important.
The Church is so much more than just a group of Christians, trust me on this guys, let me coax you out of reformation based reductionism and restorationism . Sorry if Im too radical
quote:
Originally posted by sacredthree:
The idea though, the story is all important.Couldn't agree more - so what happens when the Church's story isn't the story Jesus told?
The Church is so much more than just a group of Christians, trust me on this guysSounds good - what does it actually mean? The Church presumably is those called out by or gathered around Jesus Christ. What else can they be other than a group of people?
let me coax you out of reformation based reductionism and restorationism
Oh dear - I must stop trying to follow Jesus - S3 tells me that's reductionist
The influence of congregationalist protestantism in the Church of England has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.
Cosmo
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
You, as an Anglican, do not tell your Vicar what to do, think or say.
So where is the sense of the vicar as servant of the congregation? Or is servanthood not "anglican" either Cosmo?
Jonny - if you had to leave the building, would that make you any less anglican? I don't think so. But does Grace have influence in the church regarding the choice of a new vicar ( i.e. church council representation )? A proper working relationship between the more traditional church and the alternative wings can be very productive to both sides.
In response to the OP, I believe that the church - in the sense of the gathered community of Christians and others - is worth saving, but is only able to be saved by radical transformation. The church of 50 years time in this country will be unrecognisable by current standards, but will still be in continuation of the historic church tradition.
Church history indicates that over most periods of 50 - 200 years, the church changes out of recognition. That is a healthy and positive thing.
quote:
Cosmo posted forth:
The Church of England is NOT a congregational church....
The influence of congregationalist protestantism in the Church of England has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.
Cosmo, could you explain for those of us who are dense at heart and hard of understanding what you mean by a 'congregational' church?
dave
quote:
Originally posted by sacredthree:
I believe thay are absolutely necessary, because I believe the Church is a growing and evolving thing,
evolving according the rules laid down by a few people. what's wrong with evolving into something without formal autocratic structures?
c'mon Ed. you're an anglican. you don't belong to the true church anyway...
Of course the Vicar serves the people in his parish just as he serves the Church. However that is very different from the notion that the Vicar is the servant of a congregation and simply does what he is told to do by them. An Anglican Vicar or Rector is not a chaplain to a particular group of people. He is the priest to all the people who live in that parish on behalf of and with the authority of the Bishop and the Church.
If you are an Anglican and don't like this then tough, because that's what the Anglican Church and the ecclesiology of an Anglican incumbant is. If you can't cope with that then you need to think very carefully about whether or not you should remain in the Anglican Church.
A 'congregational' church is the opposite of the Anglican. It is a group of people who meet in a particular place and ask somebody to minister to them and to no-body else. The Congregational Minister up the road from me has no responsibility to anybody else except the people who turn up to his chapel and pay his wages. If they don't like him, don't like his sermons, his doctrine or even the hymns he chooses, they can dismiss him and appoint somebody else. That is congregationalism, a kind of super-parochialism. The notion of a wider Church is very different here than with the Anglican Church.
The Anglican is not congregational but episcopal. The final authority (and responsibility) in a parish rests not with the worshipping congregation nor with the Vicar but with the Bishop. There are too many Anglican groups which neither understand this or accept it.
Cosmo
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
There are too many Anglican groups which neither understand this or accept it.
maybe they'd like to change it.
evolving and all that...
To me, without the Visible Church Christianity isn't the same thing.
quote:
Originally posted by sacredthree:
To me, without the Visible Church Christianity isn't the same thing.
In all my time in the Church - reformed, evangelical, anglican, orthodox, totally bonkers - I don't recall anyone ever having posited an invisible one! What are you railing against, Edward?
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
What are you railing against, Edward?
I'll tell you when I'm not in such a foul mood.
I would also venture to suggest that recent services done by our alternative worship group contains far more liturgy than some of the church services I go to.
From one who has one foot in and one foot out....
The kingdom of God can not be stopped.
If that is too charismatic for you then i am sorry, but thats the way I think it is!!!
Neil
John Holding
Most churches ( anglican or otherwise ) seem to concentrate their ministry on the congregation who attend, and any similar people, rather than focussing the church on the local area, and the local community. I am all for churches genuinely ministering to the local area, but I doubt whether most churches are prepared for it.
And I would seriously question whether an episcopal rather than a congregational model is the only valid understanding of anglicanism.
Of course, in practice the CofE is now synodical - e.g. it was the slim majority in the House of Laity that swung the 92 vote.
The reality is far more fluid and organic than any theory of church governance can ever control (we all know of "Congregational" set ups which are actually dominated and run by a little clique). The best example of this organic, two-way thing is not Anglican but Roman Catholic - Vatican II had to look at the Church and saw that the theory was far removed from the actual experience of many Roman Catholic Christians. So the bishops ok'd a lot of changes that had happened anyway.
Common Worship did this to a very small degree. Churches had always had "informal" services or used bits out of the 1928 prayer book which never became law. CW now formally authorises both.
Anglicanism will always, I think, have this tension between the theory of episcopal authority and the fact that the episcopate lets people do what they like most of the time anyway. If the bishops took themselves as seriously as some would like then they would have been stamping out these "congregational" experiments left, right and centre. The fact is that they are not. That could be due to lack of real power, or to a recognition that there are far more important things to get het up about. I give them the benefit of the doubt and go for the latter.
the Act of Synod actually created a formal "congregational" model within the CofE. A PCC has the power to invoke Resolutions A, B and C relating to having women priests (and equally has power to rescind them), thus creating a mechanism where a church can opt for either their local or a flying bishop as and when they choose.
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Something I like about the CofE is the fact that, in theory at least, it is there not just for those who formally join it, but is there for the whole population of the parish.
oh, how narrow-minded. we methodists consider the whole world our parish...
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian:
oh, how narrow-minded. we methodists consider the whole world our parish...
Foh! A children's denomination, pandering to the spiritual needs of mere Christians as opposed to the true service of ecclesiological theory! I am minded of Charles Wesley's words:
So easily are bishops made
by man's, or woman's whim?
W--- his hands on C--- has laid,
but who laid hands on him?
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
I am minded of Charles Wesley's words:
pah. what did Wesley know? he was all for methodists remaining in the C of E. I mean, what would that have achieved - a major revival in the Anglican Church? who needs it? 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve:
So if being anglican is ministering to the parish, and being congregational ( i.e. tending to the needs of the congregation ) is so un-anglican, why are so many ( the vast majority ) of anglican churches behaving congregationally?
Why Indeed. Our parish does its best to be "anglican" rather than congregational, but some people just don't want growth.
I use these terms not because I'm trying to be provocative but it is the case that it is often evangelical parishes, through the notion of the Vicar being the spiritual leader of the congregation and in a position of headship according to the Pauline ideal, who have the worst problems with abuses of authority.
Certainly there are the Anglo-Catholic 'father-knows-best' places where the Priest runs the parish with a rod of iron, but, by and large, catholic congregations are much more likely to criticise and take their priest off of the pedestal. It is rare to find a parish in which a catholic incumbant has abused the trust of his parish by his style of ministry and over-authoritarianism. Basically, a lot of catholic parishes will have people in them who will take the piss out of the priest which prevents him from getting a swelled head or a swelled anything else for that matter. 'Headship' parishes are much less likely to have that because of the theology of the leader of the worshipping community.
Remember I'm not trying to make a party point here. Just trying to say that it is rarely episcopal authority which is abusive. After all, they don't have as much contact with the parishes as the parish priests do.
Cosmo
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
'Headship' parishes are much less likely to have that because of the theology of the leader of the worshipping community.Remember I'm not trying to make a party point here. Just trying to say that it is rarely episcopal authority which is abusive. After all, they don't have as much contact with the parishes as the parish priests do.
Scary as it was realising that I could actually hold a reasoned discussion with Cosmo, finding myself in agreement with him is bloody terrifying
Seriously. AIUI, Bishops are mainly facilitators, who tend to step in when they're needed - if they were prone to run things in such a harsh way, they'd never have time to do stuff like, y'know, sleep and eat.
On the other hand, since the charismatic revival, it's often been the way of a congregational leader to be, like, completely in charge - this a problem with the kind of charismatic/evangelical hybrid that's currently pretty much the evangelical mainstream.
(Although an evangelical, I do not identify myself with that kind of evangelicalism)
A case in point, just to show it's not just Anglican wannabes who do this: a former pastor of our church (whose pastorate was, it turned out, short-lived) was one of this kind of evangelical.
The Baptist idea that the pastor (yes, that's the official term) is a servant to the congregation, and must bow to the will of the congregation, represented by the deacons, as expressed in a democratic vote, drove him nuts.
He was constantly moaning about how churches should not be democracies, and making pointed references to delivering the church from 'deacon possession'. It got a lot of backs up.
Eventually, it even got to the point where he was leading communion and not taking it himself.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Scary as it was realising that I could actually hold a reasoned discussion with Cosmo, finding myself in agreement with him is bloody terrifying
Oh my God.
It definitiely is the End Time.
'frin - get the shotgun and the survival kit. We're off to the hills....
[/LIST]Thom
please do tell us where you're coming from chum.
Many question the continuation of the Freehold. However history teaches us that episcopal authority can be dangerous as well as neccesary. For example there is no way that the Oxford Movement would have been the success it was had the clergy concerned not had the Parson's Freehold. Remeber that the disputes of the nineteenth century had to be carried out in the courts publically (making a number of clergy martyrs in the process) rather than the Bishop being able quietly to sack the offending clergy. Take the freehold away and you would have a situation where the Bishop could dismiss a parish priest just because he doesn't like him or because his liturgical practice is different or because he's gay or because he wants to save some money or whatever.
Unless a priest has the freehold he has no employment rights whatsoever. Indeed even a Priest-in-Charge (or Team Vicar) can be sacked on three months notice for no reason at all. This happened in the London diocese to a couple of clergy recently. No reason, no appeal. My employer is not the Bishop nor is it my parish nor is it the Church of England. My employer, in law, is God.
Thus whilst Chorister might be right in saying that bishops let clergy get away with too much (although 'too much' always depends on your point of view and particular prejudice) they often have little else than rebuke and counsel as a tool. They could withdraw a priest's licence but that would not withdraw them from the parish and would simply leave a parish without a priest. On the other hand there are a number of bishops around (at the moment Evangelical and Liberal but in the '70's and '80's Anglo-Catholic and Liberal) who did, would and do undoubtedly abuse their authority.
Cosmo
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
Unless a priest has the freehold he has no employment rights whatsoever. Indeed even a Priest-in-Charge (or Team Vicar) can be sacked on three months notice for no reason at all. This happened in the London diocese to a couple of clergy recently. No reason, no appeal. My employer is not the Bishop nor is it my parish nor is it the Church of England. My employer, in law, is God.
True.
But, of course, it's when you start believing that God is giving you direct instructions regardless of the traditional dictates of your church authority, your tradition - or even scripture, that the trouble begins. And this is often the basis of abuses of authority in Christian churches, on the whole, particularly (and I must sadly admit this) some charismatic & evangelical churches.
BTW Adrian, not righteously angry, or taking the p***, just making a few wry comments.
surely we're gonna have to think beyond these confines if the church is to ever re-engage with the real world?
quote:Can someone please tell me what this habit of leaving out "the" from before the word "Church" is all about. I put this one in the really annoying Christian words thread. So please explain.
there's a lot more to being church than fitting in with the power structure of your chosen denomination
'the Church' is usually used to mean the Church as institution, as a whole, or at least a very large part of it. for a small group to say it was being 'the Church' would seem like a rather grand claim. and if one says 'part of the Church' it's just stating that one belongs in some way to the institution.
'being church' [small c] means that one is participating in what it means to be the Body of Christ, but not necessarily doing everything that word could include, or setting up structures [not necessarily being A church, then]. it's a phrase that deliberately doesn't make big claims about the completeness or authority of what one is doing. it's more about church as activity - something one makes or explores.
However it does those things without pulling in big crowds on a Sunday. Who cares, I don't. The Evangelicals care and so we have this model of church which is a Church of
the converted, of attenders, a community a clique. I reject that too, the Idea of Church as Community in itself has been completely over emphasised.
Hang on I see a Rant coming on.
I think we actually need more community - but not an inward looking one for the church itself - one that comes back to base to go out into the world. The church I went to near Cambridge did actually try and partially succeed on that one, but most others don't. or are too spread out to manage.
quote:
Originally posted by sacredthree:
It is still Baptising, Burying, Celebrating the Eucharist, praying for the Sick and Dead, feeding people's spirituality, etc.
is it? maybe a point in that people still like funerals, but none of my friends kids are baptised, nor do i know anyone who takes the eucharist apart from my church friends.
and feeding peoples' spirituality? give me break. people are looking everywhere *but* the church for spirituality.
i constantly see little shrines of flowers at the side of the street where people have died in accidents, i see people getting mystical about george and john, i see the impromtue shrines commemorating sept 11th - this seems to be the real expression of people's spirituality.
this kind of public mourning didn't happen (at least not without the official church ritual) 50 years ago.
i think the church is gonna have to wake up to the fact that people now consider spirituality their own province, to adapt, nurture and believe in as they see fit.
but will it? nah. it still thinks it has the one and only 100% original version of spirituality and woe betide the person who wants to explore that without being dictated to.
quote:
Originally posted by sacredthree:
It is still Baptising, Burying, Celebrating the Eucharist, praying for the Sick and Dead, feeding people's spirituality, etc.
And yet it's still leaking members like there's no tomorrow.
Monica Furlong makes a very interesting point in her book "C of E" - the Church made a special regulation to stop the threatened exodus of a tiny minority who disagreed with a particular theological point, yet does bugger all (not her words, natch) to stop the massive seepage for all the other reasons. I don't like much church-packing either - but the question has to be asked, what's the point of hatching, matching and dispatching people if it has no effect whatsoever either on them, the community or the state we live in?
As for whether the church is beyond saving - I've often got to the point of despondent despair, but then I remember that Christ died for it, and that these are my brothers and sisters, and therefore my perspective is regained. If the church is the institution of organized religion - yeah, prob is dead (or dying), but the people of God are very much alive and growing.
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian:
hmm. maybe the church *is* beyond saving if all we can do is debate authority & power structures. there's a lot more to being church than fitting in with the power structure of your chosen denomination.surely we're gonna have to think beyond these confines if the church is to ever re-engage with the real world?
I think you're right Adrian ( did I really say that? ). I think that the church is worth saving, both in the sense of the denominational structures and the people. But I also think that the church needs to change radically in its approach to being church. We need a new ecclesiology, because the old one is not working any more. But in as much as the church can and will change, it will survive. But very different from what it looks today, both in terms of structures and in terms of its place and role in the community it serves.
The role of a minister will also change in line with that, so I think understanding our own denominations structures is important. I want to remain Anglican, but I also want the CofE to continue to move more and more towards being a church of and for the people.
As I mentioned elsewhere it is hard to go to an ecumenical youth service these days without finding that one of the worship leaders makes a derogatory statement as a cheap knock-down of the CofE. What sort of message of the church is that giving young people?
quote:
Originally posted by rosemary:
Although I don't think big numbers are the be and end all, it seems to me that something must be wrong when we are down to 7-8 per cent of the population and many people who are leaving are people who would define themselves quite strongly as Christians.
Yep - I agree ( Now I've read to the end of the thread ). The problem is not numbers as such, but about where people are finding their spiritual home. If people are leaving the church ( as they are ), but still wanting to be Christians, then surely the church is failing in one of its primary purposes, to be the gathered body of Christians.
I notice your list, Ed, missed out marrying. Now people can get married almost anywhere, we have seen a huge drop in the number of church weddings. The church is not the natural option for people to find spirituality, which means - IMO - that it is failing people.
I know many CofE parishes that are not only doing the traditional church things, but also reacting to Post-Modernism. However many are not, and I am fairly convinced that the Idea of church as insular community is something which won't work in the future.
Im very tempted to start a new website "FutureShapeOfChurch.co.uk" to look at different models for doing church.
quote:
Originally posted by sacredthree:Im very tempted to start a new website "FutureShapeOfChurch.co.uk" to look at different models for doing church.
Please do, S3, it would be very interesting.
quote:What an ugly phrase. Sounds like a bodily function.
different models for doing church
quote:
Originally posted by Old Fashioned Crab:
What an ugly phrase. Sounds like a bodily function.
Your point being?
I think the Church as it is at present is beyond saving and deservedly so. There seems to be an over-emphasis on worldliness and a grasping for more money to keep the church building open; vicars complain of near-poverty when they know nothing about poverty (they ought to try living on the minimum wage indefinitely WITH rent to pay!); maybe I'm going to the wrong church, but mine seems to be nothing more than a mildly religious social club for gentlefolk.
I'm sure the very early Church was different and there was more of a community feel. That's what happens when the Church stops being persecuted and joins the ranks of the respectable and the Estbalishment.
Seriously, I have sympathy with your points, to an extent. But I also agree that your view of the early church is as much coloured by 21st Century perspectives as anything. The early church was not ( necessarily ) poor, but they did excercise come degree of community living.
The church today can be a social club for the middle classes, but it doesn't have to be. Clergy are often poor, although ( quite rightly ) not at poverty levels. But their expenses can be high.
I think you are an idealist, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. It means that achieving your ideals is probably impossible, because such a state never existed. But keep your ideals, in principle, and help to change the state of the church into a better one, one more in keeping with Christian principles. Idealists are both a pain in the side of the church, and a necessary counter to the conservative elements.
quote:Rubbish. I've never seen a truly poor C of E clergy person yet. RC clergy get half the stipend and they seem to manage. OK they aren't likely to have children (!) but they don't have the possibility of a second salary either. My vicar lives in a nine bedroom house alone!
Clergy are often poor, although ( quite rightly ) not at poverty levels. But their expenses can be high.
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
unfortunately some of the blame in my generation has to be placed at the housechurch leaders' door - they conducted a concerted campaign back in the 1970s to knock the CofE (and other established denominations) as much as possible, to persuade young worshippers to switch to their brand of Christianity which supposedly was more 'alive'. The trouble was, they were very effective at the church knocking but not so effective at the permanent recruiting, therefore far more people were persuaded to leave the church than to change to a different denomination. The church does not get saved by other Christians rubbishing it.
Of course, it would be silly to claim that this was anything but a minor reason for people leaving the church in general - after all, far more people are leaving the church than are going to other denominations.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Of course, it would be silly to claim that this was anything but a minor reason for people leaving the church in general - after all, far more people are leaving the church than are going to other denominations.
Of course it would, Wood (!), but much of the growth alleged by housechurch leaders was actually a shifting round from other denominations. If someone was not a Christian ( in their view) until they demonstrated either an emotional religious experience or speaking in tongues, then they could claim people were converted.
However, what I find more disturbing was the influence the housechurch had on the charismatic movement within the Anglican church. My perception of renewal in the 70's was of a gentle movement within the Church, which took account of both suffering and joys in the life. This was hijacked by a far more aggressive and triumphalist approach which seemed to major on joy and downplay the role suffering/coping with everyday life figures in spirituality. Therefore when people came across difficulties, they could not admit to them, and dropped out of church. Not the only reason for the decline of the church, but an important one nevertheless.
One of the big plusses of alt worship IMO is that both suffering and joy can be incorporated, because it is very much about where you are with God, and leaves a lot more room for individual response to God because the framework is much looser. Similarly, there are more linkages with spirituality and life outside church issues e.g. Urban Mass, and Adrian's stuff on the Holy City.
But if people are too browned off with church, it can be a big step back even into alt worship, which again, means numbers can be low, especially if the existing group is small and taken up with planning worship, and therefore may have little time to nurture and fan the flames of hope alive in those who are burned out on church.
Gosh that is an amazingly long post for me....
quote:
Originally posted by rosemary:
Of course it would, Wood (!), but much of the growth alleged by housechurch leaders was actually a shifting round from other denominations. If someone was not a Christian ( in their view) until they demonstrated either an emotional religious experience or speaking in tongues, then they could claim people were converted.However, what I find more disturbing was the influence the housechurch had on the charismatic movement within the Anglican church. My perception of renewal in the 70's was of a gentle movement within the Church, which took account of both suffering and joys in the life. This was hijacked by a far more aggressive and triumphalist approach which seemed to major on joy and downplay the role suffering/coping with everyday life figures in spirituality. Therefore when people came across difficulties, they could not admit to them, and dropped out of church. Not the only reason for the decline of the church, but an important one nevertheless.
Well done, Rosemary, this was pretty much what I was trying to say, only you said it so much better.
What is interesting is the different conclusion you have come to: you use this as a basis for putting forward alt.worship as the next step; I on the other hand decided to reject the message that the Cof E was rotten and beyond redemption (which I happen to think was a very warped view borne out of bitterness of the housechurch leaders at that time) and consequently made an effort to stay within the established church. Probably was much easier to do this than for people who have gone right away to then come back - a huge step for some.
This whole debate reminds me of that between Dr Lloyd-Jones and Stott 40 odd years ago, where the Evangelicals couldn't decide (or fell out about at least) to stay in or out of the traditional denominations. I think Alt.Worship having the same argument is a bit sad and suggests the church hasn't really grown up that much.
My vision for church is compatable with the established church. It might work outside of it as well.
I want church to be in the community, rather than just a community or instead of the community.
I want worship to be multisensual and interactive, open and explorative in its various forms.
I want tradition to be the wider story that we are part of, that what we do is part of a larger whole.
I want ministers who are guides and representatives not leaders and managers.]
I want all that with fries and coke in about 3 minutes please.
Cosmo
Actually I didn't have a nanny but my mum and aunts always said "I want, doesn't get"
I'm a Tiger!
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Well done, Rosemary, this was pretty much what I was trying to say, only you said it so much better.What is interesting is the different conclusion you have come to: you use this as a basis for putting forward alt.worship as the next step; I on the other hand decided to reject the message that the Cof E was rotten and beyond redemption (which I happen to think was a very warped view borne out of bitterness of the housechurch leaders at that time) and consequently made an effort to stay within the established church. Probably was much easier to do this than for people who have gone right away to then come back - a huge step for some.
Chorister, at the moment I do a bit of both. I attend an Anglican church and prefer the Anglican bit to the charismatic bit, but tend to feel the latter has the upper hand at present. But I do alt worship mainly outside the church, because it is seen as a one off, rather than something that could be offered on a more regular basis. But then the situation is different in Wales from England, and who knows what would happen if I moved country (unlikely though that is).
it's funny the way we discuss being in/outside the Church. to me it's important to keep in mind the distinction between the Church as the Body of Christ and the Church as the sum total of denominations and organisations. right now the two are nowhere near the same thing. we are the Church, in one sense, in so far as we are believers at all, so we don't 'leave' it by moving outside the usual structures. i'm not one of those who sees the structures we've inherited as being ordained by God to be the only correct containers for believers - i think they're more fallible and contingent than that, and can therefore be challenged or stepped outside if necessary.
but i mean this in a different way to how the house churches, or other seceding groups in history, saw it. they stepped outside the existing structures and then damned the people still in them as 'not real christians'. and in doing so, [among other faults] they perpetuated the identification of the Body of true believers with such-and-such an organisation - except it was their organisation now that embodied true belief not someone elses. but for alt worshippers any separation from the usual structures is a practical move to gain space to do something that seems necessary, not a claim to be the new true Church of Christ. OK we may rubbish the structures, but we're not thereby rubbishing people's faith - just suggesting that that faith could be better expressed through different [maybe not totally different] structures.
speaking for grace, we just do what we do and don't worry about our position wrt the denomination except on those occasions when there's a direct conflict. and when that happens we're more inclined to kick the powers-that-be to change their ways than secede from them. i suspect this might be an anglican position, because it assumes that 1. you can belong to the denomination from a wide range of theological positions and practices and 2. that the denomination ought to make space for you to be different or move about. some other denominations take a more restrictive view, and those who won't fit in have to leave. i don't think it's any accident that the majority of worship experiments are in the c of e.
which i think indicates something to its credit, that it at least tries to model the Body of Christ as an inclusive community of all kinds of believers. in that sense it is truly catholic!
quote:
but i mean this in a different way to how the house churches, or other seceding groups in history, saw it. they stepped outside the existing structures and then damned the people still in them as 'not real christians'. and in doing so, [among other faults] they perpetuated the identification of the Body of true believers with such-and-such an organisation - except it was their organisation now that embodied true belief not someone elses.
uh... this is fairly sweeping. And perhaps also inaccurate and judgemental! Not that there are no house churches like this - I know there are. But my experience has been entirely different; in fact apart from the odd alt worship thing (which still seems steeped in anglicanism, and as such is often difficult for me to relate to) the people that i know who do think outside the box about the nature and structure of church and do re-examine the whys and wherefores of the community of faith are invariably from a house church background. Whatever context you find yourself in, there are extremes; some house churches will be so many miles up their own arses they won't be able to see truth or worship in any other christian tradition, but that is also true of some anglicans. And house churches and anglican churches may find themselves being really open-minded and experimental and drawing on and accepting of a spectrum of traditions. I don't think any sweeping can be done!
quote:Some house churches are exactly this.
1. you can belong to the denomination from a wide range of theological positions and practices and 2. that the denomination ought to make space for you to be different or move about.
[/end rant!!!]
And perhaps there is a warning for us all in that any movement that starts off something new can easily become institutionalised in a very short space of time.
I'd like to expand on this a bit more - but no time at present (you will understand why if you check your email).
Having just said a whole load of stuff about how Alt.Worship is a myth or is just about Worship I seem to recall that we were chucked out of our house church not because we did Alt.Worship type things in a our Cell group, but because this lead to some logical conclusions about what Leadership should really mean ..
Of course for me being Anglican is a radical act of Post-Modern defiance. i bacame an Anglican by accident and by choice, but soo discovered that in the tradition i was in many people were excited and supportive of experimental worship.
Neato.
Whatever "the Church" may be as it expresses itself today seems so far removed from whatever we can glean from Jesus' life and teaching via the gospels that it doesn't seem worth saving.
Question I often ask myself is: WHAT exactly are people trying to "save"? My (admittedly cynical) suspicion is that people want to save power structures, hierarchical systems, comfortable traditons. In other words, most - possibly all - of the things that Jesus seems to have found objectionable, and which conspired to kill him in the first place.
And yet, there is also much that is worthy ...
However, since today I still believe in resurrection, I have no fear whatever for the safety of the Church. My greater suspcion is that what passes for Church today actually needs to cark it, so that something decent and worthy can be raised in its place.
MacIain
quote:
"Sicut Patribus sit Deus nobis."
"Yes, but they didn't have electricity - or computers."
"Good point, dude."
When I was stationed here in my first post as a minister one of the 'attributes' that the church were looking for in their minister was some who was community minded.
Now on one level that makes perfect sense I am in a rural setting and we all live almost in each other pockets (with fields between). But ... as time has progressed I have come to realise more and more that I am not seen as Caistor Methodist's Minister but as Caistor's Methodist Minister.
I know to many that is a subtlety in typo but in reality it offers me access and in roads into the lives of all of the folk in this area and not just the church goers or the schools.
I am welcomed into the homes and lives of people from all walks of life - believers and not, seekers and contented landers, all denominations or non ............
I feel really priveledged to be in that position because I can be me with God and the community I am here to serve and not just for the sacramental or liturgical bits of my work!
quote:
MacIain assured us:
[QB]However, since today I still believe in resurrection, I have no fear whatever for the safety of the Church. My greater suspcion is that what passes for Church today actually needs to cark it, so that something decent and worthy can be raised in its place.
Welcome to Small Fire MacIain, if no-ones already said that.
What shape do you think this 'decent and worthy thing' might take?
dave
radagast
I notice I am coming to this thread late, and the rest of y'all are argued out, but the question is practically calling to myself to respond, and at legnth.
I humbly ask your forgiveness, first of all, because I come from a California United Methodist background, and I have little idea what the situation is in Anglican circles. I am also rather conservative in style for someone in their 20s (not conservative in politics however, just ask my girlfriend).
When I attended university four years ago, I immediatley joined the local church and choir. I was the youngest in the choir by about 20 years. Being in a uni town, and seeing a college-age woman, in a town notorious for partying and worldliness, actually coming looking for spirituality, my pastor tried several times in my tenure there to start a college-aged group. Usually it was myself and her, sitting in her office, wondering where those who promised they'd be there were at.
Because of my personal spiritual journey, I felt corporate worship, in a building with liturgy and an organ and all that were what I needed to aid in my growth. But I was always on the lookout for more. One of my specialties at Uni became Comparative Religions. Something I discovered in all my studies was that when another religious tradition had an aspect that appealed to myself (Buddhisim and meditation, Wicca and respect for nature, etc.), I could find a correlation in my own tradition (Centering prayer, St. Francis' writings, etc.).
I believe that the key to 'saving' the church (bringing people together to grow spiritually together) is fourfold:
1) Educational opportunities: Discover the history and richness of tradition.
2) Accessibility: Allow people to meet on neutral ground, off of church property, to learn, then invite them to other events, such as Sunday Morning/Afternoon/Evening.
3) Attention to population: Is the church surrounded by pubs? Have a late Saturday service. Is it surrounded by suburb where everyone commutes to the city? Don't plan events during business hours.
4) Advertisement: Spend a little cash on flyers, let the people know what you are doing, when you are doing it, and who's invited. Do you know what trouble I am having to find a church in my new area that will impose ashes for Ash Wednesday?
Okay, my Honorable Friends, I have posited a plan of action to bring together community. I await and welcome comments and tearing it to shreds.
quote:
Originally posted by rosemary:
My feeling is that if the vicar was more of an enabler who taught people how to feed/learn/develop their spiritual lives themselves, rather than being a teacher/leader, this might be one factor which reduces the flow out of the church.
quote:
Originally posted by Old Fashioned Crab:My vicar lives in a nine bedroom house alone!
*jaw drops*
Good Lord, how many children do they have?
Maybe it's just the (Episcopal/Anglican Communion) churches I know here in the US, but that's astonishing to me, and if that is standard it does sound badly in need of reform! I'd be surprised if there are bishops in the US who live in houses that large!
quote:
Good Lord, how many children do they have?
it's the children they used to have in the 19th century when so many of our vicarages were built. and as for the bishops' palaces...
[fixed fever induced typo's]
[ 10 February 2002: Message edited by: sacredthree ]
quote:
it seems to me that something must be wrong when we are down to 7-8 per cent of the population and many people who are leaving are people who would define themselves quite strongly as Christians.
Darn, we never DID get a nice big house. ut then the vicars we know who do have, shut several rooms in the winter as they can't afford to heat them!
We were 'poor' when the children were little, before I went out to work. We had to take out an overdraft to have dental treatment once. But poverty is relative. We have had cold houses, but we've always had food.
quote:
But... aren't they 'church'?
i totally agree, gill. i think we'd get quite a shock if we could see the actual contours of the Church [as Body of Christ] compared to the contours of the Church [as institutions]. the big question is, what do the 'structures' [i use the work loosely] of mutual support and community among the faithful need to be for the 21st century?
quote:
We have had cold houses, but we've always had food.
even wealthy people lived like this before the 20th century. queen victoria's houses were notoriously, bitterly cold. visiting politicians had to walk the corridors to stay warm.
btw i helped design a replacement vicarage once, in my architectural youth [cromhall in gloucestershire].
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[QUOTE]qb]
ChastMaster - perhaps you need some sort of hierarchy, but I think many do not. The fact that the clergy may have a regulating role does not IMO mean that they have to do everything! It can lead to disabling the gifts of the laity. Nor, in a large congregation of well over a hundred can they possibly know what is right for everyone. Some clergy are gifted teachers, many are not, far more are gifted as pastors, but don't have exclusive claim on this gift.
quote:
Originally posted by sacredthree:
[QB]Those vicarages left are often where it is simply impractical to build a new vicarage close enough to the church. Must admit I always thought a big house was one of the few perks of such a lowly paid job.
QB]
you being sarcy ed?
what is the average stipend these days, about £16,000?
that's quite a good wage round these parts.
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian:
you being sarcy ed?
what is the average stipend these days, about £16,000?
that's quite a good wage round these parts.
That is of course another interesting Point. Beer, a very important part of the clergy Diet is twice the price in Cambridge than Bradford, obviously there needs to be a "Price of Beer" Weighting.
the last lot of discussions I have read have all centred around the Church of England --- for goodness sakes what about the others!
Church to my mind is deifined as a gathering of people it is NOT I REPEAT NOT limited to the Anglican trdaition - and Blow what you think of the stiopend seeing as most ministers / vicars/ pastors work on a 24? 7 basis for that amount I think they do well to survive given the calls on their times the numerous attitudes, arguments, debates and other criticisms they face from all quarters and having to deal with downright pig headed individuals who leave theirt local c grpouping on a whim becuase of some small reason which ahs little to do with Jesus quite often at the end of the day.
Ministers and the like are only trying to do their best under God - and at least God loves them even if the worshipping people round them take affront.
YOU HAVE MADE ME REWALLY CROSS AND THAT TAKES SOME DOING!!!!!
Widen your horizons and practise some charity along the way --- and GET REAL.
(Phew - I feel better for that!)
I'm glad you feel better Umbrella, although I would have preferred you to vent in hell.
There are two issues you are raising.
First is the Bias towards the Church of England. I think this is a fair criticism, but it is true that the CofE very clearly exhibits the sort of problems we have been discussing: It has a lot of failure and a lot of success and is big enough to take criticism. It doesn't claim to have all the answers, although certain factions within it do. We could all pick on the Methodists, the URC, or a House Church denomination if you would prefer .
Second is the clergy issue. There are good and bad clergy and wages vary. I don't think we are picking on them.
If you have something more measured to contribute please go ahead.
[Host Off]
