Ship of Fools: Eccles: Bridges and new congregations

Thread: Eccles: Bridges and new congregations Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001265

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Is the best way forward for growth in a church to offer new services for new congregations (aimed at specific targets eg unchurched, de-churched, young families, etc) alongside the traditional, so that there are various congregations making up one church, rather than to plug away at trying to make the traditional attractive to newcomers?

Is there a bridge that anyone has experience of between unchurched and churched congregations?

[ 10. January 2015, 16:52: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is the best way forward for growth in a church to offer new services for new congregations (aimed at specific targets eg unchurched, de-churched, young families, etc) alongside the traditional, so that there are various congregations making up one church, rather than to plug away at trying to make the traditional attractive to newcomers?

Is there a bridge that anyone has experience of between unchurched and churched congregations?

Not quite answering your question but I think the best approach is to focus on making disciples, and let God build the church. The Great Commission is to 'make disciples' - I've heard and read a few different authors, theologians etc. say that if we focus on making disciples then church will naturally happen as a consequence.

On the specifics in your question, I find the idea of having different church services happening in the same building under the same 'umbrella' all a bit weird, to be honest. For me, a church is a community of people seeking to demonstrate Jesus and extend his kingdom in their particular part of the world. So if there are two different congregations with little or no mixing between the two then I'd think of them as two separate churches really.

So, given all that, my personal take on it is that the whole church should gather together regularly. If that means changing some aspects of the service so it's more helpful and relevant for newcomers then make those changes. On the other hand, if there are other churches in the area that have more 'modern' style gatherings then maybe keep your services as they are and encourage new Christians or interested people to check out those other churches.

Making disciples is the key thing - introducing people to Jesus and helping them become his followers. Which church they join, or even whether they band together with a few other people and start a new church themselves, is far less important IMO...

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

This is an interesting question. Some of the biggest growth in the Diocese of London has been among "cross-tradition" churches (there is even an official term for them now!). Some offer an early Sung Eucharist with a later morning informal service - St Peter's Bow, is one example. More common perhaps now is to find less formal evening services as an alternative to the traditional morning service. These seem particularly attractive to students.

A church near me has adopted this pattern so it's a smells and bells Sung Eucharist in the morning, and gentle charismatic in the evening with Holy Communion once a month (robes are only worn on these occasions). So a building previously closed on Sunday evening is now open and among their evening congregation of around 50 are a mixture of complete newcomers, several who attend both services, and local methodists who no longer have their own evening services. I understand the church community comes together for ocassional additional mid week celebrations that include elements of both traditions.

Clearly this can work if you have a Vicar that can embrace both approaches, a congregation willing to experiment, and a building that can easily adapt to accomodate both patterns.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Thank you Liturgylover. I can't see that it can be any other way if we're hoping to reach diverse groups of people and bring them together to worship.

I know what you're saying, South Coast Kevin, but istm that there are two arms with which we must embrace people, the 'go' mission arm which goes out to give people the good news, and the 'come' welcome arm which invites them into the fold, the community which worships together.

Traditional liturgy is gobbledegook to many an unchurched seeker, and the expectation of participation off-putting without the familiarity that comes with perseverance. The Fresh Expressions and informal services which may attract and keep newcomers are a good thing imv. Although some seem disappointed that they don't always migrate over time, I can't see why having two congregations in one church is any different from having two congregations in two churches, other than the fact that both will be under the same organisational umbrella. It would seem odd to go out to reach people and tell them to attend another church for worship, one that cares enough to cater for their needs while we don't.

I do however think that there needs to be bridges between the two congregations, to avoid rivalry and encourage cross-fertilisation of ideas, bring together the gifts of the spirit. Perhaps the fruit of the spirit in action in the community will do this, as individuals work side by side.

Just thinking aloud here. All comments welcome.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The only thoughts I can offer are thinking aloud ones ...

Our parish church has two services, one with a more traditional style at 9am which largely attracts older people and a more 'informal' one at 11am which tends to attract younger people with young families ...

There is some overlap but many - particularly the older people - feel that it has effectively split the church into two congregations. There is a coffee time in between the services where the two groups are meant to mix.

It doesn't feel a particularly satisfactory arrangement to me but numbers seem to be fairly stable at both ... with some 'fringe' people drawn in to each to a certain extent - although more so with the more 'interactive' (and I'd say, dumbed-down ...) 11am service.

Not sure what the answer is though.

I share South Coast Kevin's concern about effectively there being two separate congregations under the same roof ...

I think a 'mixed model' can work but it requires hard work.

I'm not so convinced that traditional liturgies are, in and of themselves, such a huge turn off to the previously unchurched as we think they are ... but I suspect that's because I've gravitated that way rather than remaining in the more 'informal' happy-clappy style of things that appealed to me in my yoof ...

The fact is, I had to become acclimatised to those too. They didn't immediately appeal to me, I was gradually enculturated into that way of doing things ...

It seems to me that whatever style we adopt there is a process of that kind ... no form of church is an immediate 'hit'. People don't simply walk through the door, get 'zapped' in some way and then stay the course ...

People are largely 'socialised' into the Kingdom and into church life.

I'm all for 'bridges' but I think they tend to work best where the 'architecture' of the bridge - if you like - mirrors to some extent the internal 'architecture' and style of the community that the bridge is leading towards ...

I'm using the term architecture in the figurative sense of course, not in terms of bricks and mortar ... although that can come into it.

So, there'd be no point in having a 'bridge' constructed of metal girders and steel hawsers that leads to a church/community constructed of mellow Cotswold stone ... or, conversely, an arched pack-horse bridge with cobbles and setts that leads into a warehouse type structure full of mixing desks and amps ...

The bridge must arise organically out of the style/tradition of the community itself. That should be the starting point. Any innovation should be in keeping with the community and its values.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I find the idea of having different church services happening in the same building under the same 'umbrella' all a bit weird, to be honest. For me, a church is a community of people seeking to demonstrate Jesus and extend his kingdom in their particular part of the world. So if there are two different congregations with little or no mixing between the two then I'd think of them as two separate churches really.

They are two separate churches. Indeed, this is the point; for example, Fresh Expressions aim to reach a different group of people from the group who meet at the 'normal' time and in the 'normal' way.

In reality, churchgoers are often unwilling to make the necessary changes to be able to worship together effectively with the target group (be that to do with age, ethnicity, culture, or whatever). A former Methodist President of Conference criticised older Methodists who mainly wanted to attract young people in order to give their congregations a psychological boost and to provide the manpower for their inherited form of church. This isn't going to happen, except in the case of young clergy whose see their role as ministering to elderly congregations.

From the bluntly pragmatic perspective of someone who knows about struggling mainstream congregations, I'd say that the transformation and diversification of one congregation must be more manageable (although very difficult) than trying to run two congregations on limited funds and manpower.

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is the best way forward for growth in a church to offer new services for new congregations (aimed at specific targets eg unchurched, de-churched, young families, etc) alongside the traditional, so that there are various congregations making up one church, rather than to plug away at trying to make the traditional attractive to newcomers?

TBH, I don't see that creating a single 'traditional' congregation is possible in most places. Even those parishes who describe themselves as 'traditional' will probably have an early Sunday service of Matins or Saud Eucharist, followed by a later 'parish service' and perhaps Evensong. In few cases will the various congregations even meet, let alone worship together. YMMV.

All mission must start and end with God - but I would expect it to offer different things to different people.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

The best place I've seen bridging work is where there is a well-established social programme. Although people may worship in different groups, they can come together for meals, fun evenings, study nights, away days, etc.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I have seen bridging most effectively applied in a francophone RC parish across the river from Ottawa, where they have at least three congregations, Latin Mass, mainstream guitar, and semi-charismatic. They have a strong social outreach and catechetical programme and the curé tells me that his real pastoral job is seeing that it is well-staffed with volunteers-- he tells me that while the parishioners might not like to speak with each other, as long as they work together he thinks it's a good start.

I have also spoken with clerics who feel that the existence of different congregations in their parishes is a tragedy and, in one case, he decided to close down the early morning service to ensure a greater turnout at the 10.30. Some research showed that the 20+ of the early service simply went to an early service at another nearby parish. I still don't see what the problem is with a multi-congregational parish. More people, therefore more volunteers. Not everybody likes the same thing. It also provides a reception point for developing ethnic ministries which can, in some cases, be great reviving forces in aging parishes.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

I'm strongly of the opinion that there should only be one liturgy in any given church that everyone attends. Converts receive catechism which includes getting used to and learning about the liturgy.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm strongly of the opinion that there should only be one liturgy in any given church that everyone attends. Converts receive catechism which includes getting used to and learning about the liturgy.

But aren't you coming from a different premise to some others here? That is, they're saying "Have different liturgies and worship styles that will appeal to different kinds of people" while you're saying "The Church has one Liturgy that has remained static over the ages, people need to adapt to that"?

I can see pluses and minuses in both approaches.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Yes, I come from a different premise, though I wouldn't quite describe it as you have. I find the idea of a beginners (include in that children's) liturgy condescending, doctrinally suspicious and contrary to unity.

[ 12. February 2014, 08:23: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

FE is not about producing "beginner's liturgy". FE is not about providing "ways in" to "real church" at all. It is about being church, but doing it in a different way. Any service put on to try to to draw people in but then funnel them into the "real service" is not an FE at all. FEs aim to be real churche, or congregations, in and of themselves.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Then we get into arguments and discussion as to what constitutes 'real' church, of course. Something like Messy Church, for instance, wouldn't constitute 'real' church in Ad Orientem's book.

Nor would a bunch of people meeting in Starbucks to discuss spiritual issues.

It all depends on what we mean by 'church' and whether we take a 'reductionist' approach to that - 'where two or three gather in my name' - or a maximalist approach which asserts that certain non-negotiables have to be in place for it to be considered church ...

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

I'm trying not to be partisan here. Neither is my point about liturgy v non-liturgy (though naturally I do have certain views regarding this, which everyone probably knows). It is about everyone worshipping together as a body, rather than seperately with different modes.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm trying not to be partisan here. Neither is my point about liturgy v non-liturgy (though naturally I do have certain views regarding this, which everyone probably knows). It is about everyone worshipping together as a body, rather than seperately with different modes.

I don't see why they have to.

While I would like to recreate the early church with the worshipping community around their bishop, presbyters helping out and deacons primed to serve the community, but with a number of different congregations in the same city, that model's been gone for a few centuries. Having sold that pass about 13-14 centuries ago....

That there might be different congregations in the same building and parish structure would seem to me to be just a variation on this.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm trying not to be partisan here. Neither is my point about liturgy v non-liturgy (though naturally I do have certain views regarding this, which everyone probably knows). It is about everyone worshipping together as a body, rather than seperately with different modes.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

I don't buy that. There's no reason why that should not be the case now and indeed, my experience from my own tradition confirms that: everyone attends the same liturgy at their nearest Church.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

I've seen first hand that the model of a church with two or more services (especially where one is traditional and the other contemporary in style) can be successful. One in particular, where my wife used to work, had two traditional services, at 8:30 and 11. Concurrently, and in a different part of the church, they had two contemporary services, at 9 and 11. For about a year they also had a third contemporary service at 11 that met about two miles away in an old skating rink. (No, they didn't wear skates, although it was suggested several times.)

This type of thing can work, and United Methodists do it often. It's almost always a larger church (150 avg. attendance or larger) that is situated in a suburban or urban area, where there are many younger families. I've seen churches in rural areas try to start something like that, and there usually aren't enough people -- both congregants and leaders -- to sustain it past the first year or so. Usually when the pastor who is behind it is appointed elsewhere, it begins to fail.

I think that to be done well it requires several things. First, the contemporary and the traditional services need to be markedly different. "Blended" is the latest fad around here, and honestly it's such a chimera that it just doesn't do well. It is better to have either one or the other, and if choosing to do one or more of each, make them distinctive.

Second, those churches where the senior (or only) pastor preaches at both would do well to learn the differences. Preaching at a traditional service is going to be different than preaching at a contemporary service. For one thing, preaching at the contemporary service is going to be more informal, more conversational. I find preachers who read manuscripts don't connect as well with the contemporary audience, unless they are excellent readers who do not ever sound as though they are using a manuscript. But it is usually better to be able to use no notes or an outline.

Finally, there needs to be things in common between all the various congregations that make up the church. One of the best ways is an outward-looking vision that bases everything the church does around a common local mission project. For instance, one shipmate is pastoring a church whose mission is "no child in [town] in need." Everything that church does goes first through the net of that premise. So there is a sense of shared ministry. With Bible studies, Sunday School classes (American, not UK), mission opportunities, and so forth there is a way for everyone who attends to grow closer, no matter which service they prefer.

I come from a church background that is connectional. We are all different parts of one church, no matter if we are in West Podunk, AL or way out in rural Nigeria or on the upper east side of Manhattan. It's really no different for a church with only one service to be connected to the whole than it is for those of several services at one church to be connected to the whole -- both the local church and the global Church.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, I come from a different premise, though I wouldn't quite describe it as you have. I find the idea of a beginners (include in that children's) liturgy condescending, doctrinally suspicious and contrary to unity.

Agreed.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Slag it off, call it "beginners liturgy". Call it dumbed down. Do whatever makes you feel suitably superior. Fact is, without these alternatives, our family would not be attending church at all. I think some people here would actually prefer it that way.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't buy that. There's no reason why that should not be the case now and indeed, my experience from my own tradition confirms that: everyone attends the same liturgy at their nearest Church.

Hm. Perhaps we are talking about different things. I was referring to the early church model, such as we read about at the time of S Cyprian, in every place where there are Christians, there is a bishop with a single church, celebrating at the liturgy on Sunday with the clergy and people around him. The historically-odd film Agora gives you a good visual.

When population grew, local parishes came to form, and this picture changed. Let me give you an example. In my own city (Ottawa, pop 883,000), there are about 50,000 Anglicans, currently using around 25 churches-- I suppose on a Sunday about 3,000-4,000 or so are in church. To bring them together in one place from an area of 50km by 30km is not practical.

Even if we focus on a non-Cyprianic model, some of us live in places where there is a multiplicity of languages. If I were RC, my nearest 5 churches are francophone (2), Polish, German, or Croatian. And my nearest Anglican church houses two distinct parishes, one using Cantonese and the other English. So nearest wouldn't work for anglophone RCs on my street.

The model you describe is one which I think most of my friends among the clergy and those active in congregations would love. However, we live in a society where a single service and a single model of of services and a single schedule would not likely well serve a very diverse population. While I'm not sure what does that best, we perhaps need to be flexible for a while.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Slag it off, call it "beginners liturgy". Call it dumbed down. Do whatever makes you feel suitably superior. Fact is, without these alternatives, our family would not be attending church at all. I think some people here would actually prefer it that way.

But if you consider there to be one objectively correct way of doing church services (one liturgy etc.), then the experience of your family and everyone else in the same boat is by the by.

It's not necessarily about feelings of superiority, rather it's about considering something to be a settled fact which others (including you and me) consider to be up for spirited discussion and negotiation.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Slag it off, call it "beginners liturgy". Call it dumbed down. Do whatever makes you feel suitably superior. Fact is, without these alternatives, our family would not be attending church at all. I think some people here would actually prefer it that way.
But if you consider there to be one objectively correct way of doing church services (one liturgy etc.), then the experience of your family and everyone else in the same boat is by the by.

It's not necessarily about feelings of superiority, rather it's about considering something to be a settled fact which others (including you and me) consider to be up for spirited discussion and negotiation.

Actually, I think some of the posts on this subject, here and in the past, have positively reeked of superiority, not to mention smug disregard of those to whom the posters feel superior, and I'm frankly sick to the back teeth of it, to the "well fuck you, then" level.

[ 12. February 2014, 13:26: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I can certainly understand those sentiments - and hope that I'm not one of those responsible for inducing them ...

Without wishing to 'take sides' or diss anyone's theology, ecclesiology or experience ... I wouldn't be surprised if, sooner or later, the Orthodox and other more conservatively liturgical forms of Christianity have to introduce 'bridging' techniques of one form or other if they are to stand any chance of gaining converts in an increasingly post-Christian society.

That needn't mean that they compromise the Liturgy etc ...

But it is a fact that the Orthodox Liturgy is an acquired taste and generally speaking, one can only 'clock' what's going on if one already has some kind of familiarity with Anglican or RC liturgies or the broad shape of what such a liturgy looks like ...

I'm sure there are previously unchurched people who can engage with it but only after a fairly lengthy period of exposure/assimilation.

I think that's true, though, of any church service to a greater or lesser extent.

I don't know what Karl Liberal Backslider and his family found so objectionable about previous church affiliations but I'm happy they're happy where they are now ...

I may or may not have found the alternatives objectionable. I don't know. I'm not Karl nor am I his family. I would have to walk in their shoes to understand the issues.

That said, I do worry a bit about an endless plethora of supposedly 'fresh' ways of doing church ... surely to goodness there can only be so many ways of organising a church service or meeting of whatever description ...

Whatever the case, though, none of us have the apparent luxury of being monolithic here in the UK nor in the West in general.

You could be monolithic if your Church was the only game in town - other than some heretics and schismatics here and there ... but we're way, way, way past that stage in the West (and increasingly in the Orthodox East too) and we can't shut the stable door once the horse has bolted.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm sure there are previously unchurched people who can engage with [the Orthodox Liturgy] but only after a fairly lengthy period of exposure/assimilation.

I think that's true, though, of any church service to a greater or lesser extent.

But with some churches, I think it is true to a much lesser extent. Which, in my view, is something thoroughly worth aiming for, so that newcomers and 'seekers' aren't presented with an unnecessary barrier to joining in with the community of Jesus-followers.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

IME, it's not whether or not one can engage with the liturgy. It's whether or not one can feel an accepted part of the church community. If one is a bit alternative, subculturally different from the local church community norm, or just too young, then that's where the problems come. Or did for us, anyway. Service style wasn't actually the issue, at least not insurmountably; acceptance and belonging were.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm sure there are previously unchurched people who can engage with it but only after a fairly lengthy period of exposure/assimilation.

And that's exactly how it should be. Such are catechumens. Perhaps it's precisely because the catechumenate is non-existant in most churches that converts are unable to assimilate?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm sure there are previously unchurched people who can engage with it but only after a fairly lengthy period of exposure/assimilation.
And that's exactly how it should be. Such are catechumens. Perhaps it's precisely because the catechumenate is non-existant in most churches that converts are unable to assimilate?

Converts?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

I don't see what is so funny, that is, unless you're saying that there are no such thing as converts?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't see what is so funny, that is, unless you're saying that there are no such thing as converts?

Well, I don't see very many of them around here. But IME the people who are turned off by existing congregations are seldom converts - they're more often those on the church fringe or disillusioned folk from within the church. Converts by comparison, IM (some time ago when I last saw one) E dive enthusiastically into whatever congregation they're converted into.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

[Overused]

Thank you all for sharing your experiences, and for illustrating so beautifully the issues churches are facing.

The 'converts' question is one of the interesting aspects of the problem. Do people usually become converts before or after they are drawn into any church? My conversion came first. Can those who are 'churched' begin to comprehend what it is like for an unchurched adult to walk into a church for the first time, and to attempt to join in with the worship?

It's not 'dumbing down' but 'reaching out' to embrace new people into Christianity and its language with sensitivity that is surely called for? This means breaking down any barriers that tradition has forged, as per the example of Jesus, doesn't it?

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Can those who are 'churched' begin to comprehend what it is like for an unchurched adult to walk into a church for the first time, and to attempt to join in with the worship?

I imagine this experience is different depending on personality of the visitor. We tend to imagine that everyone comes in wanting to understand everything and participate fully from the first moments. I think most visitors want to observe first and want to experience an authentic service (what's normally done in that place), and they expect there will be at least a few things that will take some time to learn about.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

People with young families do see things differently - I remember doing so myself (and temporarily going to a different church in order to keep going through those busy and somewhat difficult years). But not everyone has a young family and sometimes require something deeper than a Messy Church experience. Those whose young families grow up may start yearning once again for what they valued in the years B.C. (before children!) So you are always going to need more than a one-size-fits-all approach.

In my experience, the church was starting to head that way rather well, ten to twenty years or so ago. But then the crisis happened where churches started to find it difficult to even offer one service a week, let alone two or more (particularly in smaller, more rural churches) - due to overstretched staffing levels. Only a few really large churches are able to offer more than one main service each Sunday. So the danger is ending up with a mish-mash, with which nobody is satisfied.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
I think most visitors want to observe first and want to experience an authentic service (what's normally done in that place), and they expect there will be at least a few things that will take some time to learn about.

What's normally done in that place at that time will make all the difference regarding any second visit, as will the reception as others have pointed out.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
IME, it's not whether or not one can engage with the liturgy. It's whether or not one can feel an accepted part of the church community. If one is a bit alternative, subculturally different from the local church community norm, or just too young, then that's where the problems come. Or did for us, anyway. Service style wasn't actually the issue, at least not insurmountably; acceptance and belonging were.

Apologies, I've got the wrong end of the stick to some extent. What you're describing is worse, though. [Frown]

Even if the rituals and practices are off-putting / weird, a church community should be welcoming and friendly. Sheesh.

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Can those who are 'churched' begin to comprehend what it is like for an unchurched adult to walk into a church for the first time, and to attempt to join in with the worship?

An utterly vital question to think about, IMO. What signals do we send by the way we do things in our church services; the welcome we offer, the extent to which we explain what's going on (be it genuflecting at various objects, or singing in tongues), the way we treat people who 'get it wrong' in terms of the behavioural norms, the extent to which we seek to include newcomers in the social aspect of the church community...

For a lot of people, going to a new place with a group of strangers to do something unfamiliar is a big deal. Us folk already in the church community should think hard about how we can make it not such a big deal, I'd say.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's not 'dumbing down' but 'reaching out' to embrace new people into Christianity and its language with sensitivity that is surely called for? This means breaking down any barriers that tradition has forged, as per the example of Jesus, doesn't it?

I see this argument a lot and I'm not convinced by it by any means, simply because Christ "broke down the barriers" within the context of the law, not the prayer of the Church.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think culture and subculture and so on do come into these things ... but I'm finding it hard to envisage what kinds of cultural/subcultural issues would make it difficult for Karl and his family to be accepted in most congregations ... given that he is clearly articulate and 'middle class' in the broad sense of that term ... just like most people on these boards - or out in most churches indeed (other than ethnically defined ones) ...

You seem to fit in well here, so I find it hard to envisage that not being the case elsewhere, but then, as I've said, I'm not you nor your family so it's difficult to comment ...

Mind you, perhaps all of us here are misfits to a greater or lesser extent ...

Be all that as it may, on the people walking into church thing and feeling at 'home' or wanting to participate ... on the whole I think people be they catcheumens or converts - tend to be drawn in by the people they know and knock around with socially ...

It's rare for someone to simply walk into a church service and think, 'This is for me ...'

I stand by my point that most people are socialised into involvement with churches and that would apply if it was an RC mass or a Fresh Expressions group meeting in Starbucks ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I hasten to add that my comments in no way seek to diminish the sense of unwelcome and alienation that Karl and his family clearly felt in the past ...

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The 'converts' question is one of the interesting aspects of the problem. Do people usually become converts before or after they are drawn into any church? My conversion came first. Can those who are 'churched' begin to comprehend what it is like for an unchurched adult to walk into a church for the first time, and to attempt to join in with the worship?

Of course it's difficult at first. It's strange and a bit bewildering. Goodness knows, it was difficult enough for me going from Rome to Constantinople, yet I can't stress enough the importance of instruction, or what we would call the catechumenate, with the help of a spiritual father. This precisely what it is for: to learn about the life and faith of the Church.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Unwelcome? No. I was even on the PCC. But I never felt I belonged. It's hard to articulate. Couple that with being the only family there with children; indeed, the only people under about 70...

You're just not One of Them.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I think people who've never attended struggling and demoralised churches find it very difficult to imagine what it's like. Being the only one or two 'younger' people in a congregation made up of the elderly is a great challenge - especially if you've seen other young families and young professionals leave. And people leaving is probably more noticeable and significant in a small congregation than in a larger one.

And I really don't care for sermons about how it's our duty to support the church rather than look to satisfy our own personal needs. It's a dishonest message, because almost everyone is satisfying some kind of personal need when they attend church. Moreover, preachers are usually happy to receive new members from other churches, even if they regret their own members walking away!

Getting back on topic, though, I imagine that engaging jointly in social projects, fundraising, community work, etc. would enable old and new congregations in one setting to maintain links with each other. In spiritual terms there might be some joint small group meetings, although that would require careful organising and reflection.

[ 12. February 2014, 16:03: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I think one's attitude to older people comes strongly into play here. If you can look beyond age and just see 'people' rather than 'over 70s' then there is a wealth of opportunity to get to know some wonderful, and very experienced, individuals, some of whom will become firm friends. If not, then it's going to be difficult.

For some strange reason, I always find it easier to get on well with those older than me rather than younger, so I fit right in with the more normal CofE demographic. Because of that, I'm much more likely to attend services where the majority of the congregation are older, even though I can see the need for other services which attract younger people. Perhaps I will start to find it a problem when I'm 90 and EVERYONE is younger than me(!) but at the moment I can't see it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, but you're not Karl and his family, Chorister and neither am I ...

I think it would be difficult - but not impossible - to fit into a church where everyone is different to you in some way - whether due to age, culture, socio-economic differences and so on ... that's just the way things are. I wouldn't judge or criticise anyone for not feeling that they fitted in ...

However, I do have an issue with segmented churches that 'target' particular demographic groups and so on ... such as youth-churches or churches where almost everyone is in their 20s and 30s and which tend to be 'people like us' churches ...

But then, the opposite is a problem too ... churches where everyone is elderly because all the younger people have left.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
IME, it's not whether or not one can engage with the liturgy. It's whether or not one can feel an accepted part of the church community. If one is a bit alternative, subculturally different from the local church community norm, or just too young, then that's where the problems come. Or did for us, anyway. Service style wasn't actually the issue, at least not insurmountably; acceptance and belonging were.

That would be my experience, as well. I am probably a little bit higher than the average Anglican and one of the interesting things about looking after a rural parish where the tradition was Village MOTR was that when I acquired a nice set of sanctuary bells I was able to sell it to the PCC (quite truthfully) on the grounds that the children who served loved them. The older members of the PCC abstained and the people with young families voted in favour. I was totally made up about this because a) Sanctuary Bells! Next Stop Smoke and GIN! and (more importantly) b) because a bunch of old people accepted something they disliked to oblige children and, by extension, their parents. A lot of C of E churches appear to be run on the principle that they are a social club for the elderly whilst the members plaintively complain that young families don't join.

I suspect that where traditionalists on this thread have a point is that if, for some reason, I turned up at an Orthodox service or a Latin Mass with my six year old daughter people would welcome us and look after us. So you don't need Fresh Expressions and so forth because the culture says "welcome and nurture these people". You can question this as a missionary strategy, but I can see where they are coming from.

The damning indictment of the Church of England is that in a lot of churches they simply aren't interested in making themselves accessible to young families whilst simultaneously claiming it is a priority. It's the ecclesiastical equivalent of claiming you want to lose weight whilst never saying no to Mr Doughnut, drinking four pints of lager a night and never doing any exercise.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Chorister

Actually, I do get on better with the elderly than I do with those the same age as me. I've had much more experience with the elderly, especially in church.

But I think it's unrealistic to expect all churchgoers aged under 50 or 60 to feel this way. I'm not typical of my age group, but people who are more typical will probably want to spend at least some of their 'church time' on issues that are particularly pertinent to their generation. It's true that many elderly people have youthful minds and concerns, but this isn't more likely for elderly churchgoers than it is for the elderly in general.

I agree there should be more opportunities for the young to learn from the wisdom and knowledge of the elderly - bridges could be built there. Although elderly churchgoers aren't always as wise as they should be, IME.....

[ 12. February 2014, 16:40: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... churches where everyone is elderly because all the younger people have left.

Or never come because it's so fruitcaking boring and the scowls are bigger than the jaws of Jesus

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, the elderly in those churches would have been young once, and presumably involved with church at that time too ...

I s'pose that they were left high and dry when the tide went out ... and we can argue the reasons for that until the cows come home, but the CofE lost almost a third of its active members during the 1960s ...

The attrition rate has been considerable ...

On the thing about being made welcome at RC or Orthodox services ... well, from what I've heard neither of these are particularly welcoming - not because they're unfriendly particularly, but they don't tend to pounce on visitors but leave people alone unless they give some indication that they want people to engage with them ...

I've always felt reasonably welcome on my visits to Orthodox services and my occasional visits to RC ones ... but that's generally been because I knew people there and because I'm a reasonably outgoing person (which covers over an essential shyness) and don't mind engaging complete strangers in conversation ...

That comes of growing up in South Wales and spending a great deal of my adult life in Yorkshire where it's more common to chat to people on buses, at bus stops, on trains and in shops and so on than it is in some other parts of the UK ...

I think what you do get in RC and Orthodox circles is a system/process of catechisation for newcomers and converts - and yes, there are converts in both - but it's rather more understated and not as immediately apparent as some evangelical Protestant efforts, such as the Alpha course.

Generally speaking, though, you have to ask and make enquiries and from what I've heard clergy in both these traditions can play hard-to-get to a certain extent ... they like to make sure that people are serious. They tend not to receive or 'chrismate' enquirers willy-nilly without some kind of indication that they are serious and likely to stay the course ... although that can't be guaranteed in every instance any more than it can in Protestant circles.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, the elderly in those churches would have been young once, and presumably involved with church at that time too ...

Not necessarily. A lot of people's first encounter with church is in middle age or when they retire; maybe a bereavement or simply looking for a purpose in life brings them in. Of course, many of these might have been involved as teenagers or young people, but not all.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure ... but generally speaking ... particularly in semi-rural areas such as where I am now ...

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

For what it's worth, turning up at an RC church for mass got me not a word spoken except the blessing from the Priest at communion time. Maybe this isn't typical but there seemed to be an implicit assumption that if you've found your way there then there was no particular effort needed from the congregation or indeed the priest to make you welcome.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

And also an assumption that religion is a private and personal thing, rather than an explicitly corporate and communal activity?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
For what it's worth, turning up at an RC church for mass got me not a word spoken except the blessing from the Priest at communion time. Maybe this isn't typical but there seemed to be an implicit assumption that if you've found your way there then there was no particular effort needed from the congregation or indeed the priest to make you welcome.

Well, your average Novus Ordo RC parish really isn't much different to your average Anglican parish.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

I think that for RC parishes it varies from place to place - our local RC church has a welcomer at the relatively quieter masses on sat and sun evening. But RC churches have much larger congregations - the average Sunday mass attendance for parishes in Diocese of Westminster is 1100 - and people are used to just helping themselves to the materials which are left at the back. To be honest I wish more CofE churches did this. As an Anglican, what I like about RC parishes is the implicit assumption that it is just natural for one to be there, though I realise that experience may be different for someone new to the faith.

I think the CofE tendency to "pounce on people as they walk in" as it was described to me by a friend) particularly in smaller country parishes can be more off-putting than letting people find their feet and peace. I don't know enough about the welcoming experience in Methodist/ Baptist/ Reformeed churches to comment but I imagine they would be similar to the CofE?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I think the CofE tendency to "pounce on people as they walk in" as it was described to me by a friend) particularly in smaller country parishes can be more off-putting than letting people find their feet and peace. I don't know enough about the welcoming experience in Methodist/ Baptist/ Reformeed churches to comment but I imagine they would be similar to the CofE?

The 'letting people find their feet' approach is fine for assertive or extrovert people who'll feel comfortable with getting stuck in and sparking up conversations themselves. But plenty of people aren't like that, are they? Plenty of people will sit and wait for someone to approach them, and if no one does (especially on their second or third service attendance) then they might well not come back, having decided that they're not really welcome there.

Surely what's needed is a sensitive and gentle approach to someone who's on their own; something like, 'Hello, I've not seen you here before. I'm Kevin, pleased to meet you.' Then if the person is new, an offer to get them a drink, sit with them, explain potentially confusing aspects of the service etc. etc. (delete as appropriate to your particular service style). But we must also be alert for signs that a person would really prefer to be left alone, because I realise that is what some people will want.

And then look out for them the following couple of weeks and make a point of greeting them, maybe also introducing them to one or two other people, maybe inviting them to a home group meeting, the coffee morning or whatever.

This is off the point, sorry, but it's an issue I feel strongly about!

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I think the CofE tendency to "pounce on people as they walk in" as it was described to me by a friend) particularly in smaller country parishes can be more off-putting than letting people find their feet and peace. I don't know enough about the welcoming experience in Methodist/ Baptist/ Reformeed churches to comment but I imagine they would be similar to the CofE?
The 'letting people find their feet' approach is fine for assertive or extrovert people who'll feel comfortable with getting stuck in and sparking up conversations themselves. But plenty of people aren't like that, are they? Plenty of people will sit and wait for someone to approach them, and if no one does (especially on their second or third service attendance) then they might well not come back, having decided that they're not really welcome there.

Surely what's needed is a sensitive and gentle approach to someone who's on their own; something like, 'Hello, I've not seen you here before. I'm Kevin, pleased to meet you.' Then if the person is new, an offer to get them a drink, sit with them, explain potentially confusing aspects of the service etc. etc. (delete as appropriate to your particular service style). But we must also be alert for signs that a person would really prefer to be left alone, because I realise that is what some people will want.

And then look out for them the following couple of weeks and make a point of greeting them, maybe also introducing them to one or two other people, maybe inviting them to a home group meeting, the coffee morning or whatever.

This is off the point, sorry, but it's an issue I feel strongly about!

No, I completely disagree with you. We are all different of course but if I walked into your church and someone did what you suggested above I would walk straight out. I am not assertive or an extrovert, quite the opposite in fact, and I feel more challenged when being approached when I enter a building. I think for most people the most appropriate time for welcome and exploration and follow up would be at the end of a service where it's possible to have a more reflective discussion about the faith and what the particular church offers. I think welcomers at CofE churches (and there are some that do this well) need to try and be more discerning about the needs of the indivdual. What I find unpleasant is the automatic "default" into welcome which then becomes anything but.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think there's a balance to be struck ...

Being aware and sensitive to the needs of visitors is the right way to go ... but it's easier said than done.

There is also something, I would suggest, in Baptist Trainfan's question about whether RC settings cultivate a view of the faith that it is a personal and private matter ...

When I was involved in a Baptist church I remember a lad gravitating towards the Baptists from one of the RC churches in the area precisely because he wanted a greater sense of community and involvement ...

That doesn't mean that there isn't a sense of community in RC churches - but it does vary and some people - as RCs will often admit themselves - do use the Mass as some kind of 'filling station' ...

All that said, I agree with the posters who say that RCs (and the Orthodox I'd add) do seem perfectly comfortable and at ease in church in an unselfconscious kind of way and simply segue in and out of it as they see fit ...

So, because they are used to dipping in and out as it were, they aren't particularly going to be attuned to the likelihood of people coming in for other reasons - ie, to connect with faith for the first time or reconnect with a faith they'd lost ...

All that said, I do find some Anglican approaches to welcoming visitors rather intrusive. You practically get rugby tackled in some places ...

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
We are all different of course but if I walked into your church and someone did what you suggested above I would walk straight out.

Wow, okay. I'm very surprised but, as you say, we are all different!

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I think for most people the most appropriate time for welcome and exploration and follow up would be at the end of a service where it's possible to have a more reflective discussion about the faith and what the particular church offers.

Yes, good point. I was thinking of my particular church context; at our Sunday gatherings there is much conversation and general hubbub before the meeting begins, and we also have a 10-15 break for drinks, biscuits, fruit, prayer, conversation, reflection.

Which all means that it's thoroughly natural and appropriate (ISTM) for a 'Hi, not seen you here before, you're very welcome' conversation to happen before the start. I suppose that might well not be the case with some / many other churches.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Paradox and conundrums (conundra?) run through everything. RC theology and ecclesiology is far more 'corporate' than anything we might encounter in 'congregational' settings ... yet in practice the RC approach can be personal and somewhat individualised ... or at least, give that appearance from the outside ...

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I've been both 'pounced upon' and ignored, the former in a pushy way, the latter where not one member of the congregation, nor the minister, made eye contact. Neither are the 'right' approach.

To walk into a church for a service and be expected to find the service sheets and hymn books (if any) and somewhere to sit with no help from anyone is neglectful of hospitality imv. Hospitality must be one of the obvious bridges.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
We are all different of course but if I walked into your church and someone did what you suggested above I would walk straight out.
Wow, okay. I'm very surprised but, as you say, we are all different!

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I think for most people the most appropriate time for welcome and exploration and follow up would be at the end of a service where it's possible to have a more reflective discussion about the faith and what the particular church offers.
Yes, good point. I was thinking of my particular church context; at our Sunday gatherings there is much conversation and general hubbub before the meeting begins, and we also have a 10-15 break for drinks, biscuits, fruit, prayer, conversation, reflection.

Which all means that it's thoroughly natural and appropriate (ISTM) for a 'Hi, not seen you here before, you're very welcome' conversation to happen before the start. I suppose that might well not be the case with some / many other churches.

In churches where quiet reflection or Eucharistic adoration happens before the service, it's not very appropriate for a chat beforehand, no. Also as an introvert, I find that the opposite to what you say is true - introverts generally want to be left to settle into a service by themselves and not be bothered by someone coming to chat to them. We hate small talk. I once went to a new-to-me charismatic church and the leader made me introduce myself to the whole church! Predictably, I never darkened their door again - I felt very exposed and uncomfortable. Please also be aware that there are those of us with social anxiety and related conditions, and stepping into a church full of people is terrifying enough for us sometimes.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
For what it's worth, turning up at an RC church for mass got me not a word spoken except the blessing from the Priest at communion time. Maybe this isn't typical but there seemed to be an implicit assumption that if you've found your way there then there was no particular effort needed from the congregation or indeed the priest to make you welcome.
Well, your average Novus Ordo RC parish really isn't much different to your average Anglican parish.

That is not my experience at all. Many post-VaticanII RC parishes (in fairness I've never been to any other kind of RC church) don't even have refreshments after mass, which is practically part of Anglican liturgy! There is no time for chatting and socialising after the service, which is very important for newcomers to feel at home. I do find that this contributes to the 'filling station' attitude towards church in RC churches. It doesn't feel like a real community.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Re converts - we have a lot here, but then we have the Jesus Army here. Areas with large evangelical churches will get converts - but whether or not they stay converts is another matter.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...introverts generally want to be left to settle into a service by themselves and not be bothered by someone coming to chat to them. We hate small talk.

I'm an introvert too, and find small talk very difficult. That's why I tried to stress sensitivity in the approach to someone who might be a newcomer, and focusing on concrete matters like getting a drink, finding a seat, explaining what's going on.

Probably this would seem more natural at my church's Sunday meetings than at those of most other churches - most people are mingling, chatting, getting a coffee and so on, rather than there being an atmosphere of quiet reflection and anticipation. But in any case, it's certainly important to be alert to signals that someone would rather be left alone.

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I once went to a new-to-me charismatic church and the leader made me introduce myself to the whole church! Predictably, I never darkened their door again - I felt very exposed and uncomfortable

Good grief, that's horrendously inappropriate... This was on your first visit? [Disappointed]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The thing is, Raptor Eye, some churches don't use hymn books and service sheets.

If you went into an Orthodox service you'd find the whole thing just trundles along without any explanations at all ...

Part of me likes that idea. They're so secure in their own skins that they just get on with it ... although I can see how it could totally bewilder anyone not used to it and not sure what to expect.

But, as you say, hospitality, however it is expressed, is very important indeed.

These things can be done.

I recently visited an Anglican church for the first time - as part of something voluntary I'm involved with - and turned up 10 minutes late as I couldn't find the building at first.

The service was well on and when I sneaked in and took a pew near the back someone very helpfully passed me a hymn and service book and showed me the page they were on. This was done so thoughtfully and graciously that there was no way anyone could have taken offence.

As it happened, I would have been able to find the right place as I'm familiar with the format - but had I not been this would have been a very welcome gesture on that person's part.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...introverts generally want to be left to settle into a service by themselves and not be bothered by someone coming to chat to them. We hate small talk.
I'm an introvert too, and find small talk very difficult. That's why I tried to stress sensitivity in the approach to someone who might be a newcomer, and focusing on concrete matters like getting a drink, finding a seat, explaining what's going on.

Probably this would seem more natural at my church's Sunday meetings than at those of most other churches - most people are mingling, chatting, getting a coffee and so on, rather than there being an atmosphere of quiet reflection and anticipation. But in any case, it's certainly important to be alert to signals that someone would rather be left alone.

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I once went to a new-to-me charismatic church and the leader made me introduce myself to the whole church! Predictably, I never darkened their door again - I felt very exposed and uncomfortable
Good grief, that's horrendously inappropriate... This was on your first visit?

I have been to several churches in the south-eastern US where visitors were asked to stand, introduce themselves by name, and tell the congregation a bit about why and how they had come to that church for the first time that day. I have encountered this in Methodist, Baptist and Episcopalian settings. Indeed, one of the reasons I seek out the early morning services when travelling is to be spared this.

I will say that coffee hour at such places tends to be friendly (as opposed to churches declaring their inclusivity where visitors are ignored at the coffee hour) although perhaps this has more to do with local traditions of hospitality.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...introverts generally want to be left to settle into a service by themselves and not be bothered by someone coming to chat to them. We hate small talk.
I'm an introvert too, and find small talk very difficult. That's why I tried to stress sensitivity in the approach to someone who might be a newcomer, and focusing on concrete matters like getting a drink, finding a seat, explaining what's going on.

Probably this would seem more natural at my church's Sunday meetings than at those of most other churches - most people are mingling, chatting, getting a coffee and so on, rather than there being an atmosphere of quiet reflection and anticipation. But in any case, it's certainly important to be alert to signals that someone would rather be left alone.

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I once went to a new-to-me charismatic church and the leader made me introduce myself to the whole church! Predictably, I never darkened their door again - I felt very exposed and uncomfortable
Good grief, that's horrendously inappropriate... This was on your first visit?
I have been to several churches in the south-eastern US where visitors were asked to stand, introduce themselves by name, and tell the congregation a bit about why and how they had come to that church for the first time that day. I have encountered this in Methodist, Baptist and Episcopalian settings. Indeed, one of the reasons I seek out the early morning services when travelling is to be spared this.

I will say that coffee hour at such places tends to be friendly (as opposed to churches declaring their inclusivity where visitors are ignored at the coffee hour) although perhaps this has more to do with local traditions of hospitality.

Kill them. With fire if available.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

O. I forgot to mention that there was applause after each new visitor presentation.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

[Eek!]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...introverts generally want to be left to settle into a service by themselves and not be bothered by someone coming to chat to them. We hate small talk.
I'm an introvert too, and find small talk very difficult. That's why I tried to stress sensitivity in the approach to someone who might be a newcomer, and focusing on concrete matters like getting a drink, finding a seat, explaining what's going on.

Probably this would seem more natural at my church's Sunday meetings than at those of most other churches - most people are mingling, chatting, getting a coffee and so on, rather than there being an atmosphere of quiet reflection and anticipation. But in any case, it's certainly important to be alert to signals that someone would rather be left alone.

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I once went to a new-to-me charismatic church and the leader made me introduce myself to the whole church! Predictably, I never darkened their door again - I felt very exposed and uncomfortable
Good grief, that's horrendously inappropriate... This was on your first visit?

I was imagining you asking someone if they were new in a stage whisper in front of everyone sitting quietly! If everyone is chatting and mingling and it's done discreetly then that's not so bad I suppose. I have experienced the pre-service mingle/coffee time in some evangelical Anglican services and it can work, although personally I prefer a bit of quiet reflection/meditation rather than people milling around.

And yes, my very first (and last) visit, they'd never seen me before. I sat to the side, the service started when suddenly the leader (not the pastor though) handed me the microphone [Ultra confused]

Also - re the US introductions of newcomers, I am horrified that this takes place in Episcopalian churches! There should be no place in the mass for that.

[ 13. February 2014, 16:00: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I have a confession to make. At my last church, one of my jobs was to invite any visitors to stand up and introduce themselves. And yes, they would be clapped afterwards. In our defense, this wasn't something that visitors were obliged to do, it was more a question of 'Would any visitors like to ...'. If noone stood up that was perfectly okay, and the service would simply continue. This seemed to be a long-standing custom at that church.

Speaking very generally, I don't think Methodist churches are good places to turn up and be ignored. (These days I go to the CofE for that!) Certainly, if you turn up for a few weeks, the members WILL find out who you are. I think there's a certain communality in Methodism that's a carry-over from the past; you don't go to a Methodist church to be alone with God and to bathe in quiet contemplation. Mutual engagement of some kind is expected of everyone. That's probably even truer in some of the charismatic congregations, although the advantage there is that many of them are much larger, so it's easier to turn up and hide. Smaller charismatic congregations are more challenging to me as a visitor

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I don't think I've ever been ignored at an Anglican service. At the very least people will smile or say good morning/evening. And as someone who is pretty shy (plus asperger's) anyway I'm pretty happy with that. Not having a word spoken or eye contact made at all seems a bit... unfriendly to me.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I should note that in the Baptist and Methodist churches to which I referred above, while I found it awkward, it was not hellish: everyone was relaxed and friendly and I was not made to feel out of place. In two of them, there were substantial meals afterward and I was treated with much (ableit deepfried) hospitality. At the Episcopalian one (the name can be obtained after a significant draft of a morale-strengthening libation), it was quite creepy with about 80 people grinning at me in expectation, as if I had fallen into an odd kind of horror film.

I was once in a Jamaican Anglican church where we had the same routine and there were three of us tourists among the congrgation. After the invitation, we looked at each other nervously, wondering how we could be magically made to feel invisible. The rector saw this and said: "Let us welcome the Canadians," causing much much mirth among the worshippers.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I'm very glad Mr. C. was pounced upon by an over-enthusiastic welcomer asking if he was saved, or some such, when he decided to try out a church. Because it frightened him off so much that he came to my church instead and met, and married, me. The welcomer did us a huge favour - if it wasn't for him overdoing things, Mr. C. might have stayed there and we might never have met!

God moves in (very) mysterious ways....

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Tsk ... tsk ... Chorister ... you might not have met, but your husband might have stayed there and 'been saved' ... [Big Grin]

'What profits it a man if he gain (a wife) and yet ...'

[Big Grin]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Lord have mercy,
Christ have mercy,
Lord have mercy-hee-hee-hee!

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

A few years ago I spent a few months travelling around churches of all sorts of traditions, sizes, denominations and service types.

Most of them barely acknowledged my presence. The worst offender was a "new" church over 100 strong populated by mainly the under 35's. No one but no one spoke to me nor acknowledged me: in a catch up time part way through the service (I suppose their equivalent of the peace), everyone pastor included walked past me, sitting on the end of a row.

A few spoke: one or two got it right.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
A few years ago I spent a few months travelling around churches of all sorts of traditions, sizes, denominations and service types.

Most of them barely acknowledged my presence. The worst offender was a "new" church over 100 strong populated by mainly the under 35's. No one but no one spoke to me nor acknowledged me: in a catch up time part way through the service (I suppose their equivalent of the peace), everyone pastor included walked past me, sitting on the end of a row.

A few spoke: one or two got it right.

Out of interest, what would have been the right 'bridge' to enable you to take the next steps into their congregations? How did those who 'got it right' manage it? Did you go back?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
A few years ago I spent a few months travelling around churches of all sorts of traditions, sizes, denominations and service types.

Most of them barely acknowledged my presence. The worst offender was a "new" church over 100 strong populated by mainly the under 35's. No one but no one spoke to me nor acknowledged me: in a catch up time part way through the service (I suppose their equivalent of the peace), everyone pastor included walked past me, sitting on the end of a row.

A few spoke: one or two got it right.
Out of interest, what would have been the right 'bridge' to enable you to take the next steps into their congregations? How did those who 'got it right' manage it? Did you go back?

The bridge would've been a smile and an offer of help with service books etc. Better still would've been a kindly person who offered to sit with me to explain stuff - as it happens I'd probable decline (which I did in the case of the one or two who got it "right" for me). It was a case of expect nothing but explain everything if needed.

It certainly wouldn't have been the church where a haughty man asked me to move from a his seat in a virtually empty rural church and, for the first time ever, I walked out of the church door right away. Neither would it have been the Baptist church where they didn't offer us the communion ....

As for the church who ignored me totally, I'd never go back. Not only was their welcome off the scale, their theology was warped too. I can't go back in any event - they are no longer in existence.

At this point I'd want to reveal that I was visiting these churches as part of a sabbatical project on how we welcome people --- I deliberately went to place where I wouldn't be known!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Neither would it have been the Baptist church where they didn't offer us the communion ....

Presumably that wasn't a case of "no Communion being on offer" but "Communion offered to members but not outsiders" - i.e. the Strict Baptist position. I came across the bizarre situation many years ago as part of a Mission Team who were given a "spot" to speak in the service but still excluded from Communion ...

Bearing in mind that non-RCs can't receive Communion at Mass, how would you have felt if someone had gently explained that "we are delighted to have you worshipping here with us, but we're afraid our theology does not permit us to offer Communion to people who are not members of this church"?

Mind you, that's not "where I'm at" personally!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That sounds like an interesting sabbatical exercise, ExclamationMark with valuable object lessons in how 'not' to welcome people ...

I agree with your recommendation on offering to help but backing off and allowing the visitor space if they don't need or want any.

Difficult balance to strike, but it's the right one, I think.

On the reception/non-reception of communion thing - that all depends on context, of course and some explanation should be provided whatever the policy ...

I've seen Orthodox parish websites where they spell out that whilst they'd welcome people from other Christian traditions their eucharistic policy doesn't allow them to share communion ...

Whether they would say that or explain that if a visitor wandered in without seeing the website in advance, or who wasn't aware of their position on this one ... I don't know ...

I've been ushered forward at Mass in RC churches only to smile politely and decline ... not because I'd feel awkward going up and indicating to the priest that I couldn't receive ... but because I thought it was easier and simpler to stay put.

At Orthodox churches - where I tend to know some of the people anyway - I will go forward for the 'blessing' or the kissing of the cross but won't receive from the chalice where they mix the bread and wine together. In fact, I do everything they do - in those exercises where I know the 'moves', apart from receiving communion - but that's not an attention grabber as some of them won't be receiving communion every Sunday either ...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The bridge [...] wouldn't have been the church where a haughty man asked me to move from a his seat in a virtually empty rural church and, for the first time ever, I walked out of the church door right away. Neither would it have been the Baptist church where they didn't offer us the communion ....

It occurs to me that being refused Communion is probably a bigger turn-off to practising Christians than it would be to non-religious visitors, who often don't want to take Communion anyway.

Any church that doesn't make Communion available to every visitor (for how can we know which visitors really are believers and which not?) doesn't belong to the bridge-building school of churchmanship. Well, fair enough - it's a considered position, and not every church aims to grow by following the 'belonging before believing' principle. Some churches find that making entry costs higher for newcomers works better for them. This isn't the same thing as being rude for rudeness' sake, but I suppose they can both have a similar effect on the casual, unprepared visitor.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It depends - it could work on the reverse psychology principle ... I want to belong, I want to have communion with these people, therefore I must convert ...

Although I'm sure that wouldn't come into play in many instances.

All that said, I've never felt particularly 'rejected' or hacked off when visiting RC or Orthodox services - because I know their 'take' on these things and 'when in Rome' and all that - literally in the case of the RCs ...

I thought I'd feel completely rejected and unwelcome the first time I attended an Orthodox service, for instance ...

But when it came to it I didn't feel put-out in the least that I wasn't able to share communion. I could see that to do so would mean to share their theology and 'take' on these things ...

Both the RCs and the Orthodox have a catechumenate system which takes people through the process and shows them the ropes ... there is a sense of 'belonging' preceding believing to a certain extent in those settings.

All churches have a process. Even those that go in for 'instant conversions' and so on.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Gamaliel

I wasn't thinking of 'instant conversions', but of churches that see 'church' very much as a place with clear boundaries between the inside and the outside. Conversion may take a while but it could be nurtured by careful teaching in sessions outside Sunday worship, and you don't truly 'belong' until that moment has come and been verified.

The case of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London is quite relevant. There's a MW report on it here. It's a non-charismatic evangelical church with a long history which after a period of decline earlier in the 20th c. now has a community of 5000 people, even though it quizzes strangers on the door instead of welcoming everyone in with open arms. It isn't open to the wider community except through its bookshop, and all its activities apart from Sunday lunch are religious activities. In the words of an essay I have here it shuns being 'a public space of co-mingling of strangers' and of 'relationality and encounter with different others'.

This model clearly wouldn't work for other churches whose identity is one of openness to the wider community and of an internal tolerance of various theological perspectives.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, I didn't respond to all of your points and yes, I agree with what you're saying about churches which erect 'barriers' to some extent or other ...

Incidentally, I am familiar with the Metropolitan Tabernacle - both with its history and location. I once visited its bookshop - this must have been in 1986 ... and your description is uncannily accurate.

I tried to engage the bloke behind the counter in conversation and although he smiled sweetly, it was clear he wasn't going to be drawn ...

I was rather glad he wasn't as I was in a very full-on charismatic church at the time and I might have had the third-degree about that.

Incidentally, a liberal clergyman I know suggests that the Alpha course contains a 'barrier' - for all its apparent laid-backness - and that's the 'tongues' issue ...

He believes that it is place where it is in the Alpha sequence as some kind of filtering device - rather in the way that there are several 'get-out' points in the course of certain sales practices and techniques ...

So if you're still around after the 'tongues' teaching and the 'Holy Spirit' weekend, then the organisers know that you're susceptible enough to go with matters charismatic ...

I think that's an intriguing observation ...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

That would make sense in many charismatic settings - after all, some people might hate the idea of speaking in tongues so it's probably better to deal with that issue before they join such a church unawares.

However, not every church that uses Alpha is the kind that emphasises speaking in tongues. I understand that some churches even skip over that bit, although the writers aren't too happy about that. But the Alpha brand is now so successful that theological objections have been pushed aside in many cases. Maybe we should be grateful to Alpha for building ecumenical bridges!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well yes, my point wasn't to have a dig at Alpha necessarily - simply to illustrate the point that even 'laid-back' and chatty styles of evangelism/catechesis can contain a 'barrier' element ...

I'm well aware that many places gloss over the tongues bit in the Alpha course - and I'd suggest that this is one of the other reasons for it's success and popularity irrespective of what the authors think ... it does provide a format which is adaptable and flexible to some extent.

I'm sure loads of Alpha users don't go by the book and the manual/videos ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm not sure that joining 'such a church unawares' figures that much in these cases ...

My experience with charismatic churches is that people who are drawn to them are those who want the charismatic element in the first place - so they're well up for the tongues thing if they aren't into it already ...

Most full-on charismatic churches tend to draw people in from other settings who want a more full-on charismatic experience than might be available where they are ... it's mostly 'tranfer-growth' ...

That said, there are, generally speaking and in my experience, converts from unchurched backgrounds too. If these do stay the course - and many do drop out at an early stage - then they accept the charismatic dimension because that's what's there and that's what's on offer.

I don't think it's a case of people joining a charismatic church and then suddenly waking up one morning and thinking, 'Oooh 'eck, they didn't tell me about the tongues ...'

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

If your clergyman was simply saying that not everyone is converted as a result of contact with Alpha, that's obviously the case. Noone can claim otherwise, especially now that studies have emerged describing the kinds of people who are the most and least likely to find Alpha spiritually helpful. 'Chatty' and 'laid-back' dinners with strangers don't always fit the bill.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Neither would it have been the Baptist church where they didn't offer us the communion ....
1. Presumably that wasn't a case of "no Communion being on offer" but "Communion offered to members but not outsiders" - i.e. the Strict Baptist position. I came across the bizarre situation many years ago as part of a Mission Team who were given a "spot" to speak in the service but still excluded from Communion ...

2. Bearing in mind that non-RCs can't receive Communion at Mass, how would you have felt if someone had gently explained that "we are delighted to have you worshipping here with us, but we're afraid our theology does not permit us to offer Communion to people who are not members of this church"?

Mind you, that's not "where I'm at" personally!

1. I wish it was a Strict Baptist Church - it wasn't it was an open membership BUGB place.

2. I'd argue with them (if not there and then, then afterwards). You are not worshipping with me unless and until you allow me to participate: your idea of the total expression of worship excludes me. It may be worship for you but it isn't for me: you are preventing me from coming close to God - are you happy to haver that on your conscience?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Out of interest, has the BUGB ever discussed the topic of Communion? Has it ever expressed any preference for the open Communion table?

IME Methodist ministers almost always emphasise the inclusivity of Communion during the Communion service. I don't know what the historical root of this openness is, nor at what point ministers were taught to emphasise it during services.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Neither would it have been the Baptist church where they didn't offer us the communion ....
1. Presumably that wasn't a case of "no Communion being on offer" but "Communion offered to members but not outsiders" - i.e. the Strict Baptist position. I came across the bizarre situation many years ago as part of a Mission Team who were given a "spot" to speak in the service but still excluded from Communion ...

2. Bearing in mind that non-RCs can't receive Communion at Mass, how would you have felt if someone had gently explained that "we are delighted to have you worshipping here with us, but we're afraid our theology does not permit us to offer Communion to people who are not members of this church"?

Mind you, that's not "where I'm at" personally!
1. I wish it was a Strict Baptist Church - it wasn't it was an open membership BUGB place.

2. I'd argue with them (if not there and then, then afterwards). You are not worshipping with me unless and until you allow me to participate: your idea of the total expression of worship excludes me. It may be worship for you but it isn't for me: you are preventing me from coming close to God - are you happy to haver that on your conscience?

How is it good bridge-building to allow newcomers wilfully or unknowingly potentially to damn themselves by receiving the Sacrament unworthily? And how is it good bridge building, or indeed good logic, to offer someone Communion with whom one is not, canonically or objectively, in Communion?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
IME Methodist ministers almost always emphasise the inclusivity of Communion during the Communion service. I don't know what the historical root of this openness is, nor at what point ministers were taught to emphasise it during services.

Probably Wesley's belief that Communion was a 'converting ordinance'.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Thanks.

I wonder what Wesley meant by that. And do Methodist clergy have the same understanding today? As someone said on the recent 'Eucharist' thread in Purgatory, Methodists have a range of different beliefs about Communion. Maybe the only thing that holds all those beliefs together is the idea that it should be available to anyone who wants it.

Sometimes the offer of Communion is made to 'anyone who loves Jesus', which is as elastic as can be, since there are people of all religions and none claim to love Jesus. It's unsurprising that RCs and a few Baptists, among others, find this at least a little unsatisfactory.

[ 15. February 2014, 17:21: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
How is it good bridge-building to allow newcomers wilfully or unknowingly potentially to damn themselves by receiving the Sacrament unworthily? And how is it good bridge building, or indeed good logic, to offer someone Communion with whom one is not, canonically or objectively, in Communion?

But of course not all of us believe that people who receive communion 'unworthily' are 'damned', but that all can receive grace from sharing communion at the Lord's table. If the Eucharist is a 'mystery', then it is for God to decide who is or is not worthy.

In an established Church, it is at least arguable that everyone is in communion with that church unless they have decided otherwise. At the very least, anyone baptised would be welcome to receive communion (we can leave the question of children to another time, recognising the logic of the Orthodox approach to communicating infants and children).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Thanks.

I wonder what Wesley meant by that. And do Methodist clergy have the same understanding today? As someone said on the recent 'Eucharist' thread in Purgatory, Methodists have a range of different beliefs about Communion. Maybe the only thing that holds all those beliefs together is the idea that it should be available to anyone who wants it.

Sometimes the offer of Communion is made to 'anyone who loves Jesus', which is as elastic as can be, since there are people of all religions and none claim to love Jesus. It's unsurprising that RCs and a few Baptists, among others, find this at least a little unsatisfactory.

I am happy with 'elastic'.

Some time ago, I MW'ed a eucharist celebrated by a Methodist minister on the 4th plinth at Trafalgar Sq. The sacrament was offered to all who went past on the way to their city jobs.

To be fair,. Wesley was speaking/writing at a time when almost everyone in England had been christened and knew somethijg about Christianity.

Then again, Sarah Miles' experience in the States suggests that the mass is still a converting ordinance.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
How is it good bridge-building to allow newcomers wilfully or unknowingly potentially to damn themselves by receiving the Sacrament unworthily? And how is it good bridge building, or indeed good logic, to offer someone Communion with whom one is not, canonically or objectively, in Communion?
But of course not all of us believe that people who receive communion 'unworthily' are 'damned', but that all can receive grace from sharing communion at the Lord's table. If the Eucharist is a 'mystery', then it is for God to decide who is or is not worthy.

In an established Church, it is at least arguable that everyone is in communion with that church unless they have decided otherwise. At the very least, anyone baptised would be welcome to receive communion (we can leave the question of children to another time, recognising the logic of the Orthodox approach to communicating infants and children).

Right, fine. But the communions under question in this instance were the RCC and the Orthodox. Who do not believe or teach that.

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :

TBH, I thought that the discussion had stretched beyond that, with discussion of Baptists and others. We were talking generally about the welcome as well as communion practices.

Posted by Below the Lansker (# 17297) on :

My experience in BUGB/BUW churches is that the open/closed communion question has evolved from limited to open, although not uniformly, since each congregation is able to set its own policy. I remember as a teenager only being allowed to take communion after having been baptised by immersion and having accepted the 'privileges and responsibilities' of church membership (as it was expressed at the time). In the rural churches of the time, communion was offered only to those who had been baptised by full immersion (preferably, but not necessarily in a Baptist church). It was later extended to 'any person professing faith in Jesus Christ and a member in good standing of any Christian church' - nowadays it is much more along the lines of anyone who professes faith in Christ, or accepts Him as Saviour and Lord, or follows or loves the Lord Jesus (depending on who is ministering at the time). Whilst not hankering for a return to the days of 'if you haven't been dunked, don't even ask', I do think that the open table has made people take the ordinance a lot less seriously than in the past.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Neither would it have been the Baptist church where they didn't offer us the communion ....
1. Presumably that wasn't a case of "no Communion being on offer" but "Communion offered to members but not outsiders" - i.e. the Strict Baptist position. I came across the bizarre situation many years ago as part of a Mission Team who were given a "spot" to speak in the service but still excluded from Communion ...

2. Bearing in mind that non-RCs can't receive Communion at Mass, how would you have felt if someone had gently explained that "we are delighted to have you worshipping here with us, but we're afraid our theology does not permit us to offer Communion to people who are not members of this church"?

Mind you, that's not "where I'm at" personally!
1. I wish it was a Strict Baptist Church - it wasn't it was an open membership BUGB place.

2. I'd argue with them (if not there and then, then afterwards). You are not worshipping with me unless and until you allow me to participate: your idea of the total expression of worship excludes me. It may be worship for you but it isn't for me: you are preventing me from coming close to God - are you happy to haver that on your conscience?
How is it good bridge-building to allow newcomers wilfully or unknowingly potentially to damn themselves by receiving the Sacrament unworthily? And how is it good bridge building, or indeed good logic, to offer someone Communion with whom one is not, canonically or objectively, in Communion?

How is it any way anything other than barking to believe that God casts people into Hell for unknowingly doing anything? What sort of monstrous God do some people believe in, for FSM's sake?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

/Tangent alert/

quote:
Originally posted by Below the Lansker:
My experience in BUGB/BUW churches is that the open/closed communion question has evolved from limited to open, although not uniformly, since each congregation is able to set its own policy.

While I think that is generally true, some congregations which meet in older buildings are in fact legally constrained by their Trust Deeds which stipulate "closed Communion". (This is not "Church law" but the law of the land).

There are three options open to them:
- act illegally and hope no-one notices or mounts a challenge; BUGB would not recommend this!
- move out of the building - the Trust Deeds apply to it and not the congregation;
- seek an Act of Parliament to get the Trust Deed changed - expensive.

Sounds silly but it's true! (I was on the Working Party that studied and revised Baptist Trust Deeds some years ago).

/Tangent ends/

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Below the Lansker:
Whilst not hankering for a return to the days of 'if you haven't been dunked, don't even ask', I do think that the open table has made people take the ordinance a lot less seriously than in the past.

Do you think this is the price to be paid for building bridges to the community?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Baptist Trainfan

I am afraid option 1 is normal course, unless there is a legal challenge. You have heard about the congregation that in 1972 voted to come into the URC and then found out that it was Baptist in its Trust Deeds!

Jengie

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

No, I didn't know about that - but I can believe it!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Below the Lansker:
Whilst not hankering for a return to the days of 'if you haven't been dunked, don't even ask', I do think that the open table has made people take the ordinance a lot less seriously than in the past.

I see your point, but even an Open Table can be "fenced" by the person leading the service.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Do you think this is the price to be paid for building bridges to the community?

I wonder whether there is an implication of superiority where only an elect may receive communion. If we're to take Jesus seriously and include marginalised people, how can there be a place for actually marginalising some?

Do priests who preside over 'closed' communion vet everyone regularly, to make sure their standards haven't slipped and that they are worthy of receiving the body and blood of Christ?

I personally prefer the idea of an open table in which each individual takes responsibility for his own decision when participating. I don't think it is taken any less seriously where it is made available to all who have been baptised. It's an important bridge imv.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Do you think this is the price to be paid for building bridges to the community?
I wonder whether there is an implication of superiority where only an elect may receive communion. If we're to take Jesus seriously and include marginalised people, how can there be a place for actually marginalising some?

Do priests who preside over 'closed' communion vet everyone regularly, to make sure their standards haven't slipped and that they are worthy of receiving the body and blood of Christ?

It is normally couched in the language of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 and it is seen that there is a risk to people taking communion without being properly prepared coming under judgement. In other words it is an act of Spiritual Health and Safety.

Not priest personally but if you talking a full closed communion then you have Communion Season and elders as part of it do the examination. My home congregation still keeps the visits though they are now pastoral and no one would ever be barred from communion at one.

Jengie

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

Do priests who preside over 'closed' communion vet everyone regularly, to make sure their standards haven't slipped and that they are worthy of receiving the body and blood of Christ?

Does the RCC do 'vetting'? There seems to be an assumption that any unknown person who presents themselves for Communion is RC. But with a mass of smaller Protestant denominations with competing theologies it's less easy to assume that an unknown visitor shares the same theological perspective.

The strictest churches do tend to vet their own members carefully. They have particular standards of faith and behaviour for those who want to belong, so they have to maintain those standards carefully. Perhaps this desire to control internal conditions is one reason why these churches tend not to have Communion very often; it's a space of theological conflict and autonomy, and they want to minimise those things.

As a visitor to churches, it's obviously less stressful for me if I can just take Communion without anyone paying too much attention. But this kind of attitude only works in the mainstream churches, where the barriers for participation and theological uniformity are low. I wouldn't have such expectations elsewhere.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I think those are good points, SvitlanaV2.

I suspect that were you or I or any other non-RC to roll up at an RC church where we weren't known on Sunday then we'd be admitted to receive with no questions asked ...

I wouldn't do that though, as it wouldn't be fair on them.

I don't think that the practice of closed communion in either the RC or Orthodox Churches is intended to be a comment on the spiritual state of non-RCs or Orthodox - so Raptor Eye's comment about whether those who preside in such Churches take care to examine themselves is a bit of an irrelevance ...

They are all meant to examine themselves. The fact that he or I wouldn't be admitted to communion at either an RC or Orthodox Church isn't a way of them saying that they are 'better' Christians than we are - simply that they are ordered and affiliated in what they believe to be the right way and we aren't ...

It's not meant to be a value judgement on the state of our souls nor the validity of our faith.

Most RCs and Orthodox I know would fully accept that there are Methodists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Baptists or whatever else who might be 'better Christians' than they are - it's only that we are not fully affiliated with them in an organisational, institutional or theological sense.

To be honest, I find their view far more understandable than that of diddy little Protestant groups and congregations who practise a closed-table approach ...

That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I think those are good points, SvitlanaV2.

I suspect that were you or I or any other non-RC to roll up at an RC church where we weren't known on Sunday then we'd be admitted to receive with no questions asked ...

I wouldn't do that though, as it wouldn't be fair on them.

I don't think that the practice of closed communion in either the RC or Orthodox Churches is intended to be a comment on the spiritual state of non-RCs or Orthodox - so Raptor Eye's comment about whether those who preside in such Churches take care to examine themselves is a bit of an irrelevance ...

They are all meant to examine themselves. The fact that he or I wouldn't be admitted to communion at either an RC or Orthodox Church isn't a way of them saying that they are 'better' Christians than we are - simply that they are ordered and affiliated in what they believe to be the right way and we aren't ...

It's not meant to be a value judgement on the state of our souls nor the validity of our faith.

Most RCs and Orthodox I know would fully accept that there are Methodists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Baptists or whatever else who might be 'better Christians' than they are - it's only that we are not fully affiliated with them in an organisational, institutional or theological sense.

To be honest, I find their view far more understandable than that of diddy little Protestant groups and congregations who practise a closed-table approach ...

That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Yes, I agree with all of this. If you turn up as a non-RC at an RC church where you are not known, you would be able to receive with no questions asked - usually anyway. Nobody does a test to see if you're actually RC! Given my own Eucharistic theology, I could consider myself to have the 'right' to receive from an unknowing priest, but that's not a right I want. It's about community and identity, not RCs thinking they are better Christians or even that it's about non-RCs going to Hell.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Indeed ...

Having said all that, though, I can understand certain Protestant congregations - in Baptist or URC circles, say - wanting to reserve or restrict communion to people deemed to be serious enough about their faith - however that is assessed ...

What I don't quite 'get' is why they might want to restrict communion purely to members of their own outfit ... rather than, say, to visitors from other Protestant traditions or denominations.

I s'pose it does betoken a stronger ecclesiology than tends to exist across Protestantism in general ...

I think it's wrong to suggest - as some do - that Protestants in general and evangelicals in particular - don't have an ecclesiology ... but generally speaking it is a fairly 'weak' one.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Hostly tippet ON

Please recall - the question of 'open' vs 'closed' Communion is a Dead Horse. I appreciate that it relates to what is offered to visitors when they are welcomed so is related to the topic. However, the current tangent is going into the Closed Communion issue full-scale. I would suggest that anyone wishing to pursue it further should start a thread down there...

Your cooperation is as ever appreciated!

Hostly tippet OFF

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

TBH, I'm not terribly fussed about what different churches do about Communion, and I'm not convinced that open v. closed Communion is a big issue when it comes to community bridge-building. I've never seen it mentioned in any of the texts I've read about local evangelism or community engagement. I don't know how Fresh Expressions leaders deal with it.

[ 16. February 2014, 23:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

[Hot and Hormonal]

My bad for leading the topic astray, sorry hosts.

I agree, Svitlana, it's unlikely to be an issue with total newcomers. The barriers there are perhaps more likely to do with religious language and/or erroneous perceptions of religion. It would be interesting to hear more from those 'on the front line'.

Posted by trouty (# 13497) on :

It pisses me off that at my own wedding I was not allowed to receive communion in a RC church. On the other hand, my father in law was able to take communion at our church when he came to the baptism of our baby.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
It pisses me off that at my own wedding I was not allowed to receive communion in a RC church. On the other hand, my father in law was able to take communion at our church when he came to the baptism of our baby.

Surely non-Catholics are not able to marry in an RC church anyway? [Confused]

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Judging from Trouty's post, Watson, I would deduce that Mrs Trouty is a Catholic and Trouty is not. Hence the bit about the father in law receiving at the Baptism.

I thought one had to give undertakings, though, to bring up the offspring as RCs.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Non Catholics,if they are baptised,are able to marry a Catholic in an RC church.
If neither of the couple are Catholic it would be unusual for them to seek to marry in a Catholic church and indeed why would they want to ? The Catholic church is not there to provide a pretty backdrop to a non religious couple.
On occasions if the non Catholic partner claims to share the eucharist faith of the Catholic partner, though unable to share the fullness of the Catholic faith,they may be admitted to Commun ion.If they don't share the faith what is the point of going to Communion ?

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed ...

Having said all that, though, I can understand certain Protestant congregations - in Baptist or URC circles, say - wanting to reserve or restrict communion to people deemed to be serious enough about their faith - however that is assessed ...

What I don't quite 'get' is why they might want to restrict communion purely to members of their own outfit ... rather than, say, to visitors from other Protestant traditions or denominations.

I s'pose it does betoken a stronger ecclesiology than tends to exist across Protestantism in general ...

Yes. There is an element in Baptist ecclesiology which stresses the primacy of the local congregation. I have even heard a Baptist friend (for whom I have the greatest respect) say that there is no such thing as the universal church - there will be a universal church at the Parousia, but the idea that it exists at the moment (he said) is an example of over-realised eschatology.

So Communion then becomes the expression of the unity of the local assembly. By this logic visitors should not communicate because they are not part of the local church - they should communicate at their own church where they are "really" part of the body.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes, this is the idea of being part of a "covenanted community" together.

And "local" always trumps "universal" in Baptist (or, more correctly, congregationalist) ecclesiology.

[ 17. February 2014, 17:08: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Re. the lack of welcome in many RC churches,which would be exactly the same in any Orthodox church,it is simply assumed that those who have come to Mass have come to worship God and to participate in the liturgy.
It is absolutely wrong however to say that there is no sense of community.Everyone ( or it is assumed as such ) knows why they are there.They are an integral part of the Catholic community,participating in a communal celebration of the eucharist.No more needs to be said.

Outside of church Catholics,like many other small groups in society do know one another and are usually very much aware of who is Catholic and who is not.

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
It pisses me off that at my own wedding I was not allowed to receive communion in a RC church. On the other hand, my father in law was able to take communion at our church when he came to the baptism of our baby.
Surely non-Catholics are not able to marry in an RC church anyway?

Yes they are if the other partner is Catholic. The 'undertaking' to bring up any child/ren as Catholic only applies to the RC partner and is not binding (legally or morally) on the non-Catholic. The days of the non-Catholic signing commitments to allow children to become Catholic are in the past. (No aspersions upon the Catholic Church are meant or implied)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

[Hint ... Aren't we getting rather off the point of this thread? I suggest that we may be on a trip towards that well-known knacker's yard ...]

Posted by Below the Lansker (# 17297) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Below the Lansker:
Whilst not hankering for a return to the days of 'if you haven't been dunked, don't even ask', I do think that the open table has made people take the ordinance a lot less seriously than in the past.
Do you think this is the price to be paid for building bridges to the community?

Up to a point, I think it is - and moving the debate away from closed/open communion and back to the general question of how much do you lose (if indeed you lose anything at all) by making worship more accessible to those who have never experienced it, it's a question that all churches have to face. We're living in a culture now where Biblical literacy is virtually non-existent outside the church (and often not strikingly brilliant within) and where familiarity with what goes on in Christian worship (of whatever flavour) in society in general has similarly been obliterated. Even here in rural Wales, we can't assume that someone walking into chapel on Sunday will know what to expect, much less feel at home taking part in it. On the other hand, is there any reason why they should? Why should worship be immediately accessible and understandable to someone with no knowledge or experience of the faith - it should perhaps be alien in some way (though not deliberately off-putting or excluding).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I think that's a good point, Below The Lansker.

I've always maintained here that whatever flavour of church we're talking about people are 'socialised' into it.

Even with the more apparently 'accessible' forms of church this still applies.

Back in the day it must have taken me a good 6 months or so to acclimatise to what has now become fairly bog-standard evangelical charismatic worship styles ... and I'm not sure I ever fully acclimatised to some extent ... at least, not to the more 'outer reaches' elements of that tradition ...

Sure, a sense of welcome and a sense of community are important - and that applies right across the board. But the idea that there's some kind of join-the-dots or Janet and John easy-primer form of worship and church life that people slot into straight away without any process of acclimatisation is bogus, it seems to me ...

Sure, some forms of church-life are going to be easier for some people to slot into than others - but by the same token what will 'feel' right to some won't to others - at least not immediately.

There's a sense of 'intentionality' and a process of becoming and belonging involved in every instance - irrespective of whether we are waving thuribles around or whether we are singing with guitars or all sitting in a circle in complete silence.

The same principle applies.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Below the Lansker:
Why should worship be immediately accessible and understandable to someone with no knowledge or experience of the faith - it should perhaps be alien in some way (though not deliberately off-putting or excluding).

I'd approach this from the point of view that our task, our commission from God is to make disciples. By which I mean, helping people to become committed followers of Jesus.

Then I'd look at all these questions about incorporating people into church life through that lens; is each aspect of what happens in our church services contributing to people becoming followers of Jesus or is it getting in the way?

So we shouldn't, for example, dilute the self-sacrificial message of the Gospel because that would give people a false impression of what following Jesus means; on the other hand we should make sure the language used in our church practices is understandable by those who are there, otherwise people might well be left confused, frustrated and disengaged.

Obviously it's no simple task to weigh up the disciple-making impact of our church practices, but I think it's a good approach to take...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Below the Lansker

What's interesting is that although almost all churches claim to want to draw new people in, they rarely consider the subtle theological changes - and consequently the ritualistic changes - that the process of expansion brings with it. I think this is a challenge that Christianity has always had to deal with.

While churchleaders hope to socialise outsiders into the ways of the church, the outsiders are also socialising the church into their ways. There often seems to be a process of mutual influence going on. At the denominational level this seems to be especially apparent in the history of Methodism. For example, it was easier to enforce the discipline of the class meetings while the numbers of entrants to the movement were of a manageable number. But as numbers increased rapidly the nature of the meetings changed, and eventually new members began to resent joining the classes at all. Class membership was then made optional, and in many cases it became obsolete. In the short and medium term this leniency obviously helped newcomers to acclimatise more quickly, but in the long term it must have helped to undermine the distinctiveness and the evangelical focus and intensity of the church, which in turn had ominous consequences for church life.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

[/QUOTE]I'd approach this from the point of view that our task, our commission from God is to make disciples. By which I mean, helping people to become committed followers of Jesus.

Then I'd look at all these questions about incorporating people into church life through that lens; is each aspect of what happens in our church services contributing to people becoming followers of Jesus or is it getting in the way?

Obviously it's no simple task to weigh up the disciple-making impact of our church practices, but I think it's a good approach to take... [/QB][/QUOTE]

The thing is, South Coast Kevin, how the heck do we even begin to assess that?

Do we attach a tag to every single activity, everything that happens and score it from 0 to 10 on its disciple-making capacity or potential?

[Confused]

That all sounds terribly mechanistic and completely unachieveable to me ...

How would it work?

Minister/leader greets people at beginning of service: Score 8

Minister/leader explains what's going to happen: Score 9

Person in front of me acts in a distracting way and gets on my nerves: Score - 5

Choir slightly out of tune: Score 3

Worship chorus repeated too many times for my liking: Score 2

Or whatever else?

I mean, as we've already seen on other threads you would undoubtedly give a high negative score to the wearing of vestments, for instance ...

Leader wears vestments: Score - 10

But someone else might give that an 8 or a 9 ... they might believe that it does assist with their discipleship or whatever else ...

I really have to take issue with this ... I can see what you're getting at and I'm not suggesting that things should be sloppy or that we don't take the needs of visitors, newcomers etc etc into account - far from it - but would you put the same exacting standards on yourself in the workplace, down the gym, in the pub ...?

Failed to smile at the person behind the counter, thereby giving a negative impression of Christians : Score - 4

Told a work colleague that I'd been to church on Sunday: Score 7

Invited work colleague to church: Score 10

Laughed at an off-colour joke: Score - 6

And so on ...

I mean, c'mon ... get real my friend.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think SvitlanaV2 has raised an interesting point on the intensity thing - and its one of the reasons why monasticism developed within the historic Churches. People could go off to monasteries or to hermitages and so on if they wanted to become more 'intense' ...

It seems to me that all 'enthusiastic' forms of church life ultimately have to lower their standards as it were ... it happened with the early Methodists as their church developed ... it happened with the restorationist house-churches as they became less 'out there' ...

As sure as eggs are eggs it happens everywhere as an inevitable sociological process.

Which may mean that we always need 'outriders' and pioneers who cut some new territory and who then settle down ...

My mum-in-law notices that her fresh new little plantings tend to grow and spread more quickly than her hardy perennials ... so the same principle may apply to Fresh Expressions and so on.

However, I s'pose whatever stage we're at in the sociological life-cycle we should always be looking to build new bridges as well as maintaining existing ones.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How would [weighing up the disciple-making impact of our church practices] work?

How does any organisation or group of people assess the impact of anything that can't easily be quantified? I'm not a sociologist or anything like that, but I know enough to say it can be done to some extent. Surveys, observations, case study reviews, before-and-after reports; things like that. Any sociologist Shipmates will no doubt be able to give far more detail than I can, but it surely is possible.

I infer from your response to my suggestion that you think it's pointless to even try...

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

My former church tried a "seekers'" service -- more informal, more of a narrated liturgy, more back-and-forth discussion with the worshippers, more huggy-bunny music -- for a few months, back when that sort of thing was a newer idea, and it never took off...it attracted almost none of the younger families/teens/occasional droppers-in it was aimed at, so the only people who wound up attending most Sundays were our frequent fliers, the sort of people who attend EVERY church function, even though it meant that they wound up attending both worship services on Sunday. In retrospect it was a solution for something that wasn't actually a problem, since our regular Sunday attendance numbers were healthy and growing.

Fast-forward a couple of years later: Our church, citing increasing difficulty in keeping a Sunday School going despite a good population of children, decided to "kill" traditional Sunday School, opting instead for a kind of homeschool Sunday School curriculum to be overseen by parents, with occasional group activities. This grew into a monthly Saturday afternoon kids' activity event at a local daycare center whose owners go to our church: The kids enjoyed their own Christian-formation activities while the adults got to hang out for chat and refreshments elsewhere in the building, and then everyone got together for a short but complete worship service at the end of the afternoon. This actually gained some traction in the community with parents who were not typical Sunday-morning churchgoers.

The question remains, though, of how to move new people from the "junior church" to the main congregation. The other day I was reading an online essay by someone bemoaning the fact that the age apartheid practiced by many churches has resulted in new generations of Christians for whom church=happy-happy-fun-time-church-camp, who can't/won't integrate into the larger church community.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How would [weighing up the disciple-making impact of our church practices] work?
How does any organisation or group of people assess the impact of anything that can't easily be quantified? I'm not a sociologist or anything like that, but I know enough to say it can be done to some extent. Surveys, observations, case study reviews, before-and-after reports; things like that. Any sociologist Shipmates will no doubt be able to give far more detail than I can, but it surely is possible.

There have been many studies that analyse the kinds of churches that grow in terms of making new disciples, why they grow, who they attract, where they tend to be based, the kinds of leadership they have, etc. Some of the material is academic, and some is designed to be of practical use to churches.

I suppose some people feel that poring over such material is too calculating, not sufficiently spiritual. But to be fair, the authors themselves sometimes say there's no ready-made formula for making disciples, no quick fix. The Holy Spirit moves where it will, invigorating the churches that it chooses.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
The question remains, though, of how to move new people from the "junior church" to the main congregation. The other day I was reading an online essay by someone bemoaning the fact that the age apartheid practiced by many churches has resulted in new generations of Christians for whom church=happy-happy-fun-time-church-camp, who can't/won't integrate into the larger church community.

Two thoughts on this.

1. The "Fresh Expressions" folk would say that the folk don't need to be moved to the "main congregation" but can be a "proper" congregation in their own right. That assertion of course opens a whole can of worms, to do with things like "grown up" approaches to the Faith, or with fragmentation of a church which is supposed to draw varied people together. I don't really agree with their thesis, but I mention it.

2. The theologian Pete Ward, in his (now quite old) book "Growing Up Evangelical", suggests that yesterday's "young people's meeting" styles turn into today's "church" styles as the leaders grow older. At least in a British context, his argument seems convincing; it might not be so true in your different ecclesiological and cultural context.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose some people feel that poring over such material is too calculating, not sufficiently spiritual.

So God isn't interested in sociology? [Cool]

To be fair, the success of Willow Creek in Chicago was due to its originators doing a very careful sociological study of their "target area" and discovering what would "work" there. Other churches failed to realise this, or weren't prepared to do that homework. They thought that "Seeker Services" per. se. were the key to church growth, not recognising that such services had been developed within a specific cultural milieu.

So these good folk put on Seeker Services and were disappointed when they didn't deliver the spiritual goods. But it was their own fault for having tried to make shortcuts and put their trust in "techniques".

[ 18. February 2014, 15:05: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Yes, I think I read about that problem somewhere.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

We have a Fresh Expressions thingy in our Deanery, led by a Mission Priest, but not really attached to any one in particular of our parishes. The idea AIUI is to provide an alternative to 'regular' church, whilst still being recognisably part of the C of E (the Bishop requires any Communion service to use an authorised Eucharistic prayer, which seems reasonable to me). I understand that a mixed group of 20-25 people meets at present twice a month (on a Sunday afternoon), hopefully to be increased to three times a month in the near future. It is possible that the group may be able to acquire a High Street base for weekday evangelistic/pastoral use.

As you may have gathered, I don't really know much about this venture (it really is quite low-key, and still in the early stages), but ISTM like a Good Thing. Quite how it relates - or might in the future relate - to the existing parishes round about, I know not, but all those parishes (a) are aware of it, and therefore (b) can support it in prayer.

Ian J.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The Holy Spirit is 'he', not 'it', SvitlanaV2. God is always personal ...

Even if we may not like the gender specific language ...

@South Coast Kevin - I am being hyperbolical again. I'm not saying we shouldn't try but I think we would be barking up the wrong tree by trying to work out the discipleship value or 'quotient' of our Sunday services.

In my experience, the discipleship tends to happen elsewhere and in the warp and woof of normal everyday life - the church services feed into that but aren't ends in themselves ...

Now, where have I heard that before ...

[Razz]

Forgive me, but I think you are in danger of becoming far more mechanistic than anything that you would consider 'scripted' in the way that the more liturgical churches are.

It all sounds very anal and rather knife-edge to me. 'I won't hand the hymn book to that person in that particular way lest it undermine the discipleship factor ...'

Sure, I'm using daft examples but I'm doing so hyperbolically. I could use less hyperbolic ones.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I'm using daft examples but I'm doing so hyperbolically. I could use less hyperbolic ones.

Please do use less daft examples because to me what you're saying sounds like 'Let's just do things as we currently do them, without giving a moment's thought as to the impact that might be having on our efforts to (a) welcome in newcomers, and (b) encourage greater commitment to Jesus in our existing members'.

But you're not really saying that, are you? You do think it's important to welcome in newcomers and encourage greater commitment to Jesus, right?

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
To be fair, the success of Willow Creek in Chicago was due to its originators doing a very careful sociological study of their "target area" and discovering what would "work" there. Other churches failed to realise this, or weren't prepared to do that homework. They thought that "Seeker Services" per. se. were the key to church growth, not recognising that such services had been developed within a specific cultural milieu.

Furthermore, Willow Creek Community Church gradually realised that their approach wasn't actually producing committed followers of Christ, even though it was getting more bums on seats. And this despite the 'careful sociological study of their "target area" '! See here.

I'm not remotely suggesting that trying to work out how best to promote greater discipleship within our particular societal / cultural context is an easy thing. But I think it's vital we take on the task, else we'll be failing to incarnate the good news of Jesus in a form which our neighbours will find attractive.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

South Coast Kevin

I am both a statistician and doing a PhD in something that is somewhere around Sociology/anthropology of religion, well actually into the anthropological approach to Congregational Studies.

The answer would take me deep into measurement theory and also into sociology. Basically to measure something like that you need to have it adequately theorised and secondly you need to have indicators that can be measured that are related to it.

Right to give you some idea, I did some work many years ago on network business. In a discussion one day we discovered an indicator that was very useful because it warned us before the network got busy that it was likely to. So what was the indicator? When the carpark by the office filled up for the day. The earlier this occurred the busier the network was likely to be.

On any given day given the following information I would suspect we could make a very good prediction of how busy the network would be:

Day of Week
Week of Academic Year (work is an University). This is not the same as actual day of the year and as Easter moves and therefore the Easter holiday actual day can be unreliable.
State of schools (Schools on holiday mean that parents have to make arrangement for children, this often involves working at home or taking leave)
how busy the network was yesterday (if yesterday was busy then today is also likely to be busy)
Time the car park filled up this morning
weather (rainy days the carpark fills quicker)

The reason I have not done this is that actually on the day statistics are not much use. We need to be able to predict six months in advance.

Jengie

[ 18. February 2014, 17:02: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Holy Spirit is 'he', not 'it', SvitlanaV2. God is always personal ...

Even if we may not like the gender specific language ...

I'm sure we shouldn't be too 'anal' about it!

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose some people feel that poring over such material is too calculating, not sufficiently spiritual.
So God isn't interested in sociology?

To be fair, the success of Willow Creek in Chicago was due to its originators doing a very careful sociological study of their "target area" and discovering what would "work" there. Other churches failed to realise this, or weren't prepared to do that homework. They thought that "Seeker Services" per. se. were the key to church growth, not recognising that such services had been developed within a specific cultural milieu.

So these good folk put on Seeker Services and were disappointed when they didn't deliver the spiritual goods. But it was their own fault for having tried to make shortcuts and put their trust in "techniques".

Bear in mind too that Willow Creek Church is in an area of rapid population increase. The local community is also pretty homogenous with 95% of people having a college education. In UK terms its very large area akin to middle class suburbia.

Most of us in the UK won't have those traits in our communities so the Willow Creek model has to be adapted if it is to work at all.

Willow Creek have also recognised the problems that their seeker sensitive approach caused: for years many on the outside saw them as miles wide but fractions of inches deep - they now recognise that for themselves. I don't see the church in Acts 5: 12 - 16 being at all seeker sensitive in that same way, yet they grew.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Gamaliel - 'they' is an acceptable gender-neutral pronoun, although we do have Scripture saying 'the Spirit blows where it wills'.....

/end tangent

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Holy Spirit is 'he', not 'it', SvitlanaV2. God is always personal ...

Even if we may not like the gender specific language ...

I'm sure we shouldn't be too 'anal' about it!

Given that it concerns the distinctive and principle doctrine of the Christianity, the Trinity, we should watch our language.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Gamaliel - 'they' is an acceptable gender-neutral pronoun, although we do have Scripture saying 'the Spirit blows where it wills'.....

/end tangent

using the metaphor of 'wint' - it is the wind that is an 'it'.

Play on words.

[ 18. February 2014, 19:14: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Referring to the Holy Spirit blowing where it wishes is clearly an incomplete reference to wind as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit, as for example in John 3:8. Wind is of course inanimate, as are most of the things to which the Holy Spirit is compared. Nevertheless, for those who think I'm making a tragic theological and/or linguistic error, 'it' can be used in reference to some animate things (namely babies and animals - and Jesus, after all, is compared to a lamb.)

It's a tangent with relevant wider implications, because as I said above, when we attempt to build bridges with all kinds of people, newcomers and those who've been in the church for 80-odd years, we end up with a variety of theological (mis?)understandings, linguistic appropriations and personal perspectives on the significance of various religious rituals. Tolerant churches rarely even try to create uniformity in the mesh of make-do theologies that struggle inside the brains of everyone who comes near. People who are welcomed in with love and kindness may be willing to unite around Christian liturgies and rituals, but how they give meaning to those things is another matter entirely.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The answer would take me deep into measurement theory and also into sociology. Basically to measure something like that you need to have it adequately theorised and secondly you need to have indicators that can be measured that are related to it.

Many thanks, JJ; that's interesting. So if we came up with some way of defining levels / amounts of discipleship (not an easy task, I realise) and also some way of measuring the indicators we want to investigate (again, not an easy task!), then it would be feasible to make progress towards working out what activities / patterns / habits produce greater levels of Christian discipleship. Is that right?

Presumably this is something like what Willow Creek Community Church did with their 'Reveal' study, although I've only read a few articles about it and not the full report / book.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Not quite, what I suspect Willow Creek to have done is the following.

Consult the broad surveys that are done of the population. At least the census. This is to identify the types of people around where they want to plant a church.
Read the literature on the characteristics of that type of people. What do they expect? What are they into?
Interviews with key people in the area. What are the social concerns, what sort of things thrive around here?
Maybe an observational study, actually put people on the ground to observe who is going where and what. This may involve a short survey. What entertainment places are doing well? How do people socialise?
focus Groups with the target specific topics that you are concerned about.
Possibly people living in the community without evangelising to observe how it functions.

It is basically mixed methods research with the aim of getting to know what local people do, enjoy, expect etc. This is very different from doing the quantitative work on measuring aspects of church life. The question you are asking determines the approach.

Jengie

[ 19. February 2014, 11:28: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

As ever, God 's ways are not our ways. Growth in discipleship is surely measured by the unmeasurable: the fruit of the spirit.

Perhaps if love, joy, gentleness, faithfulness, self control, peace and patience, kindness and goodness were in abundant evidence, there may be no more barriers to bridge?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Putting my mischievousness to one side ...

Yes, South Coast Kevin, I do believe that we should welcome people and encourage them to become more effective or more consistently effective disciples of Christ - however we may wish to quantify that.

What I was railing at, rather hyperbolically, was a tendency to put undue - and indeed unattainably impossible standards - on whatever does or doesn't go on in a church service context.

I don't believe that church services are 'ends in themselves' as it were but neither do I believe that they are the only 'show-case' we have nor the only arena we have to show what the Christian faith is about nor to develop discipleship.

One of the more serious points I made, amidst the hyperbole, was the comment about discipleship being worked out in the warp and woof of everyday life. As you often remind us - quite rightly - it's a 24/7 thing.

I was teasing SvitlanaV2 too, but would agree with Leo that language is important and you'll find me as Trinitarian as they come. Cut me in two and you'll find Trinitarian formularies running through me like a stick of rock. I can get quite 'anal' about that ... and make no apologies for doing so because I think it's important ...

Equally, yes, I also believe that what you are saying is important but I would prize or value the most in any church setting or tradition is authenticity and a sense of faith being part and parcel of normal everyday life - and you can get a sense of that in any setting - whether highly ritualistic or snake-belly low ...

We can shuffle things about, make amendments, play around with styles and whatever else ... but it's always going to be a lot deeper than that.

It has to be. Heaven help us if it isn't.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Gamaliel

Do you think that the clergy should be much more emphatic about the importance of 'right theology'? Because I don't think they are at all. I'm disinclined to be anal about Trinitarian pronouns, (and much else besides) because after a lifetime of churchgoing I've noticed that this sort of thing doesn't appear to lie at the heart of church preaching and teaching as I know it. We have our liturgies, but they're never unpacked. Interested individuals are free to read books and do courses at local theological colleges, but there's always a sense this this sort of thing isn't really necessary for the common person. It was denominational awareness, not theological knowledge, that a local preacher advised me to develop.

To get back on topic, all this explains why I've become more interested in the sociology of religion than in much mainstream theology; it seems more focused on what and how (current and potential) Christians actually believe and how they live their faith than on the theological minutiae that very few Christians expect each other to engage with. Entry into the Kingdom of Heaven appears to rely on something else.

You might say it's secularisation at work; keeping people on board, building bridges with potential newcomers is such hard work that churches are reluctant to emphasise 'details' too much. But in the 18th c. John Wesley was surprised to find a man who'd attended CofE churches for decades yet thought the Holy Spirit was some sort of bone!! Well, maybe it/he/she is, in a manner of speaking.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Difficult to generalise, SvitlanaV2.

I s'pose, though, that most churches and denominations do tend to major on their distinctives ... whatever it is that gives their group/tradition its particular flavour.

In the 'newer' outfits this tends to be done on the hoof and in response to changing developments.

I do have a bee in my bonnet about Trinitarian formularies and so on - and I did so long before I encountered the Orthodox - but also partly in response to that because Andrew Walker the sociologist - a Pentecostal turned Orthodox - suggested in his definitive study of the UK 'restorationist' movement (of which I was a part) that we were 'nominally Trinitarian'.

That stung. I was indignant at first, but when I listened to prayers and preaching in more depth I realised he had a point ...

So, yes, peculiar as it may sound, even though I'm not Orthodox I do tend to draw on the Orthodox as a touchstone of Orthodoxy and orthodoxy to some extent ... the clue is in the title!

People have commented on that here.

I would agree with you that these issues tend to remain 'unpacked' within the traditional Protestant denominations - but equally, I would say that the resources and discussions were and are there if people go looking for them ...

Anglican vicars have sometimes - not in a patronising way - expressed surprise at my level of interest in these things ... and some have even seen it as a sign of a 'calling' or 'vocation' ...

I s'pose I'm naturally interested in this stuff but would also add that as someone who has been involved in an 'on the hoof' type outfit - and I'm not saying that's all bad - you do have to quickly find some kind of ballast or mainstay to avoid being 'blown around by every wind of doctrine' and the latest charismatic fad ... whatever it might be.

It's been observed by church historians that the Baptists, for instance, back in the 17th and 18th centuries developed quite a scholarly approach - almost independently of the other groups and 'denominations' (the 18th century is pre-denominational in the modern sense) - they had to because they found themselves pulled hither and yon by all manner of innovations and heresies/potential heresies ...

And few of these were new, either. You read about Christmas Evans - the one-eyed Welsh Baptist preacher - and his battles with Socinians and Sabellians and what-not and you could be reading about some of the controversies that beset the early Church Fathers ...

So, in the circles in which I've moved, theological debate was very much part of the furniture - albeit, looking back, within a fairly narrow paradigm.

I suspect my experience has been very different to yours in that respect - not that I'm disputing the reality of your experience.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry to double-post ... I hadn't heard that Wesley story ...

Mind you, it wouldn't surprise me.

In Dostoyevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov' there's a passing allusion to a very off kilter 'take' on the Holy Spirit by one of the monks at Fr Zossima's monastery ...

So it just shows ...

[Biased]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I do have a bee in my bonnet about Trinitarian formularies and so on - and I did so long before I encountered the Orthodox - but also partly in response to that because Andrew Walker the sociologist - a Pentecostal turned Orthodox - suggested in his definitive study of the UK 'restorationist' movement (of which I was a part) that we were 'nominally Trinitarian'.

That stung. I was indignant at first, but when I listened to prayers and preaching in more depth I realised he had a point ...

I can't now remember what Walker wrote (yes, I've read the book!) However Tom Smail back in the 70s said that while many Christians are not fully Trinitarian because ignore the Holy Spirit, many Charismatic Christians tend to downplay God the Father instead.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, and Smail's point was thoroughly Orthodox too ... I know several Orthodox who read his book 'The Forgotten Father' and thought it was tremendous.

I haven't explained myself very well.

Walker's beef, as I understand it from his subsequent reflections and writings, isn't that charismatic ignored the Holy Spirit - far from it - but because of a somewhat limited theological vocabulary/frame of reference - if I can put it that way - they had a tendency to treat and regard the Holy Spirit of God rather like some kind of impersonal 'faith force'.

I think Walker would be the first to acknowledge that this didn't apply right across the board and that the tendency is more apparent in some circles rather than others. To this day, I would maintain that he went too far in suggesting that the 'restorationists' were 'nominally Trinitarian' - at a leadership level and an 'informed' level I would say that this was definitely not the case but that we were equally as Trinitarian as any Trinitarians you might mention ...

That said, I do believe that there is an often very subtle sloppiness in charismatic praxis that can have the very opposite effect to what it purports ... ie rather than magnifying the work and person of God the Holy Spirit it undermines all that ... it becomes far too Christocentric if anything ... both the Father and the Spirit are sidelined in deference to 'my mate Jesus' ...

At least, that's the impression one could easily get.

Sticking my neck out, I'd suggest that this was an endemic tendency now across charismatic-dom as a whole.

But this is a tangent. The mileage does vary, of course.

In relation to the bridge-building thing, I think it is something we do need to be wary of. I've seen plenty of evangelical converts as well as long-standing Anglican church-goers who have a fuzzy appreciation of these things at best.

I think they are important.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I would hasten to add, though, that the Holy Spirit is deferential, if we can put it that way, and His ministry is to magnify Christ ...

But I think we do need a fully-orbed understanding of the Trinity and I would strongly maintain that liturgy serves a valuable role in retaining and strengthening that.

As I've said before, one would have to be pretty dim to attend Orthodox services in English and not realise that these people believed that Jesus is God and that they had a Trinitarian understanding of the Godhead.

I don't think we can guarantee that in today's lively evangelical charismatic churches for all the protestations to the contrary.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

No, and dare I say that the Cross often seems to have got a bit lost somewhere along the way!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, Smail's good on that one too!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Intriguingly, I once knew a liberal URC minister - 'with a smidgeon of Pentecostalism' as he put it - who had even more of an issue with these tendencies than me. He felt that the evangelical charismatics were way out of kilter on a proper understanding of the Godhead and wouldn't even have worship songs and choruses from that stable in his church - despite his wife's protestations - because he felt that they undermined sound doctrine ...

Posted by Below the Lansker (# 17297) on :

I think I would probably agree with him, up to a point. In my limited experience, even in charismatic fellowships where serious attempts are made to rein in the whackier manifestations and keep within the canons of universally acknowledged Trinitarian doctrine, if you scratch below the surface and talk to people about what they think is happening when they are worshipping, you get some weird and wonderful ideas. One dear lady I knew told me that the reason they sang worship songs repeatedly was because our songs are an offering to Jesus, and singing them only once was like bringing in a dish of food, and only allowing Him to sniff it and not tuck in. Some would argue that "worship songs" arise from a basic misconception of what worship is - but that's probably more than enough material for another thread.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Below the Lansker,

To be fair, though, I doubt that most churchgoers in 'ordinary' churches would be able to give a theologically impressive reason for their churches' musical procedures either. I'm trying to imagine an elderly Methodist lady trying to explain the theological significance of the hymn sandwich!

But this thread is about building bridges, and we've been talking about which churches don't do this with sufficient theological depth. Which churches do, though? We've had mention of the theological precision of the Orthodox churches, which are apparently growing. My impression is that they, along with the Charismatics, tend to attract people who are already practising Christians. Perhaps the Orthodox need to get on the Fresh Expressions bandwagon to deliver new ways of being church but with a rigorous and consistent theology.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Perhaps the Orthodox need to get on the Fresh Expressions bandwagon to deliver new ways of being church but with a rigorous and consistent theology.

I'm sorry SvitlanaV2, but
[Killing me]

To adapt a well-known Biblical saying - John 14:9 '... Have I been with you all this time and yet you have not known me, Philip?'

Have you been posting here so long now, SvitlanaV2, among the Orthodox and you have not known them?

The idea of the Orthodox doing anything Fresh is a complete hoot ... That's part of the point. That they don't (apparently) change ...

'Change? Change? Is outrage ...'

More seriously, though, you will find some pockets of innovation and those priests I know in real life don't all do all things 'by the book' ...

[Big Grin]

On the thing about the Methodist old lady and theological justification for the hymn-sandwich ... I can see what you're saying but I don't think you are comparing like with like. This hypothetical hymn-singer mightn't have a reason for the practice, but they're also unlikely - unlike the example in Below The Lansker's post - to concoct a quirky or flaky explanation either ...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

The idea of the Orthodox doing anything Fresh is a complete hoot ... That's part of the point. That they don't (apparently) change ...

'Change? Change? Is outrage ...'

If that's the case, then the Orthodox aren't really relevant here, are they? They may provide a necessary refuge for ex-Pentecostals, but they appear not to provide an answer to the OP's question about offering 'new services for new congregations' aimed at young families, the unchurched, etc.

I'd like to hear a bit about the 'pockets of innovation' you mentioned, though. Truthfully, the only Orthodox church I've ever been inside was when I went to visit my penfriend in Ukraine. I don't even see them that often in the UK.

quote:

On the thing about the Methodist old lady and theological justification for the hymn-sandwich ... I can see what you're saying but I don't think you are comparing like with like. This hypothetical hymn-singer mightn't have a reason for the practice, but they're also unlikely - unlike the example in Below The Lansker's post - to concoct a quirky or flaky explanation either ...

Ah, well the answer to this is for flaky church ladies and gents to be taught to keep their mouths shut and leave the big explanations to those who've had some proper theological edumacation!

Methodists aren't too worried about quirky ideas so long as you keep them very low-key. (In a recent Purg thread about the Eucharist someone said their Methodist minister had confided to them that his congregations 'were practical Unitarians, but were unaware of the fact!' But he obviously wasn't going to lay down the [Trinitarian] law and make this a public issue!)

[ 19. February 2014, 19:58: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm sure that a lot of congregations are unitarians to all practical intents and purposes ...

Doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach Trinitarian doctrine though.

On the Orthodox - they're not particularly visible in the UK even though there are around 300,000 of them here - mostly Cypriots, Eastern Europeans etc etc - not all of whom will be practising ...

There are a small number of English-language medium parishes, mostly among the Russians and with the Antiochians - most of whom were Anglican converts - the 'Angliochians' - [Biased]

These are the ones I know best but I've met Greeks, Romanians and so on as well.

The convert parishes have grown from a very low base - in percentage terms the growth is quite high but the overall numbers are small.

I'd suggest there's more to it than a refuge for ex-Pentecostals, but there is that element there - particular in the US - which can make for a certain stridency ...

I could say a bit about innovation. Using English is an innovation. Not sticking to every single rubric is another. Priests trimming their beards a bit is another ...

[Big Grin]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I could say a bit about innovation. Using English is an innovation. Not sticking to every single rubric is another. Priests trimming their beards a bit is another ...

Woo hoo - now that is cultural engagement!
[Big Grin]

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Leaving aside for now whether change in and of itself is a good idea, but staying with the idea that maybe the church in question has had a visit from Them on High and been discreetly warned that the present situation can continue no longer: That is the situation I am addressing and That is the situation that all so often brings a church to either a Fresh Expression or Another Way of Being Church.

[Although for us it was also people saying "I'm not coming to your church, it's boring." But they will come to something entirely different]

So. That Chat has been had, then it's either change the main service with all the accompanying hoo-hah that entails
Or quietly and with a few others, just start something different, at a different time, maybe in a different place/ maybe not.

Up thread, someone mention that maybe having yet another service could be tough in terms of personel required? My answer is that starting something new is infinitely easier than changing something entrenched.

Another worry was dividing the family of the church by introducing another service?
Are the faithful few who only gather for the 8am communion service any the less part of our churches? Of Course not!

I like the idea of social events providing an opportunity for different congregations to meet and feel more connected and certainly that has been our experience.

One other point is that in a city or even a largish town one can pick and chose one's church service. But in the countryside/ small town it's a tad more difficult and I have great sympathy for Karl and his family's situation.

[ 20. February 2014, 09:03: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :

Probably useful to explain/or show that the differences between drum v organ; robed v tie; stand v sit; look up v look down are cultural rather than theological.
Might save problems later. May need more than occasional social event. There's nothing lik having an external focus eg helping local charity to make differences seem less important than what unites

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Leaving aside for now whether change in and of itself is a good idea, but staying with the idea that maybe the church in question has had a visit from Them on High and been discreetly warned that the present situation can continue no longer: That is the situation I am addressing and That is the situation that all so often brings a church to either a Fresh Expression or Another Way of Being Church.

Is that how it works in the CofE, then? Interesting. In many other denominations it's the individual congregations who have to recognise that they're facing serious problems, and then find solutions. No authority figure from outside is likely to come in uninvited and give any discreet warnings. That's not their job.

The CofE seems to have more experience than many others of managing multiple congregations, what with early morning Communion, the 'Family Service' and Evensong. At the church where I go to Evensong the church notices are the same for each congregation, and everyone is invited to participate in wider church activities, regardless of whether they attend all the services or just one. If this is the norm in some churches I'm not sure why having one traditional and one contemporary service in others should give rise to anxiety or feelings of division.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Leaving aside for now whether change in and of itself is a good idea, but staying with the idea that maybe the church in question has had a visit from Them on High and been discreetly warned that the present situation can continue no longer: That is the situation I am addressing and That is the situation that all so often brings a church to either a Fresh Expression or Another Way of Being Church.
Is that how it works in the CofE, then? Interesting. In many other denominations it's the individual congregations who have to recognise that they're facing serious problems, and then find solutions. No authority figure from outside is likely to come in uninvited and give any discreet warnings. That's not their job.

The CofE seems to have more experience than many others of managing multiple congregations, what with early morning Communion, the 'Family Service' and Evensong. At the church where I go to Evensong the church notices are the same for each congregation, and everyone is invited to participate in wider church activities, regardless of whether they attend all the services or just one. If this is the norm in some churches I'm not sure why having one traditional and one contemporary service in others should give rise to anxiety or feelings of division.

Generally the churches who object to having traditional and contemporary services tend to have fewer services anyway. The idea of a contemporary service would go down like a lead balloon in my church, but a 10am Sung Eucharist is our only Sunday service (we have a short said Eucharist on a Saturday morning). We are a small congregation though.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]If this is the norm in some churches I'm not sure why having one traditional and one contemporary service in others should give rise to anxiety or feelings of division.

It will give rise to such feelings when one group of people or another sees one service as the real deal and the other one as not the real deal. Alternatively, the same applies when the hierarchy treats them in the same way.

There's been a small but persistent issue with Fresh Expressions being seen as a recruiting ground for "big church." It's proved impossible to shake. Then of course there's an expectancy in some circles that messy church feeds fresh expressions, feeds big church ....

Better to explain what the real expectations are at the beginning IME

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
There's nothing lik having an external focus eg helping local charity to make differences seem less important than what unites

Oh yes, absolutely. Having a clearly shared sense of purpose is an excellent way of fostering greater unity.

Maybe one good approach is for each church in a town or region to focus on one or two service / outreach activities with all the churches recruiting for supporters and volunteers collaboratively. So if my church's focus is on youth work but I'm more interested in helping homeless people, then I can freely - with my church's blessing - get involved in the homeless work that's based at the church across town.

quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Probably useful to explain/or show that the differences between drum v organ; robed v tie; stand v sit; look up v look down are cultural rather than theological.

I think there's a theological element behind most if not all of these issues. Without rehashing lengthy discussions on other threads, what sort of music a church uses says something about its attitude towards contemporary culture. Likewise, the dress code of the leaders, speakers and other 'up the front' people says something about the perceived purpose and function of leaders and of the church service itself. So it seems to me...

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :

I know there can be theological support for all these variables and others and it's probably worth spending some time thinking about what you do and what connection it has to the Gospel BUT a waste of time getting different groups to concentrate on what;s wrong with the other mob/s. We all know that in extreme situations those who love and rely on a particular way of action can cope without it eg use of not wine during a war. We all know that our services are not perfect and neither are theirs. for the love of our neighbours what should we do?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]If this is the norm in some churches I'm not sure why having one traditional and one contemporary service in others should give rise to anxiety or feelings of division.
It will give rise to such feelings when one group of people or another sees one service as the real deal and the other one as not the real deal. Alternatively, the same applies when the hierarchy treats them in the same way.

There's been a small but persistent issue with Fresh Expressions being seen as a recruiting ground for "big church." It's proved impossible to shake. Then of course there's an expectancy in some circles that messy church feeds fresh expressions, feeds big church ....

Better to explain what the real expectations are at the beginning IME

Are these problems more likely to occur when FE worship takes places in the church property rather than elsewhere? Maybe if the new church gathering takes place in a pub, for example, it's easier for 'traditional' church members to see its adherents as a separate congregation rather than as a group of people whom they can eventually absorb.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Have you seen any pub worship that actually works as a fresh expression? I've seen a couple of attempts and both brought in existing or lapsed Christians, but wasn't attracting new people.

One was the Apple Cart when they did story telling in a pub in Whitechapel. The Sunday evening I went I reckoned everyone else in the upstairs room had been to church elsewhere that morning.

The second was the Beer and Bible initiative, which started in 2011 to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Bible and has completely fizzled out now. That was an attempt to set up bible studies in pubs to attract a different group of people, and again only served as another bible study for church goers.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I can't answer the question, but the accusation that new forms of church don't attract the unchurched but simply pick up Christians, whether practising or lapsed, is a fairly common one. However, surely holding on to and attracting back the people who've already experienced the benefits of church life is no bad thing. If the churches can't inspire these folk how are they going to reach the unchurched?

I've read that another problem with some (not all) of these alternative satellite congregations is that they never develop any financial responsibility. They expect to be funded indefinitely by their traditional parent congregation, even though they might be quite judgmental of traditional/inherited ways of being church. Perhaps a lack of adequate financial planning contributes to the failure of many church plants. But church plants are vulnerable and have a relatively high failure rate. I don't suppose FEs etc. are immune to that.

Regarding the Beer and Bible initiative, it's a shame it couldn't have reinvented and relaunched itself in some way. I wonder what the organisers would do differently if they had the chance to start again.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Sorry, my words didn't come out right. I came across as saying that Them As On High come in and Have A Chat. Indeed it could and often is felt as precisely that. However, i think the term is something like 'facilitating an ongoing and fully participating discussion'.
And obviously no one in any authority in the C/E would wade on in and threaten to close down, it doesn't work like that and i apologise for giving that impression.

But in the life cycle of a church,there sometimes comes a time when a discussion is had about how to take matters on.
Indeed can it be business as usual any longer and is closure the preferable option? Or the only option visable to a struggling congregation?

Or are there Really only those two options available?
Might there be a third way forward?
Can a struggling church congregation be encouraged to take a brave step and maybe consider possibly changing the way things are maybe done?

Either all in together
Or
At a totally different time

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

This still strikes me as a very CofE process. The tradition I know best is British Methodism. I've never heard of a Methodist circuit superintendent offering leadership regarding new forms of church in their circuit, though I'm sure some do. FEs generally seem to be generated at congregational level.

From a Methodist POV it must be problematic if a whole church wants to switch to an alternative format. Methodist reliance on local preachers from different congregations means you have to get a whole raft of outsiders on board, not just your own congregation and/or the minister. Local preachers are trained to produce a traditional Methodist worship service, so anything new could be challenging for them. If anyone knows of a circuit that breaks the mould please tell me where it is!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The reality, of course, is that none of these initiatives - whether in pubs or in church buildings are attracting newcomers or the unchurched in any large numbers. They are having some success, certainly - but I can't think of any group that is having much of an impact in terms of numbers on the unchurched millions ...

Sure, there are new converts around in places but even the lively, evangelical charismatic congregations tend to rely on transfer growth.

There are likely to be more converts around in those settings than in more traditional or less outreachy ones but in my experience the number and percentage of converts has never been as high as people in these kind of churches claim.

They do tend to be higher than elsewhere though, in relative terms.

As for Beer and Bible. I like both. But I'm not sure I'd want to combine them at one and the same time. I can't see how the organisers expected it to appeal to new audience either.

If people are going out for a pint, they're going out for a pint. Why would they expect there to be 'religion' attached?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

It could be that some of these initiatives are useful for building bridges between congregations and denominations, if they're attracting existing church-goers.

The question is, without a 'Billy Graham' type of crusade, how are 'the unchurched' going to take the first steps of faith? Was he a bridge of his time, that couldn't be built today? After all, those he reached were already enculturated into the Christian faith through schools etc.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes - the Billy Graham Crusades have to be seen and judged in the context of their time.

We have an increasingly un-Sunday schooled and biblically illiterate population.

Graham was preaching to audiences where there was a basic level of familiarity with the Christian narrative.

I can't see similar initiatives having the same results now.

A Romanian once told me that after the fall of Ceaucescu people flocked to the churches - of all stripes - because they'd been proscribed and persecuted under his and previous regimes. They had an allure and a mystique about them because of that.

His view was that as the economic situation improved and the country stabilised, numbers would drop off remarkably quickly as the forces of consumerism and secularism took hold ...

We are in a post-Christian culture. There's no getting away from that.

The antidote, though, isn't to try to de-traditionalise ourselves and put on clowns, beer and skittles, so-called contemporary worship and so on. The antidote is to hold fast to that which we have received and to find creative outlets for that certainly - but not in a way which compromises the core message.

Christianity has never been culturally acceptable really ... it can, and did, permeate society to an extent where these societies were 'Christianised' but it's always going to be something that's a bit 'foreign' and out-there if you like - because it's not 'of this world' but 'in' the world ...

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
The question is, without a 'Billy Graham' type of crusade, how are 'the unchurched' going to take the first steps of faith? Was he a bridge of his time, that couldn't be built today? After all, those he reached were already enculturated into the Christian faith through schools etc. [/QB]

I think the main way the 'unchurched' will become favourable towards Christianity is by seeing Christians do good things (remarkably good things, above and beyond the 'regular' good that many non-Christians do) and asking us about the motivation behind our goodness. People need to see Christians (a) living as we talk, in a self-giving kind of way, and (b) loving one another in a way that points towards Jesus. As you say, Raptor Eye, we can't rely any more on most people knowing the basics of what Christianity claims about the world.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The antidote, though, isn't to try to de-traditionalise ourselves and put on clowns, beer and skittles, so-called contemporary worship and so on. The antidote is to hold fast to that which we have received and to find creative outlets for that certainly - but not in a way which compromises the core message.

You see, this sounds awfully like 'Let's carry on pretty much as we have been and hope that things will somehow turn around with people returning to our churches'. I don't buy it. Culture has changed so we need to change how we present the timeless, unchanging message of life in all fullness that Jesus offers. I don't see why such changes necessarily constitute a compromising of the core message of Christianity.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every 'de-traditionalising' approach is worthy and helpful. Certainly not! But I think we have to try, and I think we have to ruthlessly examine our traditions and practices to see which are truly vital (I don't think many are) and which are merely transient, probably being useful at some point in the past (or still useful in the present, in certain settings) but no longer serving the purpose of making disciples of all nations.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I think people being Biblically/Christianity illiterate will continue as long as the mainstream churches carry on being culturally illiterate. Welby speaking out against payday lenders and the RCC speaking out against welfare reform are good starts, but the Dead Horses rather overshadow them.

I don't think things will change unless we change.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

There are quite a few churches "out there" which are intelligently engaging with "real-life issues" from a Christian/Biblical perspective ... yet people aren't beating a path to their doors. The growth seems to be in the (pardon me) "simplistic" churches instead.

I grant that the worship in the "thoughtful churches" can be quite traditional and even turgid ... but is it merely that which is turning people away? Or do folk these days prefer an individualistic and escapist religion rather than one which sets their faith in the context of everyday life?

[ 24. February 2014, 16:20: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There are quite a few churches "out there" which are intelligently engaging with "real-life issues" from a Christian/Biblical perspective ... yet people aren't beating a path to their doors. The growth seems to be in the (pardon me) "simplistic" churches instead.

I grant that the worship in the "thoughtful churches" can be quite traditional and even turgid ... but is it merely that which is turning people away? Or do folk these days prefer an individualistic and escapist religion rather than one which sets their faith in the context of everyday life?

The problem is that people can get what 'thoughtful churches' provide outside of the church, without having to think about the God stuff. People seem to prefer the latter, on the whole. And I would say that yes, an individualistic and escapist religion is more attractive.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

It's always interesting asking the very people who do not go to church...why that is so.

And humbling to listen to the answers.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
It's always interesting asking the very people who do not go to church...why that is so.

And humbling to listen to the answers.

Are you in a position to share some? I mean, we all have our ideas what the answers are, but it'd be nice to actually hear.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

i Always want to know why people do...or do not....go to church! And y'know, folk usually want to share thier opions/ views/ reasons/ excuses as well.

From the last year alone, in no special order and (in case anyone knows me IRL, no they're not all from round here either):

"I stopped being told when to stand up and sit down when i left school"

"Bloody Sermons...haven't got a clue what they're on about"

"I hate singing"

"My children got tutted at last time we went to a church"

"The priest told a mother to take her baby out, he was only wimpering and wasn't disturbiung anyone. I'm not taking my children to church if that might happen"

"My daughter's arm was tugged by an old lady i don't even know. I'm not going back"

"Went once, bored to tears, not coming back"

"Sunday Morning? Get Real!" (Get a lot of these)

"You are joking" ( .......get a lot of those)

Usually though it's "Hahah, you serious? Not my kind of thing is it?"

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
i Always want to know why people do...or do not....go to church! And y'know, folk usually want to share thier opions/ views/ reasons/ excuses as well.

From the last year alone, in no special order and (in case anyone knows me IRL, no they're not all from round here either):

"I stopped being told when to stand up and sit down when i left school"

"Bloody Sermons...haven't got a clue what they're on about"

"I hate singing"

"My children got tutted at last time we went to a church"

"The priest told a mother to take her baby out, he was only wimpering and wasn't disturbiung anyone. I'm not taking my children to church if that might happen"

"My daughter's arm was tugged by an old lady i don't even know. I'm not going back"

"Went once, bored to tears, not coming back"

"Sunday Morning? Get Real!" (Get a lot of these)

"You are joking" ( .......get a lot of those)

Usually though it's "Hahah, you serious? Not my kind of thing is it?"

Very useful. We're far from perfect at my gaff, but that list looks like the sort of thing we're trying to avoid. Even the last.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Hmm, funnily enough none of those reasons are explicitly of the 'I don't believe in God' kind. It makes me wonder if there are a significant group of people who have some belief in God / Jesus but aren't part of a church community for other reasons. Reasons that we could address through things like Fresh Expressions...

EDIT - Crossposted with Karl. Likewise with my church!

[ 27. February 2014, 12:16: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Nice one, Kevin!

[Overused]

Just picking a few points at random from Ethne Alba's list......

Don't tut-tut at children, don't touch other people (or their children) unless you know that it is acceptable, don't tell people to remove their children, don't order people when to stand or sit (though you could gently suggest e.g. 'you might like to sit or kneel for the prayers'), and do seriously consider the possibility of services at times other than Sunday morning!

(We have a young Dad + 2 small boys considering coming to our place, for whom Sunday afternoon might well be a better time......).

Ian J.

Ian J.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Our service is 12 for 12:30 (seriously; if we ever admitted it was 12:30 half of them'd turn up at 1) followed by themed bring and share lunch. Service lasts about half an hour and generally has a range of AV to reinforce the theme which will include items aimed at various age ranges. Complaints from Backsliderlets about going, being bored etc. have now dried up.

We don't sing. Well, you can join in the recorded Sanctus and the regular communion music if you like, and some do. Only thing I'd change would use the Collect for the day rather than an extempore opening prayer. Not a fan of extempore prayer.

BF - Sunday Morning football perchance?

[ 27. February 2014, 12:43: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Karl - in this case, no (Dad is divorced/separated, so it's access timings!).

Point taken, though, and I am convinced that there is a case for a Sunday lunch-time/afternoon 'family service' (IYSWIM) in this town........

I have to say I like the sound of your church....

Ian J.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

South Coast Kevin: Spot on. ISTM that the beef is with Church rather than God, or even Jesus.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I am surprised that singing puts so many people off - for me, singing is a big reason to go to church. Even if the hymns aren't much good, there's always singing the Mass.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am surprised that singing puts so many people off - for me, singing is a big reason to go to church. Even if the hymns aren't much good, there's always singing the Mass.

Think about it, though - for how many people is group singing a significant part of their lives? For the UK, I can only think of people who regularly watch live football (some other sports too?) and who attend or perform at live music events. Singing together is not a mainstream activity like maybe it used to be 100 or whatever years ago. So ISTM, anyhow.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

That may well be true, but not necessarily a reason for not singing in worship. Karl's place sings part of the Mass - there are any number of simple congregational settings for this, and then there are Taize/Iona/Margaret Rizza chants (for example) which could be gently introduced if felt appropriate (whilst rigidly eschewing 'Jesus is my Boyfriend', of course!).

Ian J.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

(Generalisation Alert!)
Maybe women find singing altogether in public ok?

Maybe people with a history of singing (personal or cultural) find singing altogether in public easier?

But in my experience, blokes especially find the idea of singing words and a tune that's unfamiliar, while standing in rows, jammed in...to be an experience they'd rather forget fast.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there will be plenty of men on the ship who will pop along within half an hour and tell us that they love singing.

It's just that the men who are outside our church services Don't.
They find it embarrassing. Or so they say.

That said, if the sung worship (of whatever description, church tradition-wise) is led well and it's authentic, then the 'Oh I'm embarrassed by this' reaction drops right off.

~~acutely NOT wanting this to degenerate into a one style of worship is superior to another style of worship ping pong match~~

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm certainly not suggesting that we never review anything or never change anything. It's just that I've been part of movements and churches that kept reinventing the wheel over and over and over and over ...

You had to have a short memory. Because God apparently kept changing his mind every 5 minutes ...

[Razz]

I think South Coast Kevin is on the money about Christians having to do significantly more good deeds than is generally the case or even expected of them to gain any chance of getting a hearing.

I also agree with Baptist Trainfan that - initially at least - it's the churches that offer a rather simplistic theandric and thaumaturgical approach - there, I've not used those two terms on Ship for a while but I feel a lot better now - that are the ones that are growing - or declining less quickly ...

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am surprised that singing puts so many people off - for me, singing is a big reason to go to church. Even if the hymns aren't much good, there's always singing the Mass.
Think about it, though - for how many people is group singing a significant part of their lives? For the UK, I can only think of people who regularly watch live football (some other sports too?) and who attend or perform at live music events. Singing together is not a mainstream activity like maybe it used to be 100 or whatever years ago. So ISTM, anyhow.

But that's the whole reason why singing at church is a draw, because you don't get to do it otherwise unless you're in a community choir or the like.

As for men being embarrassed by singing, I think the problem there is with the men and not the church! I think they need to get over themselves, to be honest. It's not about them, it's about God. I am always astonished by the fragility of the male ego!

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But that's the whole reason why singing at church is a draw, because you don't get to do it otherwise unless you're in a community choir or the like.

What if Ethne Alba is right, though, and most people (especially men, perhaps) find corporate singing embarrassing and awkward? Then the opportunity to sing in church is far from a draw, isn't it? Like you, I enjoy singing, but that's not the point!

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As for men being embarrassed by singing, I think the problem there is with the men and not the church! I think they need to get over themselves, to be honest. It's not about them, it's about God. I am always astonished by the fragility of the male ego!

You might well be right about the male ego but, again, I don't think that's the point. If singing together is an essential part of meeting as church then, yes, men will need to get over their awkwardness. But (a) is it really essential, and (b) there might still be ways we can reduce the barrier to people, maybe by including other forms of expressing praise to God, maybe by using contemporary styles of music that people are familiar with.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I think both men and women who can't sing are deterred by the idea of going somewhere they are expected to join in. At weddings and funerals more and more are now standing silent. This is surely more honest than pretending.

The 'Jesus is my boyfriend' songs were at least easy to pick up for the non-musical people, and expressive of the love that is supposed to be what Christianity is all about.

Perhaps there is a place for more services that don't include congregational singing.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Everyone can sing. It's mostly a matter of confidence.

But yes, I do think that singing is essential, at least for the main Sunday service. I'm surprised you don't think it's essential SCK, since 'singing hymns and spiritual songs' is one of the few features of NT church worship we know about.

Edited to add that I think it's a definite minority who don't like singing in church. People generally love singing carols at Christmas, after all. Many people join churches for the choir. Lots of people enjoy corporate singing, it's not some weird minority thing.

[ 27. February 2014, 16:33: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there will be plenty of men on the ship who will pop along within half an hour and tell us that they love singing.

It's just that the men who are outside our church services Don't.
They find it embarrassing. Or so they say.

I can't sing. My voice is almost never anywhere near the correct pitch. I find even the thought of singing in public acutely embarrassing, with the result that I never attempt to do so. I am fully aware that the noise that comes out of my mouth is not at all like the tune in my head.

And yet I sing at church.

I know I do it very badly, but I do the best I can anyway, because it's not about me - it's about God. And in truth, I'm marginally less bad now than I was a decade ago - maybe by the time I retire, I'll get the occasional note in tune.

I will, however, do almost anything to avoid most of the modern oeuvre, because the music itself is bad.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Corporate/ communal/ altogether sung worship, properly done is usually no problem to even the most hardened Anti Singers. And I would define Good Worship as exactly that: worship that is led and directed, that enables the congregation to feel safe in singing and safe also in learning how to worship God through song.

Dreadfully executed leading, of 'unknown to lots of the congregation' hymn/ song singing....is...a challenge. To anyone!

I suppose that if new folk feel that they are beginning to 'Belong' to the family that is church, then everyone approaches this with a We're All In It Together manner. And it's OK.

Worship. Odd word. Google the name of my city and the word worship and there are lists of football songs and comments about the teams!
Do we assume that people "get" worship, like the measles? By being in close proximity to it? Or is it taught? Or both? Genuinely interested....

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But yes, I do think that singing is essential, at least for the main Sunday service. I'm surprised you don't think it's essential SCK, since 'singing hymns and spiritual songs' is one of the few features of NT church worship we know about.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am surprised that singing puts so many people off - for me, singing is a big reason to go to church. Even if the hymns aren't much good, there's always singing the Mass.
Think about it, though - for how many people is group singing a significant part of their lives? For the UK, I can only think of people who regularly watch live football (some other sports too?) and who attend or perform at live music events. Singing together is not a mainstream activity like maybe it used to be 100 or whatever years ago. So ISTM, anyhow.
But that's the whole reason why singing at church is a draw, because you don't get to do it otherwise unless you're in a community choir or the like.

As for men being embarrassed by singing, I think the problem there is with the men and not the church! I think they need to get over themselves, to be honest. It's not about them, it's about God. I am always astonished by the fragility of the male ego!

Yeah, but they're not going to "get over themselves"; they're just going to absent themselves, as they currently do.

The most fervent singing hater I know is female, anyway.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
That may well be true, but not necessarily a reason for not singing in worship. Karl's place sings part of the Mass

Well, a few do. Most don't.

We use a lot of music. More than most, probably, as a proportion of the service. But singing is not generally a part of it. We did some live music with congregational singing (we're not actually agin' it) when we took the service to Greenbelt; only time I've ever played electric guitar in a church setting and not been asked to (a) make it sound more like an acoustic, (b) turn off the distortion and (c) just play the chords*.

*Hezekiah 13:9 - Neither shalt thy electric guitarist play in a rock style; yeah, he shall not overdrive the pre-amp; nor shall he use a blues scale. Extemporised lead play is right out. Play the chords shall he, and no more.

[ 28. February 2014, 08:32: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I'm rather of the opinion that making simple generalisations of the basis of gender does not enhance the discussion (tempting though it might seem). If everyone could refrain, it would be much appreciated...

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host - in semi-official capacity

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
*Hezekiah 13:9 - Neither shalt thy electric guitarist play in a rock style; yeah, he shall not overdrive the pre-amp; nor shall he use a blues scale. Extemporised lead play is right out. Play the chords shall he, and no more.

Sorry for the content-free post but I thought this deserved a [Big Grin]

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I'm rather of the opinion that making simple generalisations of the basis of gender does not enhance the discussion (tempting though it might seem). If everyone could refrain, it would be much appreciated...

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host - in semi-official capacity

Semi official... if you tell me to, I won't pursue this any further, but I think there is a physical sex difference at work here that's worth commenting on (rather than a crude gender generalization). Most men experienced their voices 'breaking' when they were young and insecure. Breaking being a pretty evocative term for what happens to your singing voice, you lose the ability to sing well during what is a sharp and sudden transition. Most women, on the other hand, experienced their voice gradually maturing, maybe slowly shifting down in pitch, maybe just becoming fuller. Whatever happened, it was smooth and gradual and they could adjust to it slowly.

I'm pretty sure this is why a lot of men don't like singing: they would have to relearn how to use their voice after it broke on them. Some do this, but most don't. If women learnt as girls, though, they never had to relearn.

Of course, there are plenty of other reasons people might be uncomfortable singing that might afflict a woman, or she might be one of the few that experienced something like a break as a (pre-)teen. There are also plenty of men who put the work in, or who have a bad enough ear to not realize how off they are, and sing with gusto.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

(Keeping it strictly gender neutral, I hope...)

The OP asked if there was mileage in having a various congregations making up one church?
I'd love to hear of churches who have various distinctive congregations, making up one whole church (ie people who only go to one of a number of services on offer)
Does it work?
How did you help this to work?

And the other question was if there were any experience of a bridge between unchurched and churched congregations?
Clarification: Does this mean? Exactly?
Cheers

(...mumbling...not understanding completely...feeling daft....thankU for being patient..)

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
(Keeping it strictly gender neutral, I hope...)

The OP asked if there was mileage in having a various congregations making up one church?
I'd love to hear of churches who have various distinctive congregations, making up one whole church (ie people who only go to one of a number of services on offer)
Does it work?
How did you help this to work?

And the other question was if there were any experience of a bridge between unchurched and churched congregations?
Clarification: Does this mean? Exactly?
Cheers

(...mumbling...not understanding completely...feeling daft....thankU for being patient..)

Thank you for your input here, it's very valuable, including this question.

I'm wondering whether there is a way of those who are 'churched' - by this I mean those who were brought up to attend church, albeit infrequently, and who are comfortable with the Bible, the language of Christianity and the liturgy, the way church services are conducted, the way the church of whichever denomination is organised, and how the congregation, choir etc fit into that - becoming reconciled with those who are 'unchurched' but who are Christians in the sense that they believe in God and try their best to follow Christ.

The latter might never darken the door of a church, they might drop in when it's empty to sit in silence, they might join in with midweek events like mothers and toddlers groups or social groups which may include prayers and Bible stories and readings, they might go to a 'fresh expression' of church, but they would be unlikely to attend a Sunday service for one reason or another.

[ 28. February 2014, 16:01: Message edited by: Raptor Eye ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I think the connections between 'churched' and 'unchurched' Christians might be maintained via a continued and a better informed sense of 'vicarious religion', i.e. the notion that religious tasks should be formed by some on behalf of others.

Vicariousness has a long pedigree in Christianity, of course, in the sense that we divide believers into laity and clergy, with the latter paid to specialise in religious duties, reflection and study on behalf of the rest. We now seem to have divided the laity into two (or more) groups as well. As I say, if this is how things must be, then I think churchgoers need to be more aware of their role. Non-churchgoing Christians might feel better understood as a result. Perhaps.

[ 28. February 2014, 17:38: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :

Who is going to Sunday Assembly events; these are imitation church services without religion. They seem to have group singing, non-sermons, quiet times. tea and cakes etc. Are these the never churched? the culturally churched non-believers or who??

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Who is going to Sunday Assembly events; these are imitation church services without religion. They seem to have group singing, non-sermons, quiet times. tea and cakes etc. Are these the never churched? the culturally churched non-believers or who??

Our very own Simon Jenkins blogged about this a while ago

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :

Does the existence of this mob throw much light on the bridges question? quo vardis and all that??

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
The question is, without a 'Billy Graham' type of crusade, how are 'the unchurched' going to take the first steps of faith? Was he a bridge of his time, that couldn't be built today? After all, those he reached were already enculturated into the Christian faith through schools etc.
I think the main way the 'unchurched' will become favourable towards Christianity is by seeing Christians do good things (remarkably good things, above and beyond the 'regular' good that many non-Christians do) and asking us about the motivation behind our goodness. [/QB]

A frequent message, especially among those who desperately want to evangelise but are aware of the problems of traditional forms. People like me.

But I've sought an answer to one question, and never been given one, perhaps you can. The question is...Just what are the good things that CHristians do above and beyond the regular good things that many non-Christians do? Because I can't think of a one.

John

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :

Just what are the good things that CHristians do above and beyond the regular good things that many non-Christians do? Because I can't think of a one.

John [/QB][/QUOTE]
Don't think it's about the things done, being happy when others are doing good things too is probably a start; engaging in conversation when asked why you are doing something, might be useful; it gives God a chance to be a relationship between you and others...part of a process not an end in itself and, for some of us, relatively easy to get going

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

John. We had it in the readings ar church lasr week (Matthew 5-7) : do exactly the same good things everybody else does, but do them to your enemies too. That IMHO is usually the thing that makes onlookers sit up and take notice.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Just what are the good things that CHristians do above and beyond the regular good things that many non-Christians do? Because I can't think of a one.

John

Don't think it's about the things done, being happy when others are doing good things too is probably a start; engaging in conversation when asked why you are doing something, might be useful; it gives God a chance to be a relationship between you and others...part of a process not an end in itself and, for some of us, relatively easy to get going [/QB][/QUOTE]

And none of that, good as it is, is distinctively Christian, at least where I am.

AS for not being about things done, things done was what was cited as the key in the post from which I quoted, and to which I was responding.

John

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
John. We had it in the readings ar church lasr week (Matthew 5-7) : do exactly the same good things everybody else does, but do them to your enemies too. That IMHO is usually the thing that makes onlookers sit up and take notice.

Nice thought. But I really don't have any enemies; nor do most of the Christians I know.

And the only kind of behaviour seen in public is going to be the same towards enemies as towards friends, regardless of whether "I" am a CHristian or an atheist or whatever.

You see, IMO, the expected standards of behaviour in western society reflect the Christian ones -- we won, so to speak, at least in terms of what is expected. Good behaviour today for everyone is the same as good CHristian behaviour not because it is Christian, but because everyone else has decided to go along with it.

Which leaves me again with the question I asked, and to which I hope (when the time is propitious, which it is not now in the UK), there will be a response.

John

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Things that have been known to work are things like Street Pastors. But those street pastors have to be there to support the people in the street, and not to evangelise. When the whole focus is on support then the party-goers can come back to find out why they were helped.

In the middle of dealing with the group of 15-16 year old boys with learning difficulties and behaviour to match, who were being real pains, one of them quietly asked me how I kept working with them and smiling, and I somewhat grimly said "prayer", which did garner some conversation later.

But for the local CofE church the ...

Credit Union meeting in the church building prevented some people coming in and moved to the library - still the same church volunteers running it,
second-hand bookstall takes 3 or 4 times the money when it's set up outside the church, not inside

... this is a church that acts as a concert venue, hosts the horticultural show, runs an annual tree festival.

People are really resistant to coming into churches. I suspect they expect to be preached at. Really not helped by the Elim Church setting up a stall outside this CofE church where it runs on the High Street, (entrance and outside space is round the corner on a side street) street preaching and handing out tracts. And the moron who does it won't accept attendance at another church as a reason not to thrust leaflets in hands, because you're not "born again".

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Which leaves me again with the question I asked, and to which I hope (when the time is propitious, which it is not now in the UK), there will be a response.

Yeah, really good question, John. As folks have said, doing good deeds without favouring those we like and get along with is important but, as you have said, there are plenty of non-Christians who do this too.

For those who believe in the miraculous / supernatural, I guess we would seek to ally our good deeds with demonstrations of God's power. I'm thinking in particular of prophecy - so when we're talking with people we try to remain open to God's prompting and to speak into the person's situation, in a way that is beyond human intuition and empathy. Also prayer for healing, and other miraculous works.

But also I do think there is (or at least can be) something unique in the way Christians do our good works (i.e. it's not necessarily that Christians do different things). If there really is something in this faith we hold to, then as we are enlivened by the Holy Spirit there should be something noticeably different about how we go about our lives. People should see Jesus in us and in our church communities - quoting from memory 'People will know you are my followers because of your love for one another'.

I realise this isn't exactly a compelling answer! Maybe others can chip in because I do think it's an important and difficult question. What difference does God being with and in us really make?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Yeah, really good question, John. As folks have said, doing good deeds without favouring those we like and get along with is important but, as you have said, there are plenty of non-Christians who do this too.

For those who believe in the miraculous / supernatural, I guess we would seek to ally our good deeds with demonstrations of God's power. I'm thinking in particular of prophecy - so when we're talking with people we try to remain open to God's prompting and to speak into the person's situation, in a way that is beyond human intuition and empathy. Also prayer for healing, and other miraculous works.

But also I do think there is (or at least can be) something unique in the way Christians do our good works (i.e. it's not necessarily that Christians do different things). If there really is something in this faith we hold to, then as we are enlivened by the Holy Spirit there should be something noticeably different about how we go about our lives. People should see Jesus in us and in our church communities - quoting from memory 'People will know you are my followers because of your love for one another'.

I realise this isn't exactly a compelling answer! Maybe others can chip in because I do think it's an important and difficult question. What difference does God being with and in us really make?

I agree that it's a good question, and one I've been thinking about in the context of this thread. Where there are non-churching-going Christians as well as those within church communities, alongside people of other faiths and none, involved in voluntary work, nothing will set Christians apart unless they demonstrate a different attitude from others, particularly toward other people.

Compassion may be roused naturally toward some people, but others are seen as threats or rivals. Who are we kind to? Who are we warm towards? I've noticed that I feel loved and welcome when with some groups of Christians within the church, while others seem to tolerate me at best. Why is this, if we are aiming at loving others as ourselves, being salt and light to all people? 'See those Christians, how they love one another' would perhaps be the greatest bridge of all. Before we reach out, perhaps we should reach in.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I don't think that longing for Christians to be a whole lot more caring and sharing than everyone else is going to get us very far.

I'm not a Christian because I think it makes me behave better than everyone who isn't, but because I know that I'm a sinner and Jesus offers to accept me in spite of that. I praise and magnify him in return for what he's done for me, and what I can see he's done for other people. But that doesn't mean we've all become so much nicer. The process of behavioural transformation should be lifelong, but I don't think it's at the heart of Christianity.

Now, most people in our culture don't really think of themselves as sinners. For some people 'Christian' is mostly a euphemism for 'decent'. If you already perceive yourself to be a perfectly decent person then you might well feel that God should be happy with that, and that any further expression of religiosity is overkill.

This explains why some of the evangelists of old often found it more satisfying to work with people whose sins were obvious for all to see, rather than with people whose respectability made them indignant at the idea that they had any need of forgiveness.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think there's a lot in that, SvitlanaV2. We've largely lost our sense of personal 'sin' and see it either in collective terms (which it can also be of course) or else something that person over there does and not me ...

Meanwhile ...

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

My hobby horse when it comes to church services is that the New Testament pattern is 'one another' this and 'one another' that, rather than sitting and joining in with what the professionals / experts / ordained people are doing up the front. I'm much less dogmatic about the precise content of church services although, yes, singing songs ('to one another' IIRC) is mentioned in the NT.

Why do we meet together as church? IMO the NT says it's to encourage, challenge and support one another, to bring God's message to one another. Songs are certainly one way of doing that but in a culture where ever fewer people are familiar and comfortable with corporate singing, maybe they're not a very good way. [/QB][/QUOTE]

And my hobby-horse is to say that the apostle Paul was simply trying to regulate a multiplicity of competing contributions and people chipping in with far too much stuff ...

On one reading, you can hear the exasperation in his voice ...

'When you come together EACH of you has a ... a ... a ...'

For goodness sake, he's saying. Cool it down. Let everything be done decently and in order.

Church meetings/services of whatever kind are never - in and of themselves - going to meet all eventualities and allow every single person to have their say. We'd be there all day long if we were going to do that.

I'd suggest that there are other contexts for that - if it's what we want to do - small groups, Bible studies etc. If people are sufficiently interested they'll seek these things out.

I'm still struggling with this 'bring God's message to one another' thing. What does that involve? God's message is Jesus Christ. We receive him in the word and in the sacrament.

We can see him in each and every person we meet, if we have eyes to see that is ...

'I tell you the truth, inasmuch as you did it to the least of these ... you did it to me ...'

I agree with John Holding that what is generally reckoned to be good and acceptable behaviour has been derived from Christian ethics. If we want to make gestures and do good works above and beyond that entry-level if you like - then let's get on and do them.

Church services may help to focus and motivate us for that but this isn't guaranteed - however we 'do' church - whether in a Fresh Expressions type way or as an RC High Mass or in Quaker silence.

What we can do, though, is develop some kind of disciplined lifestyle that includes prayer, praise, almsgiving, helping people etc etc

I really don't know what we can do to adjust/adapt our services and modus operandi to make our meetings/services more accessible to outsiders. I really can't see how we can that without either:

- Upsetting the 'regulars' in some way (which might be a good thing).
- Pitching things at so general a level that they miss the mark.
- End up reinventing the wheel every 5 minutes.

I used to belong to a church which stopped meeting on a Sunday for a while. The idea was that we used that time to build 'warm contacts' with non-church people who we could then invite to mid-week meetings.

It didn't work. People stayed in bed or watched the telly or accompanied their kids on sporting activities.

The church shrank.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

That thing about not meeting on Sundays sounds badly thought through. The local Vineyard church does something similar, but only on the 4th Sunday of each month. This sounds more manageable, and it doesn't break people's churchgoing habit. But these things do require an element of trial and error, I imagine.

I think we do need some (indeed, probably more) churches that are always on the lookout for new ways of being. They serve as a testing ground. If their ideas fail, well, the number of people involved probably wasn't too large anyway, and if they succeed, their ideas might be quietly adopted (and adapted) by the more established and cautious religious institutions. Both/and, either/or, as you like to say.

This is how it should work, at all events. But perhaps you see all of this variety as a breeding ground for secularisation, because it turns people into religious consumers who expect to have their needs catered to at every turn or else they're off.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think that longing for Christians to be a whole lot more caring and sharing than everyone else is going to get us very far.

I'm not a Christian because I think it makes me behave better than everyone who isn't, but because I know that I'm a sinner and Jesus offers to accept me in spite of that. I praise and magnify him in return for what he's done for me, and what I can see he's done for other people. But that doesn't mean we've all become so much nicer. The process of behavioural transformation should be lifelong, but I don't think it's at the heart of Christianity.

I'm not a Christian because I think it makes me behave better than everyone else, either. Nor am I a Christian because I know I'm a sinner and Jesus offers to accept me in spite of that. Neither is at the heart of Christianity imv.

The love of the God who so loved the word that he sent us Jesus to show us the way (which includes forgiveness and transformation) and the Holy Spirit who guides and invigorates us in faith, is at the heart of Christianity. Our response to this love comes through in our love for God and for each other. This should be in evidence and growing imv, particularly within the organised churches, for newcomers and everyone to see, as the foundations for the bridges that need to be built.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0