Ship of Fools: Pray here, get beer

Thread: Pray here, get beer Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026429

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

To Stave Off Decline, Churches Attract New Members With Beer

quote:
With mainline religious congregations dwindling across America, a scattering of churches is trying to attract new members by creating a different sort of Christian community. They are gathering around craft beer.

Some church groups are brewing it themselves, while others are bring the Holy Mysteries to a taproom. The result is not sloshed congregants; rather, it's an exploratory approach to do church differently.

Some questions for discussion:

Does this constitute bribing people to come to church?
If so, is that necessarily a bad thing, if it can result in people coming to Christ?
Will people commit to the Gospel, and not just keep coming for the beer?
If the beer were taken away, say a year from now, how many people would keep coming?
How long will it take to "set the hook" i.e. to get people committed enough that the beer is not the draw?

I haven't really made up my mind about any of these things; would love to hear what shippies think.

[ 03. November 2013, 15:48: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Does this constitute bribing people to come to church?

I wouldn't think so, unless the people coming to the church have no other way of acquiring beer. In that case, we can possibly assume that they are trading an hour or so of their time in direct exchange for a desired commodity.

But assuming that these people have access to beer to begin with, it seems more likely that the beer at the church is more part of an overall "image" that attracts them, sort of like "Hey, this sounds like a cool place to hang out, they even have beer!"

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

I don't think anyone goes to church out of pure motives.

I can see this as using incentives, but practically, as a church you're already demanding someone to come and spend an hour doing things that do not confer immediate benefits to someone who hasn't already invested in the system. So offering something else as fellowship seems to me a decent thing to do, a form of hospitality. If you throw a party for your friends, it is respectful to provide some kind of food and often drink. That churches don't do so is perhaps very presumptuous on the church's part.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

In theory I love the idea of Christians meeting wherever people congregate rather than in dedicated buildings (I recall a preacher saying that in modern language "synagogue" is spelled "B-A-R"). And I think "meeting in tap rooms" is more or less what Dave Tomlinson did when he went post-evangelical.

However, in contemporary culture I think it's doomed to failure for two reasons.

Firstly, my feeling is that today, most unchurched people think religion is "special" enough to merit its own building, and look upon congregations that meet in other venues with suspicion (this is particularly true in France). I think the same is probably true if the church attempts to import activities perceived as secular into its worship.

Secondly, if such a gathering happens spontaneously, that's great; but when it happens by design in order to appear "edgy", it's too artificial to be nothing more than a passing trend.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Agreed, and people can tell when things smack of desperation ...

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

MT The Trappists have a fine tradition of brewing craft beer. My home brew never reached their standards though I don't think working in the brew house or meadery was my calling.

Maybe they could move on to scrumpy or sloe gin? There could be a really valuable ministry in fermenting a decent communion wine.

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
unchurched people think religion is "special" enough to merit its own building, and look upon congregations that meet in other venues with suspicion (this is particularly true in France).

so true

But back to the OP: In the early 1990s I spent a lot of time in Argentina and during a short break went up to the state of Misiones (in the north; bordering with Paraguay and Brasil) where a priest I knew from my hometown in Germany was working as a Parish priest to a small village in the jungle and the adjacent settlements of Guarani-Indians. I went overland with him (fascinating) and saw his work; the "typical" Latin American scenario of fighting with authorities and latifundists, collecting funds for wells, ensuring kids go to school etc. On top of that, his latest headache was a group of evangelical missionaries, sent fresh from the US with loads of cash. On Sunday morning, they parked their nice new bus in front of the RC chapel. Their deal was this: you board our bus, and we'll whisk you off in airconditioned luxury to our church, where not only will you get to sing cooler songs, but we'll give you a new pair of shoes and a nice new T-Shirt on top of it.

What to do?

People go to church for all sorts of reason other than the act of worship (socialising is quite high on the list for most people), but I would qualify this particular incident as bribery; worse, it is taking advantage of people in a vulnerable (they were both needy and uneducated) situation.

What happened once the boons were withdrawn? Most of the congregation went back to good old Padre Carlos... the "devil" they knew.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

In NZ that would mean an adult-only church. If you're supplying alcohol, you have to have a license and you can't supply to under-18s.

But maybe children aren't the demographic they're aiming at, and I do know of churches that have the occasional service in a pub. However, from my limited understanding, the people who go are already members of the congregation.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

There's nothing new in this - at least not on the European side of the Atlantic.

Quite apart from the brewing monks - mainly Trappists (Chimay, Westvleteren, etc) - there has been a revival in churches being more closely associated with brewing in the UK - Ampleforth, Caldy - and, in the past 10 or so years some churches have either taken to holding services in pubs in villages where the church was too decrepit to keep open or they have taken over running the pub.

The first licensed parish in England was in the diocese of St Albans in the early 1960s.

My own parish has a thriving micro-brewery run by a former churchwarden, the profits of which are going to our roof fund - and a current CW has a half-share in a vineyard... hic [Smile]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
MT The Trappists have a fine tradition of brewing craft beer. My home brew never reached their standards though I don't think working in the brew house or meadery was my calling.

Brewing yes, but incorporating it into worship?

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

Not sure the difference between this hook and coffee, or finger food, or any other commodity. As long as it doesn't contravene the basic tenets of the faith, I don't see an issue.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

It sounds like fun, but why specifically beer? I hate beer!

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
...my feeling is that today, most unchurched people think religion is "special" enough to merit its own building, and look upon congregations that meet in other venues with suspicion (this is particularly true in France). I think the same is probably true if the church attempts to import activities perceived as secular into its worship.

If we're talking specifically about unchurched people - those for whom Christianity, Jesus etc. have very little meaning - then the above isn't my impression at all... I think many people are looking for community, a sense of belonging; and when they find that in a community centred around Christ then they begin to believe in, trust and worship him. I suspect that authenticity and strong, supportive community are generally seen as more important than where the meetings take place.

On the other hand, for people who do have a significant heritage of Christian faith (e.g. through Sunday School attendance as children) then I wouldn't be surprised if most of them are more drawn to building-based churches than to home / pub / cafe based churches.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
...my feeling is that today, most unchurched people think religion is "special" enough to merit its own building, and look upon congregations that meet in other venues with suspicion (this is particularly true in France). I think the same is probably true if the church attempts to import activities perceived as secular into its worship.
If we're talking specifically about unchurched people - those for whom Christianity, Jesus etc. have very little meaning - then the above isn't my impression at all... I think many people are looking for community, a sense of belonging; and when they find that in a community centred around Christ then they begin to believe in, trust and worship him. I suspect that authenticity and strong, supportive community are generally seen as more important than where the meetings take place.

On the other hand, for people who do have a significant heritage of Christian faith (e.g. through Sunday School attendance as children) then I wouldn't be surprised if most of them are more drawn to building-based churches than to home / pub / cafe based churches.

I think what Eutychus describes is prominent in places where the historic church presence is sacramental - RC, Orthodox, probably Lutheran, often Anglican (at least in some places in the UK). If the church that's influenced the local culture the most is one where certain people lead the church in certain buildings, that's how people will think of church.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

However, I think SCK is making an important point about people for whom church is totally alien, and people who are at least nominal Christians. It's why Beer & Hymns is a hit at Greenbelt, and probably wouldn't be at a secular festival. I think a lot of totally unchurched people would see this as beer with 'a catch' and be turned off. It's why people don't like free food offered by uni chaplaincies or CUs - it's seen as manipulative (even if there really is no catch).

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

Hopefully church beer would be better than church coffee .

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

My first gut reaction: What will they do with the people when they outgrow the bar scene? (Me being at that awkward age)

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's why people don't like free food offered by uni chaplaincies or CUs - it's seen as manipulative (even if there really is no catch).

I'm a bit confused by this, but I think I see what you mean.

In my experience, free food will be seen as manipulative if it's used to attract people who would never have darkened the doors otherwise and then trick them into sitting through religious content. On the other hand, it's an absolutely fantastic way to get your student flock coming through the dead of winter when it would be much easier to stay at home -- the food is usually much better than the dining hall!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's why people don't like free food offered by uni chaplaincies or CUs - it's seen as manipulative (even if there really is no catch).
I'm a bit confused by this, but I think I see what you mean.

In my experience, free food will be seen as manipulative if it's used to attract people who would never have darkened the doors otherwise and then trick them into sitting through religious content. On the other hand, it's an absolutely fantastic way to get your student flock coming through the dead of winter when it would be much easier to stay at home -- the food is usually much better than the dining hall!

In the UK most students are self-catering anyway. IME though, any religious group offering anything for free is seen as having a catch somewhere, even if there isn't one - that religious groups/people always have an ulterior motive.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

1. Does this constitute bribing people to come to church?
2. If so, is that necessarily a bad thing, if it can result in people coming to Christ?
3. Will people commit to the Gospel, and not just keep coming for the beer?
4. If the beer were taken away, say a year from now, how many people would keep coming?
5. How long will it take to "set the hook" i.e. to get people committed enough that the beer is not the draw?
[/list]

I haven't really made up my mind about any of these things; would love to hear what shippies think.

It's only my opinion but ...
1. Yes
2. Yes - it's deception. What else might we be hiding? Not a good start to a relationship
3. In all likelihood no - as soon as the beer stops, what takes its place?
4. probably none
5. Impossible to answer but in all likelihood infinity

It all prompts a few more questions. At what point do you introduce "faith"? How does it go beyond a social club - is it meant to? (if it isn't then why waste time and energy when there are all too many needs out there to be met? Is it simply something we want to do so we'll do it because we can find a quasi spiritual basis for it? In short, is it a brewery in a church or a church with a brewery?

It all smacks of desperation to me - and the dangers and drawbacks seem to be very ill considered, if at all.

I'm concerned by the idea in itself. In a world where alcohol (admittedly its misuse) causes so much trouble, should the church be seen to be encouraging its production and consumption? What about the people who have dependency issues? Will you have an AA meeting and a brewing group meeting on the same premises even at different times?

This is to my eyes one more step towards compromise. This is the church allowing itself to be moulded by culture, not moulding culture (see Romans 12: 1,2).

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's why people don't like free food offered by uni chaplaincies or CUs - it's seen as manipulative (even if there really is no catch).

People do say that, but there's at least one university in London where Hare Krishnas give out food for free daily, and many of the same students I heard complaining about CU tactics would happily take a free curry off the HKs. So I think there's often just a general "ugh Christians again" attitude more than a strong aversion to taking free stuff from religious groups.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Why is beer specifically such a problem. It's my understanding that the central ritual of Christian worship involves wine.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

I would definitely go to Hymns and Beer. Maybe not once a week, but as a quarterly event or even every other month? I'd be all over it. As would, I suspect, a number of friends who have left the Church. A good friend of mine in the choir talks about how, even when she stopped going to church in the middle of life, she kept singing hymns, because it was fun. It wouldn't replace Sunday morning for me, but honestly, I really want to contact some of the younger members of some other Episcopal choirs in the city and see if we can make this happen. Sounds like a blast.

As a fellowship tool, I don't know that bringing church to beer or the bar is a new thing at all. I have been to numerous "Theology on Tap" nights, which is, as far as I can tell, one of the leading models for 20s and 30s fellowship, at least at churches where alcohol is not taboo. Beer is about as social of a beverage as you can find. There is even an argument (I don't know how well respected) that beer and agriculture developed hand in hand. The association between fellowship and beer goes back almost as far as fellowship itself.

I don't see the beer as a bribe, any more than coffee and cake after church or the occasional parish potluck is a bribe. Part of church is associating with people, and this is just how the association happens. You would probably lose people if you dropped the beer, but you would if you stopped other fellowship programs at your church as well.

Is it trying to hard to be cool? I am usually the first person to drop that suggestion when a new thing comes along, but probably because this appeals specifically to me, I don't see it. While you do get pretentious hymn singers and pretentious beer drinkers (I could qualify as both on a bad day), singing hymns and drinking beer seems like about the least pretentious activity I can think of. It isn't going to appeal to everyone, and if you set out thinking that it will, you are going to be disappointed. But something tells me if you just throw it out there and reach the right people, you are going to end up with a really fun group of people who probably couldn't care less about being perceived as cool.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's why people don't like free food offered by uni chaplaincies or CUs - it's seen as manipulative (even if there really is no catch).
People do say that, but there's at least one university in London where Hare Krishnas give out food for free daily, and many of the same students I heard complaining about CU tactics would happily take a free curry off the HKs. So I think there's often just a general "ugh Christians again" attitude more than a strong aversion to taking free stuff from religious groups.

You're probably right! Given the Jesus Army presence in our town I don't really blame them for being suspicious. We don't have groups like the Hare Krishnas either though.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

1. Does this constitute bribing people to come to church?
2. If so, is that necessarily a bad thing, if it can result in people coming to Christ?
3. Will people commit to the Gospel, and not just keep coming for the beer?
4. If the beer were taken away, say a year from now, how many people would keep coming?
5. How long will it take to "set the hook" i.e. to get people committed enough that the beer is not the draw?
[/list]

I haven't really made up my mind about any of these things; would love to hear what shippies think.
It's only my opinion but ...
1. Yes
2. Yes - it's deception. What else might we be hiding? Not a good start to a relationship
3. In all likelihood no - as soon as the beer stops, what takes its place?
4. probably none
5. Impossible to answer but in all likelihood infinity

It all prompts a few more questions. At what point do you introduce "faith"? How does it go beyond a social club - is it meant to? (if it isn't then why waste time and energy when there are all too many needs out there to be met? Is it simply something we want to do so we'll do it because we can find a quasi spiritual basis for it? In short, is it a brewery in a church or a church with a brewery?

It all smacks of desperation to me - and the dangers and drawbacks seem to be very ill considered, if at all.

I'm concerned by the idea in itself. In a world where alcohol (admittedly its misuse) causes so much trouble, should the church be seen to be encouraging its production and consumption? What about the people who have dependency issues? Will you have an AA meeting and a brewing group meeting on the same premises even at different times?

This is to my eyes one more step towards compromise. This is the church allowing itself to be moulded by culture, not moulding culture (see Romans 12: 1,2).

Jesus commanded His followers to consume alcohol, not sure how Christians can ever rail against alcohol without being incredibly hypocritical. Brewing beer has historically been central to monasteries, so why is beer suddenly a problem? On the contrary, I find the opposition to Christians using alcohol to come from American evangelical killjoys, often with some nasty anti-Catholic feelings behind it.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
MT The Trappists have a fine tradition of brewing craft beer. My home brew never reached their standards though I don't think working in the brew house or meadery was my calling.
Brewing yes, but incorporating it into worship?

But Beer & Hymns at First Christian, Portland, isn't a worship service as such. It's a social event with informal hymn singing. The NPR report described these sorts of things as "transitional experiences." I like the general idea--introducing the faith community to outsiders in a non-threatening way.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Now for those who think the 1960s started the association with church and beer please think again. The Irish mission (that part of the Roman Catholic Church in England) started it well before then. The first Roman Catholic building in an area was not the church but the social club. The money from the bar then funded the building of the church!

Jengie

[Duplicate post deleted because I can. Gwai]

[ 05. November 2013, 20:16: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]

1. Jesus commanded His followers to consume alcohol, not sure how Christians can ever rail against alcohol without being incredibly hypocritical.

2. Brewing beer has historically been central to monasteries, so why is beer suddenly a problem?

3. I find the opposition to Christians using alcohol to come from American evangelical killjoys, often with some nasty anti-Catholic feelings behind it.

1. Where did he say that and what is the context of his remarks? If you mean communion, then it's "do this" that refers to the act not to the contents of the cup and/or plate.

2. It's not a problem as a result of the simple act of making it. It is the use of the product that's at issue. Monks brewed beer because water was unsafe: it was normally drunk as small beer anyway. That was generally drawn out early from the fermentation process. Monks didn't use beer to attract people to church (now like then, there's plenty of places you can get it elsewhere), nor did they serve it in church

3. Well it's one explanation but not one I've heard for many a long year. The most common objections come from those who have had a problem with the drink or whose family suffered from someone who did have such a problem. Misery in both cases is equated with alcohol and its consumption. Neither group would qualify as killjoys, simply victims -- I prefer my expression of church not to reinforce the pain that people already feel and not to be a means of temptation for the weak.

(Interesting point on the RC perspective though: in one place I lived the queue for the RC Social Club (attached to the church) was bigger than that to the church. When the priest reduced opening hours and increased prices to stop too many people leaving the place drunk (it was notorious to the local police), his congregation plummeted. You don't, Jade, have to go far to find it - it's a mere 15 miles from the shoe town you live in now).

As a point of information I'm not teetotal and do drink from time to time. I have been teetotal for considerable periods (just lost the desire to drink alcohol and I'm always on call in one way or another). I'll probably be TT again as tastes and opportunity changes.

A couple of other thoughts

1. If the Church is keen enough on brewing as a social activity why not go and join a group in your community doing it?

2. Aren't we supposed to be focus on what we do best? If that isn't proclaiming good news and building the kingdom (and all our activity is in social events) then I'd suggest we'd be better off renaming ourselves St ...... Social Club instead.

[ 06. November 2013, 06:50: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

EM - sorry, Communion refers to both the contents and the act. If it was only the act, then the contents of Communion wouldn't have been kept more or less the same for 2000+ years. Obviously there are people unable to have alcohol for addiction and other reasons and so they would have non-alcoholic communion wine, but it isn't and shouldn't be the norm. And there is the whole Jesus blessing the wedding at Cana with wine thing.....

Also, if you see my comments above you'll see that I'm not much of a fan of the church with bar attached approach - mostly because I don't think it works for the unchurched anyway. It's seen as a gimmick, which it is. My church regularly has wine and cake after a service to celebrate someone's birthday or another celebration, but that's as far as it should go IMO. But teetotalism is going too far.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

1. EM - sorry, Communion refers to both the contents and the act. If it was only the act, then the contents of Communion wouldn't have been kept more or less the same for 2000+ years. Obviously there are people unable to have alcohol for addiction and other reasons and so they would have non-alcoholic communion wine, but it isn't and shouldn't be the norm. And there is the whole Jesus blessing the wedding at Cana with wine thing.....

2. Also, if you see my comments above you'll see that I'm not much of a fan of the church with bar attached approach - mostly because I don't think it works for the unchurched anyway. It's seen as a gimmick, which it is. My church regularly has wine and cake after a service to celebrate someone's birthday or another celebration, but that's as far as it should go IMO. But teetotalism is going too far.

1. Thanks - you needn't be sorry as clearly we have different views on this and can accept each other's POV. I'd summarise mine by saying that Jesus used the things that were everyday and available. We can do the same and it doesn't have to be bread and wine IMO for it to become communion with God - it's what happens in us for me that is important. No, I am not a memoralist!

2. Agree totally that it's a gimmick - and they don't work. The whole wine and cake thing is, on the surface, innocent - but the nature of the event including alcohol would exclude 5% of the church here. Church shouldn't be exclusive.

No problems though with having the party in a pub!

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, if you see my comments above you'll see that I'm not much of a fan of the church with bar attached approach - mostly because I don't think it works for the unchurched anyway. It's seen as a gimmick, which it is.

If you use it to try to get unchurched people in the door, it might be a gimmick. But what if you use it to get 20s and 30s from your church and other churches together in fellowship? The RC archdiocese here has a monthly theology on tap meeting. It isn't about getting non-RC people in the door. It is about getting active RC people together in fellowship and conversation. If you accomplish that, I'd call it a good thing.

Hymns and Beer appears to have a more evangelical approach, but who exactly are you trying to reach? I can think of a number of friends who wouldn't darken the door because they just don't want to associate with any part of Christianity, full stop. I also know, however, people who have not been to church for years, but who love to sing the hymns they grew up with, and who are longing for some sort of spiritual outlet. A casual night where you sing hymns and share a beer with like-minded folks might be just the ticket to get them in the door. Fulfilling that kind of longing is a good thing for churches to do, in my view.

I think we sometimes try to come up with the one answer; the one liturgy that will appeal to young people, the one new time for meeting, etc. In reality, it probably takes more of a "many rooms" approach- finding something that works for a group, and not being concerned that it doesn't bring everybody in.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I think the article was misleading in suggesting that activities like Beer and Hymns are primarily evangelistic in nature...to me they seem more like fellowship opportunities for people already on board, with a hint of cheeky "Take that!" directed toward the self-righteous teetotaler segment of Christendom.

Gimmicky? Maybe, maybe not. I think it depends on whether the events arose organically from individual faith communities' members, or (as I suspect in some of the cases) whether some desperately-hipster evangelism committee, having heard about someone else's pub-related event, decided this would be a good idea to attract new people.

Sidebar: When I was in college our church choir and campus ministry kids used to regularly hit the bar after our respective meetings, where we often wound up doing theology over our beer. People at neighboring tables would often become quite interested in our discussions and lean in to hear more, or add a comment, or tell us they enjoyed listening to us. But I don't recall these conversations ever leading to someone wanting to learn more about our church.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

We are in the process of developing our first Beer and Hymn sing. It will probably be in the spring, after Easter. (Don't want to offend Lenten sensibilities.)

As Lutheran Chick points out, this is not new. Luther did it in his home. His wife, Katrina, was a renown beermeister.

Our congregation is known to be a party people. We have had a down home version of Prairie Home Companion. We have sponsored Mardi Gras a couple of times. Just a week ago we had a Lutefisk/Swedish meatballs dinner. We advertise through Facebook. We reached 18,000 people in our advertising and half the people that came indicated they had seen the advertising on Facebook. We served 200 people.

We did serve wine at the dinner. As long as we had dinner, it is okay to allow minors be present. At our Beer and Hymn sing we will be serving sourkraut and sausages. If we had just a beergarten, then minors would not be able to participate.

The Lutefisk cook was actually our pastor. He wore his collar. I kind of teased him during the dinner about wearing it, but in the end a woman who had not been at church before came up to him and said you must be a fun pastor.

We did see an increase in attendance at church the next day. It is hard to say the Lutefisk dinner had anything to do with it though.

One comment about the Swedish Meatballs. This was from a recipe one of the church ladies got from her grandmother. The story is when grandmother was 19 her mother died. Her brother had inherited the farm in Sweden, leaving the young woman without much. The young woman decided to strike out for America on her own. Think of it, a single nineteen year old female leaving for America.

Her brother took her to Stockholm to take a boat to England to catch her ship to America. But there was a storm that delayed her arrival in England by three days. Of course she had missed the ship she had been scheduled to sail on. The name of the ship was the Titanic.

Posted by SyNoddy (# 17009) on :

Inspired by Beer & Hymns at Greenbelt we've held a Beer & Carols event in a number of our local pubs around our parish over the past 4 yrs.
At one pub which does meals we turned up to find that we'd been billed as that evenings entertainment - which wasn't what we'd had in mind when we arranged the date with the landlord! At another we sang largely to our selves in the "best" side while everyone else packed the bar to watch live football.
But where it works really well is in a quieter pub, no food or live sports tv, where we show up and pass around Carol sheets amongst the locals who then call out requests for their favourite carols. We sing for about an hour or so, with pauses for drinking and refilling of glasses, before we give way to the weekly quiz (Christmas edition). Which we stay and join in with. In fact last year a team made up of the vicar et al won the cash prize which was promptly donated to the pub's collection for the local air ambulance!
We put up posters, advertise in the parish mag and local papers and get folk coming along specifically to join in. The singing is as far from the Anglican choral tradition as you could get but it works brilliantly in the context.
It seems to me that some people will turn up for Beer & Carols who would never come to church even at Christmas. So if the only time they hear the Christmas story is via the off key bellowing of me and mine down the local then that's better than nothing. And we enjoy the fellowship of each other's company in a different setting than church and we are a visual presence in the midst of our community rather than hidden away inside a medieval barn of a place.
What's not to like?

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I think it depends on whether the events arose organically from individual faith communities' members, or (as I suspect in some of the cases) whether some desperately-hipster evangelism committee, having heard about someone else's pub-related event, decided this would be a good idea to attract new people.

Pfft. The hipster evangelism committee did Hymns and Beer before it was cool. (I get what you are saying, I just have to laugh at the phrasing, because hipsterism is the opposite of evangelism- a hipster desperately wants people to think that he is tastefully unique. Nothing worse than a bunch of posers seeing what you are doing and joining in.)

quote:
Originally posted by SyNoddy:
It seems to me that some people will turn up for Beer & Carols who would never come to church even at Christmas. So if the only time they hear the Christmas story is via the off key bellowing of me and mine down the local then that's better than nothing.

I've said it before and I will say it again, I think this is your target audience for Hymns and Beer. There are people out there who want nothing to do with church but miss the songs. Maybe not many of them, but they are out there. I think it is a great low pressure way to reach out to these folks.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

1. EM - sorry, Communion refers to both the contents and the act. If it was only the act, then the contents of Communion wouldn't have been kept more or less the same for 2000+ years. Obviously there are people unable to have alcohol for addiction and other reasons and so they would have non-alcoholic communion wine, but it isn't and shouldn't be the norm. And there is the whole Jesus blessing the wedding at Cana with wine thing.....

2. Also, if you see my comments above you'll see that I'm not much of a fan of the church with bar attached approach - mostly because I don't think it works for the unchurched anyway. It's seen as a gimmick, which it is. My church regularly has wine and cake after a service to celebrate someone's birthday or another celebration, but that's as far as it should go IMO. But teetotalism is going too far.
1. Thanks - you needn't be sorry as clearly we have different views on this and can accept each other's POV. I'd summarise mine by saying that Jesus used the things that were everyday and available. We can do the same and it doesn't have to be bread and wine IMO for it to become communion with God - it's what happens in us for me that is important. No, I am not a memoralist!

2. Agree totally that it's a gimmick - and they don't work. The whole wine and cake thing is, on the surface, innocent - but the nature of the event including alcohol would exclude 5% of the church here. Church shouldn't be exclusive.

No problems though with having the party in a pub!

Oh we don't just have wine with cake - it's just an addition to the regular refreshments after a service.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, if you see my comments above you'll see that I'm not much of a fan of the church with bar attached approach - mostly because I don't think it works for the unchurched anyway. It's seen as a gimmick, which it is.
If you use it to try to get unchurched people in the door, it might be a gimmick. But what if you use it to get 20s and 30s from your church and other churches together in fellowship? The RC archdiocese here has a monthly theology on tap meeting. It isn't about getting non-RC people in the door. It is about getting active RC people together in fellowship and conversation. If you accomplish that, I'd call it a good thing.

Hymns and Beer appears to have a more evangelical approach, but who exactly are you trying to reach? I can think of a number of friends who wouldn't darken the door because they just don't want to associate with any part of Christianity, full stop. I also know, however, people who have not been to church for years, but who love to sing the hymns they grew up with, and who are longing for some sort of spiritual outlet. A casual night where you sing hymns and share a beer with like-minded folks might be just the ticket to get them in the door. Fulfilling that kind of longing is a good thing for churches to do, in my view.

I think we sometimes try to come up with the one answer; the one liturgy that will appeal to young people, the one new time for meeting, etc. In reality, it probably takes more of a "many rooms" approach- finding something that works for a group, and not being concerned that it doesn't bring everybody in.

It totally works for dechurched people (as opposed to unchurched people). I think I already said that though? Sorry if I didn't.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Oh we don't just have wine with cake - it's just an addition to the regular refreshments after a service.

With wine, it's still exclusive however much cake and whatever alternatives you have on offer.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Oh we don't just have wine with cake - it's just an addition to the regular refreshments after a service.
With wine, it's still exclusive however much cake and whatever alternatives you have on offer.

But I don't understand how? Nobody is forced to drink it.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Also excuse confusion EM - do you mean having wine is excluding for all congregations (and nobody with alcohol issues is part of ours) or just those where there are people with alcohol issues? And cake is just as excluding for coeliacs (for example), but I don't see you suggesting that cake is inappropriate [Biased]

Do you see alcohol as a more emotive issue? Opening a bottle to celebrate something just seems so instinctive to me, I find it hard to imagine celebrating without alcohol tbh. It's like those strange US Baptist churches that don't have dancing (do no-dancing-allowed churches exist in the UK?).

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

My church is similar to Jade's in this; sometimes, after the main Sunday service, a member of the congregation will provide wine to celebrate a baptism or a significant birthday, for example. Tea, coffee and squash are available as usual but so is wine, on the other side of the church. I am having a hard time seeing this as exclusive.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]But I don't understand how? Nobody is forced to drink it.

If you have anyone with drink related issues in the congregation the presence of the stuff can cause them to revert. If they leave to avoid it, (avoiding temptation) then they are excluded from the party or whatever. They are already excluded from pubs by virtue of what would tempt them to revert.

My basic point is this: there are plenty of places you can go to get alcohol, why should church be one of them?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
My church is similar to Jade's in this; sometimes, after the main Sunday service, a member of the congregation will provide wine to celebrate a baptism or a significant birthday, for example. Tea, coffee and squash are available as usual but so is wine, on the other side of the church. I am having a hard time seeing this as exclusive.

Put yourself in the place of (several) people in our fellowship. they struggle all week drink related issues when it's in their face, Surely grace says that in church, we don't add to their burden. Across the room or on the table in front of you, the draw of alcohol to an alcoholic is like a magnet.

In any event you don't need alcohol to have a good time. If you do, then perhaps that's another issue entirely

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

1. Also excuse confusion EM - do you mean having wine is excluding for all congregations (and nobody with alcohol issues is part of ours) or just those where there are people with alcohol issues?

2. And cake is just as excluding for coeliacs (for example), but I don't see you suggesting that cake is inappropriate

3. Do you see alcohol as a more emotive issue? Opening a bottle to celebrate something just seems so instinctive to me, I find it hard to imagine celebrating without alcohol tbh.

4. It's like those strange US Baptist churches that don't have dancing (do no-dancing-allowed churches exist in the UK?).

1. Yes I do. Tbh jade you can have no idea of whether anyone in your congregation has this issue to deal with. Most are 100% proficient at hiding it.

2. Not the same. Cake is not psychologically tempting to the coeliac: cake doesn't bring dependency issues; people don't beat up women after eating cake or n search of housekeeping money to buy it. Strawman argument.

3. Do we necessarily need alcohol to celebrate? If anyone can't do without it, then they may be on the road to a problem.

4. Possibly but haven't seen one. Not drinking is a choice that we should all respect and seek to understand as much as we should understand why some people feel the need to drink.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I have a loved one in AA, and he constantly finds himself in situations where there is alcohol present. He told me that not only does he not mind that, but it serves as a reminder to him of how far he has come via the 12 Steps. And he's gotten advice from the people around him about navigating in social situations where alcohol is served.

As far as that goes, is it unkind to offer cake at church functions where there are diabetics or celiac-disease sufferers or overeaters present? How far do we go with the scrupulosity here?

(For the record, I have no dog in this fight; our church functions are dry.)

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Any kind of treat has the potential to be problimatic for someone for some reason.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
2. Not the same. Cake is not psychologically tempting to the coeliac:

I doubt you know that. I have a friend who cannot process sugar. She would get sick every single time she eats even a little. And yet she kept doing it. The taste was clearly a strong temptation.

And yet she has never implied that people should stop eating such things around her. In fact, quite the reverse, she doesn't want anyone to change just because she can't eat sugar.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

1. Also excuse confusion EM - do you mean having wine is excluding for all congregations (and nobody with alcohol issues is part of ours) or just those where there are people with alcohol issues?

2. And cake is just as excluding for coeliacs (for example), but I don't see you suggesting that cake is inappropriate

3. Do you see alcohol as a more emotive issue? Opening a bottle to celebrate something just seems so instinctive to me, I find it hard to imagine celebrating without alcohol tbh.

4. It's like those strange US Baptist churches that don't have dancing (do no-dancing-allowed churches exist in the UK?).
1. Yes I do. Tbh jade you can have no idea of whether anyone in your congregation has this issue to deal with. Most are 100% proficient at hiding it.

2. Not the same. Cake is not psychologically tempting to the coeliac: cake doesn't bring dependency issues; people don't beat up women after eating cake or n search of housekeeping money to buy it. Strawman argument.

3. Do we necessarily need alcohol to celebrate? If anyone can't do without it, then they may be on the road to a problem.

4. Possibly but haven't seen one. Not drinking is a choice that we should all respect and seek to understand as much as we should understand why some people feel the need to drink.

I think you are under-estimating people if you think alcohol is the only thing that can have negative effects on people. And if we cut out *everything* that could possibly have a negative effect on people, there would be nothing fun left at all. Why the (extreme IMO) focus on alcoholism? Coeliac disease makes people extremely ill - why is this less important than the illness alcoholism brings? Yes, coeliacs aren't going to steal to get hold of xantham gum but not seeing why alcoholism should be prioritised over every other problem.

And erm, I do actually have experience of alcoholism in my immediate family, so I know what it looks like, and I also know my church's congregation (it is a small and close congregation). I am well aware that alcoholics can hide it very very well, but I also know that our priest would not serve alcohol period if there were alcohol problems in the congregation.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

There is such a thing as addiction to sweets. Overeaters Anonymous is a thing. Any food at all is a temptation and should be discontinued at once.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

In contexts where there's the opportunity to witness to local Muslims (as happens at a Baptist church I know) not having alcohol at Communion (or anywhere on the premises) is one less hurdle for Muslims to jump over if they're contemplating Christianity.

In other cultural contexts different issues apply.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In contexts where there's the opportunity to witness to local Muslims (as happens at a Baptist church I know) not having alcohol at Communion (or anywhere on the premises) is one less hurdle for Muslims to jump over if they're contemplating Christianity.

In other cultural contexts different issues apply.

That would be difficult for Catholics or others who MUST have alcohol for Communion to be valid, though. In any case, Muslims often are in places that have alcohol on the premises (restaurants, supermarkets, multi-faith chaplaincies where alcohol-based Communion services are held etc)...

I don't know if any shippies are Muslims but I would like to know if it's something they as Muslims would appreciate, or if it's patronising or unnecessary.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE] ...but I also know that our priest would not serve alcohol period if there were alcohol problems in the congregation.

Well, he's pretty much alone then. Every CofE Church and every RCC will serve alcohol. As you say the RCC's don't believe it's communion unless alcohol is involved.

No concern of mine but then again they wouldn't call what I do communion - nor do some local Anglicans. I thought we were supposed to be on the same side.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE] ...but I also know that our priest would not serve alcohol period if there were alcohol problems in the congregation.
Well, he's pretty much alone then. Every CofE Church and every RCC will serve alcohol. As you say the RCC's don't believe it's communion unless alcohol is involved.

No concern of mine but then again they wouldn't call what I do communion - nor do some local Anglicans. I thought we were supposed to be on the same side.

I meant serving alcohol as part of social activities - as you say, there has to be alcohol for communion but our church is happy to provide non-alcoholic wine and gluten-free wafers if asked - but nobody has since I have been there. Interestingly the open evangelical Anglican church here seems to have non-alcoholic wine as the standard (at Communion I didn't make any special requests and definitely didn't get anything alcoholic!), which seems perfectly acceptable to me and is understandable given their congregation.

I must admit some discomfort with no alcohol being available for Communion, but I fully admit that it's not logical. I suppose partly it's because wine is such a symbol of God's goodness throughout the Bible, and it seems so sad to get rid of that because of something that's only in the world because of sin (by which I mean sin being in the world generally, not any personal sin of individual alcoholics). It's clear in the Bible that God regards wine as a good thing and I'm reluctant to contradict that. I wouldn't regard alcohol-free Communion presided over by an ordained person to be invalid though, and if it was all I had access to I would partake (I would be receiving in one kind at least anyway). However I would not partake of Communion presided over by a lay person, unless it was clear it was reserved from a previous Communion service presided over by an ordained person.

Having theological concerns about the way the Eucharist is done does not mean Christians are on different sides. It is borne out of a desire to worship God properly.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE] Having theological concerns about the way the Eucharist is done does not mean Christians are on different sides. It is borne out of a desire to worship God properly.

Some very gracious words here Jade.

I just wish that your thoughts in the last paragraph were true. One local CofE minister has been told (by a very senior personage) that she's not allowed to take part in one of our services when we serve communion. So much for ecumenical unity.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0