Ship of Fools: Criticising Quiet, Respectable Churches?

Thread: Criticising Quiet, Respectable Churches? 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=027447

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

'The Magazine of Christian Unrest' often focuses on the failings of various types of evangelicalism, probably because this is the dominant background of many of the community members. But experience and research show that MOTR/liberal congregations (i.e. my 'quiet, respectable churches') in historical denominations have suffered from more debilitating problems. They've retreated from their position of public dominance, and, for the Nonconformists, private allegiance. They've declined more rapidly than the alternatives.

I'm asking whether there's any mileage to be gained from analysing their failings. Are these churches to blame for their fate in any way? Do they benefit from extenuating circumstances that don't apply to other churches? And would a bit more constructive criticism be useful for them, or would it only damage their confidence and their mission further?

(I'm talking particularly about the UK here, but other countries might have interesting examples to offer.)

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Some of these might be churches in which the congregation cling on to old hymns and language assuming that everyone will appreciate it as much as they do, and wondering why the numbers drop year on year.

The assumption may extend to the idea that children should be seen and not heard, that everyone grew up going to church, and that anyone who wants to try to change things is intent on reducing the content of worship and experience of church to the low level of the masses rather than trying to raise the masses to their high standard. Any mention of God's guidance and will may well be met by raised eyebrows and a readiness to escape from the conversation.

For those churches I think that time will be the greatest factor in changing their minds, but I hope that the church buildings by then won't be derelict and the damage irreversible.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Got to think about social factors too. The combination of post-materialist left-liberalism and free market neo-liberalism has landed us with a fragmented, impatient, soundbite-driven, me-centred, goldfish-attention-span, where's-the-next-kick-coming-from society which is pretty antipathetic to 'quiet, respectable' values.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Raptor Eye

quote:
Some of these might be churches in which the congregation cling on to old hymns and language assuming that everyone will appreciate it as much as they do, and wondering why the numbers drop year on year.

The assumption may extend to the idea that children should be seen and not heard, that everyone grew up going to church, and that anyone who wants to try to change things is intent on reducing the content of worship and experience of church to the low level of the masses rather than trying to raise the masses to their high standard. Any mention of God's guidance and will may well be met by raised eyebrows and a readiness to escape from the conversation.

For those churches I think that time will be the greatest factor in changing their minds, but I hope that the church buildings by then won't be derelict and the damage irreversible.

That sounds a little patronising, RE. Would you describe the continuing RSC productions of the bard in the original as 'clinging onto old language'? I suspect not. So why take cheap pot-shots at people who wish to continue using perfectly good - in some cases excellent - music and words in worship?

You then go further to extrapolate that such congregations may not welcome children: IME the opposite is the case, certainly when children are under 5. The best provision for parents of very young children I ever found was at Anglo-Catholic establishments - and our experience of supposedly more up-to-date churches when our twins were small was less than welcoming in more than a couple of cases.

We also experienced a slapdash attitude to services in one parish which meant that services were like a bear-garden: on one classic occasion our 4 year-old twins asked the adults (!) behind us to stop talking during the prayers.

Still ploughing on, you accuse some more traditional congregations of being unprepared or unwilling to discuss 'God's will' and you imply class bias - why, I have no idea. I do know that the most exclusive, unwelcoming, unpleasant congregation I ever encountered, stuffed full of people proclaiming their 'personal' relationship with the Almighty, heavily promoted its evo credentials, the magnificence of their worship group, their Alpha courses, etc, etc. Not only was the congregation restricted to one particular age group and their younger children (30-50 in the main and absolutely no teens) but anyone from areas of the parish with social housing was made to feel very unwelcome.

You'll no doubt be less than happy to know that our traditional, MOR-ish parish with lots of elderly has excellent children's work, a thriving choir, musical repertoire that spans 6 centuries, and the upkeep of our mainly 13th century church is under control with a dedicated trust fund to pay for it - not because we are a rich parish but because the whole village, not just churchgoers, feel and are encouraged to see that the church is theirs and their children's. Yes, the 30-50 age-group is under-represented but we have their children and we make strenuous efforts to ensure that everyone who lives in the parish feels they have a stake in the church community.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Rather than issuing blanket, drive-by comments about "quiet, respectable" churches, how about looking at what actually works or doesn't work? The most "respectable" ACC church in the nearby city also has the largest outreach to stressed inner-city dwellers (and doesn't patronise and evangelise them forcefully). Their services are relatively high up the candle, but it works for them.

The smallest (and dropping) church in the group is dying because the group that stays in power cannot countenance any change from, among other things, the Greatest Hits of 1832, let alone outreach of any form.

And the place that was once "trendy" or vibrant, is now struggling to break out of the chains of 1980's worship.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I sometimes think the worst problem that besets the MOTR churches is a lack of intention. There is a tendency to do things not even because they have always been done but simply because it doesn't occur to do something different. That's not to suggest that any of the services or hymns used should necessarily change (though reflection might lead to changing them), but that they should be used deliberately, with intent. Worship and service done with clear intent speaks to those on the periphery more than habit and lip-service. MOTR churches are also often quite bad and helping people develop their faith. Often we're so relieved to see people coming in the door that we never get around to fostering discipleship, which means that people might be around the church for years, if not decades, and yet not put down roots in the faith. This can mean that the closure of a building or the departure of a minister can lead to them drifting from the church. MOTR churches have got good at not scaring people, but they've often done it by not expecting much of people either (spiritually at least, they certainly expect a lot practically).

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Would you describe the continuing RSC productions of the bard in the original as 'clinging onto old language'? I suspect not.

On the other hand when I go to see Shakespeare (not the RSC admittedly) I don't see many young people (unless the plays on the GCSE/A-level syllabus).

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

Try the Globe - traditional Shakespeare gets a young audience there (well, as groundlings anyway).

Posted by Curious Kitten (# 11953) on :

As someone who cheerfully walked out of the CofE aged 10 when the Con Evo Sunday School leader at the local MOTR church wouldn't let me stay in service; I would say the biggest threat on quiet non assuming churches is the strangle hold on children's worship by ageing Con Evos who are trying change the church through the children.

The running joke in many if those parishes is the Con Evo's kids slope off to AC, RC or orthodox services when given the slightest chance if they remain in church at all.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
On the other hand when I go to see Shakespeare (not the RSC admittedly) I don't see many young people (unless the plays on the GCSE/A-level syllabus).

And do you see many young people at modern theatrical performances? The only time I've seen a provincial theatre audience full of young-ish people has been for a panto featuring some TV or pop music "star". Every other play I have seen (except those specifically aimed at children) has been shown to an audience full of grey heads, with the occasional leavening of families with roughly tween-age children.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Those places are dying because the average person in the pew can't tell you why anybody should attend church other than that's what good people do. They pride themselves on being more inclusive than the fundamentalists or more conservative Roman Catholics. Just don't ask them why anybody would want to be included in what they are doing in the first place because they haven't thought about it. When they do, many stop attending.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Got to think about social factors too. The combination of post-materialist left-liberalism and free market neo-liberalism has landed us with a fragmented, impatient, soundbite-driven, me-centred, goldfish-attention-span, where's-the-next-kick-coming-from society which is pretty antipathetic to 'quiet, respectable' values.

Well, I agree with some of that, but also isn't Christianity associated by many people today with old-fashioned moral prurience? This may be unjust, of course, but I'm not sure what is attractive today about the C of E. I used to attend a central London church which was well liberal, in fact, hippy, not quiet, not respectable, and it was packed. However, this will not play in the suburbs, I guess.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

From the inside of such churches, I would say that there are a number of contributory factors. First of all, by their very nature they eschew the superficial confidence and certainty to be found in most "successful" evangelical churches. Someone looking for answers will probably be drawn to a place that appears to know all the answers, rather than a church that says "Hmm. That's hard and there are no simple answers." Certainty IS attractive, even if it proves in the end to be false.

I think one point needs to be acknowledged. Large evangelical churches are notorious for having back doors almost as open as the front door. Lots of people pass through. The "quiet unassuming" churches tend, in my experience, to have far more stable congregations. Once someone is "in", they will probably stay.

In passing, it is a shame that so many people dropping out of evangelical churches never try another type. Too often, evangelical churches give the impression that theirs is the only type of church worth bothering with, so when people leave, they never consider the MOR church down the road.

I do think that MOR & liberal churches have to do a lot more thinking about evangelism and nurture. It's not enough to simply expect people to turn up and then join in. But too often such churches leave evangelism to the evangelicals, instead of asking "what have we got to offer others? How can we do so in a way that is not alien to our nature?" When MOR churches are doing Alpha courses, you know that they haven't really thought this through.

Liberal/MOR churches CAN have something good to "sell". They need to find ways to do it. And be more open about the good things they already do. The work in the community, issues of justice and peace and so on; these are (or can be) really attractive to an enquirer.

They also need to learn some lessons from evangelicalism about worship that appeals and draws people in. I'm not suggesting that they need a worship group and start singing the latest thing from Hillsongs or whoever. But create services that can be a "way in" for people unused to church and baffled about Eucharist and anthems and creeds. Something simpler and more accessible but not simplistic or so different from normal that it is misleading.

If I actually stopped and thought about it, I could come up with more things. But that's enough for now...

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But create services that can be a "way in" for people unused to church and baffled about Eucharist and anthems and creeds. Something simpler and more accessible but not simplistic or so different from normal that it is misleading.

I have never encountered a (C of E / TEC) church that either teaches or explains liturgy. People "learn what to do" by showing up and copying other people, but often without any clear idea as to why.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

It would help if they explained the point of going to church and worshipping. To a large extent people seem to be trying to attract converts and attenders by alleging its fun, to different degrees of success.

Church going certainly doesn't obviously follow from the basic outline of the story of Jesus life, or the sort of things Christians are widely thought to be called to do.

[ 12. July 2014, 15:48: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Oscar the Grouch posts:

quote:
They also need to learn some lessons from evangelicalism about worship that appeals and draws people in. I'm not suggesting that they need a worship group and start singing the latest thing from Hillsongs or whoever. But create services that can be a "way in" for people unused to church and baffled about Eucharist and anthems and creeds. Something simpler and more accessible but not simplistic or so different from normal that it is misleading.

There is no simple way in. Over the (many) years of my adolescence and adult life, I have heard folks suggesting this. There have been many attempts in my experience, but there is no short cut.

I wonder if the main block (aside from popular representations of religion) is that there are services at all and there is a point to them. If you can persuade people that we need to have or should have, or want to have, church services or see that they are intrigued enough to entertain the idea, then the services themselves can be simple or complicated or whatever. Quaker silence or two hours Byzantine liturgy are both equally bizarre to the outsider. For a non-worshipper, there is no real difference between the two.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But create services that can be a "way in" for people unused to church and baffled about Eucharist and anthems and creeds. Something simpler and more accessible but not simplistic or so different from normal that it is misleading.
I have never encountered a (C of E / TEC) church that either teaches or explains liturgy. People "learn what to do" by showing up and copying other people, but often without any clear idea as to why.

We've recently admitted children to holy Communion before their confirmation so I did an instructed eucharist which explained what we did and why we did it.

The adults seem to have gained a lot from it to so we're going to make it an annual feature.

Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I have never encountered a (C of E / TEC) church that either teaches or explains liturgy. People "learn what to do" by showing up and copying other people, but often without any clear idea as to why.

I have, but only once. One of the very few sermons that I actually remember, out of the thousands I must have sat through over the years, was preached in a medieval church in north Norfolk more than twenty years ago. The curate took as his text Exodus 12:26 ("What mean ye by this service"), and rather mischievously used this as a hook to explain the meaning of all the elements of the service of 1662 Mattins that was in progress. It taught me more about the CofE and its liturgy than anything I've heard since, but we were only there on holiday and I've never been back.

The congregation was about ten people, though.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But create services that can be a "way in" for people unused to church and baffled about Eucharist and anthems and creeds. Something simpler and more accessible but not simplistic or so different from normal that it is misleading.
I have never encountered a (C of E / TEC) church that either teaches or explains liturgy. People "learn what to do" by showing up and copying other people, but often without any clear idea as to why.

I think it's problematic to assume the best 'way in' to Christianity is by attending services. In the old days it was via catechism and I suppose the Alpha Course is a modern way to reproduce this.

I also get the impression that if I ever felt moved to convert to Islam, the imam would not just advise me to turn up to the mosque every Friday.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But create services that can be a "way in" for people unused to church and baffled about Eucharist and anthems and creeds. Something simpler and more accessible but not simplistic or so different from normal that it is misleading.
I have never encountered a (C of E / TEC) church that either teaches or explains liturgy. People "learn what to do" by showing up and copying other people, but often without any clear idea as to why.

Not CoE/TEC, but I've noticed a trend in some PC(USA) congregations toward worship bulletins on larger paper—typically 11x17/A3—with a "gutter" running either along the fold or on the outside of each page. While the liturgy/order of service is in the main part of each page, the text in the "gutter" alongside explains the "why" of particular elements, or gives some background, such as a little history on a hymn.

[ 12. July 2014, 17:24: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

This talk about making church services more accessible and understandable is all fine, but I think it'd be far better if we thought of and explained Christianity as being about following Jesus rather than about attending church services.

Our faith is, ISTM, centred on a person, not on a series of activities as such. Following what the Great Commission says, I think we should concentrate on making disciples rather than on persuading people to come to our services and gatherings.

Maybe part of the reason why (some) MOTR / liberal churches are dwindling is because their message to outsiders is 'come and join in with our weird, incomprehensible ceremonies' rather than something more inspiring like 'look at Jesus and how he calls us to live; isn't it a wonderful adventure'. Not that other 'flavours' of church consistently give out an inspiring message like this...

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

What do people go to? I should think it helpful for "church people" to go to some live music events, perhaps a fringe festival, public lectures and the like. These kinds of things are well attended in general, frequently by an all ages crowd. particularly the entertainment events involve amplified sound, people sitting, people eating and drinking, people up near the stage, some dancing. I have the sense that this is also what the Jesus-era temple looked like. How much quiet? Not so much.

Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :

My parish consists of two churches, one of which - 'my' church - still uses the BCP and traditional hymns. The other uses the modern lectionary (and traditional hymns). Neither goes in for guitars and powerpoint sermons. Congregations at both churches have declined in the five years since I've taken an interest.

I'm a non-believer with a liking for churchy matters, and it is the BCP service that draws me. It puzzles me that guitars and drums are supposed to be the way forward now. I would never attend a church that went in for that sort of showiness, and when I consider my almost entirely atheistic (or nones/indifferent) circle of acquaintances I can't think of a single one who would say, 'Oh wow, I really want to go to a church that talks in modern language,' or 'Yeah, I'm going to church because they've got a band in now.'

Surely there's more to it than that? As for the Alpha course, doesn't one has to be of a certain frame of mind before that would appeal? The very idea of being taught about something so 'out there' as speaking in tongues repels me, and I'm actually interested in Christianity/churchgoing. From what I see, the Alpha course has little in common with standard C of E worship and preaching (thank goodness, or I'd never set foot in church again).

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Not sure that guitar and drums equals showiness or big evangelical services like Hillsong - or at least, acoustic guitar and piano services (sometimes with flute/violin etc) are quite normal for very MOTR Anglican/Methodist/URC/Baptist etc churches. I wouldn't necessarily define being MOTR by the use of organ, traditional language etc - increasingly, that suggests high church not MOTR, and is often an Anglican thing that does not apply to other mainstream denominations. It makes sense - smaller churches find it easier to manage a piano and a guitar than a big organ.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
public lectures
[..]
How much quiet? Not so much.

Every public lecture I have attended has involved an interested audience sitting in respectful silence whilst the lecturer spoke, and has usually had a short period for questions at the end.

If yours are noisy, you must go to a different kind of lecture.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
rather than something more inspiring like 'look at Jesus and how he calls us to live; isn't it a wonderful adventure'.

This is the other problem. The gospel is no longer a surprise, and its key tropes have been repeated countless times from mummers plays to Harry Potter. People of faith often present themselves as awestruck, gobsmacked and enthralled by material which is essentially mundane and unremarkable to most of the population.

In its raw state, the gospel narrative is not particularly dramatic versus other stories most people have heard.

Charismatic churches overcome this problem initially by highly emotive services and music intended to be entertaining. Some MoTR folk attract people for the aesthetics. But neither is a long term solution.

[ 12. July 2014, 18:35: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Not sure that guitar and drums equals showiness or big evangelical services like Hillsong - or at least, acoustic guitar and piano services (sometimes with flute/violin etc) are quite normal for very MOTR Anglican/Methodist/URC/Baptist etc churches. I wouldn't necessarily define being MOTR by the use of organ, traditional language etc - increasingly, that suggests high church not MOTR, and is often an Anglican thing that does not apply to other mainstream denominations. It makes sense - smaller churches find it easier to manage a piano and a guitar than a big organ.

Actually, in the Methodist circuithere the use of guitars and flutes, etc. isn't terribly common. (In fact, when I was growing up guitars popped up more often than they do now.) The organ still dominates proceedings unless the organist is taking a break - or unless a church is holding a deliberately 'alternative' service. Some circuits are probably a bit less 'traditional', though. I wish there were a map of the different circuits highlighting the styles that are customary or are in development in each one!

Methodist traditionalism doesn't particularly include 'traditional language', although, I'm more used to hearing the older version of the Lord's Prayer. The new hymnbook has updated the words in some of the hymns. This book has its detractors, and I'm one of them.

[ 12. July 2014, 19:29: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Not sure that guitar and drums equals showiness or big evangelical services like Hillsong - or at least, acoustic guitar and piano services (sometimes with flute/violin etc) are quite normal for very MOTR Anglican/Methodist/URC/Baptist etc churches. I wouldn't necessarily define being MOTR by the use of organ, traditional language etc - increasingly, that suggests high church not MOTR, and is often an Anglican thing that does not apply to other mainstream denominations. It makes sense - smaller churches find it easier to manage a piano and a guitar than a big organ.
Actually, in the Methodist circuithere the use of guitars and flutes, etc. isn't terribly common. (In fact, when I was growing up guitars popped up more often than they do now.) The organ still dominates proceedings unless the organist is taking a break - or unless a church is holding a deliberately 'alternative' service. Some circuits are probably a bit less 'traditional', though. I wish there were a map of the different circuits highlighting the styles that are customary or are in development in each one!

Methodist traditionalism doesn't particularly include 'traditional language', although, I'm more used to hearing the older version of the Lord's Prayer. The new hymnbook has updated the words in some of the hymns. This book has its detractors, and I'm one of them.

Organs are certainly uncommon for Baptists, URCs etc though.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Is music really the issue though ?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The Baptists have generally moved in a more 'contemporary' direction than the Methodists when it comes to worship styles. Methodists tend to be older, which must be significant. My experience of the URC is that they don't really go in much for contemporary worship either, but again, it's probably different elsewhere.

Is music significant? I think it is to the extent that young people like to participate actively rather than just spiritually in worship. If there's a worship band, they can be a part of it somehow; if there's just an organist, they can't. Traditional choirs might be attractive if they had a mix of ages, but they're often dominated by older people and by children; people in their teens and 20s-30s must feel a bit left out.

London is fortunate because it benefits from young Christians who've all congregated there to find work, and they're present in sufficient numbers to be able to feel at home in all kinds of church environments. But outside London, and perhaps parts of the South East, many MOTR churches simply can't offer that kind of atmosphere. I suppose it doesn't matter what kind of music you have if you've already lost your diversity in terms of age, class, gender, etc.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

1. ... a dedicated trust fund

2. ... the whole village, not just churchgoers, feel and are encouraged to see that the church is theirs

I take your point: unfriendly churches transcend denominational and theological boundaries. Two of the worst offenders I've come across were at the extremes: one a liberal high church Anglican, the other a swing from the chandeliers charismatic. Both served to make me and my young family (at the time) feel unwelcome enough to walk out without a backwards glance.

Your church sounds a great place to be but you're clearly better off than most who don't have the safety net of trust funds (1. above). (Who decides though how these get spent - the village or the church?

As for point 2, again it's great to have ownership but doesn't God get a little credit there soemhow

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The Baptists have generally moved in a more 'contemporary' direction than the Methodists when it comes to worship styles. Methodists tend to be older, which must be significant. My experience of the URC is that they don't really go in much for contemporary worship either, but again, it's probably different elsewhere.

Is music significant? I think it is to the extent that young people like to participate actively rather than just spiritually in worship. If there's a worship band, they can be a part of it somehow; if there's just an organist, they can't. Traditional choirs might be attractive if they had a mix of ages, but they're often dominated by older people and by children; people in their teens and 20s-30s must feel a bit left out.

London is fortunate because it benefits from young Christians who've all congregated there to find work, and they're present in sufficient numbers to be able to feel at home in all kinds of church environments. But outside London, and perhaps parts of the South East, many MOTR churches simply can't offer that kind of atmosphere. I suppose it doesn't matter what kind of music you have if you've already lost your diversity in terms of age, class, gender, etc.

Yes, but before all that you need to see the point of worship in the first place.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE] Organs are certainly uncommon for Baptists, URCs etc though.

The organ is used here - and we have a very proficient and skilled worship group with a range of ages. We also use traditional language for the Lord's Prayer.

Our fellowship has been described as "a vibrant church in the heart of (town) .... made up of a diverse range of people. We have a passion to deepen our relationship with God and to tell others of His love."

I guess it's a mix of traditional and contemporary rather like most Baptist Churches in the Baptist Union.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But create services that can be a "way in" for people unused to church and baffled about Eucharist and anthems and creeds. Something simpler and more accessible but not simplistic or so different from normal that it is misleading.
I have never encountered a (C of E / TEC) church that either teaches or explains liturgy. People "learn what to do" by showing up and copying other people, but often without any clear idea as to why.
We've recently admitted children to holy Communion before their confirmation so I did an instructed eucharist which explained what we did and why we did it.

The adults seem to have gained a lot from it to so we're going to make it an annual feature.

It's done at least quarterly here

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Is music significant? I think it is to the extent that young people like to participate actively rather than just spiritually in worship. [...]

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Yes, but before all that you need to see the point of worship in the first place.

True. My comments assumed that someone might be vaguely interested in the first place, but if that interest isn't there at all then something else would be needed.

There's been research which shows that some non-churchgoers would be interested in going to church at some point in the future. This includes former churchgoers, who are a relatively large group. 'Back to Church Sunday', which seems to be a mainstream rather than an evangelical initiative, has picked up on this. I don't know how successful B2CS has been.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

That is pretty much the definition of preaching to the converted though isn't it ?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
That sounds a little patronising, RE. Would you describe the continuing RSC productions of the bard in the original as 'clinging onto old language'? I suspect not. So why take cheap pot-shots at people who wish to continue using perfectly good - in some cases excellent - music and words in worship?

You then go further to extrapolate that such congregations may not welcome children: IME the opposite is the case, certainly when children are under 5. The best provision for parents of very young children I ever found was at Anglo-Catholic establishments - and our experience of supposedly more up-to-date churches when our twins were small was less than welcoming in more than a couple of cases.

We also experienced a slapdash attitude to services in one parish which meant that services were like a bear-garden: on one classic occasion our 4 year-old twins asked the adults (!) behind us to stop talking during the prayers.

Still ploughing on, you accuse some more traditional congregations of being unprepared or unwilling to discuss 'God's will' and you imply class bias - why, I have no idea. I do know that the most exclusive, unwelcoming, unpleasant congregation I ever encountered, stuffed full of people proclaiming their 'personal' relationship with the Almighty, heavily promoted its evo credentials, the magnificence of their worship group, their Alpha courses, etc, etc. Not only was the congregation restricted to one particular age group and their younger children (30-50 in the main and absolutely no teens) but anyone from areas of the parish with social housing was made to feel very unwelcome.

You'll no doubt be less than happy to know that our traditional, MOR-ish parish with lots of elderly has excellent children's work, a thriving choir, musical repertoire that spans 6 centuries, and the upkeep of our mainly 13th century church is under control with a dedicated trust fund to pay for it - not because we are a rich parish but because the whole village, not just churchgoers, feel and are encouraged to see that the church is theirs and their children's. Yes, the 30-50 age-group is under-represented but we have their children and we make strenuous efforts to ensure that everyone who lives in the parish feels they have a stake in the church community.

I'm not taking pot-shots, or meaning to be patronising, simply making some observations which might feed into the op, if we're criticising 'respectable' MOTR churches with a view to pin-pointing some of the reasons why they are in decline.

I have come across all of the attitudes I mentioned. I am more than pleased to hear about your thriving church. I assume that your outreach to children does bring in contemporary language suitable for their age group, without assuming that this would lower its standards. There may be ways of doing the same for the 30-50 age group, with the right will and attitude, without necessarily bringing in drums and guitars (which are not to my taste btw).

It's fine to use Shakespeare language where those engaging in or listening to it are able to begin to grasp its meaning. It may not be suitable for someone who is not yet able to speak English. If a seeker comes to a service one Sunday morning, the liturgy may be so foreign as to make it difficult to grasp.

Similarly, if a seeker who has little experience of singing in public is confronted by a book of 19th century hymns, it may be very trying.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Doublethink

Possibly. But perhaps it's a question of strategy. The church needs labourers if it's going to reach the unconverted, and if the church can harness the already converted who've drifted away, then there'll be more hands to do the work.

This should be easier for the MOTR than for the evangelicals, because people don't normally leave MOTR churches because they've lost their faith; they drift away because their priorities have changed, they're bored, too busy, etc., whereas evangelicals, so I'm told here, tend to have more dramatic reasons for leaving. So MOTR congregations should be far more proactive about reaching out to leavers. They're notoriously bad at doing this, whereas evangelicals are generally accused of pestering leavers to get them back!

Nurturing someone to the point of conversion is a much harder job, and apparently it takes much longer and requires much more involvement in a person's life than used to be the case. I think the blunt reality is that most churches - mainstream churches in particular - just aren't willing to expend that level of effort. I.e., it isn't what current churchgoers feel they've signed up for, and it's not what their clergy expect of them. And the clergy themselves are busy with other jobs, and aren't necessarily interested or supported in that particular ministry anyway.

[ 12. July 2014, 21:09: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Define MOTR.

I tend to think of MOTR in non-conformist/Free Church terms as a somewhat 'beige' and inoffensive style that can be encountered in many Methodist, URC and some Baptist churches.

I don't see that as being at all inaccessible or 'wierd and incomprehensible' to outsiders.

But neither has it got anything that is likely to 'grab' people - at least, not at first sight.

I wouldn't describe as MOTR those churches with liturgies that take more getting into - such as High Anglican, the non-folk mass RC and the Orthodox.

I could understand people being baffled by 1662 BCP language, but by and large that's not what people are confronted with in MOTR Anglican settings.

So I'm not sure that 'accessibility' is the only issue at stake. There are other factors at work.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

On the discipleship thing, I can see what South Coast Kevin is saying but it would take a hefty shift to move the locus and focus of discipleship away from congregational settings.

How would we go about doing that? We'd have to provide some context for the discipleship to take place within and then we're back into meeting mode again ...

I struggle with this.

I've been at a music festival event all day and probably had about 7 significant conversations with people - mainly about arts activities (I chair a local arts group). I bought someone a pint. At no point did I mention Christ in any way. How would I - or should I - have done so?

'You know, this music festival is all very well and good, but it's a lot more exciting to follow Jesus ...'

I agree with Kevin that the Christian faith is all about following Christ. But where's this 'wonderful adventure' that he's talking about?

For most of us, our lives have ups and downs the same as anyone else's. We work, we eat, we sleep, we have families ... we may have to care for elderly relatives ...

I often think of my Great Aunt Nell who spent much of her life dribbling on a couch because she had severe cerebral palsy. Her sisters had to heave her on and off the toilet. Where was the 'wonderful adventure' there? Yet she was very devout and the vicar brought her communion week by week. At her funeral he said he'd learned more about faith and long-suffering from Nell than anything he'd been taught at seminary.

This talk of the Christian faith as a 'wonderful adventure' ... what 'wonderful adventures' have you had recently South Coast Kevin?

And how do you go about making disciples? How many disciples have you made recently?

I don't think that MOTR/liberal churches have 'wierd incomprehensible ceremonies' particularly. People waving their arms around and speaking in tongues is a lot wierder than anything that goes on in MOTR/liberal churches.

Yet the more apparently exciting charismatic churches are the ones which have grown - or at least, not shrunk so rapidly.

Why? Because they offer an immediate 'hit'. There appears to be something 'there' - even if it may look wierd. People are drawn to things that appear to offer immediate answers.

Charismatic churches are often very friendly too - and the sense of community and belonging can and does draw people in. They can also be quite 'creative' places and tend to attract talented and creative people - and they offer outlets for that creativity and talent too.

It strikes me that it's the charismatic and evangelical churches that can be more meeting-centric and service-centric than the MOTR and liberal ones. They need the warmth and closeness of fellowship to reinforce their belief system and also to provide the sense of close-knit community that can be their biggest 'draw'.

I'm not saying that's wrong, simply observing that this is how these things work.

I've known charismatic churches that have tried to 'deconstruct' themselves and become less meeting-centric and so on. All that happens is that they fizzle out. Because the whole impetus and raison-d'etre of those churches is to provide close fellowship and community. Remove that element and the whole thing unravels.

It sounds terribly pious to say, 'We're not about meetings, we're about following Jesus.'

Well, good luck to you. Try not going to any meetings for the next 6 months and get involved in other things. Then tell us how many disciples you've made during that period.

It'd be worth doing as an experiment.

A final point. I've noticed around here that many of the people from churches that could be described as MOTR or liberal are the same people who run Rotary, who are involved with planning and organising the carnival, U3A events and all manner of other community activities.

They are often very public-spirited. They serve on the town council. They are involved with this, that or the other committee or charity.

They do other stuff as well as attend church services.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Popping in a bit late to say to Oscar (post #12) and various people after that:

There is some desire among "teetering" evangelicals to try out MOTR or "mainline" churches. The perils to those churches are spelled out by Rachel Held Evans who is definitely trying to bridge that gap.

[ 12. July 2014, 22:31: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]

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

An example of MOTR CofE church mission which is all about finding out more about Jesus and the point of church. Same thing done here in May. That's more for developing faith of those already attending.

There are ways of introducing what church is about. When I was running the toddler church I did a lot of explaining why things are done - it was mostly aimed at the parents, not the children. And again when I was going into the uniformed groups to explain the parade services in advance. Messy play is another place when this could be done.

One MOTR church I know of (not here, not locally, but I have attended it a few times) is haemorrhaging congregation because the bishop of the diocese keeps sending evangelical curates and preachers to the church. And each time a few more people fail to return. It is known as the only high church in the area and the people who attend that church have chosen to attend for the worship style. Personally I would say it's MOTR not high but it's in a very low church area.

Another misconception about age groups: the local church has a gap from late teens to late 20s / early 30s, but attracts families with young children. Being middle class those children move away to university when they reach their late teens and don't return as the area is too expensive for starter homes. Other people arrive as they set up home as newly married couples or with young children instead. There is absolutely no point in chasing the teenage demographic and making big changes for a group that has moved out.

Personal experience of Back to Church Sunday is that it doesn't work. The training was useful on some things, but it is assuming far more people have been to church in the past than is reasonable. The 1970s and 1980s saw a secularisation of schools and other institutions, so while schools used to take classes to church services throughout the 50s and 60s, that all stopped. The vast majority of people born since the 1960s and their children have never been to church. The only groups still taking children to church regularly were the Girl Guide and Scouting movements and they are becoming more secular now.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Is music really the issue though ?

Ours tends to be a little on the stodgy side. I don't think a lot of people go to an Orthodox church and say, "Well I'd be more likely to worship here if you had electric guitars."

ISTM that if a church is failing, the two most likely reasons are:

1. It's not offering what people want; or
2. People don't realize it's there and offering what they want.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
rather than something more inspiring like 'look at Jesus and how he calls us to live; isn't it a wonderful adventure'.
This is the other problem. The gospel is no longer a surprise, and its key tropes have been repeated countless times from mummers plays to Harry Potter. People of faith often present themselves as awestruck, gobsmacked and enthralled by material which is essentially mundane and unremarkable to most of the population.

I think the gospel is a surprise to many people - messages like 'forgive those who do you wrong' and 'share what you have in a generous, sacrificial way' are very counter-cultural and thus intriguing, ISTM.

Furthermore, living in real, deep community with people - sharing our joys and struggles with one another - is also something that I think many non-Christians don't have (though some do have it, and that's great). So when Christians live that way, again it's counter-cultural and thus intriguing!

I've had plenty of conversations with friends and workmates about my church where they've been impressed by the depth of community I'm fortunate enough to share in. The community itself and our efforts to bring other people into that community are what I had in mind with my 'wonderful adventure' comment; I wasn't really thinking of our church services and how they should be exciting or attention-grabbing.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

We had a special service this morning at which a service group attended for their annual thanksgiving. It was a wonderful and uplifting service and I was interested to hear a young chap of about 30 say after the service that he had never been in a church before and that today quite good in his opinion. So what we did was obviously ok, but how do you get people to come and experience that?
For myself, I go to church to worship and feed myself spiritually for the week ahead. I take my Christianity into my daily life, but just as we all need food for nourishment, I need church attendance for my spiritual nourishment. I don't see anything wrong in attending a church that fulfills my needs. I could not survive on a meal of junk food and treasure the AC service. To force feed me a different diet could, I feel, lead to my spiritual starvation. We are all different. Vive la difference!

[ 13. July 2014, 07:19: Message edited by: bib ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

[Crosspost replying to South Coast Kevin.]

And I think you are seriously mistaken.

Are you aware of how many thousand million times people receive these messages as children, along with learning to say please and thank you ?

In everyday life, stories and TV. Along with the stuff about not judging by appearances, and how bullying is wrong.

[ 13. July 2014, 07:20: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

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

Back to Church Sunday? My first thought was the signs that used to appear when I were a lad a week before you'd actually broken up the previous term saying "back to school" and advertising school uniform discounts.

And the idea of BtCS sounded about as appealing as lumpy mash, compulsory communal showers and rote learning of the imperfect imperative of Ire. You're trying to pitch "come back to somewhere you left with no doubt good reason" without actually giving the leaver any reason why they should go back on their decision. I smell "out of ideas".

On the OP, I like to think I've been as cynical, unfair and mean to quiet respectable churches as I have to the various One True Churches and the up in the air junior birdman shacks.

No, DT, I don't think it's about the music. I think it's about tedium and boredom. Always has been.

[ 13. July 2014, 07:33: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'The Magazine of Christian Unrest' often focuses on the failings of various types of evangelicalism, probably because this is the dominant background of many of the community members.

I think that’s a good point.

Practically no-one gets converted to Christianity by liberal, mainstream Protestantism.

Liberal mainstream Protestants have almost invariably either grown up in their denomination and stuck with it, or have “moved on” from the evangelicalism through which they were converted.

I am deeply skeptical of DIY psychology and psychobabble, but I am going to stick my neck out anyway, and suggest that much of the incessant evangelicalism-bashing on the Ship is a manifestation of ex-evangelicals trying to come to terms with their rejection of their former evangelicalism, and driven by embarrassment over their adolescent, down-market devotional extravagances, the memory of which makes them blush.

I am old enough to remember the old mainstream Protestant ascendancy which used to patronize evangelicals and penties/charos, who used to respond by claiming that they were small and marginalized because they faithfully preached unpalatable gospel truths (sin, judgement, “the blood”).

Today, the moribund, ageing and shrinking mainstream Protestants claim that they are not attracting the crowds that flock to the conservative Protestant churches because they are faithfully preaching unpalatable gospel truths (racism, sexism.”homophobia”).

My evangelical church features modern worship songs, open worship, a strong family atmosphere, a collegiate leadership, and a commitment to orthodox theology and morality.

Personally, I would prefer Wesley and Watts and 1662 BCP liturgy, but it is a combination which seems to “work”, because it has over 300 members, and over 400 attendees (including hordes of children and teenagers) which is quite a healthy size by Australian standards.

But in the end, of course, numerical success does not prove a single thing.

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

If the Ship's so full of ex-Evangelicals (and I think you're right about that) then I wonder if Evangelicalism needs to ask itself why that's such a big category. Ex-evangelicals who are now liberals are only one group of ex-evangelicals. Don't forget the ones who no longer identify as Christian at all.

Even if liberalism only exists as a place where evangelicals go when they aren't evangelicals any more, does that mean it's of no value? Would you rather folk left the church altogether when they can no longer stomach evangelicalism?

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

Kaplan - I can name converts to a MOR church: through pastoral work around funerals and weddings, through outreach work with a midweek toddler service; through having open doors for events and being available for the town as a space; through being an open door for prayer and to light candles; through quiet support and invitations; through working with schools; as pastoral visitors in the homes for the elderly and hospitals providing prayer and services. None of that is aggressive evangelism.

The aggressively evangelical Elim Pentecostal church is the one that is dying on its feet, for all the handing out of tracts and aggressive in-your-face evangelism.

And, for your information, I have never been evangelical so any evangelical bashing I do has been caused by the people who have been aggressively in-my-face critical declaring me not to be Christian as I am not born again or have marched in with insensitive inaccurate hobnail boots declaring creationism when I was about to say something different and maybe change a mind. The people who say to impressionable teenagers "some Christians even believe in evolution"! (That one was the Elim pastor.)

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think the gospel is a surprise to many people - messages like 'forgive those who do you wrong' and 'share what you have in a generous, sacrificial way' are very counter-cultural and thus intriguing, ISTM.

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
[Crosspost replying to South Coast Kevin.]

And I think you are seriously mistaken.

Are you aware of how many thousand million times people receive these messages as children, along with learning to say please and thank you ?

In everyday life, stories and TV. Along with the stuff about not judging by appearances, and how bullying is wrong.

I think SCK is correct in as muc has the Gospel is (or, perhaps better, should be) surprising. In the Bible, the Gospel seems to be surprising, shocking, delightful, controversial, wonderful, terrifying all rolled into one.

But I also agree with DT those things mentioned by SCK aren't the Gospel in themselves. They're important and I'd say they're part of what our response to the Gospel should be. But I don't think they're the Gospel: for me, the Gospel is what God has done through Jesus Christ and His life, death and resurrection, what God can do and is doing in our lives and in our world, through reconciling the world to Himself "not counting men's sins against them" and what God will do one day making a new heaven and earth where all will be well.

Perhaps part of the problem is not that the Gospel is mundane, as DT suggests, but that we've made it mundane in all sorts of ways. We;ve reduced it to self-help, or something akin to therapy, or hellfire and damnation, or how to live a bit better or be better people - none of which are the Gospel in its fullness.

I think preaching (which, IMHO, is primarily the proclamation of the Gospel) is to a signficant degree to blame, not least because too often it gets reduced to teaching or morality talks or theological or historical lectures (I suspect I'm guilty of all of these). Walter Bruegemann's written about this from a US point of view, saying how the Gospel has become "flattened" and unsurprising - I suspect something similar has happened in the UK.

As someone in my church who used to work in local radio news said to me: news has to sound like news - important and significant. Too often, I don't think the Gospel that gets proclaimed (and I'm as guilty of this as anyone) does sound like news. Or that "good", either.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
But I also agree with DT those things mentioned by SCK aren't the Gospel in themselves. They're important and I'd say they're part of what our response to the Gospel should be. But I don't think they're the Gospel: for me, the Gospel is what God has done through Jesus Christ and His life, death and resurrection, what God can do and is doing in our lives and in our world, through reconciling the world to Himself "not counting men's sins against them" and what God will do one day making a new heaven and earth where all will be well.

Agreed, and I like your summary of the gospel, Stejjie. I was just trying to pick out a couple of elements which I think are surprising and counter-cultural.

Doublethink, I do take your point that a lot of the 'moralising' (that word not meant negatively) in the media and public life is close to what one might call Christian morality. But look at the actual behaviour of characters in soaps, public figures, and of the people in most news stories - is there much sacrificial generosity or unconditional forgiveness to be seen? My impression is that it's seen as odd (and newsworthy!) when someone lets a grudge go, forgives someone who's caused them pain, gives away a big chunk of their wealth, and so on.

Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on :

We have 2 churches, one growing in a slow inch-by-inch way and the other growing more rapidly. I don't think it's about what they offer in the way of music, worship etc. Both are probably MOTR but one is more traditional than the other. The more traditional one is currently growing more rapidly but that has not always been the case.

Talking with those who joined us, both recently and longer ago, there are a few common factors. people found what they sought or what they needed - the type of worship they could relate to,
a peer group(so greater age diversity meant more visitors tended to stay)

Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on :

Sorry, premature post and couldn't delete.
Other factors were a place where they felt welcome and a place where God's love was shown both to insiders and outsiders.
The congregations are diverse - AC, evo, charismatic, liberal, opposed to all ideas liberal. But they love and care for one another, recognise their differences but value their diversity.

This is a good part of the reason why the worship is MOTR. It feeds the common need with smaller more specialised worship groups (eg a charismatic prayer service on a mid-week evening, a meditation group on a Saturday morning) meeting more particular needs.
It works for us.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think I'll start a new thread on the community aspect.

It seems to me that the kind of spirituality that South Coast Kevin values can only be sustained in the context of very close communities and fellowships.

Consequently, this isn't going to appeal to people who don't want that level of immersion in a particular group or paradigm.

I'd also suggest that such an approach - valuable as it is - also cuts across the emphasis SCK wants to bring on a non-service/meeting centred approach.

It NEEDS that kind of approach to sustain itself.

Take away the regular meetings and interaction and the whole thing collapses in on itself.

I've seen this happen time and again to those charismatic evangelical fellowships who went down the 'deconstruction' route (or fad) in the late 1990s.

They all collapsed. I could name names.

What's happened with the new churches and churches like the Vineyard is that they have taken elements which - in historic Church terms - are the preserve of monastic communities and 'base-communities' and made them the 'norm' for church life as a whole.

Consequently they create hot-house atmospheres which some people find attractive and sustaining for a while - but which others eventually 'grow out of'.

I'll meet Kaplan part-way with his rather dismissive view that us post-evangelicals and recovering charismatics are embarrassed about our more adolescent devotional practices - but I don't think that's the real issue.

I'm not particularly embarrassed about what I did/got up to in my full-on charismatic days. I was well into it at the time and I can understand why.

But I have no desire to repeat it.

Yes, Kaplan is right that the older mainstream Protestant traditions were always snobby and unnecessarily sniffy towards evangelicals. In many ways I feel that evangelicalism has 'come of age' and has matured a great deal - if that doesn't sound patronising.

In some places it has become the mainstream. In some places it's also the MOTR option.

It all depends on where you are.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

As for the Gospel being a surprise to people.

One would think it is or ought to be. But I'm not sure that this is the case.

What draws people into churches of all stripes isn't the 'surprise' that the Gospel brings, it's personal contact and socialisation.

The Alpha course (irrespective of the content) recognises that.

There may be other aspects that cause surprise and which attract.

Kaplan might appreciate this because I've been unnecessarily dismissive of the Brethren at times, but when I first encountered them I was 'surprised' because they all seemed to be ordinary folk - mostly self-employed - yet appeared to have a great grasp of the scriptures and so on.

Previously, the only people I'd encountered who seemed to know about the Bible and so on were professional clergy - vicars and so on - or the occasional keenie Christian at school.

This impressed me.

However, I was more impressed by my art teacher who was an evangelical Christian and yet knew all about jazz and rock music and who even came with us to some of the punk/new wave gigs we used to attend.

I was amazed that an evangelical Christian could even be interested in such things.

That was the 'surprise' to me.

The content of the Gospel - as it were - was no surprise as I was already familiar with it from Sunday school and church attendance - and the Church in Wales parish I attended couldn't have been more MoTR if it had tried.

There are a whole range of factors involved in any of this.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It seems to me that the kind of spirituality that South Coast Kevin values can only be sustained in the context of very close communities and fellowships.

I honestly think this is the kind of spirituality and community that all Christians are called to. I don't take the New Testament accounts as normative in the details of how the early Christian communities lived, but there is, I think, a clear 'DNA' of Christian community shown in the NT: namely, the committed following of Christ, close and mutually sacrificial relationships with one another, and an outward-looking focus on sharing the gospel with and serving non-Christians. I think all churches should be working on these three areas and if they aren't, then something is lacking.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What's happened with the new churches and churches like the Vineyard is that they have taken elements which - in historic Church terms - are the preserve of monastic communities and 'base-communities' and made them the 'norm' for church life as a whole.

Consequently they create hot-house atmospheres which some people find attractive and sustaining for a while - but which others eventually 'grow out of'.

There can be a 'hot-house' kind of intensity; of that I have no doubt. But such an atmosphere is not healthy, IMO, and is not inevitable either.

Could I also make a plea that you stop using phrases like 'grow out of'? It's such a loaded term. Would something like 'move away from' get across the same meaning without the subtext?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
But I also agree with DT those things mentioned by SCK aren't the Gospel in themselves. They're important and I'd say they're part of what our response to the Gospel should be. But I don't think they're the Gospel: for me, the Gospel is what God has done through Jesus Christ and His life, death and resurrection, what God can do and is doing in our lives and in our world, through reconciling the world to Himself "not counting men's sins against them" and what God will do one day making a new heaven and earth where all will be well.
Agreed, and I like your summary of the gospel, Stejjie. I was just trying to pick out a couple of elements which I think are surprising and counter-cultural.

Doublethink, I do take your point that a lot of the 'moralising' (that word not meant negatively) in the media and public life is close to what one might call Christian morality. But look at the actual behaviour of characters in soaps, public figures, and of the people in most news stories - is there much sacrificial generosity or unconditional forgiveness to be seen? My impression is that it's seen as odd (and newsworthy!) when someone lets a grudge go, forgives someone who's caused them pain, gives away a big chunk of their wealth, and so on.

The news is not a good source of information on common behaviour, and neither is Eastenders.

Nor is the behaviour you describe especially typical of Christians as against other groups.

Lots of people aspire to virtue. Lots of people are kind. Lots of people forgive, sometimes the most heinous things.

And none of, this, nor the outline of the gospel, explain the need for church going and/or worship. For people to attend church you really need to explain that. Eating analogies are not that helpful to those outside the culture.

Its not for entertainment, it not for prayer (as in you can do that anywhere), if your already have a social life it is not obviously for fellowship, it is not obvious why an omnipotent deity would need adoration, to stop it feeling insecure ?

Seriously, what - precisely - is the point of a church service ?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Lots of people aspire to virtue. Lots of people are kind. Lots of people forgive, sometimes the most heinous things.

Oh yes, I know Christians don't have a monopoly on those behaviours and character traits. But it makes the news when a bereaved parent forgives the killer of their child. As does the millionaire who gives away half their wealth. These behaviours are held up as noteworthy and admirable, so are they really that common?

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Seriously, what - precisely - is the point of a church service ?

I had a go at answering this question a few years ago - here (it's a bit long, sorry). EDIT - my short answer is that church services are 'for strengthening and helping the believers', drawing from 1 Corinthians 14:26.

[ 13. July 2014, 11:52: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Lots of people aspire to virtue. Lots of people are kind. Lots of people forgive, sometimes the most heinous things.
Oh yes, I know Christians don't have a monopoly on those behaviours and character traits. But it makes the news when a bereaved parent forgives the killer of their child. As does the millionaire who gives away half their wealth. These behaviours are held up as noteworthy and admirable, so are they really that common?

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Seriously, what - precisely - is the point of a church service ?
I had a go at answering this question a few years ago - here (it's a bit long, sorry). EDIT - my short answer is that church services are 'for strengthening and helping the believers', drawing from 1 Corinthians 14:26.

Well most people aren't millionaires and don't have their children murdered, so of course its rare. It is also bugger all use as a model for everyday life.

Your church service answer still doesn't explain how church services accomplish that.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Well most people aren't millionaires and don't have their children murdered, so of course its rare. It is also bugger all use as a model for everyday life.

You're right, but aren't they just the extreme version of challenges we all face day to day? Someone badmouths me, cuts in front of me on the road, or whatever - is my reaction to throw it right back at them or do I repay evil with good? Likewise with the generosity question. No, I'm not a millionaire but I have money and possessions; do I give generously and share my possessions, or do I hold on to what I have?

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Your church service answer still doesn't explain how church services accomplish that.

Oh, sorry... I'd say Christians should meet together in order to look after and nurture each other. We also bring from our ongoing interaction with God, hopefully for the benefit of others - we teach one another, we discern guidance from God for and with one another, we encourage one another to live a more disciplined, godly life. Does that help at all?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Practically no-one gets converted to Christianity by liberal, mainstream Protestantism.

What is this 'liberal mainstream'? ISTM that if a church broadly affirms the historic creeds, it is not liberal, and if it doesn't, then it is not mainstream.

If there are few thriving liberal mainstream churches, that's probably for the same reason that there are few thriving square circles.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

[crosspost reply to SCK]

Not really, because it is all couched in Christian jargon.

And I think this is the problem in trying to move from preaching to the converted, to preaching to non-Christians.

[ 13. July 2014, 12:17: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by womanspeak (# 15394) on :

My experience of a AC bush diocese, at the parish level for over 20 years is of a father knows best model which does not encourage daily bible reading or personal prayer, bible studies or prayer groups. Thus the biblical and spiritual growth of traditional attenders is not attended to, let alone discipleship or outreach and evangelism. Rather all resources are focused on maintaining paid ministry and traditional worship services.

At the Australian Anglican General Synod recently country diocese blamed their rapid decline on population drift to the coast. And yet the parishes and diocese which are growing attend to spiritual, biblical, Christian service, discipleship etc etc beyond corporate worship through prayer groups, study/ home groups, service teams, outreach opportunities.

I now worship with the Uniting Church ( formerly Methodist ) where, despite some years without paid leadership, bible study and home groups have sustained and deepened their commitment as a church. Now with paid ministry, many lay people are invited to preach and lead, according to calling.

The packed house this chilly morning ( from 1yr up to 90+) was treated to a warm as toast church thanks to the care of an early rising farmer who came in to turn on the heating at 4.00am! What agape love!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@South Coast Kevin, yes I accept that 'grow out of' was a loaded phrase. I thought that as I was typing it and should have edited it, but I left it in.

I apologise for that and withdraw the remark.

Please replace it with 'moved on from' or some other less 'loaded' phrase in your reading/engaging with my posts.

[Hot and Hormonal]

I will start a new thread on the community aspect. If we do take the NT model - or apparent NT model - as normative then it seems to me that it begs a few questions in terms of new church and charismatic church practice just as it does with MoTR practice.

But I'll come back to that.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by womanspeak:
My experience of a AC bush diocese, at the parish level for over 20 years is of a father knows best model which does not encourage daily bible reading or personal prayer, bible studies or prayer groups. Thus the biblical and spiritual growth of traditional attenders is not attended to, let alone discipleship or outreach and evangelism. Rather all resources are focused on maintaining paid ministry and traditional worship services.

Sounds awesome! I think focusing our resources on paid staff and making our services happen (inc. building-related costs, if the building isn't much used for social / community activities) is completely the wrong emphasis. IMO this so easily produces that 'father knows best' mentality, where people come to the services to be spiritually fed by the professionals, rather than coming to share and encourage from their own ongoing engagement with God.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@South Coast Kevin, yes I accept that 'grow out of' was a loaded phrase. I thought that as I was typing it and should have edited it, but I left it in.

I apologise for that and withdraw the remark.

Many thanks. [Smile]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'The Magazine of Christian Unrest' often focuses on the failings of various types of evangelicalism, probably because this is the dominant background of many of the community members. But experience and research show that MOTR/liberal congregations (i.e. my 'quiet, respectable churches') in historical denominations have suffered from more debilitating problems.

I don't think MOTR church problems are more debilitating - to its ministry and raison d'etre - than any other churchmanship's problems. They are different. Of course, like most others here I speak only of my own experience, which has been with both evangelical and MOTR churches, during my adulthood. So I admit the narrowness of my own context.

MOTR churches appeal to certain kinds of people, as do evangelical (or any other specific) kinds of churches. There are two ways in which any church - regardless of 'type' - fails; firstly, in its witness to and use within the community, and secondly, in its nurturing and development of its constituent membership.

So for those who are particularly called to worship/minister within the MOTR millieu, it certainly would be worth analyzing the particular failures of the MOTR way of doing things. Some excellent posts here, do just that.

What is definitely not of help, is when one tradition puts the boot into another tradition. Positive, loving criticism of traditions outside of one's own experience or preference can certainly be achieved, of course. Sometimes, even, a useful objectivity - the 'outsider's' viewpoint - can be gained. But sadly - and I hold my hand up to this - the Christian (though rarely Christlike) tendancy is to look at what the others do, identify what ought to be condemned, but overlook, or omit, the good.

JFTR. In my experience, 'quiet respectable churches' - as a description, are rarely either of those things, when one knows the people, history and situations involved in any depth. As with any church, the label on the tin isn't always entirely accurate!

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'The Magazine of Christian Unrest' often focuses on the failings of various types of evangelicalism, probably because this is the dominant background of many of the community members. But experience and research show that MOTR/liberal congregations (i.e. my 'quiet, respectable churches') in historical denominations have suffered from more debilitating problems.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Ricardus

quote:
I think it's problematic to assume the best 'way in' to Christianity is by attending services. In the old days it was via catechism and I suppose the Alpha Course is a modern way to reproduce this.

IME the Alpha course comes nowhere near being any type of catechism.

Attending services may not be a way into Christianity, but it is a way into churchgoing. And we have always been encouraged to see public, communal worship as part of our Christian duty - something we inherited from our Judaic roots, I think.

In any case, the 'way in' to Christianity is Baptism... or has that changed?

EE : Our building delapidations 'trust fund' hasn't come by way of legacies, rather we have made it a point to put aside anything extra at the end of the year so that we can afford the odd, cheapish, crisis - such as happens with a 13th century building.

As for explaining liturgy (worship): our service booklets - all home produced - all have an explanation of the structure of the service, etc on the inside cover: for example, that for Matins explains its roots in the first services of the monastic day and the invocation to give thanks for another day, etc. (Rather than filling our O/S booklets with questionable clip art we have aimed to make them user-friendly even to a person not accustomed to being in church.)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm happy to withdraw the remark, Kevin, but I'm afraid I will be pretty robust with you over what I take to be an overly romanticised view of these matters ... [Biased]

But hopefully without causing offence.

I think Anselmina is right. There are strengths and weaknesses with any approach. I'm certainly not advocating a 'father knows best' approach but neither am I advocating an overly pietistic approach that super-spiritualises absolutely everything that happens and which mistakes any nice warm, fuzzy feeling for divine unction.

There's a balance somewhere.

I will start a new thread on the community aspect and checks and balances in that context at some point.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
So for those who are particularly called to worship/minister within the MOTR millieu, it certainly would be worth analyzing the particular failures of the MOTR way of doing things. Some excellent posts here, do just that.

Could you give any pointers? Has anyone got any experience to add? It would, I think, be interesting.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think Anselmina is right. There are strengths and weaknesses with any approach.

Well, yes. But that doesn't mean all approaches have equal merit, and it doesn't excuse us from trying to find the best approach in any given situation or context.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...neither am I advocating an overly pietistic approach that super-spiritualises absolutely everything that happens and which mistakes any nice warm, fuzzy feeling for divine unction.

No, me neither; at least I hope not! What did I say that made you think I was leaning in this direction?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

On the OP, I like to think I've been as cynical, unfair and mean to quiet respectable churches as I have to the various One True Churches and the up in the air junior birdman shacks.

Now, that reminds me of something: Fresh Expressions. 'FEs of church' seem to be a mainstream rather than an evangelical form of intentional evangelistic activity, and that makes them interesting. But although we're often told that FEs are officially a 'good thing', it's much rarer for us hear from a layperson about how important their involvement with a FE of church has been to them. It's good that you're here to bring that perspective!

I'm inclined to think that FEs of various sorts are going to have to become more mainstream rather than always being considered a type of diversification from the norm. Do you think that's likely to happen in the future?

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I don't think MOTR church problems are more debilitating - to its ministry and raison d'etre - than any other churchmanship's problems. They are different. Of course, like most others here I speak only of my own experience, which has been with both evangelical and MOTR churches, during my adulthood. So I admit the narrowness of my own context.

MOTR churches appeal to certain kinds of people, as do evangelical (or any other specific) kinds of churches. There are two ways in which any church - regardless of 'type' - fails; firstly, in its witness to and use within the community, and secondly, in its nurturing and development of its constituent membership.

So for those who are particularly called to worship/minister within the MOTR millieu, it certainly would be worth analyzing the particular failures of the MOTR way of doing things. Some excellent posts here, do just that.

[...] In my experience, 'quiet respectable churches' - as a description, are rarely either of those things, when one knows the people, history and situations involved in any depth. As with any church, the label on the tin isn't always entirely accurate! Additionally, MOTR and liberal aren't always two terms which go together, in a church community.

I accept that the terminology I used was very rough and ready. This was out of necessity; I didn't want to go and find a catalogue of qualifiers and scholarly explanations before getting into the discussion!

'MOTR' presumably means different things in terms of theology and worship, depending on whether you're in the CofE or in some Nonconformist setting. But the defining feature is perhaps an emphasis, conscious or not, on moderation. Individual members and clergy might be anywhere on the liberal-evangelical spectrum, but a MOTR church will tolerate or even champion that diversity so long as doctrinal conflict is studiously avoided.

My reference to 'quiet, respectable churches' was meant to indicate churches that don't engage in effervescent worship or take a highly controversial position on particular doctrines and issues. I'm not trying to deny the reality of cantankerous church members or lively church feuds in MOTR congregations!

The problems of MOTR churches are 'debilitating' in the sense that such churches have shrunk and closed more extensively than other types of church over the past 50+ years. This is obviously more of a problem in some areas than in others, and among some denominations to a greater degree than others. I don't deny that such churches still fill a need for some people.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

We can none of us see ourselves as others see us, South Coast Kevin. I wasn't suggesting that you are overly spiritual or too heavenly minded to be any earthly good. You are an astute and thoughtful chap.

However, the paradigm you're working within is a very pietistic one. There's nothing wrong in that, of course, provided the pietistic aspects are balanced out with other emphases.

I'm not saying they aren't.

But I do think that there is a fundamental flaw in the model/s of discipleship that you propose and advocate here.

You - rightly - stress that 'being church' isn't all about meetings and services nor signing up to particular statements of faith without any correlating attempt to live those out in practice. Spot on.

However, I think that the style and flavour of spirituality that you value - and I don't think it's wrong of you to value it - almost inevitably and invariably leads to more meetings, more services, more living in one another's pockets and less engagement with society than you might wish.

I'm sure it is possible to develop 'gathered' and 'intentional' communities that are in the world but not of it ... but a key feature of any congregational or 'grass-roots' structure is that it is very, very labour intensive. It takes a lot of effort to keep such shows on the road.

Before you know it, almost every waking moment that isn't spent working or attending to necessary duties/family life etc is spent in a churchy kind of way.

That's fine for monastic style and base-communities. I'm not sure it's entirely helpful for everyone else - save as something to dip into every now and then.

That was going to be the thrust of my new thread. But it looks like I've started it here.

[Biased]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Meanwhile, to cut back from my tangent to the main discussion from the OP.

I think SvitlanaV2 has defined MoTR in a very helpful way now just (as we'd say in South Wales).

The emphasis on moderation and restraint is a two-edged sword. It provides little for people to rally around, other than moderation and restraint.

Although they are at different ends of the ecclesial spectrum in many ways (although there are uncanny similarities at times) both the Orthodox and the evangelical charismatic churches have grown because they stand for something definite. They nail their colours to the mast.

I think there is a case for a 'radical middle' and that moderation and restraint needn't imply 'beige' and colourless. But it's a difficult act to pull off. I don't think many MoTR places do so successfully.

I certainly don't want things to be 'beige' and colourless. Nor do I want limp and pious platitudes. At the same time, I no longer want to knock around in circles that spiritualise absolutely everything that happens and which kid themselves into thinking that they're making a huge difference and impact by chucking cliches and charismatic jargon around whilst hardly anyone outside of their own circles are even aware of their existence.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'MOTR' presumably means different things in terms of theology and worship, depending on whether you're in the CofE or in some Nonconformist setting. But the defining feature is perhaps an emphasis, conscious or not, on moderation. Individual members and clergy might be anywhere on the liberal-evangelical spectrum, but a MOTR church will tolerate or even champion that diversity so long as doctrinal conflict is studiously avoided.

For example, I would have thought that the majority of Methodist and URC chapels, and of country Parish churches, are fairly MOTR. Most Baptists tend to the Evangelical and informal (if not charismatic). Some Anglicans are either Evangelical (of various ilks) or "High" - but perhaps this is more of an urban phenomenon.

The question your last sentence raises, though, is whether the MOTR position does imply a certain doctrinal or liturgical flexibility, or whether it in fact denotes a certain rigidity of its own? "The intolerance of tolerance", anyone?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think there is a case for a 'radical middle' and that moderation and restraint needn't imply 'beige' and colourless. But it's a difficult act to pull off. I don't think many MoTR places do so successfully.

This crossed with my last post - I love it and agree absolutely!

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
[...] There may be ways of doing the same for the 30-50 age group, with the right will and attitude, without necessarily bringing in drums and guitars (which are not to my taste btw). [...]

Bring on the drums & guitars, snazzy audio-visual, the works. Too many moderate and liberal churches treat in inaccessiblity as a virtue. Not long ago, in true Father Ted fashion, the bosses at Southwark boasted that their priests wore black socks! That'll show those uppity evangelicals.

There's no reason that other traditions can't emulate the evangelical success story, but they'll need to go for it wholeheartedly.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Bring on the drums & guitars, snazzy audio-visual, the works. Too many moderate and liberal churches treat in inaccessiblity as a virtue. Not long ago, in true Father Ted fashion, the bosses at Southwark boasted that their priests wore black socks! That'll show those uppity evangelicals.

There's no reason that other traditions can't emulate the evangelical success story, but they'll need to go for it wholeheartedly.

I'm not closed to any ideas, whatever's right for the time and for the people we're trying to reach out to - as long as we are all aiming to reach out and to grow, every little might help.

The reluctance to do so for some may arise with the possibility of a new venture causing some to leave, without attracting newcomers. Perhaps maintaining the status quo is sometimes seen as the safest option?

The following questions have raised themselves: If we're listening to what God is telling us to do and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit, won't the churches inevitably grow, whatever the churchmanship? Does lack of growth show that people are standing in the way of God's will?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Not quite sure from your post, Byron, whether you think that

quote:
drums & guitars, snazzy audio-visual, the works

= accessibility. If you do, why do you? I imagine that there must be a lot of people who find those as off-putting as, I don't know, Prayer Book Mattins or the Tridentine Mass- and some who find PBM or the TM a good deal less off-putting.
I think the important thing is, as yyou suggest towards the end of your post, to do whatever you do wholeheartedly. I think that people are much more likely to respond positively and inquiringly to anything that is done enthusiastically and with commitment and with a sense from those doing it that it matters. And that can even include Prayer Book Mattins as well as your

quote:
drums & guitars, snazzy audio-visual, the works

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm not convinced, Raptor Eye, that 'following the guidance of the Holy Spirit' leads necessarily to church growth. It could lead to martyrdom.

It could also lead to some places closing down.

Besides, I'm not entirely convinced either that 'God's will' is some kind of narrow, razor's-edge thing that we have to struggle and strain to discern.

As St Augustine of Hippo put it, 'Love God and do what you like.'

The point being, of course, that if we love God that what we like to do will gradually confirm to his will anyway ...

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

Steven Croft's book, Jesus' People: What the Church should do next queries the use of the business models of growth for churches. He suggests that Jesus compares himself to the vine and that might be a more helpful model, with time to lie fallow, that we should allow branches to die away and other branches to grow.

I've also read people saying that when they saw something lying fallow it was often growing internally - the congregation were growing spiritually - and when they then acted again, what grew from that fallow period was more powerful and stronger than anything that had gone before.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The following questions have raised themselves: If we're listening to what God is telling us to do and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit, won't the churches inevitably grow, whatever the churchmanship? Does lack of growth show that people are standing in the way of God's will?

I wouldn't put it this starkly, but I understand where you're coming from. IMO people have genuine free will to live in harmony with or contradiction to God's will so, even if we do all we can, people might still reject Jesus.

Or many people might come to faith through the efforts of the folks in one church, but they might decide to get involved in other churches. So the churches that are growing (numerically speaking) might not be the churches with the people actually doing most of the witnessing.

(I think the above is absolutely fine, by the way; I'm not complaining! My church manages a debt counselling centre and plenty of the people who come to faith through that work don't end up in our church. Which is not a problem at all.)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The debt counselling thing is worth doing in and of itself. If people benefit from it in terms of dealing with debt, then great.

If they come to faith through it and go to another church somewhere then that's a bonus. If they come to faith and attend your church that's an even greater bonus.

But none of these outcomes are guaranteed. All you can do is is lay on the debt counselling service as faithfully as you can. The results are God's business.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I would have thought that the majority of Methodist and URC chapels, and of country Parish churches, are fairly MOTR. Most Baptists tend to the Evangelical and informal (if not charismatic).

I agree. It would be interesting to know how this Nonconformist parting of the ways happened, but maybe that's for another thread.

quote:
The question your last sentence raises, though, is whether the MOTR position does imply a certain doctrinal or liturgical flexibility, or whether it in fact denotes a certain rigidity of its own? "The intolerance of tolerance", anyone?

I think it's an intolerance of open conflict. You can be anti anything you like, so long as this doesn't impact negatively on the overall balance of the church. IOW, you probably have to keep your views to yourself, unless you're attending a no-holds-barred private meeting, perhaps at Conference.

For example, a Methodist minister once told me about a male churchgoer, a Methodist, who disapproved of women clergy. When his church's female minister is due to preach he doesn't attend worship. This behaviour is tolerated because the man obviously doesn't try to disrupt worship, or 'convert' anyone else to his views. Moreover, Methodist pulpits are occupied by someone different every week, so if you have a problem with a particular preacher (or type of preacher) you just have to look at the plan to see who's due, and then skip church that day or morning and turn up at another service to listen to someone else!

[ 13. July 2014, 21:15: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not convinced, Raptor Eye, that 'following the guidance of the Holy Spirit' leads necessarily to church growth. It could lead to martyrdom.

It could also lead to some places closing down.

Besides, I'm not entirely convinced either that 'God's will' is some kind of narrow, razor's-edge thing that we have to struggle and strain to discern.

As St Augustine of Hippo put it, 'Love God and do what you like.'

The point being, of course, that if we love God that what we like to do will gradually confirm to his will anyway ...

Discipleship is surely about following the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to martyrdom if it comes to it, so that God's kingdom grows?

It's not about doing what we like and expecting the Holy Spirit to follow us and make us like doing what God wants us to. It's about allowing the Holy Spirit to guide us into God's service, even though this will involve doing what we don't want to do. Check out Jonah.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Not quite sure from your post, Byron, whether you think that
quote:
drums & guitars, snazzy audio-visual, the works
= accessibility. If you do, why do you? I imagine that there must be a lot of people who find those as off-putting as, I don't know, Prayer Book Mattins or the Tridentine Mass- and some who find PBM or the TM a good deal less off-putting.
I think the important thing is, as yyou suggest towards the end of your post, to do whatever you do wholeheartedly. I think that people are much more likely to respond positively and inquiringly to anything that is done enthusiastically and with commitment and with a sense from those doing it that it matters. And that can even include Prayer Book Mattins as well as your
quote:
drums & guitars, snazzy audio-visual, the works
.

There are of course people who find that style of worship offputting, but the runaway success of charismatic evangelicalism suggests that it attracts more than it repels.

There's nothing to stop moderate and liberal churches from accommodating the needs of both camps with different services. Right now, there's often nothing for those who'd be attracted by a liberal service in a modern style.

Where's the liberal version of Spring Harvest, Willow Creek, HTB, Mars Hill (the Seattle one)? There's Greenbelt, I guess, but it's not tied to all the networking that evangelicalism excels at.

The rich and popular churches call the shots. If liberals and moderates want a place at the table, their brand needs the mother of all revamps.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

I think what the Augustine of Hippo quote is getting at is that, as we are increasingly transformed into the likeness of Jesus, the more what we want to do will reflect what God would have us do.

Good trees produce good fruit, freshwater springs produce fresh water, and all that...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
There are of course people who find that style of worship offputting, but the runaway success of charismatic evangelicalism suggests that it attracts more than it repels.

Not really. To know that, you'd have to look at the number of church shoppers who tried charismatic evangelical services, and see what percent stuck around, and what percent fled in horror. It could be that only 5% stick around and the rest are so put off they become Buddhists. Mere success of the sort you tout proves nothing.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Our faith is, ISTM, centred on a person, not on a series of activities as such.

Surely it's centred on three persons in one substance?

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
There are of course people who find that style of worship offputting, but the runaway success of charismatic evangelicalism suggests that it attracts more than it repels.
Not really. To know that, you'd have to look at the number of church shoppers who tried charismatic evangelical services, and see what percent stuck around, and what percent fled in horror. It could be that only 5% stick around and the rest are so put off they become Buddhists. Mere success of the sort you tout proves nothing.

Of course it doesn't prove anything, it's suggestive, not a controlled experiment.

People do of course go out the back door, but the numbers stay up.

The success factor touted by many evangelicals is their orthodoxy, but if that were it, you'd expect to see exclusive brethren rake them in. Perhaps correlation isn't causation, but what would liberals & moderates have to lose from incorporating elements from a winning formula?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Integrity? Sincerity? The people they already have?

It's only a winning formula if you believe that is the right way to do things. I couldn't lead worship in a charismatic or evangelical style, and I would feel deeply uncomfortable, not to mention dishonest, trying.

[ 13. July 2014, 21:56: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Practically no-one gets converted to Christianity by liberal, mainstream Protestantism.

Liberal mainstream Protestants have almost invariably either grown up in their denomination and stuck with it, or have “moved on” from the evangelicalism through which they were converted.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If the Ship's so full of ex-Evangelicals (and I think you're right about that) then I wonder if Evangelicalism needs to ask itself why that's such a big category. Ex-evangelicals who are now liberals are only one group of ex-evangelicals. Don't forget the ones who no longer identify as Christian at all.

Even if liberalism only exists as a place where evangelicals go when they aren't evangelicals any more, does that mean it's of no value? Would you rather folk left the church altogether when they can no longer stomach evangelicalism?

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Kaplan - I can name converts to a MOR church: through pastoral work around funerals and weddings, through outreach work with a midweek toddler service; through having open doors for events and being available for the town as a space; through being an open door for prayer and to light candles; through quiet support and invitations; through working with schools; as pastoral visitors in the homes for the elderly and hospitals providing prayer and services. None of that is aggressive evangelism.

The aggressively evangelical Elim Pentecostal church is the one that is dying on its feet, for all the handing out of tracts and aggressive in-your-face evangelism.

The stats I've seen show that evangelical churches do tend to be better at making converts, but not to the extent that they make up for overall decline. Of course, there will also be evangelical churches that are declining, and non-evangelical churches that are growing, depending on a variety of factors.

It could be, of course, that the factors which help evangelical churches to grow aren't necessarily an offshoot of their evangelicalism, but more of a reflection of something else. This 'something else' could be harnessed by other kinds of churches.

The CofE's Church Growth Research Programme of 2012/13 finds that theological tradition isn't a key factor in church growth. (See the end of the report.) This is good news for people who prefer to see churches of any kind thrive rather than diminish, and I've noticed that there are some evangelicals in this group.

News reports of declining churches surely offer bad PR for all kinds of churches, and I suspect that the Independent evangelicals I know about would on the whole rather see successful MOTR and Anglo-Catholic CofE churches than de-moralised ones, if only because the CofE is meant to represent everyone, and you always want your representative to put on a good show. This is probably more important in a highly secularised country (especially one with a state church) than it would be elsewhere.

[ 13. July 2014, 22:03: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Integrity? Sincerity? The people they already have?

It's only a winning formula if you believe that is the right way to do things. I couldn't lead worship in a charismatic or evangelical style, and I would feel deeply uncomfortable, not to mention dishonest, trying.

OK, what d'you mean by a charismatic evangelical style? Let's break it down.

Worship songs, good AV, dramas/ dance: can't see why any of these would raise issues of integrity. They're stylistic choices.

Ditching robes? Trickier, but if you have a liberal theology, it ought surely to be negotiable. There's plenty wiggle-room between grand ecclesiastical tat and a televangelist suit.

Healing, tongues, the Jesus salute: not essential!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
People do of course go out the back door, but the numbers stay up.

Are numbers all that matter? If the people who go out through the back door have been so maltreated and abused that they have given up on God and Christ altogether, the fact that the numbers stay up could be a sign of diabolical favor, not divine.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What is this 'liberal mainstream'? ISTM that if a church broadly affirms the historic creeds, it is not liberal, and if it doesn't, then it is not mainstream.

The operative word is "broadly".

Originally? Theoretically? Officially? Eclectically? "Dependswahtyoumeanby"ly?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In any case, the 'way in' to Christianity is Baptism... or has that changed?

The way in is Christ. Baptism says you are "in" - it doesn't "make" you anything, it affirms your status.

In any event, ISTR that Jesus was hardly considered respectable in his day - so why are we so anxious to achieve a status he didn't have?

In fact, if we are perceived as respectable and are accepted, then might it be said that we are not being radical enough? Have we then so conformed that we can no longer transform?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

South Coast Kevin's explanation of what Augustine was getting at is pretty near to the mark I think (and not just because it accords with my take on it!) ...

I think I either didn't explain myself properly or you got the wrong end of the stick Raptor Eye.

That said, I don't see that finding God's will and being guided by the Holy Spirit necessarily involves having to sign up to the whole charismatic kit and kaboodle - at least not in the way it is popularly articulated on the contemporary charismatic evangelical scene.

@Byron - I think more liberal and MoTR places could adjust their presentation style. Some have already, to a certain extent.

FWIW - and I don't class the Orthodox as MoTR - I once attended a day's conference of a particular Orthodox deanery. They had plenary sessions, break-out-sessions, discussions, PowerPoint slides the whole thing ...

If it hadn't looked like a Hogwarts convention you could have easily have mistaken the talks/presentation and business-y bits for any evangelical conference.

But when it came to Vespers ...

No mics, no gizmos, simply a profound and pregnant silence that led into the unaccompanied chant and the hair standing on the back of my neck ...

The cheerful bonhomie of contemporary charismatic evangelical worship suddenly felt as vapid as could be ...

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Integrity? Sincerity? The people they already have?

It's only a winning formula if you believe that is the right way to do things. I couldn't lead worship in a charismatic or evangelical style, and I would feel deeply uncomfortable, not to mention dishonest, trying.
OK, what d'you mean by a charismatic evangelical style? Let's break it down.

Worship songs, good AV, dramas/ dance: can't see why any of these would raise issues of integrity. They're stylistic choices.

Ditching robes? Trickier, but if you have a liberal theology, it ought surely to be negotiable. There's plenty wiggle-room between grand ecclesiastical tat and a televangelist suit.

Healing, tongues, the Jesus salute: not essential!

How about losing the centrality of the Eucharist?

I'm also puzzled as to how the visible gifts of the Spirit, pretty much the central theme of charismatic worship, can be considered optional extras.

The major damage to my integrity would simply be that this is not how I approach God. "Enthusiasm" does not work for me and I would feel a fraud attempting to fake it in order to get bums on seats.

You're going to have to explain what definition of liberal you're using which means you don't have any principles or any sense of a right way to do things.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
So for those who are particularly called to worship/minister within the MOTR millieu, it certainly would be worth analyzing the particular failures of the MOTR way of doing things. Some excellent posts here, do just that.
Could you give any pointers? Has anyone got any experience to add? It would, I think, be interesting.

As I said, some excellent posts here already have done that. In terms of adding my own experience, I think I would be inclined to say that MOTR churches - because they seem to attract a fairly wide range of individual, spiritually and religiously - can find it hard to focus on a coherent image, or present a 'brand' product (pardon the language!), which others who are perhaps quite sure about what they want from their religious experience either find it hard to buy into, or actually turn away in disgust.

Eg, if I want an exuberant, cheerful, demonstrative experience of worship, and my personality is such that I don't tend to find that easily in pointed canticles, or a sung eucharist, or people uniformly reciting the same words at the same pace every Sunday, I might feel that such worship is neither joyful, nor cheerful - dead, even.

So some MOTR churches - I suppose I'm trying to say - don't appear to easily put on the menu of their worship-window on a Sunday morning, everything that is actually - and perhaps quite healthfully - available in the kitchen.

Also, I don't think it's entirely a cliche that many MOTR churches find it hard, in their church councils, to engage with spirituality and mission; finding it easier to talk about maintenance and buildings. Again, perhaps a result of the diffuseness of a wide-ranging group of individuals with no one guiding personal characterstic of religious preference.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Svitlana2, referencing your reply to my post. Absolutely. I understand your use of the terminology, and that's fine. It opens up the discussion in the Op very well.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

I'm also puzzled as to how the visible gifts of the Spirit, pretty much the central theme of charismatic worship, can be considered optional extras.

There are plenty of charismatic-lite churches in the UK (and elsewhere) for which this is the case (including many Restorationists, and some of churches of previous movements like Vineyard, Icthus etc).

In those churches, visible usage of gifts is usually relegated to the prayer meeting, personal use of tongues during corporate worship and maybe the odd speaker with a prophetic ministry.

Which kind of makes sense in many ways - even enthusiasts find it hard to keep up the levels of energy required.

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

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

On the OP, I like to think I've been as cynical, unfair and mean to quiet respectable churches as I have to the various One True Churches and the up in the air junior birdman shacks.
Now, that reminds me of something: Fresh Expressions. 'FEs of church' seem to be a mainstream rather than an evangelical form of intentional evangelistic activity, and that makes them interesting. But although we're often told that FEs are officially a 'good thing', it's much rarer for us hear from a layperson about how important their involvement with a FE of church has been to them. It's good that you're here to bring that perspective!

Well, I was posting with my 'miserable git' hat on rather than my 'Goes to a FE' hat. Interestingly, FEs are overseen by Graham Cray, who is an evengelical, albeit of a relatively liberal bent. Mine at any rate has a reasonable crop of ex-evangelicals.

I've been trying to analyse why the FE setup we attend works for us. I'll come back with some ideas.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How about losing the centrality of the Eucharist?

I don't think that qualifies as a criterion, as the Eucharist is not the centre of worship in some Nonconformist traditions. Sorry.

Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

I'm also puzzled as to how the visible gifts of the Spirit, pretty much the central theme of charismatic worship, can be considered optional extras.
There are plenty of charismatic-lite churches in the UK (and elsewhere) for which this is the case (including many Restorationists, and some of churches of previous movements like Vineyard, Icthus etc).

In those churches, visible usage of gifts is usually relegated to the prayer meeting, personal use of tongues during corporate worship and maybe the odd speaker with a prophetic ministry.

Which kind of makes sense in many ways - even enthusiasts find it hard to keep up the levels of energy required.

"Energy required"? It takes as much or as little energy to speak in tongues as it does in your native language. Likewise prophecy. Ultimately it's just talking, like prayer, or preaching.

Lively and loud worship songs, with optional clapping and even dancing, on the other hand do require more energy. Oddly they're the things that "charismatic-lite" churches tend to keep when downplaying the other stuff.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:

"Energy required"? It takes as much or as little energy to speak in tongues as it does in your native language. Likewise prophecy. Ultimately it's just talking, like prayer, or preaching.

You are discounting the build up required for such things to gain credibility in a corporate worship setting.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

The CofE's Church Growth Research Programme of 2012/13 finds that theological tradition isn't a key factor in church growth. (See the end of the report.)

Except that the churches of non-evangelical stripes who are growing are generally less geographically distributed than evangelical churches. If you do the analysis numerically then the differences are even starker.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How about losing the centrality of the Eucharist?
I don't think that qualifies as a criterion, as the Eucharist is not the centre of worship in some Nonconformist traditions. Sorry.

I didn't realise I was meant to be coming up with a list that would work for every MOTR congregation everywhere, ever. I'm speaking from my experience as a MOTR to Anglo-Catholic Anglican.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

For me personally - it's the shock and surprise of the Gospel that keeps me a Christian, but it's not what keeps me in a church. That would be connection and community (and also things that I value theologically such as the centrality of the Eucharist - but that's irrelevant if I don't want to be in that church because of the lack of community).

I think whether people fit into a church is more about personality that whether there are guitars and drums - I know that I as an INFJ and the rarest type find it a bit more difficult.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How about losing the centrality of the Eucharist?
I don't think that qualifies as a criterion, as the Eucharist is not the centre of worship in some Nonconformist traditions. Sorry.

But it is the only worship commanded by Jesus.

Posted by burlingtontiger (# 18069) on :

I'm interested in Christianity but not convinced, or at least, not yet convinced. I am trying (for a third time) regular attendance at my local Evangelical church, and enjoying it. Being a low church set-up, the only obvious division between believers and other attendees comes at the communion service.

Earlier this year I did try going to my local Church of England church on a couple of occasions. The 12th century(former) Priory is beautiful but generally cold. A congregation of, maybe, one hundred is rather rattling around in such a big building. The wooden pews are hard but I guess that no other seating would look right. The PA system is a bit hit and miss - cutting out now and again. The hymns are a tad old fashioned. The vestments are pretty but help to make a distinction between the clergy/choir etc. and the congregation. The processional cross is dramatic but, as an outsider, seemed more like a pagan talisman. What really didn't appeal to me was the liturgy and liturgical responses. To a newcomer they just seemed to make the whole thing into a club for the initiated.

It's lovely for a Christmas carol service but as a regular place of worship, well, I just don't understand it....

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Are numbers all that matter? If the people who go out through the back door have been so maltreated and abused that they have given up on God and Christ altogether, the fact that the numbers stay up could be a sign of diabolical favor, not divine.

Unless you're arguing that AV, dance, and worship songs constitute abuse (OK, some worship songs ... [Biased]

), copying that aspect of evangelicalism shouldn't be a problem.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How about losing the centrality of the Eucharist?

No need to do that. Mars Hill, of all places, regularly incorporates the eucharist. What's not essential is reams of liturgy. Confession, absolution and blessing can be done concisely without losing any of their power. Just the opposite, they can draw power from brevity.

quote:
I'm also puzzled as to how the visible gifts of the Spirit, pretty much the central theme of charismatic worship, can be considered optional extras.

How central are they? Places like HTB and Willow Creek have held many services where "visible gifts" are peripheral going-on absent. Since accessibility is the issue, they're not essential: music festivals draw hundreds of thousands without 'em.

quote:
The major damage to my integrity would simply be that this is not how I approach God. "Enthusiasm" does not work for me and I would feel a fraud attempting to fake it in order to get bums on seats.

If by "enthusiasm" you mean fervor, plenty charismatic evo churches get along without it. If you mean AV, music in a contemporary style, and pared down liturgy, surely they can be incorporated into a service sans wailing in the aisles!

quote:
You're going to have to explain what definition of liberal you're using which means you don't have any principles or any sense of a right way to do things.

I don't have any principles 'cause I think traditional-style worship would benefit from modernization?! [Killing me]

Liberal in the sense of liberal theology. If acres of liturgy and vestments are the alpha and omega of liberal Christianity, no wonder it's in trouble!

If they're not, what's the principle whereby guitars are verboten?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

But I don't think it's helpful to approach it from that angle. I know for me I am A-C first, liberal second (not that I identify personally as liberal....). It's the same for open charismatic evangelicals that I know. I don't know of anyone outside of groups like the Unitarians who identifies as liberal first and can slot into any liberal-leaning church. IME churchmanship usually comes first - I may be classed as liberal but I'd rather go to an FiF place than a liberal A-C who suddenly decided to get electric guitars and drums and worship songs *shudder*

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But I don't think it's helpful to approach it from that angle. I know for me I am A-C first, liberal second (not that I identify personally as liberal....). It's the same for open charismatic evangelicals that I know. I don't know of anyone outside of groups like the Unitarians who identifies as liberal first and can slot into any liberal-leaning church. IME churchmanship usually comes first - I may be classed as liberal but I'd rather go to an FiF place than a liberal A-C who suddenly decided to get electric guitars and drums and worship songs *shudder*

From a Catholic perspective, modern worship has a lot to recommend it. It's holistic, engages all the senses, etc. Heck, plenty Catholic churches incorporate guitars, AV, and crisp, modern liturgy at Mass. Robes are kept to a minimum, just a chasuble-alb for the officiants.

My underlying concern is that numbers are power. Evangelicals have been able to get the church to uphold their beliefs on various dead horses 'cause they bankroll the institution. Until liberal and affirming Catholics have that weight, whatever the merits of their beliefs, their voice isn't heard.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I don't have any principles 'cause I think traditional-style worship would benefit from modernization?!

Liberal in the sense of liberal theology. If acres of liturgy and vestments are the alpha and omega of liberal Christianity, no wonder it's in trouble!

If they're not, what's the principle whereby guitars are verboten?

I meant "you" in the generic rather than the specific sense, apologies for the perceived insult.

I have no particular objection to guitars, or indeed drums. In fact I've been to some excellent services that follow traditional liturgy and incorporate both guitars and drums. The difficulty with this arises when most churches can barely rustle up one halfway competent pianist to staff the organ. The necessary skills for a decent band are not available to them.

It seems to me that you're out to ditch the things that you don't like for the sake of it, rather than look for ways of making those things work in a new context. I'm struggling to see what a service actually consists of except a long stream or worship songs if you want to ditch the liturgy. Is it to be endless droning from the likes of Gumble? Or the fevered witterings of those who think they've got the the gift of prophesy? Testimony from those who see God in every 50p they see dropped on the floor? My experience of charismatic worship has been a lot of loud music and a lot of people falling on the floor. If people find that draws them closer to God then that's lovely, but it doesn't work for me and I can't see how it works for them either.

Stating liberal theology doesn't make it any clearer. Liberal takes in everything from "orthodox but doesn't hate gay people" to "atheist but isn't willing to admit it".

[ 14. July 2014, 18:22: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I meant "you" in the generic rather than the specific sense, apologies for the perceived insult.

Thanks, no worries. [Smile]

quote:
I have no particular objection to guitars, or indeed drums. In fact I've been to some excellent services that follow traditional liturgy and incorporate both guitars and drums. The difficulty with this arises when most churches can barely rustle up one halfway competent pianist to staff the organ. The necessary skills for a decent band are not available to them.

Good point. I've heard more than enough ropey worship groups to agree with this. It is, though, a separate issue to being against 'em on principle.

quote:
It seems to me that you're out to ditch the things that you don't like for the sake of it, rather than look for ways of making those things work in a new context. I'm struggling to see what a service actually consists of except a long stream or worship songs if you want to ditch the liturgy. Is it to be endless droning from the likes of Gumble? Or the fevered witterings of those who think they've got the the gift of prophesy? Testimony from those who see God in every 50p they see dropped on the floor? My experience of charismatic worship has been a lot of loud music and a lot of people falling on the floor. If people find that draws them closer to God then that's lovely, but it doesn't work for me and I can't see how it works for them either.

Stating liberal theology doesn't make it any clearer. Liberal takes in everything from "orthodox but doesn't hate gay people" to "atheist but isn't willing to admit it".

As it happens, I much prefer a mystical Catholic service to a happy-clappy one. However, the charismatics get the numbers, and with it, the power. So if incorporating elements of their style is the price of success, I'd be more than willing to pay it. As I see it, the equation runs: my stylistic preferences; or a church tolerating and perpetuating teaching I consider harmful. As hits go, it's a minor one.

I'd love to think it's a false choice, but the decline of mainline churches, and the runaway success of evangelicalism, suggests they've hit on the right formula.

As for the form that a fusion could take, modern AV and worship songs, but more emphasis on the eucharist, no hour-long sermons. AV can enhance mysticism. The charismatics could end up beaten at their own game. [Big Grin]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

There's nothing to stop moderate and liberal churches from accommodating the needs of both camps with different services. Right now, there's often nothing for those who'd be attracted by a liberal service in a modern style.

Where's the liberal version of Spring Harvest, Willow Creek, HTB, Mars Hill (the Seattle one)? There's Greenbelt, I guess, but it's not tied to all the networking that evangelicalism excels at.

The rich and popular churches call the shots. If liberals and moderates want a place at the table, their brand needs the mother of all revamps.

I find it quite curious that those churches with the most liberal (or let us say, theologically inclusive) inclinations are frequently the most firmly wedded to traditional worship styles. I've never come across a comprehensive explanation as to why this is the case.

However, one idea occurs to me. It seems that independently-run/congregationalist churches are more likely to be evangelical than others (and even evangelical CofE churches are accused of being more congregational than parish-minded). My view is that such churches find it simpler to switch to a worship band than those that have a more centralised structure. British Methodism, for example, is more liberal and also endures a circuit system, which means pulpits suffer from a lack of stability. This means it's hard to coordinate changing preferences in worship style with what a bunch of circulating preachers/ministers can work with. One church = one minister (perhaps with internal assistant ministers, if the funds are available) makes it easier to try new things.

Having said all that, the congregationalist URC, Unitarians and Quakers aren't (on the whole) evangelical, and neither do they go in much for popular music styles, AFAIK.....

Despite the use of readers, the shortage of clergy and the parish system, the CofE benefits from more stability in its pulpits, and I understand that even some of its MOTR congregations are engaging more with modern music and with worship bands these days, though I don't know if this is widespread. Many English RC congregations have gone down this route, I believe.

[ 14. July 2014, 19:46: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Svitlana

Isn't it the split between the word and the sacrament? (Call it the Reformation if you like). I mean that Protestantism rejected sacramentalism and symbolism, and adhered to the written/spoken word; thus modern Protestants do likewise.

Of course, there have been liberal Protestants and liberal Evangelicals, but liberals have tended to stick with sacrament/symbol, and seem more Catholic, since they reject discourse-based services.

Maybe I haven't really explained that at all!

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I find it quite curious that those churches with the most liberal (or let us say, theologically inclusive) inclinations are frequently the most firmly wedded to traditional worship styles. I've never come across a comprehensive explanation as to why this is the case. [...]

Exactly! I'm similarly intrigued by this disconnect.

My personal theory is that ritual conservatism serves to compensate for theological liberalism. Witness, in addition to the Southwark sock police, Giles Fraser's vehement objection to ending the dead-letter canon on robes. (General Synod just voted it through. Sky is, as yet, stubbornly aloft.)

Evangelicals, confident in their theology, are more relaxed about appearance. Mark Driscoll may be a prick, but he said it well: "We're theologically conservative but culturally liberal."

This is all tied to much deeper issues of confidence. Liberals are notoriously reluctant to get into a pulpit and express their beliefs in plain language. How many priests say, "I don't believe that Jesus said everything in the gospels," or, "Some of Paul's letters are forgeries." One thing's for sure: far fewer than believe those things.

Dressing up for services and sticking closely to the liturgy offers even more cover.

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

(Raises hand cautiously)

We are as liturgically informal as it's possible to be, even within the latitude granted to FE. Robes are rare. We sit on bean bags and use bakery bread and wine from Tesco.

We're not definitively liberal in theology, but many of us would identify as liberals. We strive to be welcoming and tolerant of liberal or conservative theology, notwithstanding having quite a few members who would get the automatic disapproval of some theological conservatives.

But I know the pattern you describe is to a first approximation true. It does not, however, have to be.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think liberals are less into discourse. This sounds odd, as some of them are liberal intelligentsia, who no doubt are prolix on all manner of things, but vis a vis God they turn into sacramentalists, as they are into mystery, and introversion and diffusion. Whereas evangelical Protestants strike me as more extrovert and discourse-related and less sacramental. I could be wrong!

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

I wonder if it's that we all need 'boundary markers' to indicate how we are distinctive from the prevailing culture. So churches will almost always be either theologically conservative or liturgically conservative. Otherwise, what is there to mark us out from those around us who don't follow Christ?

Ideally, I think we should be marked out as different by the radically godly nature of our lives. But if that's not the case...

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Dressing up for services and sticking closely to the liturgy offers even more cover.

That makes it sound consciously duplicitous, Byron, which I don't think I would agree with. Though I understand your point otherwise. It might be fairer to say they retain the symbols but are in a process of re-negotiating the things pointed to. (Or in some cases discarded perhaps.)

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think liberals are less into discourse. This sounds odd, as some of them are liberal intelligentsia, who no doubt are prolix on all manner of things, but vis a vis God they turn into sacramentalists, as they are into mystery, and introversion and diffusion. Whereas evangelical Protestants strike me as more extrovert and discourse-related and less sacramental. I could be wrong!

I think there's a lot in this, and it shows how modernism could feed a liberal ethos. AV and modern music could amp up the emotional power of the sacraments. Smoke machines, soundsacape, trippy video, the works.

To 11, and beyond. [Devil]

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

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think liberals are less into discourse. This sounds odd, as some of them are liberal intelligentsia, who no doubt are prolix on all manner of things, but vis a vis God they turn into sacramentalists, as they are into mystery, and introversion and diffusion. Whereas evangelical Protestants strike me as more extrovert and discourse-related and less sacramental. I could be wrong!
I think there's a lot in this, and it shows how modernism could feed a liberal ethos. AV and modern music could amp up the emotional power of the sacraments. Smoke machines, soundsacape, trippy video, the works.

To 11, and beyond.

Oh I wouldn't go that far, but yes, we use a lot of music, although we don't as a rule sing (the only time we've put a music group together was for Greenbelt last year and that ended in kazoos).

Lots of AV though; readings may be projected rather than read, with an audio-visual backing. We also use a lot of short clips from popular culture, or alternatively bizarre arcana the minister has found on the web, where it touches the subject matter.

It's on YouTube but not wanting to be seen to plug.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Dressing up for services and sticking closely to the liturgy offers even more cover.
That makes it sound consciously duplicitous, Byron, which I don't think I would agree with. Though I understand your point otherwise. It might be fairer to say they retain the symbols but are in a process of re-negotiating the things pointed to. (Or in some cases discarded perhaps.)

In many cases, I believe it's unconscious. Really like the way you put that about renegotiating the symbols' endzone. Bultmann's kergyma lives.

Although some of the obscurantism I've heard in liberal sermons can't be anything but deliberate. (Stop hedging about "context" and "interpretation" already. Oh dear God, not the temple cults again. You think the Bible's wrong. Just say it, already. [Biased]

)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Byron

I'm thinking also about silence. I think there is a Catholic silence (which Buddhists might call the silence of nature), whereas for me, Protestantism is so verbal and logorrheic.

It's another paradox, since you would expect liberals to go for the latter, and no doubt some do, but I know quite a lot of liberals who like the silence and the incense!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Look, Byron, you like that sort of thing. Good for you. You don't like robes. Fairy nuff. But will you please stop pushing this line that crashbang music +AV+not much dressing up is The Answer To The Church's Problems (TM) and that anyone who doesn't go along with you is dooming the Church to die of inanition. At best it's terribly simplistic and shallow, and at worst it could look to the uncharitable like you were trolling.

[ 14. July 2014, 20:58: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Isn't it the split between the word and the sacrament? (Call it the Reformation if you like). I mean that Protestantism rejected sacramentalism and symbolism, and adhered to the written/spoken word; thus modern Protestants do likewise.

Of course, there have been liberal Protestants and liberal Evangelicals, but liberals have tended to stick with sacrament/symbol, and seem more Catholic, since they reject discourse-based services.

Ah, that's interesting. So you think it's the attachment to sacramentalism and symbol that makes liberal, non-literal interpretations of the Bible more possible and acceptable? That makes sense.

It doesn't necessarily explain the appeal of popular music and informality in some evangelical forms, though. Perhaps there's distinction to be made here: Calvinistic evangelicalism prioritises the Word and doctrinal precision, but although the more Armenian type might keep the long sermons it also tends towards the more experiential, the emotional rather than the intellectual.

I've heard it said that Pentecostalism can end up fetishising certain symbolic acts and phrases of its own, even that it represents a sort of re-Catholicisation of Protestantism. I doubt that the more liberal-leaning sacramentalists would appreciate this connection being made, but the South American Catholics who've responded to the Pentecostalisation of their culture by speaking in tongues and making a racket in church, etc., might not mind at all.

[ 14. July 2014, 20:59: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Byron

I'm thinking also about silence. I think there is a Catholic silence (which Buddhists might call the silence of nature), whereas for me, Protestantism is so verbal and logorrheic.

It's another paradox, since you would expect liberals to go for the latter, and no doubt some do, but I know quite a lot of liberals who like the silence and the incense!

Lots of this taps emotion, so can see why it cuts across theological boundaries.

Some of the best contemplative prayer I've experienced has come courtesy of charismatic evangelicals, who've applied their talent for the arts to things like labyrinths and prayer-sculpture.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think liberals are less into discourse. This sounds odd, as some of them are liberal intelligentsia, who no doubt are prolix on all manner of things, but vis a vis God they turn into sacramentalists, as they are into mystery, and introversion and diffusion. Whereas evangelical Protestants strike me as more extrovert and discourse-related and less sacramental. I could be wrong!
I think there's a lot in this, and it shows how modernism could feed a liberal ethos. AV and modern music could amp up the emotional power of the sacraments. Smoke machines, soundsacape, trippy video, the works.

To 11, and beyond.

Well - 9 at least.

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

HRB - don't. Please don't. You wouldn't believe, especially in this neck of the woods, how the shadow of NoS hangs over anyone trying to do anything vaguely out of the ordinary, especially if their target demographic is the young unchurched...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Svitlana wrote:

Ah, that's interesting. So you think it's the attachment to sacramentalism and symbol that makes liberal, non-literal interpretations of the Bible more possible and acceptable? That makes sense.

Actually, I hadn't made that connection, but it makes sense, that liberals are non-literal, therefore not so much into discourse, and more into symbols. By gum, this is interesting.

There is still an odd disconnect - theologically liberal, liturgically conservative.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Look, Byron, you like that sort of thing. Good for you. You don't like robes. Fairy nuff. But will you please stop pushing this line that crashbang music +AV+not much dressing up is The Answer To The Church's Problems (TM) and that anyone who doesn't go along with you is dooming the Church to die of inanition. At best it's terribly simplistic and shallow, and at worst it could look to the uncharitable like you were trolling.

Erm, read up, it's not my personal preference. "As it happens, I much prefer a mystical Catholic service to a happy-clappy one."

I'm simply suggesting that liberal and moderate churches could, in general, be become more accessible by learning from aspects of charismatic evangelicalism. This doesn't have to involve being carbon copies of Willow Creek. Robes can stay if they're considered essential.

Also above, I've suggested above how AV could enhance sacramental worship. It's not about liberalism becoming evangelicalism, but learning from it to craft a specifically liberal form of modern worship. Karl's described this perfectly. [Smile]

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

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Svitlana wrote:

Ah, that's interesting. So you think it's the attachment to sacramentalism and symbol that makes liberal, non-literal interpretations of the Bible more possible and acceptable? That makes sense.

Actually, I hadn't made that connection, but it makes sense, that liberals are non-literal, therefore not so much into discourse, and more into symbols. By gum, this is interesting.

There is still an odd disconnect - theologically liberal, liturgically conservative.

Which may be why if they don't go for traditional liturgy they're proverbally to be found imbuing pebbles with significance in Alt Worship venues...

These days my main problem with long sermons, OTOH, is that if they don't send me to sleep it's because the speaker has said enough asinine things that make me want to rip their limbs off. YMMV, naturally.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Odder than liturgically liberal (if you can call it that), theologically conservative?
As a liturgical (theological) liberal, I'd say that trad liturgy can give you room to think and reflect- the reasonably predictable external structure frees up capacity in the mind. And of course symbols are as much part of discourse as anything else.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
[...] To 11, and beyond.
Well - 9 at least.

Ah, did wonder if that very Anglican cult would make an appearance. [Biased]

It may be that Chris Brain's antics did scare many off experimenting with sacramental worship. If they did, it's misguided. The Sheffield fiasco has far more to do with the cult of personality and inadequate checks on power than it does rejigging the eucharist.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Fair enough Karl. I certainly wouldn't want to be considered as against any of those things. Just that those who cannot remember the past are etc. etc.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@South Coast Kevin, as a both/and rather than either/or proponent, the issue I have with your comment about 'the radical godliness of our lives' is that it can easily descend into pietistic judgementalism ...

'That church over there is into conservativism/liberalism (or whatever else) because the people there aren't living radically godly lives ...'

One person's radically godly life can be someone else's pietistic pain in the backside.

We're all trying to follow Christ. We simply have different ways of doing it and none of us are 'successful' at it. 'We all stumble in many ways ...'

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

I'd love to think it's a false choice, but the decline of mainline churches, and the runaway success of evangelicalism, suggests they've hit on the right formula.

As for the form that a fusion could take, modern AV and worship songs, but more emphasis on the eucharist, no hour-long sermons. AV can enhance mysticism. The charismatics could end up beaten at their own game.

It suggests they've hit on the right formula for getting people through the doors, but so have night clubs and shopping malls. That doesn't mean they should be imitated.

That said, I have no particular issue with your latter suggestion. I think there is a place, for example, for the use of lighting to support and enhance the liturgy of the Eucharist. The use of incense, and of bells at the elevation of the host and the chalice, suggest that engaging the senses to lend drama and grandeur to the proceedings is well in keeping with the intent of the traditional services and using technology to enhance this sounds like an excellent plan, and if it were anything like what I have in my imagination I would find it very helpful

That said, evidence from the Cathedrals and similar large, MOTR churches suggests that traditional forms, well done, do attract increased numbers. The difficulty IS what the local parish church does, and a lot of that comes down to resources. Even large parishes struggle to find people skilled enough to operate a simple powerpoint or small mixing desk during a service, never mind a complex lighting rig.

The other difficulty is that "quiet, respectable churches" attract introverts. We aren't good at being effusive in our welcome, and our attempts to fake it are as likely to scare as attract. Evangelicals tend to be better at it. Indeed the evangelical "friend" who reaches out to people, apparently genuine, but mainly aiming to get them to church, is common enough to be a stereotype. One could say that the answer is fewer, bigger churches, at least in the larger towns and cities so that the fancy stuff can be done, but that doesn't help the small villages and islands where the church is probably most vulnerable.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Fair enough Karl. I certainly wouldn't want to be considered as against any of those things. Just that those who cannot remember the past are etc. etc.

Indeed. Byron's right on the button with the real issues there though.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
[...] To 11, and beyond.
Well - 9 at least.
Ah, did wonder if that very Anglican cult would make an appearance.

It may be that Chris Brain's antics did scare many off experimenting with sacramental worship. If they did, it's misguided. The Sheffield fiasco has far more to do with the cult of personality and inadequate checks on power than it does rejigging the eucharist.

Yes, it may well do - in majority terms at least. But the point about appealing to the more extrovert is highly relevant surely. Growth - indeed survival does need extroverts and they are the ones we are boring to death. I don't think being an extrovert* drives you to evangelicalism, let alone conservative ditto. But if it's the only flavour on offer, then - well...

(* declaration of interest - I am one)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Odder than liturgically liberal (if you can call it that), theologically conservative?
As a liturgical (theological) liberal, I'd say that trad liturgy can give you room to think and reflect- the reasonably predictable external structure frees up capacity in the mind. And of course symbols are as much part of discourse as anything else.

Yes, but the Reformation marked a deep shift to the word, didn't it, away from the symbol? The statues were smashed up, and the pamphlets printed, and the Cromwellian army camped just up the road from me, and debated and debated, until Oliver had had enough. Words, words, words, torrents of the bloody things.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

On the music and style thing, the RCs have been able to pull off folk masses and so on and introduce more 'modern' worship styles into their services because they have a home-grown tradition of doing so - particularly since Vatican II.

There's been a parallel move within Roman Catholicism to the worship-song/chorus thing within Protestantism ... it's just that the rest of us aren't so aware of it because whereas some Protestant hymns and choruses have found their way into the RC repetoire, there hasn't been much of a move in the other direction.

Some Shipmates may be able to name RC songwriters and arrangers etc.

It may or may not be to everyone's personal taste but there's been a move this way for quite some time in many RC parishes.

As for liberal Protestant music - the fact is that there were plenty of examples of liberal music back in the 1960s - 'Lord of the Dance' probably being the paradigm example. There are others.

I visited our local URC recently and had to endure a truly dreadful recorded version of 'Lord of the Dance' which attempted a techno beat and a hip-hop style in places. Badly.

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

Preserve us from the badly done. I think people see a lot of polished performance in wider culture these days so the ropey looks even ropier.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Amen to that. Whatever you do, do it well, and you stand a chance of people taking you seriously and wanting to know more. That is by far the most important thing.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Yes, it may well do - in majority terms at least. But the point about appealing to the more extrovert is highly relevant surely. Growth - indeed survival does need extroverts and they are the ones we are boring to death. I don't think being an extrovert* drives you to evangelicalism, let alone conservative ditto. But if it's the only flavour on offer, then - well...

(* declaration of interest - I am one)

Couldn't agree more about extroverts.

I've known a bunch of evangelicals who're far more attracted by style and friendship than by the Bebbington quadrilateral. Evangelical churches offer them a social network and accessible services. They in turn invite their friends along, and some even come. If the church taught liberal theology alongside its worship songs and fellowship then many would still come.

Where's taditionalism's greatest success? Cathedrals, where its theater has the necessary talent, performing on the best stage you could wish for. I agree with Arethosemyfeet that the limitations of local churches can apply to charismatic worship, but it's easier to do a budget worship group and AV setup than it is to assemble the specialized skillset needed for traditional worship to be done well. More people play guitar than church organ.

Cathedrals are also beacons for those who like traditionalism; local churches have to serve a diverse range of tastes, and in that setting, worship that taps pop culture is often at an advantage.

[ 14. July 2014, 21:44: Message edited by: Byron ]

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

Just to give a few names that are familiar to me, Bernadette Farrell is a modern RC hymn writer as are Damian Lundy, Marty Haugen and Dan Schutte and, of course, there's Taizé. (Same MOR church I was referring to above had all of these in the regular hymnody as well as a number of modern Anglican hymn writers.)

It's very difficult for the MOR church choirs in the local church to compare to cathedral choirs or, say, the BBC Singers - and that's the level of comparison.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Agreed. I have endured badly-done worship songs at evangelical places, but it's definitely something Mainline Protestantism seems to struggle with more.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
More people play guitar than church organ.

More people think they can play guitar. I've seen a few too many enthusiastic Vicars with guitars that have had their congregation trying to crawl under the pews.

Frankly if I want to do traditional worship well with limited resources I'm going to go for unaccompanied plain chant than turgid organ music.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Agreed. I have endured badly-done worship songs at evangelical places, but it's definitely something Mainline Protestantism seems to struggle with more.

It'd help if people actually sung. Something the charevos get right, that is - if you're going to sing something, sing the bugger!

The inadequacies of the musicians will seem less important, if nothing else, if you're belting away yourself.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The Orthodox I know have difficulties with getting a high standard of choral singing/chant at a parish level ... although the music at my nearest Orthodox parish is led by a former Anglican cathedral chorister who knows his stuff.

I've heard some excellent Byzantine chant at one of their conferences, but you need skilled people to pull it off. Otherwise it sounds like caterwauling.

I think it is easier to have a stripped-down worship-band style combo but for some reason those who go in for contemporary evangelical worship styles somehow feel the need to emulate the bells-and-whistles found at the big conventions - Soul Survivor, New Wine, Spring Harvest etc.

I don't know why. It's bloody stupid.

We've just had a music festival here and some of the same bands who were giving it large on stage on the Saturday were playing unplugged acoustic sets at some of the local pubs on Sunday. I wasn't able to get to any of the Sunday sessions but am reliably informed that they were just as successful - in a different kind of way.

So I can't see why it should be beyond the wit of man for parish-level worship-bands to make a reasonable fist of things without pretending to be on the main stage at Let God Break Forth Into Songs of Harvest Triumph or whatever the latest evo-fest happens to be ...

After all, until the Oxford Movement tried to tidy everything up they used to have church-bands or 'waits' with shawms and 'serpents' and out-of-tune fiddles ..

I avoid the more lively 11am service at our parish but I'm told that the music was an out-of-synch awful mess there on Sunday. My wife plays the organ at the 9am service about every 3 weeks or so. She refuses to play choruses on the organ because they sound silly and also refuses to play the silly keyboard thing they have there at the 11am.

I'm sure it'd be possibly to do 'pared down' in a reasonable way in both evangelical and liberal settings.

The trouble is, though, with due respect to our liberal friends, most of the songs in the liberal repertoire are pretty shite.

We often complain here about crappy evangelical worship songs and choruses but some of the liberal material is just as bad.

It's simply platitudinous gob-shittery about all loving one another and being nice to people and how God isn't all judgemental and nasty but actually quite reasonable really ...

[Razz]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I remember the days of 'Lord of the Dance' and Taizé music. That stuff seems to have been out of favour for a long time round my way. However, a local Methodist church is about to lay on monthly 'alternative worship' sessions based around Taizé and Iona songs. This strikes me as being 'alternative' in a retro sense rather than a modern sense, but I don't mind a bit of churchy nostalgia of that type, reminding me of my younger days.

Will the average person driving or walking past the church notice board know what Taizé and Iona music is like, and why it should be appealing to them?

BTW, this is a long shot, but has anyone on here used the new Methodist hymnbook 'Singing the Faith'? Putting aside the design and quality of the book, do you think its mixture of older and newer songs is successful? Will it be more appealing to non-churchgoers and other church visitors than Hymns and Psalms was?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I'm not a Methodist but it's the hymnbook we tend to use at SCM events, if we use one. Seems pretty good, standard, MOTR stuff to me.

We use Taizé chanting a lot at SCM things and actually I think they're the most successful music we do - suitable for everyone regardless of denomination (especially if you miss out any Latin ones), easy to pick up, no need for musical instruments or proficient playing, simple but very profound and not banal. I think if such a service was advertised more generally, it might be a success - people are scared off by weird words like 'Taizé' but often find they enjoy the chants once they've experienced them.

We're now quite a mixed group - Methodists and URC are probably the core along with some Anglicans and RCs, but recently we've had a number of charismatic evangelicals join the staff team and intern for us, so music can be tricky to get a good balance (fortunately we have some talented musicians so that side is OK). Strong, belt-them-out Wesleyan and Revivalist type hymns seem to go down the best generally - we are using more and more worship songs, but the problem is that often the non-evangelicals don't know them, while everyone knows How Great Thou Art etc.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Orthodox I know have difficulties with getting a high standard of choral singing/chant at a parish level ...

This could be because most of the Orthodox you know are English. Ask the Welsh or the Scots -- the English don't have the singing tradition like the Celts that surround them.

quote:
I've heard some excellent Byzantine chant at one of their conferences, but you need skilled people to pull it off. Otherwise it sounds like caterwauling.

If you're not a native Greek, you shouldn't even try.

quote:
It's simply platitudinous gob-shittery about all loving one another and being nice to people and how God isn't all judgemental and nasty but actually quite reasonable really ...

Yeah, how dare they think God actually, like, loves us or anything?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the music and style thing, the RCs have been able to pull off folk masses and so on and introduce more 'modern' worship styles into their services because they have a home-grown tradition of doing so - particularly since Vatican II.

There's been a parallel move within Roman Catholicism to the worship-song/chorus thing within Protestantism ... it's just that the rest of us aren't so aware of it because whereas some Protestant hymns and choruses have found their way into the RC repetoire, there hasn't been much of a move in the other direction.

Perhaps not in the UK, but in the US there has definitely been a Catholic —> Protestant movement of music. (No pun intended.) Many songs from the more contemporary, post-Vatican II Catholic repertoire have become standards in mainline Protestant hymnals and in many congregations.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Perhaps not in the UK, but in the US there has definitely been a Catholic —> Protestant movement of music. (No pun intended.) Many songs from the more contemporary, post-Vatican II Catholic repertoire have become standards in mainline Protestant hymnals and in many congregations.

It was not uncommon in the late 1980s to hear music by the St. Louis Jesuits sung in low-candle or charismatic Episcopalian services.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How about losing the centrality of the Eucharist?
I don't think that qualifies as a criterion, as the Eucharist is not the centre of worship in some Nonconformist traditions. Sorry.
But it is the only worship commanded by Jesus.

John 4: 23 - 24 -- worship in Spirit and Truth. It isn't confined to the Eucharist - Jesus didn't say only do this in remembrance of me .....

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How about losing the centrality of the Eucharist?
I don't think that qualifies as a criterion, as the Eucharist is not the centre of worship in some Nonconformist traditions. Sorry.
But it is the only worship commanded by Jesus.
John 4: 23 - 24 -- worship in Spirit and Truth. It isn't confined to the Eucharist - Jesus didn't say only do this in remembrance of me .....

I think leo was implying not that it was required that it be the only thing done, just that it was the only thing that was required as part of worship; and consequently that it should be central to worship.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Mousethief, I didn't explain myself very well. I'm not calling for wrathful and judgemental songs. It's simply that some of the MoTR and liberal repertoire is pretty banal and doctrinally rather limp.

The point was that here we often criticise the 'Ooh ah, Jesus; Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, We love you Jesus ooh ooh ooh Jesus ...' type of banality of certain strands of contemporary evangelical charismatic worship songs when we also ought to rail against some of the liberal alternatives.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

On the Anglo-Saxon vs Welsh and Scots (or Northern Irish) thing ...

Well, yes, I think you have a point to some extent, Mousethief. I have a cassette tape somewhere (remember those?) with the Divine Liturgy in Welsh.

It came from Fr Deiniol's parish in Blaenau Ffestiniog and wonderful it is too. Russian music and Welsh singing.

Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist (who has sometimes written articles for the Ship) grew up Elim Pentecostal in South Wales and ventured at times into the more uber-Pentecostal world of the Apostolic Church - a pentie denomination that started in South Wales around 1908 in the aftermath of the Welsh Revival.

When he became Orthodox and started attending the Russian Orthodox Cathedral in London, he said that if he closed his eyes and ignored the candles and icons for a moment, he could almost have been back in the South Wales Valleys at an Apostolic service.

Why? Because there are uncanny similarities between Welsh 'hwyl' and elements of Russian spirituality. I've picked this up myself and Fr Gregory (who used to post here) feels the same.

It's not simply the harmonies and basso-profundo (the profundo isn't as profundo in Welsh but there we are) but something else ... something I can't quite put my finger on but recognise when I see it.

That said, most Orthodox I know are English but there are Romanians and other Eastern Europeans at the churches I've visited over the years and they don't particularly seem to sing much.

The point I was getting at, though, wasn't so much about congregational singing as the fact that Orthodox worship does seem to need a skilled cantor and a realitively 'together' choir.

Not everywhere has that. I've known instances of our local Orthodox Church having to get someone in from Leicester to assist with the 'cantoring' or chant in the services because there wasn't anyone available more locally. Leicester isn't unfeasibly far in US terms but in UK terms it's a fair trek.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Mousethief wrote:

quote:
This could be because most of the Orthodox you know are English. Ask the Welsh or the Scots -- the English don't have the singing tradition like the Celts that surround them.

I suppose it would be churlish to point out that the generic heritage of the English is on average still mostly Celtic. Yes, I thought so.

But you've sort-of got a point though I'm not sure it's quite that simple.

quote:
The singing.
There was so much singing then,
and this was my pleasure too.
We all sang,
The boys in the fields,
The chapels were full of singing, always singing.
Here I lie.
I have had pleasure enough.
I have had singing.

This is from "Akenfield", and if I recall was the recollection of a very old and now blind agricultural worker about his long life in remote East Anglia (collected mid-20th century). Put it together with all sorts of other evidence about town waits, and choirs of all sorts and it's an argument impossible to sustain, at least till recently. So where did they all go?

I don't actually know the answer to that. Probably it's down to a combination of circumstances. The rise of recorded music and the demise of harmonisation must play a part though other factors are no doubt involved. It takes some time to learn how to sing well.

There seems to have been a renaissance of singing over the last 5-10 years though so hopefully we've seen the bottom of that trough.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How about losing the centrality of the Eucharist?
I don't think that qualifies as a criterion, as the Eucharist is not the centre of worship in some Nonconformist traditions. Sorry.
But it is the only worship commanded by Jesus.
John 4: 23 - 24 -- worship in Spirit and Truth. It isn't confined to the Eucharist - Jesus didn't say only do this in remembrance of me .....
I think leo was implying not that it was required that it be the only thing done, just that it was the only thing that was required as part of worship; and consequently that it should be central to worship.

I believe the Eucharist to be compulsory - any other service like evensong if man optional extra.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
AV and modern music could amp up the emotional power of the sacraments. Smoke machines, soundsacape, trippy video, the works.

I have twice encountered solemn Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament done this way - brilliant.

[ 15. July 2014, 17:10: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think that's right, Honest Ron Bacardi.

Communal singing was very popular during WW2, of course, people in air-raid shelters and so on.

Heck, I even know some people who attended the Billy Graham crusades at Harringay in the 1950s and they said that the tube trains were full of people singing hymns. Not all of them were going to the Graham meetings, but they said the singing was contagious and everyone else on the trains would join in ...

Even in stiff and formal 1950s London ...

My guess would be that it died off in the 1960s with the break down of some of the traditional industries - mills and mines often had brass-bands and choirs - and the advent of television from the mid-50s onwards.

Brass bands are struggling now, I've heard and there isn't as much time for music in schools thanks to the Demon Gove.

Choirs are undergoing something of a resurgence - there are several very good ones around here but I'm sure we've reached the bottom of the trough, I'm afraid.

Interestingly, inspired by the TV programme Nashville, there are a number of 6th formers around here who sing like Dolly Parton. Some of them are very good.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

The CofE's Church Growth Research Programme of 2012/13 finds that theological tradition isn't a key factor in church growth. (See the end of the report.)
Except that the churches of non-evangelical stripes who are growing are generally less geographically distributed than evangelical churches. If you do the analysis numerically then the differences are even starker.

This is what I would have thought, yes. But the findings in the report should give encouragement to other MOTR churches that benefit from certain geographical and social advantages, even if these are still waiting to be fully exploited.

I can't speak about the CofE's churches, but the future for other MOTR congregations not in these favoured areas does look poor. I keep on hearing disquieting news about the ones I know. I used to think I could join one of them and do some good, but it seems as if my 'help' might just prolong the agony. The fundamental problems (whatever they are...) aren't being addressed.

[Frown]

[ 16. July 2014, 17:54: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

So how can they be addressed?

Is it even possible to do so?

Let's have some answers. What do these MoTR churches need to do in order to address the issues?

Do they need to become less MoTR? Do they need to emulate churches of different traditions that aren't declining so rapidly?

Exactly what is it that we are asking them to do?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Practical questions. Good!

The thread has thrown up a number of criticisms of these churches and what they ought to work on. There have been references to, among other things:

/presentation
/music
/preaching
/welcome
/spirituality
/lay empowerment
/(in)accessibility
/outreach
/respectability
/FE
/community
/quality

One could add teaching, youth work, etc. etc. But there's little point in highlighting what needs to be done without asking why those problems aren't being addressed in an effective way already. The issues go back a long way and aren't going to be seriously addressed if that means disrupting and inconveniencing the way of working that people have become accustomed to. Many churches have drifted into maintenance mode and it's hard to break those habits.

MOTR churches often see their job as serving the community, which is understood in a social sense. If a mother and toddler group is run in the church building by a separate organisation it'll be seen as part of the church's mission even though it may not involve any church members or any specifically Christian content. 'Serving the community' in this way is admirable (and pulls in the rent), but it's apparently insufficient in developing the vigour and the worshipping life of a church.

Methodist structure has specific challenges with very few solutions available. Most ministers have to look after several churches, yet studies show that when this happens, churches are unlikely to grow. Growth matters from a pragmatic point of view because more members means more income, and more people to do the work. Methodist churches that can't fill key lay roles are formally obliged to close; the alternative is for ageing and worn-out people to remain in their posts for many years, and this isn't effective either.

The lack of continuity and firm leadership can be addressed if a church builds up its own supply of lay preachers, but smallish churches are unlikely to be able to do this, so their preachers mostly come in from outside. These people come, preach in their preferred way, and leave, and aren't seen as part of the solution for building a strong congregation.

It would appear, then, that too many external controls on a congregation (alongside other relevant factors) can inhibit dynamism. I suspect that the most dynamic Methodist churches are those that defy the circuit model to some extent - which also seems to be the case in the CofE with its parishes. So I suppose the denominations ought to make their structures more flexible. (However, the CofE is unique in not relying much on dynamism, or even on participation, to justify its existence. It's perhaps less urgent for the CofE to 'deal with' its MOTR churches, although, ironically, its resources ensure that it can do more than other denominations.)

There's more to be said, but I think the basic problem is that we're unable to abandon ourselves to a greater yearning for God. Structural and managerial adjustments, modern worship services and fancy presentation alone (even if most MOTR churches wanted and could afford them) are secondary. People have to believe that God matters enough to want to transform their relationships with each other, and to feel driven to share God's message with other people (including their own families). In reality, of course, MOTR congregations have largely accepted that what they have in Christ is mostly of personal interest. They'd like their churches to be better attended and more relevant to the wider society, but there isn't a strong theological impulse to make this happen. And people don't want to put themselves out more than they believe is absolutely necessary.

(It should be said that Methodists don't use the term 'MOTR' of themselves, AFAIK. There's no conscious commitment to this way of being; things have simply developed in a certain way, and now we have a norm that is only sporadically questioned. CofE MOTRers are perhaps more self-aware? If so, this may be a virtue.)

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Well said, Svitlana. I wonder whether the preaching has something to do with it, if it isn't inspiring the kind of 'on fire for God' attitude that's needed to enliven and encourage and build people up in faith.

ISTM by observation that preaching may in some places be an ego trip connected with power rather than the opportunity to allow God to reach his people through the words.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok - I'm quite pleased to see some practical issues and suggestions being bounced around.

However, I find myself with similar questions to those I keep asking South Coast Kevin - undoubtedly irritating him (and perhaps others) in the process ...

And that's what does a 'yearning for God' actually look like? How can we measure it? How can we 'bottle' it - if we were to think of it in those terms?

Does a 'yearning for God' necessarily imply religious 'enthusiasm' of the kind the evangelical charismatics specialise in?

What does it mean to 'abandon ourselves' to such a thing and what impact would that have on our structures?

We can have a 'yearning for God' but we've still got to heat and maintain the buildings, run the circuits, parishes, dioceses etc - if we have such things.

If we don't and have apparently looser, congregational structures, then these take a heck of a long of work and energy to maintain - however simple we try to make them.

It's one thing to say that, 'People have to believe that God matters enough to want to transform their relationships with each other, and to feel driven to share God's message with other people (including their own families).'

But how do we ensure that happens - or encourage it to happen?

I like the quote attributed (wrongly apparently) to Antoine de Saint Exupery:

'If you want to build a ship, don't summon people to buy wood, prepare tools, distribute jobs and organise the work, rather teach people the yearning for the wide, boundless ocean.'

Wuh ...

Spot on (whoever said it) - but it's easier said than done and starts with ourselves of course.

I'm not so sure that CofE MoTRs are more self-aware than, say, MoTRs in Methodist or URC circles - but then, the common perception would be that Methodists and URCs are MoTR in their entirety.

With the CofE - for better or worse - there are extreme wings ... extreme Anglo-Papallist Anglo-Catholics, for instance, who would scare most RCs off ... or extreme Reform types or some of those around the fringes of Anglican charismaticdom (rather than the more moderate core).

In numerical terms, the numbers on the Anglican 'extremes' are very small. It's just that they can make more noise in relation to their actual numbers.

So ... given your average, bog-standard MoTR congregation, then. People who don't want to be put-out any more than they are being ... who pootle along running the sorts of things that any church needs to run itself - how do we create a 'yearning for the wide, blue ocean'?

What can we do to encourage that without:

- Creating a holy huddle of a few 'keenies' who eventually burn themselves out?

- Emulating techniques and practices from other traditions that might be alien and inappropriate in such a setting?

- Coming across as too heavenly-minded to be of any earthly use?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry to double-post ...

On the preaching thing. If we are accepting the MoTR-ness of Methodism and the URCs - then I'm not sure it follows that the preaching in such churches is necessarily mediocre or gives an impression of 'take-it-or-leave-it'.

The last few times I've heard Methodist or URC preachers I've come away with the impression that these are people of genuine conviction and integrity, who seek to live by what they preach and teach.

There might be an element among the congregations though, of, 'Oh, that's the minister, they are supposed to be like that.'

Or even, 'They are supposed to be like that on our behalf ...'

Which is sometimes the way Anglican vicars are viewed - the word 'vicar' itself implying such a thing perhaps. I don't need to do religion because there's someone living in the rectory or vicarage who is paid to do it on my behalf ...

To an extent I think we've all been innoculated against too much religion, as it were ...

And that applies both to MoTR and more full-on settings.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Look the theology of my local URC was when I joined wider than that of the CofE. We basically stretched from Humanist to very Conservative CofS (basically similar to Wee Frees but not from as far north as them). I can name the people with those stances.

Outward conformity of worship practices was allied with a huge diversity of theological belief. The Reformed do not do uniformity of belief at all well. We either splinter or find ways to live together with diversity. Remember one theological college produced both John Hick and Leslie Newbiggin.

What you need to realise is that definitely within the URC worship form is deliberately void of theological signalling. It is to that extent like the white washed walls in many older chapels (peace Presbyterians, we are in England now). It is a canvas to be worked by those leading worship not the outline of a painting.

The preacher therefore has significant control of the meaning which is contained within the form. Not as much as many would like to think, for no act of worship happens in isolation from the congregation or wider culture but still it is only within the specific conjunction of that act of worship that the intent is formed.

Jengie

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, I appreciate all of that, Jengie Jon.

The point I was making was that - whatever the theological stance - and I've known URC ministers who run the full gamut - it doesn't necessarily follow that being perceived to be MoTR (which, like it or not, is how the URC and Methodists are generally regarded) - means that the preaching lacks conviction.

I've heard excellent preaching in both URC and Methodist churches.

That's not the issue for me.

As far as the worship goes, though, then that's trickier.

I visited our local URC recently and I was impressed by the obvious sense that this was a community that was sincere, full of integrity and seeking to live by its principles.

However, it didn't have the kind of immediate 'hit' you get from more evangelical charismatic forms of worship, still less the sense of mystery and the numinous.

If I was going to be harsh, I'd say it felt like a committee-meeting with hymns.

The minister had written the communion liturgy and it felt like a lecture - and one with some dubious Christology too ...

[Ultra confused]

Bless 'em.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'If you want to build a ship, don't summon people to buy wood, prepare tools, distribute jobs and organise the work, rather teach people the yearning for the wide, boundless ocean.'

Ah, I love this quotation too! In Christian terms, I think it means that instead of focusing on growing or sustaining the church, we should focus on showing and sharing how amazing God (the visible image of whom is Jesus) is, i.e. making disciples; and then the church will follow from that naturally.

Of course, this neatly matches Jesus' instructions to his first followers and, by extension, to us. His Great Commission is to 'make disciples', and regarding the church he said 'I will build my church'.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry, I missed something out, I meant 'still less the sense of mystery and the numinous that you can sometimes get with more catholic/sacramental forms of worship.'

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, yes, precisely, South Coast Kevin.

The question, though, is HOW do we do that?

And also, whether any particular structures can help or hinder that process?

I suspect that all the structures available to us - or all that have been tried or developed during 2,000 years of Christianity - offer both strengths and weaknesses in this regard.

I think the thing that's exercising me at the moment is how far I'm adrift from this ideal personally rather than whether the available structures are fit for purpose ...

[Hot and Hormonal]

But both are linked, of course.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I s'pose I've got this in mind in the 'Ecclesiology and anthropology' thread.

If we have an anthropology that suggests that everyone is damned unless they are offered a chance to repent and turn to Christ, then our ecclesial structures will reflect that - ie. they will be overtly evangelistic.

However, if our anthropology is such that we believe that the church should act as a benign force in society and that this forms part of its evangelism - then the kind of mums-and-toddlers groups run by other people but happening on our premises model is one that will develop.

Of course, I'd go for a both/and approach ... but that's for the other thread.

[Biased]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...And also, whether any particular structures can help or hinder that process?

This is almost exactly the title of the Masters dissertation I'm writing at the moment! So, I'll tell the definitive answer at the end of September, if that's okay... [Biased]

And it's probably a separate thread, on which I'll chip in if you start one but I probably shouldn't get too distracted by it. I'm on a study day today.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I visited our local URC recently and I was impressed by the obvious sense that this was a community that was sincere, full of integrity and seeking to live by its principles.

However, it didn't have the kind of immediate 'hit' you get from more evangelical charismatic forms of worship, still less the sense of mystery and the numinous.

If I was going to be harsh, I'd say it felt like a committee-meeting with hymns.

The minister had written the communion liturgy and it felt like a lecture ...

Yes, I know what you mean. I think that is quite generally true of churches in the Reformed tradition which tend to decry the visual, sensory and emotional aspects of worship and emphasise the intellectual. The result can inevitably be "worthy", rational and wordy, but unexciting. It also puts a great onus on the "performance" of the leader and preacher (who may or may not be the same person) to "lift" the service - the liturgy itself will probably not be able to do this.

We live in a much more "emotional" and "feelings" age which may well mean that this style of worship - however much it may satisfy me personally - will not give a spiritual "hit" to many people.

(Would have written this earlier but the phone rang!)

[ 18. July 2014, 10:42: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, Baptist Trainfan, but at the same time this particular church DOES try to engage with the visual, the artistic and cultural etc etc ...

I've given a poetry reading there alongside some other local poets based around some sculptures produced by a Christian sculptor whose work was exhibited there over Lent.

So, on one level, this particular URC congregation does attempt to take a more 'holistic' approach.

I s'pose it could be seen as a bit bolt-on, though, rather than embedded within the liturgy and service-styles themselves.

@South Coast Kevin - yes, I'd be interested in the definitive answer in your thesis.

Intriguingly, Justin Lewis-Anthony, the chap I cite on the other thread on Ecclesiology and Anthropology doesn't rate Viola. He sees him as outside the 'mainstream' of Christian scholarship ' - we are not talking mainstream Christian scholarship here!' he quips in a footnote.

It's prefaced, 'With the greatest respect to ... Mr Viola ...' which, of course, is short-hand for, 'Without any respect whatsoever for Mr Viola ...'

[Big Grin]

The context is Viola's claim, echoing Austin-Sparks of the Honor Oak Fellowship, that:

'We cannot obtain anything in our New Testament as the result of human study, research or reason. It is all the Holy Spirit's revelation of Jesus Christ.'

Mr Viola, he says, would not approve of his (Lewis-Anthony's) own book on church ministry ...

Ok, so there could be some smug intellectualising going on here, but Lewis-Anthony regards Viola and others as promoting ideas 'in which anti-intellectualism becomes the defining NT marker of an authentic church.'

I think there's something in this. However, as Baptist Trainfan reminds us, the classical Reformed tradition can run to the opposite error and reduce worship and preaching to some kind of academic exercise, the presentation of a set of propositions that are to be apprehended intellectually.

In some Baptist circles I've heard what I call 'tick-box' prayers. I find myself listening to them an thinking, 'Right, we've had the atonement ... [tick] ... we've had the Incarnation ... [tick] ... we've had the need for us to be doers of the word and not hearers only [tick] ... we've had ...' etc.

The Orthodox Liturgy is pedagogic - it's essentially a 3D representation of historic Creedal Christianity as apprehended in the Eastern section of the Roman Empire. But somehow it transcends that ... although they'll readily admit that it can be florid and turgid in places.

I think that both Reformed and MoTR forms of worship can be transcendent too ... but they've got to try a lot harder in order to achieve that.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Intriguingly, Justin Lewis-Anthony, the chap I cite on the other thread on Ecclesiology and Anthropology doesn't rate Viola. He sees him as outside the 'mainstream' of Christian scholarship ' - we are not talking mainstream Christian scholarship here!' he quips in a footnote.

I'm not all that bothered about whether this or that person is outside 'mainstream Christian scholarship', however...

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, so there could be some smug intellectualising going on here, but Lewis-Anthony regards Viola and others as promoting ideas 'in which anti-intellectualism becomes the defining NT marker of an authentic church.'

I have recently been coming to the view that Viola's approach is somewhat anti-intellectual, rather than merely putting intellectualism in its right place, in harmony with revelation from the Holy Spirit. I think the approach of people like Greg Boyd, Alan Hirsch, Brian McLaren and Neil Cole (not saying these people agree with each other, not at all) is significantly more rigorous and intellectually sound.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

On the preaching thing. If we are accepting the MoTR-ness of Methodism and the URCs - then I'm not sure it follows that the preaching in such churches is necessarily mediocre or gives an impression of 'take-it-or-leave-it'.

The last few times I've heard Methodist or URC preachers I've come away with the impression that these are people of genuine conviction and integrity, who seek to live by what they preach and teach.

There might be an element among the congregations though, of, 'Oh, that's the minister, they are supposed to be like that.'

Or even, 'They are supposed to be like that on our behalf ...'

Which is sometimes the way Anglican vicars are viewed - the word 'vicar' itself implying such a thing perhaps. I don't need to do religion because there's someone living in the rectory or vicarage who is paid to do it on my behalf ...

To an extent I think we've all been innoculated against too much religion, as it were ...

And that applies both to MoTR and more full-on settings.

Being genuine, having conviction and integrity, seeking to live by the preaching and teaching, are all necessary components of leadership, I agree. There may also in some cases be a sense of status and entitlement which attaches self confidence to the words said or written in such away that it leaves out the humility of seeking God's guidance through the Holy Spirit, and being sure that God's will is being done.

3 pictures:

Unless God is the architect, the builders labour in vain.

It's natural for people to keep trying to be in control, to go our own way and to try to harness God. God won't be harnessed.

Our own recipes will only ever give us mediocre results.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@South Coast Kevin - yes, fair enough.

@Raptor Eye, I'm not sure that cases where there's a sense of status and entitlement only applies to MoTR or 'respectable' churches.

That's a danger, surely, in any church?

As for the humility of seeking God's guidance by the Holy Spirit ... some of those who make the most noise about doing such a thing seem the least humble to me.

I've heard of an instance where a charismatic vicar suddenly left the meal table saying that he'd been prompted to ring a certain individual ... only to come back crestfallen a minute or two later saying that the phone was engaged.

How do we ensure that God's will is being done?

How do we know that we are being guided by the Holy Spirit?

How can we tell - in any fool-proof, 100% cast-iron way that the fruit of our labours is based on a God-given 'recipe' as you put it?

I'm sorry, but this all sounds like overly pious cant to me.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

@Raptor Eye, I'm not sure that cases where there's a sense of status and entitlement only applies to MoTR or 'respectable' churches.

That's a danger, surely, in any church?

As for the humility of seeking God's guidance by the Holy Spirit ... some of those who make the most noise about doing such a thing seem the least humble to me.

I've heard of an instance where a charismatic vicar suddenly left the meal table saying that he'd been prompted to ring a certain individual ... only to come back crestfallen a minute or two later saying that the phone was engaged.

How do we ensure that God's will is being done?

How do we know that we are being guided by the Holy Spirit?

How can we tell - in any fool-proof, 100% cast-iron way that the fruit of our labours is based on a God-given 'recipe' as you put it?

I'm sorry, but this all sounds like overly pious cant to me.

Yes, the status thing might and does apply elsewhere, but it may well be one of the reasons that motr churches are lacking something.

I do agree that some people are ready to make a big deal about their guidance from the Holy Spirit, which might loudly point to themselves rather than quietly indicate the Holy Spirit.

I've seen your story about the phone call before. If the phone was engaged, it doesn't necessarily imply that the prompting was false. In fact, it might affirm it, if more than one person were prompted to contact someone in need.

To answer your questions:

We know whether Gods will is being done by the results, and sometimes by affirmation given to us by God. The latter may come in various forms, as we might expect.

We can't tell 100%, nor should we, as there always must be room for human error. But as we learn to listen to God's guidance through the Holy Spirit and recognise God's promptings, we may put them into practice and see the results, i.e. ever more evidence of the fruit of the spirit seen in greater numbers of people.

I don't know why you have a problem with piety. Surely devotion to God is required so that we serve God humbly.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don't have a problem with piety, Raptor Eye. I have a problem with pietism and super-spirituality.

And I have a problem with the kind of special pleading that suggests that the minister in the story was responding to the prompting of the Holy Spirit rather than indigestion, hubris or simply too much cheese the night before ...

But our respective mileages might vary.

If the prompting of the Spirit had been genuine then would the guy have needed to act in such a 'look at me, I'm responding to the Holy Spirit and coming to the rescue as God's man of faith and power for the hour' kind of way?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Also, I still fail to see how power and status are more of an issue in MoTR churches than they might be in more 'committed' or non-MoTR churches.

On the Catholic side the non-MoTR churches can suffer from a 'father knows best' attitude.

On the charismatic evangelical non-MoTR side they can suffer from an 'elder/pastor knows best' attitude.

I really don't see how the status thing is more prominent in one and not the other. It could apply equally to both MoTR and non-MoTR settings.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What does a 'yearning for God' actually look like? How can we measure it? How can we 'bottle' it - if we were to think of it in those terms?

Does a 'yearning for God' necessarily imply religious 'enthusiasm' of the kind the evangelical charismatics specialise in?

What does it mean to 'abandon ourselves' to such a thing and what impact would that have on our structures?

We can have a 'yearning for God' but we've still got to heat and maintain the buildings, run the circuits, parishes, dioceses etc - if we have such things.

If we don't and have apparently looser, congregational structures, then these take a heck of a long of work and energy to maintain - however simple we try to make them.

Firstly, I don't think you can put a 'yearning for God' in a bottle and sell it! If you could, it would already be done! And you probably can't define it too closely. It's more a case of 'I'll know it when I see it'.

Also, if highly intentional church communities are hard work it should be said that maintaining church structures is also very hard work, and fewer and fewer churchgoers want to participate in it. I don't think the outcomes are considered to be worth the effort required. This is more of a problem in Nonconformity than in the CofE, I think. Anglicans on this website don't seem to complain that getting people do 'do things' in church is hard, whereas Methodist church leaders routinely complain about this. It's practically part of the job description.

quote:

So ... given your average, bog-standard MoTR congregation, then. People who don't want to be put-out any more than they are being ... who pootle along running the sorts of things that any church needs to run itself - how do we create a 'yearning for the wide, blue ocean'?

What can we do to encourage that without:

- Creating a holy huddle of a few 'keenies' who eventually burn themselves out?

- Emulating techniques and practices from other traditions that might be alien and inappropriate in such a setting?

- Coming across as too heavenly-minded to be of any earthly use?

Not much will happen if congregations just want to stay as they are. You can't cajole people into changing (or perhaps you can if you're a very unusual breed of minister or preacher, but do we want more of those?) But I suppose that those MOTR churches that already benefit from good resources, are in nice areas, have access to desirable schools, exist in small, close-knit communities where newcomers feel they have to join the church in order to belong, and offer pleasant opportunities to network at a high level professionally and socially, will continue to offer something that people see as beneficial. Any combination of these factors will help, I should think. The Holy Spirit is working in these churches, I'm sure.

The prognosis for Nonconformist MOTR churches in particular is poor otherwise. Since the CofE has more resources, perhaps its future will involve investing more heavily in FEs, maybe even allowing tiny MOTR congregations to die in the meantime, because it's often easier to create enthusiasm and commitment in new ventures than to convince people in established churches to reinvent themselves. I can't see how the Methodists and the URC will have the people or the funds to do this on a greater scale than is currently happening, and in the meantime they're closing far more churches.

Interestingly, if CofE evangelical congregations have influence out of proportion to their numbers - and so presumably on MOTR congregations as well - this seems not to be the case in Methodism. The 'Methodist Recorder' doesn't highlight 'evangelical' congregations and analyse the pros and cons of their influence. Cliff College is known to have something of an evangelical identity, but it hasn't become the evangelical 'voice' of Methodism (and indeed, it's website hardly mentions the Methodist Church). I doubt that many Methodists in the circuit here could even name a Methodist evangelical congregation if asked. As a result it seems unlikely that MOTR Methodism is going to 'learn' from evangelicals.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Of course I don't believe that we can 'bottle' these things ... it was a figure of speech.

On the differences between the Methodists and Anglicans on this score, I think one of the key differences is that many evangelical Methodists jumped ship a while back. There are still independent Methodist churches in the North of England that aren't part of the 'official' Methodist body.

Whereas, for whatever reason, evangelical Anglicans have managed to stay put in larger numbers - even if, like the Reform lot they disparage episcopacy and dioceses ...

Or, like the charismatics they take a pick-and-mix approach to which aspects of Anglicanism they run with and which they can conveniently ignore.

I think the decline of MoTR 'non-conformity' is a sad one - but I'm not sure there's one single ro simple reason for it.

It's not as if the services are particularly inaccessible, for instance.

I suspect it's partly because they don't deliver an immediate 'hit' in the way that evangelical or charismatic churches do.

Let's face it, if you go to a church and people are waving their arms around or engaging in bizarre behaviour such as lighting candles and kissing icons then it's a pretty good indicator that these people believe something rather out of the ordinary ...

If you go to a service where people sing hymns rather decorously and someone in a suit or Geneva gown lectures at you about how important it is for us to all love one another - then you're not going to get the same kind of impression.

But there'll be much more to it than that.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Perhaps the answer is that MOTR churches can come across as demanding little or nothing of you beyond attendance.

Perhaps those attending evangelical churches do so because they relate to the way things are done and at a time when there's a lot of pick and choosing, there's a stability in evangelical certainties. It may be a life cycle stage thing.

No one seems to have picked my point up from earlier: Jesus wasn't considered respectable in His own day - why do we strive to be so and to keep those churches which value this above everything else? Isn't a better mark of God's respect to be hated, not accepted, by the world?

[ 19. July 2014, 06:27: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I think there's a lot in that, ExclamationMark.

I think it is partly a life-cycle stage thing, too. When I was a single young man churchy things occupied almost all my waking hours outside of work.

These days, I'm involved with a lot more things and church is one among various commitments/involvements.

I probably attend church services less than I have ever done since my evangelical conversion at the age of 19.

And I'm certainly not involved with house-groups, prayer meetings and the like.

On the aspect of the churches being prophetic gadflies, not being 'respectable' and so on ... it strikes me that in their different ways both the liberal and evangelical ends of things are rolling with the zeitgeist and both are wedded to the Spirit of the Age.

Both run the risk of being widowed to it in the next.

On a practical level, I'm intrigued as to what we would have to do, ExclamationMark, to be hated rather than respected (or ignored) by the World?

Indifference seems the default position of the unchurched and 'the World' if you like.

It's the old thing about, 'If I help the poor I'm considered a Saint, if I ask why there are poor in the first place I'm considered a Communist.'

If churches (of whatever stripe) support same-sex marriage or women bishops or some other cause that may be considered 'trendy' and liberal, then that gets the thumbs-up from trendy liberals but the thumbs-down from conservatives.

Conversely, if churches take a very conservative line on various DH issues they are seen as out of touch and irrelevant.

Nobody objects if churches run soup-runs or foodbanks (other than certain very Conservative types who think that anyone accessing such services must be some kind of feckless scrounger).

And MoTR churches are involved in these initiatives just as evangelical ones are.

I don't think that MoTR churches 'strive' to be respected or respectable. What I think happens is that they become so by default - and also because they want to avoid the kind of extremes that occur at the more 'committed' end of things.

I think you're right that we need to be distinctive and demonstrate values that are at odds with 'the world' as it were ...

But I'd be interested in practical suggestions on how we might achieve that.

Being deliberately arsey isn't going to get us very far.

Also, other than arcane forms of religious discourse, there's nothing particularly distinctive about what we do.

For instance, church people went on the anti-Iraq War March. So did humanists, atheists, communists, Buddhists, Muslims, people of all faiths and none ...

What was so distinctive about the church's contribution on that issue?

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If churches (of whatever stripe) support same-sex marriage or women bishops or some other cause that may be considered 'trendy' and liberal, then that gets the thumbs-up from trendy liberals but the thumbs-down from conservatives.

Conversely, if churches take a very conservative line on various DH issues they are seen as out of touch and irrelevant.

And if you are being criticised by both sides simultaneously there is a good chance that you may be doing something right.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I would agree EM and Gamaliel. It's hard to build community in a church where showing up on a Sunday is the only requirement. In the MOTR-A-C churches I usually attend (I identify as A-C but don't always live where there are any - no longer living in Northampton) there's very little going on during the rest of the week except things aimed at very specific groups eg parent and toddler groups, uniformed groups, Mother's Union, choir etc. No home group/cell group except in Lent, no church weekends away etc etc - while I wouldn't go back to that type of church, evangelical churches I've attended before always had so many things you could join in with and therefore things that helped build community. A weekly Eucharist is not exactly individualistic but you can't discuss things except at the end over bad coffee - whereas a cafe church Eucharist would make a big difference. MOTR churches often hold classical concerts or organ recitals, but it's hard to build community when you're sitting there quietly listening to quite a niche form of music.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure. There's always a pay-off and nowhere's perfect.

Every rose has got a thorn and the taller you are, the longer the shadow you cast. And, as the African proverb delightfully goes, the higher the monkey climbs up the tree the more you can see its arse.

The downside of many MoTR or more sacramental churches can be the lack of a sense of community.

With some of the more full-on charismatic evangelical churches the community aspect can be overwhelming or suffocating ...

There's got to be a balance somewhere.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
And if you are being criticised by both sides simultaneously there is a good chance that you may be doing something right.

Fallacy of the excluded middle, I think.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course I don't believe that we can 'bottle' these things ... it was a figure of speech.

Of course it's a figure of speech, and I assumed that you were trying to make some kind of a point by employing it. For example, sometimes churches are accused of looking for a pre-packaged quick fix to help them overcome the problems they have. My response was made with that kind of thinking in mind. Otherwise, I don't know what you were getting at.

quote:
There are still independent Methodist churches in the North of England that aren't part of the 'official' Methodist body.

The Independent Methodists have joined the Baptist Union, I believe. But I was thinking about the evangelicals that have remained within the parent body. For example, there's the Headway group that began in the 80s and is now known as Methodist Evangelicals Together. But if you're not part of a circuit that has any kind of openly evangelical presence you won't know much if anything about this group. That bespeaks a lack of Methodist evangelical influence.

Rev. Rob Frost (d. 2007) is the big name I'd heard of with regards to recent Methodist evangelicalism, but I don't know to what extent he made waves within MOTR Methodism. Hardly at all in the circuit here, I should think.

quote:

I think the decline of MoTR 'non-conformity' is a sad one - but I'm not sure there's one single or simple reason for it.

It's not as if the services are particularly inaccessible, for instance.

What's spiritually helpful to one person may be spiritually 'inaccessible' to another. Nonconformist MOTR worship suffers from a 'middleness' that isn't even subversively hybrid or interstitial in the postmodern fashion. It's not distinctive enough to be 'accessible' in a world where you have to be able to create a buzz to get people's attention.

I agree with the comments made here that MOTR road churches expect too little in terms of spiritual engagement. However, I should perhaps mention a successful venture developed by one circuit I know. 'Heretics Anonymous' is a forum in which Methodists (and others) can meet up to discuss aspects of the faith that they find difficult to accept. The concept could be adapted for the CofE and other denominations.

Ultimately I think the Methodist Church and URC are going to be reabsorbed by the CofE, which has the appeal, the resources and the cultural heritage to tolerate high levels of a MOTR ethos without being completely dominated by it. Mergers don't halt church decline, of course, but at least the smaller churches will have access to CofE money and expertise.

BTW, is the CofE showing signs of wanting to develop more FEs? Maybe they represent the future of MOTR worship.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
1. Being deliberately arsey isn't going to get us very far.

2. Also, other than arcane forms of religious discourse, there's nothing particularly distinctive about what we do.

1. Oh well, I don't know - depends whose buttons you push and what about ....

2. I agree totally

3. Practical suggestions ..... a few for starters. Depends how off the wall you want to be

in this neck of the words there are 2 sitting MP's with small majorities - numerically small enough to be shifted by the number of people attending churches in the town. Get together and put out a manifesto for the politicians to adhere to our don't vote for them: this manifesto to recognise people not problems or issues

Ditto the town councillors (much smaller shifts required)

Food bank great but it's pretty acceptable.

Churches to work together: look at existing fellowships - are there are money drains that won't ever turn the corner? Close and sell. Make giving to diocescan/central funds not mandatory but voluntary based on real need and funds available

put the same energy into helping others as we do for fund raising and maintenance

Strive for town wide acceptance of living wages not just minimum wages. Begin with the big employers e.g the Council

Embrace the needs of the travelling community, asylum seekers, the trafficked teenagers I see on street corners at night. Walk on the streets, talk to them, buy them coffee - look in the eyes of an eastern European teenager waiting to be picked and tell her that she is loved. See in those eyes your own daughter: see Christ.

Be generous with everything with have

Grace - no other religion has it

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The downside of many MoTR or more sacramental churches can be the lack of a sense of community. With some of the more full-on charismatic evangelical churches the community aspect can be overwhelming or suffocating ...

I'd guess that there is some sort of social class issue here - there is a certain stratum in society that looks towards an organization such as a church to provide social network and community. Go a bit 'higher', and people tend to form their own networks of friends, centred on the private social group, not on any sort of public organization - even if the people they meet at church happen to form part of that network. Hence, even at church, they would naturally socialize with their own social group, rather than identify with and socialize with the generic member of the congregation.

I may be over-generalizing, but it's my impression that it's the non-conformist and evangelical churches that fall more into the first category, and the MotR Anglican (at least in England) that falls into the second.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry Holy Smoke, I don't agree with that analysis at all.

On the whole, the church is pretty middle-class here in the UK - other than in ethnically-defined circles.

There are some exceptions, but not many.

@ExclamationMark ... interesting suggestions. I'm uncomfortable with the one about developing a critical-mass in order get MPs in marginal seats to conform ... that sounds rather like blackmail to me and rather the sort of tactics that US Tea Party and Religious Right activists use.

I'm sure that's not what you are suggesting at all, though.

The other examples, about reaching out to migrants, asylum seekers and people who're being trafficked ... well, yes - but I don't think that'll get you a great deal of opprobrium.

Sure, the UKIP crowd might have something to say, but I don't think most people - other than the most avowedly racist - would have any problems at all with churches trying to treat people on the margins of society as real human beings ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I once heard an Imam give a talk in which he alluded to the claim that only Christianity has a concept of grace.

His Anglican vicar friend had pointed this out to him. So he went away and thought about it. He'd come to the conclusion that Islam did in fact have a concept of grace and he gave some examples from Islamic teachings to back this up ...

Whether this would have passed muster as far as you or other Shipmates are concerned is a different issue - but he'd clearly thought about it deeply and been able to find parallels and possible equivalents.

All that said, whether or not grace is a distinctively Christian concept or can be found in other forms elsewhere, we still need to demonstrate it.

@SvitlanaV2. I hadn't realised Rob Frost had died.

He was quite well known across evangelical circles in general ... perhaps more so than in his own Methodist context.

I hadn't realised that all the Independent Methodists had been absorbed by the Baptist Union. I could certainly see some going in that direction - or towards the FIEC (Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches) - but on the whole, I suspect the FIEC would be rather too Calvinistic for them.

Are you sure there aren't any who remain independent?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

According to Martyn Percy, the 'Independent Methodists' in the northwest of England are a denomination in their own right, and they're the ones with the BU connection. If you're talking about 'independent' Methodist congregations that have no connection with anyone else, I suppose there are some. But the Methodist inclination is probably towards being part of some larger body.

A few years ago I read about this northern Methodist church, which had decided to break away from its circuit, hence becoming independent. I don't know if it's linked up with some other body now. The interesting thing is that this (not very MOTR) church was already operating fairly independently of the circuit, but this wasn't enough in the end. A MOTR church is obviously easier to control than the alternatives, so from an institutional point of view I can see why MOTR would be preferable.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

1. I'm uncomfortable with the one about developing a critical-mass in order get MPs in marginal seats to conform ... that sounds rather like blackmail to me and rather the sort of tactics that US Tea Party and Religious Right activists use. I'm sure that's not what you are suggesting at all, though.

2. The other examples, about reaching out to migrants, asylum seekers and people who're being trafficked ... well, yes - but I don't think that'll get you a great deal of opprobrium.

1. Laughs - certainly not in Tea Party mode. More making a point about local issues

2. Mmmmm not my experience I'm afraid - previously in a rural and now in an urban context. The local council just don't get it ..... the MP's didn't either until suddenly an election is on the horizon.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I hadn't realised that all the Independent Methodists had been absorbed by the Baptist Union. I could certainly see some going in that direction - or towards the FIEC (Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches) - but on the whole, I suspect the FIEC would be rather too Calvinistic for them.

They weren't absorbed - they approached BUGB to seek an understanding. They remain free - as do all BUGB churches - to express their faith in their own. There's no central control - only an assent to governance and a particular mode of baptism

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I didn't use the team 'absorbed' to imply some kind of nefarious take-over, ExclamationMark, although I can see how you might take the term in a 'loaded' way.

I suppose a term like 'are now affiliated to the Baptist Union' would have been better.

I s'pose I used the term because I was thinking how most of the various offshoots from mainstream Methodism during the 19th century were gradually absorbed back into the parent body - a process that continued up until around 1930 I understand.

So groups like the New Connexion and the Primitive Methodists were all eventually subsumed back into the 'mainstream' Methodist Church.

From what I can gather, this is unusual both ecclesiologically and sociologically.

Generally, splinter groups continue to expand or spiral ... or become even more fissaporous.

We may well see some of the denominations that came out of Anglicanism gradually being absorbed back into the CofE at some point - the Methodists and URCs seem prime candidates for this at some point.

But who knows?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Generally, splinter groups continue to expand or spiral ... or become even more fissaporous.

This seems to have been the case for Methodists in the USA especially, but in the UK I imagine that most of the different Methodist groups here had reached exhaustion by the 1930s, and had nowhere else to go. Also, the splits weren't always for theological reasons, so the barriers between them were low from that perspective. The sociological divisions between them were also flattening out.

quote:

We may well see some of the denominations that came out of Anglicanism gradually being absorbed back into the CofE at some point - the Methodists and URCs seem prime candidates for this at some point.

But who knows?

Steve Bruce famously predicted that the British Methodist Church would fold as a separate denomination in 2031. You might think this was presumptuous of him, but a recent President of Conference openly pronounced a merger with the CofE to be a desirable goal. It's certainly an outcome that some Methodists have been committed to for a long time.

I don't know if the URC has been engaged in 'talks' with the CofE, but an Anglican theologian I know thinks a merger with some other denomination is probable, or else the URC will just cease to exist. I would have liked the URC and the Methodist Church to consider merging with each other, but that idea seems to have fizzled out a long time ago.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, here where I live the URC congregation are having some discussions about their future and whether their church is still viable.

From the outside, it seems obvious that they ought to seek some kind of merger with the Methodists, but I daresay it doesn't look quite as simple as that from the inside ...

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

Here the URC and Methodist church are on the same circuit and have same minister (who has something like 11 churches). They both have amazing buildings but not huge congregations. The URC is very much part of the local CTBI group, but the Methodists aren't. Part of the URC building is the oldest church building in the town and has been rebuilt to make it a useful building, let out to other groups. The Methodist church building is very distinctive, recently restored, and is where the pre-school, art society and other groups meet.

This has knock on effects. A few years back a huge funeral (of a friend) was held in the Methodist church with people spilling on to the street, whereas a funeral about the same time of a RC soldier killed in Afghanistan borrowed the bigger CofE church building to hold the service - with support and assistance of the CofE. The CofE church would have willingly supported this friend's funeral as one of the last pieces of work this friend did was restoration work on a tablet in the CofE building.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

1. I didn't use the team 'absorbed' to imply some kind of nefarious take-over, ExclamationMark, although I can see how you might take the term in a 'loaded' way.

2. We may well see some of the denominations that came out of Anglicanism gradually being absorbed back into the CofE at some point - the Methodists and URCs seem prime candidates for this at some point.

3. But who knows?

1. I didn't take it like that but it does need pointing out that the approach came first from the Methodist side. Most were/are pretty Baptist like in government and baptismal practice.

There's also the Wesleyan Reform Union which again is very baptistic in approach and government. My daughter attends one in Northants and it's very much like the church here.

2. I agree but I do suspect it's borne out of desperation on the part of the URC and Methodist. Both seem to be in free fall in the areas I know - if you're MOTR you tend to go to the Anglican MOTR these days.

The few remaining congregational churches may go the house church/community church route or the more reformed will go to FIEC.

3. Er, God?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, here where I live the URC congregation are having some discussions about their future and whether their church is still viable.

From the outside, it seems obvious that they ought to seek some kind of merger with the Methodists, but I daresay it doesn't look quite as simple as that from the inside ...

1. The URC "Mission Council" meets from time to time together with Methodist Council, with a view to facilitating relationships. But the Methodists also have a toe in the Anglican pool.

2. In Scotland, the URC is "unbalanced" as it basically consists of former Congregational churches (except the ones that stayed in the Congregational Federation). Logically it would gain balance by joining with the United Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) - not the "Wee Frees"! - but I can't see that happening anytime soon. Quite apart from structural differences, the UFCoS probably wouldn't think that the Methodists were evangelical enough.

3. The URC, Baptists, Methodists already have a "Joint Public Issues Team" which comments on suitable issues (drones, foodbanks etc.) Sometimes they are joined by the Church of Scotland. The Baptists and the URC also share a Safeguarding Officer.

4. The URC loves taking part in Local Ecumenical Churches. Here most of those are with Methodists, but there are also one or two with Anglicans or Baptists, and one which is a five-way church!

[ 20. July 2014, 15:17: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't know if the URC has been engaged in 'talks' with the CofE.

Not that I know of, but I'm not really "in the know".

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Here the URC and Methodist church are on the same circuit and have same minister (who has something like 11 churches). They both have amazing buildings but not huge congregations. The URC is very much part of the local CTBI group, but the Methodists aren't.

Eleven churches? Goodness me!

You don't need to give any revealing details, of course, but can you say why the Methodists aren't members of Churches Together? If they share a minister with the URC they're clearly part of an ecumenical arrangement already, so I'm not sure why they'd refuse to be part of CT.

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

The Methodists are members of the local Churches Together, in theory, they just never come along to any meetings or get involved at all.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

From the outside, it seems obvious that they ought to seek some kind of merger with the Methodists, but I daresay it doesn't look quite as simple as that from the inside ...

There is a brand new URC/Methodist Church in our town ( building and services shared).

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

It would be interesting to know if the two denominations are equal legal partners in this, especially in respect of the building. Our church is URC/Baptist but the building is wholly URC and we have had difficulties in getting our Manse to "belong" to both denominations.

Often one denomination has to "lead" in LEPs, largely due to obsolete Government legislation (from 1969!)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

2. We may well see some of the denominations that came out of Anglicanism gradually being absorbed back into the CofE at some point - the Methodists and URCs seem prime candidates for this at some point.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

2. I agree but I do suspect it's borne out of desperation on the part of the URC and Methodist. Both seem to be in free fall in the areas I know - if you're MOTR you tend to go to the Anglican MOTR these days.

The few remaining congregational churches may go the house church/community church route or the more reformed will go to FIEC.

Denominational mergers are usually borne out of decline; strong institutions don't give up their autonomy easily, whether on a local or national level. In the Methodist case, I think there's also a strong sense that joining up with the CofE again is what John Wesley would have wanted.

I know of an evangelical Congregational church quite near to where I live. I don't think the congregation has ever been large, but it has a strong sense of self, and a younger age profile than most of the local indigenous churches. Whichever Edwardian built it had the foresight to keep the design fairly simple, and also to put a shop on the ground floor, which is now the church charity shop. This church has obviously had a rather different trajectory from the MOTR URC congregation I mentioned above, even though they both started life as Congregational churches at about the same time and in fairly close proximity to each other.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

From the outside, it seems obvious that they ought to seek some kind of merger with the Methodists, but I daresay it doesn't look quite as simple as that from the inside ...
There is a brand new URC/Methodist Church in our town ( building and services shared).

This happens a lot - but there's a difference between local congregations merging and the national denominations merging. What's joyfully promoted as fellowship and unity at the local level doesn't inspire quite so much enthusiasm at the top.....

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I once heard an Imam give a talk in which he alluded to the claim that only Christianity has a concept of grace.

His Anglican vicar friend had pointed this out to him.

Of course grace is exclusive.

It is exclusively from God.

Whether or not other religions can have a concept of grace is not something we need to worry about, there are lots of things Christians and Muslims (and Jews and Hindus and jains and...) agree about, this could be another of them.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, but I don't think we'll be seeing many synagogue/church or mosque/church mergers any time soon ...

[Biased]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I once heard an Imam give a talk in which he alluded to the claim that only Christianity has a concept of grace.

His Anglican vicar friend had pointed this out to him.
Of course grace is exclusive.

It is exclusively from God.

Whether or not other religions can have a concept of grace is not something we need to worry about, there are lots of things Christians and Muslims (and Jews and Hindus and jains and...) agree about, this could be another of them.

Judaism is all about grace.

Islam is all about mercy.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Islam is all about mercy.

Quite. A theology of works not grace

[code]

[ 22. July 2014, 09:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Islam is all about mercy.
Quite. A theology of works not grace

[code]

It would be too much of a tangent here but Islam does not teach that 'works' achieve salvation.

See Sura 8:29 and 2.105

And here, where it says that a person cannot earn it by virtue of his deeds alone, but by the Grace and Mercy of Allah

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, but I don't think we'll be seeing many synagogue/church or mosque/church mergers any time soon ...

You say that.....but Berlin may have a counterexample soon.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes, but the worship spaces will still be separate, albeit with a communal central space. This brings three faiths under one roof, I think it emphasises both their essential unity and their distinctive differences.

I wonder though how things would have worked out if it had been suggested that one of the faiths involved was not an Abrahamic religion.

[ 22. July 2014, 17:06: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

A lot is said about interfaith engagement, but it doesn't seem to be at a very interesting level in the UK these days, despite the importance (or so we're told) of pick 'n' mix spirituality in the culture. The Unitarian Universalists in the USA apparently invite people from different faiths to contribute to their worship, but I've never heard of the Unitarians in the UK doing any such thing, let alone the more mainstream churches. Maybe this is a role that the 'quiet, respectable' churches could take on in the future as a way of addressing rising ethno-religious tensions.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, but I don't think we'll be seeing many synagogue/church or mosque/church mergers any time soon ...

You say that.....but Berlin may have a counterexample soon.

Brilliant. This should become the norm.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I'm wondering how the idea for the German multifaith house of worship came about, and where they got the money from.... Interestingly, there happens to be a church in Scotland that local Muslims have been allowed to share out of neighbourlyness. The bishop thinks it could be a role model for others churches.

I think very few 'quiet, respectable churches' would have the money to contribute towards a brand new multifaith house of worship. As for sharing an existing building, that would have financial implications too. Most church buildings become mosques because the Christian members have become too few in number and can no longer pay for the upkeep of the building. One option would be for the Christians only to sell the building to a Muslim group on condition that they could still use it for Christian worship. Alternatively, Christians who've lost or are losing their building could approach local mosques to ask about renting the premises on Sundays. This isn't such a far-fetched idea in inner city areas where there are more mosques and Muslims than there are churches and Christians.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Don't know if this qualifies as true 'sharing' but back in 1969 a parish in St Albans diocese had a sharing arrangement with one of its buildings for a new synagogue to be formed. Even before this, the same parish pushed through the faculty process for the dismantling of a trust for a parcel of land that had been given with the intention of building a daughter church, with attendant buildings for a curate, hall, etc. The land became the basis for what is one of the UK's largest Jewish cemeteries.

When the synagogue outgrew the original church building the parish was very supportive with the planning application for a much larger dedicated synagogue complex, the building of which had attracted some local resistance...

This was (and is) an ultra 'quiet, respectable' parish.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0