Thread: A House of Prayer 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=029493
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
So much effort is made to make money to maintain and improve church buildings, whatever the denomination, that on a recent trawl around several churches, including one supposedly evangelical and 'on fire', they came across more as cafes than houses of prayer.
I understand that we can reach out to people and get money from them by drawing them in for drinks, and to admire the buildings, but don't we want churches to be seen as houses of prayer first and foremost?
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Buildings only really have theological significance in the Catholic tradition, though.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
Location has a wider Gospel significance though - going somewhere away from your normal routine to listen to God. That needn't be church, but for a London like me, church is one such place.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
A church which is going to be open for a purpose other than worship, I think certainly needs somewhere set aside for it.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
If a church building is being used to run a food bank, provide facilities for AA groups or youth activities, lunches for elderly folk etc ... is that also not worship?
Of course, provision of a place of quiet where people can come and take a break from the rat race is also a valuable service to the community. Whether there's space for both is going to depend upon the size of the building of course. But, these days, you're more likely to find a quiet side chapel in a church that's running other activities than a church that isn't - simply because if there's no particular activity happening the church will probably be locked.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Related but not the same, no. Of course, it's going to be a somewhere small - often the sanctuary area of the church is glassed off from a multi-use nave.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I'm with those who think a church should be well used 7 days a week, whether it's for food banks, programs for at-risk youth, senior centers, whatever. That is indeed part of our worship.
And yes, there should absolutely be space for prayer. But what would that be? Is that a huge sanctuary with soaring ceilings and stained glass windows? A small, plain chapel with a few Bibles and few distractions? A beautiful garden with benches to pray while observing the beauty of creation? A coffee bar or pub where two Christian friends can share their journey and struggles in a relaxed setting? Or a classroom filled with small children joyfully playing? Any of these could be a "house of prayer."
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Maintaining a beautiful building costs a ton of money and is a major headache. Trust me, I know.
A glorified pole barn with a brick facade isn't aesthetically pleasing but it's cheap to buy and maintain.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
While I agree that worship includes service to others, prayer is something else. A place of prayer has an atmosphere all of its own, one which may carry through generations. Istm that a church without this atmosphere is lacking.
I wonder why some have it and some don't. It certainly can't be said that only those of one denomination or style do. It was noticeable to me however that where cafes were set up the atmosphere was not conducive to prayer.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
As a churchwarden, every time I look at the stump on the south east corner of our the church I am graetful that the Edwardians never got round to raising the money to build the tower.
But uses other than overt prayer and worship? Of course, if they are all part off a wider startegy- which needn't be themain aim of any given activvity, BTW- of ensuring that the church is open andknown and that people feel that it is 'their' place. And you do get opportunities for mission and ministry from that.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Definitely engaged in good community work - 7 days a week, ideally - involving any people of good will, faith or no.
Christians do tend to need regular re-forming in the Lord, though, often through such worship as the daily office & the mass - seems a bit mad to deny them the use of the building for these things.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
While I agree that worship includes service to others, prayer is something else. A place of prayer has an atmosphere all of its own, one which may carry through generations. Istm that a church without this atmosphere is lacking.
I wonder why some have it and some don't. It certainly can't be said that only those of one denomination or style do. It was noticeable to me however that where cafes were set up the atmosphere was not conducive to prayer.
I think you're elevating your own style of prayer above others. In my circles, coffee shops are often a gathering place for small groups or partners who meet to pray for one another. As I said above, a "place of prayer" will look very different for different people-- from a traditional sanctuary to a garden to a small "prayer closet". To assume that other churches don't value prayer the same way you do just because they pray in a different setting is, IMHO presumptuous and just a tad narrow-minded.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Definitely engaged in good community work - 7 days a week, ideally - involving any people of good will, faith or no.
Christians do tend to need regular re-forming in the Lord, though, often through such worship as the daily office & the mass - seems a bit mad to deny them the use of the building for these things.
If done properly, the one needs the other.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think you're elevating your own style of prayer above others. In my circles, coffee shops are often a gathering place for small groups or partners who meet to pray for one another. As I said above, a "place of prayer" will look very different for different people-- from a traditional sanctuary to a garden to a small "prayer closet". To assume that other churches don't value prayer the same way you do just because they pray in a different setting is, IMHO presumptuous and just a tad narrow-minded.
No, I'm not elevating any style of prayer, nor am I assuming that some don't value prayer, nor that any particular setting is the right one. It's a shame if a simple observation from a recent experience comes across as a narrow minded presumptuous criticism to you. I wonder why.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
Part of the problem is when something that starts as a house of prayer becomes a place of cultural heritage. We then get confused and start thinking of the religion as being inherently part of our culture.
I'm very uncomfortable with churches that charge for admittance to the building (Ely and St Paul's cathedral jump to mind) and those who spend a disproportionate amount of their income on building maintenance, though often there is a large amount of overlap between the two.
I sometimes wonder whether it would be worthwhile to do a sale and leaseback to a body like the National Trust, so that worry about the care of the building would pass to a heritage organisation while the church can still have everyday use of the building for church activities, including prayer, sung worship, preaching, food banks, etc. as well as being a community centre for things like jumble sales and dance classes if time permits.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think you're elevating your own style of prayer above others. In my circles, coffee shops are often a gathering place for small groups or partners who meet to pray for one another. As I said above, a "place of prayer" will look very different for different people-- from a traditional sanctuary to a garden to a small "prayer closet". To assume that other churches don't value prayer the same way you do just because they pray in a different setting is, IMHO presumptuous and just a tad narrow-minded.
No, I'm not elevating any style of prayer, nor am I assuming that some don't value prayer, nor that any particular setting is the right one. It's a shame if a simple observation from a recent experience comes across as a narrow minded presumptuous criticism to you. I wonder why.
I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your comments. I understood you as saying that because some churches have cafes or coffee shops they don't have a "house of prayer" or don't value that. I understood those comments as suggesting that you envision a certain type or style of environment that is "conducive to prayer" and that because those churches don't have that sort of environment, they don't value prayer. If I misunderstood what you meant, could you clarify please?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
... I sometimes wonder whether it would be worthwhile to do a sale and leaseback to a body like the National Trust, so that worry about the care of the building would pass to a heritage organisation while the church can still have everyday use of the building for church activities, including prayer, sung worship, preaching, food banks, etc. as well as being a community centre for things like jumble sales and dance classes if time permits.
Part of me agrees with that, but I'm fairly sure that if we handed over our churches to some historic buildings organisation, they'd stop us from doing anything worthwhile in them ever again. They'd soon even be looking at the services as 'heritage' and telling us we'd got to have all services 1662.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
They'd soon even be looking at the services as 'heritage' and telling us we'd got to have all services 1662.
So little different from the conservative end of Church of England, then! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I can't see why a church building can't be a place of prayer and a place of cultural heritage at one and the same time, Sipech.
I can think of plenty of examples of church buildings that function as both.
Although I'm with you on a sense of unease about paying for admission to churches and cathedrals.
But as Beeswax Altar has said, beautiful and historic buildings are fiendishly expensive to maintain. I know one 'new church' congregation that has recently moved out of its 'listed' building having found it an encumbrance and trying to sell it for the best part of a decade.
I think that with some imagination it is possible to adapt some historic church buildings - and there's a good example in a village near Leominster in Herefordshire where the village shop and post office has been located at the back of the ancient parish church - without in any way compromising the atmosphere. There is a mezzanine area above for small group meetings and local community use - every one wins.
I understand there are around 12 churches across the UK which also double as post offices.
I'm all in favour of shared use. I'm also a sucker for old church buildings and cathedrals and if there are imaginative ways of conserving them in a way that meets both church, wider community and indeed cultural heritage 'use' then all to the good.
As for the cafe style - I've not seen what Raptor Eye has in mind so I can't comment. I don't find the kind of 'warehouse' look favoured by some charismatic evangelical groups particularly conducive to worship or anything else for that matter ... but agree with Cliffdweller that people are drawn to different things.
People do develop their own habits and 'traditions' though. I like to sit quietly in my garden or looking out at it but when it comes to my daily devotions (if that's the right word) I tend to use the same spot in our spare-room/study where I've got a desk, some icons and prayer books etc.
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm fairly sure that if we handed over our churches to some historic buildings organisation, they'd stop us from doing anything worthwhile in them ever again. They'd soon even be looking at the services as 'heritage' and telling us we'd got to have all services 1662.
As far as I can see the congregations (C of S) which worship in the (former) cathedrals in Glasgow and in Dunblane seem to operate just like other congregations, although the buidlings are crown property looked after by Historic Scotland.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Heh heh heh ...
What? You mean that there are churches who don't use 1662?
Seriously, I'm not sure heritage organisations would make such a stipulation. They might object, though, if you tried to install a whopping big multi-media screen or remove some fixtures and fittings.
There is a balance between 'archaelogy' and living tradition, though. I once attended a 17th century style service in the marvellous but redundant St John the Evangelist church in Leeds - with its magnificent Jacobean screen and pews.
It was great - but it felt rather like a 'reconstruction' or re-enactment ... rather like a Sealed Knot or English Civil War Society event - although it wasn't conducted in 17th century dress but in contemporary 'cathedral' style.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Even St Paul's doesn't charge for admission to services though, and I think also one of the side-chapels for private prayer? I don't know what it is like for other cathedrals that charge for entry but I haven't been charged for admission to services at Canterbury cathedral.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
Not all churches meet in church buildings. Many meet in community spaces (e.g. Community centres or schools) that are used for totally different purposes through the week. The building or hall becomes a house of prayer because of how it is used on, say, a Sunday morning. The rest of the week it maybe a cafe, Foodbank, CAB, sports hall, etc.
I'm not sure I see the distinction between that and a church with a building that chooses to open it's doors to lots of community activities or services throughout the week?
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for the cafe style - I've not seen what Raptor Eye has in mind so I can't comment. I don't find the kind of 'warehouse' look favoured by some charismatic evangelical groups particularly conducive to worship or anything else for that matter ... but agree with Cliffdweller that people are drawn to different things.
We meet in a warehouse because it is practically impossible to find an affordable building in Cambridge which seats 400 people, is fully accessible, provides space for our community activities and has an office. The building is entirely financed and owned by the congregation and I'm sure we'd love to have a beautiful old building in the city but I doubt whether we can get one in our price range.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
My church group (in the Netherlands) has its services in a beautiful old church building. The walls are visibly slanted through age, I like that a lot. It's not ours though, we rent it for our services. I think it belongs to some sort of society for the preservation of old buildings.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for the cafe style - I've not seen what Raptor Eye has in mind so I can't comment. I don't find the kind of 'warehouse' look favoured by some charismatic evangelical groups particularly conducive to worship or anything else for that matter ... but agree with Cliffdweller that people are drawn to different things.
We meet in a warehouse because it is practically impossible to find an affordable building in Cambridge which seats 400 people, is fully accessible, provides space for our community activities and has an office. The building is entirely financed and owned by the congregation and I'm sure we'd love to have a beautiful old building in the city but I doubt whether we can get one in our price range.
To add to this - beautiful old buildings are often not accessible, at least not in the UK. Does a building excluding some people because of this ever take away the 'house of prayer' atmosphere?
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Even St Paul's doesn't charge for admission to services
It does, actually. I'd heard that rumour and tried to get into an evensong once but they insisted I either pay a set fee to get into the service or leave. I left, shouting a paraphrase of Mark 11:17 at them over my shoulder.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I was part of a church for years which hired halls to meet in and also a member of a Baptist church which met in a school hall. I'm not knocking that. What I'm talking about are those large charismatic churches which can afford to build their own premises and then make them like aircraft hangers.
I'm not saying churches should always have old buildings.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
High Street Church, Isleham, Cambs, have been building a rather lovely looking place using traditional methods for the past few years. Unfortunately, AIUI the USAF is to leave Mildenhall and that will take away quite a lot of their members, so we'll have to see whether it gets completed.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
No, I'm not elevating any style of prayer, nor am I assuming that some don't value prayer, nor that any particular setting is the right one. It's a shame if a simple observation from a recent experience comes across as a narrow minded presumptuous criticism to you. I wonder why.
I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your comments. I understood you as saying that because some churches have cafes or coffee shops they don't have a "house of prayer" or don't value that. I understood those comments as suggesting that you envision a certain type or style of environment that is "conducive to prayer" and that because those churches don't have that sort of environment, they don't value prayer. If I misunderstood what you meant, could you clarify please?
What you seem to have read into my comments was never in my mind. I'm very open to prayer of all kinds in environments of all kinds, prayer is always of value.
Having said that, if I call into a church I do have the preconceived idea in my mind that it is a house of God, synonymous with a place of prayer. It may be a foible of mine, but I like to pray when I call into an open church. It is good if I feel as if that's OK.
When calling into a church set up like a cafe, it feels almost rude to go and sit down somewhere and pray. In fact, on one occasion as I felt conspicuous, I quickly left. I started this thread to reflect on this whole idea, and as ever I've been given plenty of food for thought. Yes, it's good to use the buildings in all kinds of ways in service to God, but I think it important that there needs also to be an obvious place for prayer, so that those who call in to pray will feel welcome too.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
(I just checked, our old church building is accessible to wheelchairs. Glad to know that.)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Raptor Eye
I think many of us are conditioned to see cafes as secular space, and hence unsuitable for prayer. Some people do willingly pray anywhere, but that's not the cultural norm here.
Unfortunately, I can only see more and more 'traditional' church buildings closing due to lack of money and people lovingly prepared to maintain them. This being the case, Christians of the future who don't live conveniently near to a cathedral or some other solemn and important central church will have to get used to saying their public prayers in the same room as a cafe or a food bank, etc.
It should be said that some Muslims willingly pray in the middle of the street if they have to. I know it's a different religion with different prayer obligations, and that Muslims are often emboldened by numbers when they pray in this way, but Christians will surely be at a disadvantage in future if they only feel able to pray publicly at specific times in buildings or rooms reserved for the purpose.
[ 21. July 2015, 20:44: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Even St Paul's doesn't charge for admission to services
It does, actually. I'd heard that rumour and tried to get into an evensong once but they insisted I either pay a set fee to get into the service or leave. I left, shouting a paraphrase of Mark 11:17 at them over my shoulder.
Unless they've changed the policy in the year since I stopped for the working the diocese they don't. (I can't speak for times long past either)
They do make you wait until they are ready to admit people to the service, and if you want to go before that you have to pay. And you can only get to the relevant part of the building for the service (so for Evensong, usually under the Done.)
In fact, they pack away the cash desks each evening between closing and Evensong, so that they can't charge you.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Raptor Eye
I think many of us are conditioned to see cafes as secular space, and hence unsuitable for prayer. Some people do willingly pray anywhere, but that's not the cultural norm here.
Unfortunately, I can only see more and more 'traditional' church buildings closing due to lack of money and people lovingly prepared to maintain them. This being the case, Christians of the future who don't live conveniently near to a cathedral or some other solemn and important central church will have to get used to saying their public prayers in the same room as a cafe or a food bank, etc.
It should be said that some Muslims willingly pray in the middle of the street if they have to. I know it's a different religion with different prayer obligations, and that Muslims are often emboldened by numbers when they pray in this way, but Christians will surely be at a disadvantage in future if they only feel able to pray publicly at specific times in buildings or rooms reserved for the purpose.
Again you seem to read into my words ideas that are not there. I can and do pray in many different ways: in the street, in the countryside, while watching TV, whenever and however. I don't only feel able to pray publicly at specific times in buildings or rooms reserved for the purpose. 'Publicly' here not necessarily meaning conspicuously.
Nor was I talking about special cathedral type buildings, the point applies as much in a very plain wooden building called a church as it does in any solemn and important central building. If it is a church, this implies that it is a house of God. If it is open, is it unreasonable to hope that it will be a place where I will feel welcome to call in and to pray?
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Even St Paul's doesn't charge for admission to services
It does, actually. I'd heard that rumour and tried to get into an evensong once but they insisted I either pay a set fee to get into the service or leave. I left, shouting a paraphrase of Mark 11:17 at them over my shoulder.
Unless they've changed the policy in the year since I stopped for the working the diocese they don't. (I can't speak for times long past either)
They do make you wait until they are ready to admit people to the service, and if you want to go before that you have to pay. And you can only get to the relevant part of the building for the service (so for Evensong, usually under the Done.)
In fact, they pack away the cash desks each evening between closing and Evensong, so that they can't charge you.
Yes, that is how they do it (as does Canterbury cathedral). It is most definitely free to attend services and the website makes this very clear. I'm often in London in places where St Paul's is en-route, so regularly attend free services there.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
[...]
If it is a church, this implies that it is a house of God. If it is open, is it unreasonable to hope that it will be a place where I will feel welcome to call in and to pray?
Can you say precisely what it is that makes you feel welcome to pray in a particular place or not?
I'm aware that some churches can diffuse the sort of atmosphere in which public prayer outside of church services can seem excessively pious and unnatural. And when you consider that the fees and subsidies of non-Christians are helping to keep many church doors open then I wouldn't be surprised to hear that some church folk are a bit nervous of anything that might risk frightening non-religious visitors away.
If that's the vibe you get then you'll just have to time your visits differently, or go to some other church for your out-of-hours personal prayers.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Ely charge for admission (not to services) but, to their credit, state explicitly that no-one will ever be refused admission because they acnnot afford the price of entry.
I get especially cross with places that charge and then claim that they have some kind of minsitry to their paying visitors (Canterbury, I'm looking at you, unless you've changed since I last walked past the Christ Church Gate.) If you have a ministry to visitors, open up to all comers. If you are charging, your paying visitors have a right to treat the place as if it were a museum. They are there to see the misericords and the tombs and the stained glass and your job is to ensure that they can do so- no less, no more. But to claim to offer some kind of ministry (as opposed to the performance of a specific rite or ceremony) only to those who can pay seems to me to be a species of simony.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Further note: only a minority of cathedrals and gerater churches charge- I think 9 in all in 2013, and that included St George's, Windsor, which is within the castle which you have to pay to enter.So how do the places that do charge justify it? Are the 30-something cathedrals that don't charge peculiarly fortunate in their endowments or in having small and easily maintained buildings? Chester got rid of its admission charges; while Winchester charges 9and says that in this it is 'like many other cathedralss', which is more or less a lie unless you think that six or seven is 'many') Salisbury strongly recommends a donation but doesn't actually charge (and lets you take your dog in!); York charges but Durham doesn't.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
[...]
If it is a church, this implies that it is a house of God. If it is open, is it unreasonable to hope that it will be a place where I will feel welcome to call in and to pray?
Can you say precisely what it is that makes you feel welcome to pray in a particular place or not?
I'm aware that some churches can diffuse the sort of atmosphere in which public prayer outside of church services can seem excessively pious and unnatural. And when you consider that the fees and subsidies of non-Christians are helping to keep many church doors open then I wouldn't be surprised to hear that some church folk are a bit nervous of anything that might risk frightening non-religious visitors away.
If that's the vibe you get then you'll just have to time your visits differently, or go to some other church for your out-of-hours personal prayers.
It's not easy to say precisely what makes us feel welcome or unwelcome anywhere, is it? There's an atmosphere. There is a place for us, or there isn't.
Is it an extraordinary desire, to be able to call into an open church when passing and to pray, without feeling as if I am intruding? Might it really be true, that I may frighten people away from a church by praying in it? That would imply that non- believers are more welcome than believers in some churches!
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Further note: only a minority of cathedrals and gerater churches charge- I think 9 in all in 2013, and that included St George's, Windsor, which is within the castle which you have to pay to enter.So how do the places that do charge justify it? Are the 30-something cathedrals that don't charge peculiarly fortunate in their endowments or in having small and easily maintained buildings? Chester got rid of its admission charges; while Winchester charges 9and says that in this it is 'like many other cathedralss', which is more or less a lie unless you think that six or seven is 'many') Salisbury strongly recommends a donation but doesn't actually charge (and lets you take your dog in!); York charges but Durham doesn't.
Coventry used to strongly recommend donations but now charges - I don't know whether upkeep of the old cathedral is run by the new cathedral's staff or whether it is separate, and whether that plays a part in Coventry charging.
Westminster Cathedral is high in my estimation for many reasons but their refusal to charge admission is one of them.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
No, I'm not elevating any style of prayer, nor am I assuming that some don't value prayer, nor that any particular setting is the right one. It's a shame if a simple observation from a recent experience comes across as a narrow minded presumptuous criticism to you. I wonder why.
I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your comments. I understood you as saying that because some churches have cafes or coffee shops they don't have a "house of prayer" or don't value that. I understood those comments as suggesting that you envision a certain type or style of environment that is "conducive to prayer" and that because those churches don't have that sort of environment, they don't value prayer. If I misunderstood what you meant, could you clarify please?
What you seem to have read into my comments was never in my mind. I'm very open to prayer of all kinds in environments of all kinds, prayer is always of value.
Having said that, if I call into a church I do have the preconceived idea in my mind that it is a house of God, synonymous with a place of prayer. It may be a foible of mine, but I like to pray when I call into an open church. It is good if I feel as if that's OK.
When calling into a church set up like a cafe, it feels almost rude to go and sit down somewhere and pray. In fact, on one occasion as I felt conspicuous, I quickly left. I started this thread to reflect on this whole idea, and as ever I've been given plenty of food for thought. Yes, it's good to use the buildings in all kinds of ways in service to God, but I think it important that there needs also to be an obvious place for prayer, so that those who call in to pray will feel welcome too.
I agree. I'm just not agreeing that churches that aren't set up in a way that feels comfortable to you-- or me-- for prayer are uncomfortable for everyone, and therefore are not committed to being a place for prayer. I'm not suggesting that you should pray in a place where you feel awkward or uncomfortable, just that we shouldn't assume that those places aren't committed to prayer, and that there aren't others who would like to pray in those places. I know plenty of people who are uncomfortable praying in quiet traditional cathedrals but will pray easily in a cafe or garden setting. And vice-versa as well, of course.
And of course, I can't comment on the particular church you visited that felt uncomfortable. It may be their priorities are different. As has been noted upthread, this is particularly a problem when the sanctuary is also a tourist destination. Here in California, we have that problem with our historic missions (most of which have now been decommissioned for that reason).
And again, apologies for any misrepresentation on my part. As other shipmates will no doubt attest, it isn't the first time I've misread a thread.
[ 21. July 2015, 22:45: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Raptor Eye
Not all churches will be 'welcoming' places, unfortunately. Just like not all Christians are welcoming people.
IME there is indeed something of a clash between churches in their spiritual mode and churches in their need to rent out space to raise funds. Ideally, the renting of space will serve as good PR for the church's mission, but in many cases I think the need for money takes priority.
Plus, I imagine that churches that are taking funding from the state to run social programmes also have to be careful not to cause offense.
[ 21. July 2015, 23:04: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Not all churches will be 'welcoming' places, unfortunately.
That's unfortunately true. But, much more common is that not all churches will be welcoming places for all people. As said above, there are some people for whom a quiet space for personal prayer is something that is not what they need. A place to talk with others, over a coffee perhaps while the children play loudly in the corner, would be a more spiritual experience. I don't know about others, but for me when I pray on my own I don't feel any strong sense of connection with anyone (though I do find it a benefit to just stop for a while), whereas when I pray with others I feel connected to them and beyond them to God. On my own I don't hear God, I sometimes hear God speak back to me through the prayers and words of others.
If all churches offered was a quiet place for personal prayer there will be people who find that it's easier and more spiritual to meet to pray in the Starbucks across the road. Which is as much a problem as churches having no quiet space.
It seems a bit much to expect all churches to be able to provide the services that you would find beneficial for you, especially if in so doing they are unable to provide services for others.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think it all depends on context and the ethos of the particular church community and tradition which uses the building.
I would guess that the church with the 'cafe style' arrangement wants to emphasise a sense of fellowship and community. Hence the lay-out. Rightly or wrongly, it may not have occured to them that there are people -like Raptor Eye or myself - who might quite like to sir awhile in quiet prayer and contemplation.
Equally, St Saviour's across the road may be great for that but not create space for more communal interaction - of the kind Alan Cresswell describes. It's another of these both/and rather than either/or things.
I also think it depends on where we are 'at' ourselves. At one time I would have relished the kind of small-group interaction Alan describes but now I avoid it like the plague - at least in the form it is available locally. You'd have to drag me kicking and screaming to a prayer meeting at our local parish. I'd far rather join the RCs for their lectio divina or stay at home and say the daily office and allow God to speak to be through the set prayer and lectionary readings - which I find he still does - albeit in subtly different ways than in my more full on evangelical days - not that I'm knocking that.
I wouldn't be too harsh on the cafe-style church for they know not what they do ...
Meanwhile, coming back to the 1662 - a lot of liberal places still use it - so it is hardly the province of conservative Anglicans. I don't often use it in my personal devotions but I did so yesterday, funnily enough and found it helpful.
I'd also suggest that with little outlay and some imagination even a warehouse or a school hall can temporarily be made slightly more 'atmospheric' if that's the right word.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
That's helpful, Gamaliel.
May I just make one point which, ISTM, some posters haven't quite recognised: that there are two kinds of church café.
One is basically an operation which exists to make money for the Church and, indeed, "keep the show on the road". At the extreme, this may mean an agreement with a commercial operator or catering company who rents the space or runs the café; or it may be largely run "in-house" with volunteers.
The other way of doing café is basically evangelistic and/or community building. This is not a commercial operation; it may be run exclusively by volunteers and even make a financial loss for the Church. However it aims to be a touching-point between church and world and may also be an important community resource.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Coventry used to strongly recommend donations but now charges - I don't know whether upkeep of the old cathedral is run by the new cathedral's staff or whether it is separate, and whether that plays a part in Coventry charging.
Westminster Cathedral is high in my estimation for many reasons but their refusal to charge admission is one of them.
Coventry has surprisingly high bills given how new the building is and donations were not covering the costs. I think the ruins are a lower cost, and there are monies coming in from Heritage and City funds to part cover it.
Canterbury - I think - has the highest income from entrance fees, but then must also have very high ongoing costs.
I don't really understand the objections to charging an entrance fee - particularly given that you don't have to pay to attend services (I think you might not even have to pay if you want to sit and pray in the Coventry nave, you certainly don't in the ruins) and much of Canterbury is free on Sunday afternoon.
How else are you expecting the costs to be covered?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That's helpful, Gamaliel.
May I just make one point which, ISTM, some posters haven't quite recognised: that there are two kinds of church café.
One is basically an operation which exists to make money for the Church and, indeed, "keep the show on the road". At the extreme, this may mean an agreement with a commercial operator or catering company who rents the space or runs the café; or it may be largely run "in-house" with volunteers.
The other way of doing café is basically evangelistic and/or community building. This is not a commercial operation; it may be run exclusively by volunteers and even make a financial loss for the Church. However it aims to be a touching-point between church and world and may also be an important community resource.
There is also something called "café church" which is a style of very informal church in the Baptist tradition, and possibly elsewhere. I'm not entirely clear which of these is being discussed above.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure - and if it is the kind of informal church service you describe in the Baptist or any other tradition then that's fair enough -- I wouldn't 'complain' that such a service didn't allow space for individual, contemplative prayer as such -- because it's got a different purpose to it.
I'd no more complain about the absence of a 'dedicated space' in that context than I would complain that they weren't using incense say, or that there wasn't a priest or minister in robes or what-have-you -- because those wouldn't be right for that kind of style of service.
Just as, were I to attend High Mass at some spikey Gothic pile, I wouldn't complain at the absence of sofas, comfy seats and bean-bags ...
I suspect, from what Raptor Eye has written, though, that he's not describing a context where 'cafe-style' seating arrangements have been laid out for a particular informal style of service - but one where these are 'left out' as it were as a permanent fixture - and he finds that a distraction.
Would that be correct, Raptor Eye?
Meanwhile, as a good example of multi-style and flexible worship space, the Chapel at Keele University is a good example. It has hydraulic partitions and screens that can be raised or lowered to create different spaces or to facilitate different styles.
It also has - or used to have - a wonderful space in one of the projecting drum towers that you could use for private prayer and meditation -- and it had comfy cushions or a hard bench according to taste and you could 'bring your own' knick-knacks and material - meditation aids, books or whatever ...
It's also one of the least used buildings on campus ...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Just a comment about "Café Church" - which, as Gamaliel implies, doesn't fall into either of my categories. I was thinking more of "church-run cafes".
"Café church", as it happens, doesn't have to take place in church buildings ... it can take place in cafes (I think Costa actively encourage it, as it gives them business at slack times).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure - which is one way of doing it ... it would certainly save on maintenance bills ... but it doesn't make a great deal of provision for the kind of quiet, contemplative prayer alluded to in the OP - but one could argue we've got houses and hillsides and parks and gardens for that.
Fair enough. It's the reductionism that bothers me to some extent. 'Let's hone everything down to the bearest minimum we can get away with ... no need for special buildings or clergy - let's go down to Costa and fellowship with our mates and that's sufficient ...'
Yeah, well, ok ...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
While I agree with you (and I sense a tangent coming on if we're not careful), I don't think that the Café Church advocates (or, to put it more technically, the advocates of church "in a third place") would say, "Let's go down to Costa and fellowship with our mates and that's sufficient ..".
I think they'd say, "Let's go down to Costa and fellowship with our mates because that's both culturally relevant and accessible". Where awe and wonder come into this is another question entirely; it could be argued that Café Church reduces Church to merely a fellowship level.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I suspect, from what Raptor Eye has written, though, that he's not describing a context where 'cafe-style' seating arrangements have been laid out for a particular informal style of service - but one where these are 'left out' as it were as a permanent fixture - and he finds that a distraction.
Would that be correct, Raptor Eye?
No, it wasn't a distraction for me, but I felt as if I were a distraction for them. I went in looking for somewhere to pray, first and foremost. If I had felt welcome, I might even have gone and bought a cuppa and joined them. But it didn't feel as if it were a place where someone would go to pray, nor did it point to a corner where they might, which is the point I'm making. It felt like a cafe in a church building.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That's helpful, Gamaliel.
May I just make one point which, ISTM, some posters haven't quite recognised: that there are two kinds of church café.
One is basically an operation which exists to make money for the Church and, indeed, "keep the show on the road". At the extreme, this may mean an agreement with a commercial operator or catering company who rents the space or runs the café; or it may be largely run "in-house" with volunteers.
The other way of doing café is basically evangelistic and/or community building. This is not a commercial operation; it may be run exclusively by volunteers and even make a financial loss for the Church. However it aims to be a touching-point between church and world and may also be an important community resource.
Or even a third... a recent US reality show (yes, I know, guilty secret) featured an inner-city church that had a fast-food outlet within the church. From the fast-food corp pov, it was just another franchise like all their other franchisees. But the church was using it as part of their extensive outreach, hiring ex-cons and other community members who had a hard time finding employment. The particular franchise was chosen for the sorts of job skills it would teach and the potential for future employment, moving up in the corporation, etc. Proceeds from the franchise did not go back into the general church budget but were targeted to their community development/ job training program. But to a visitor it would look like a crass food court.
[ 22. July 2015, 15:12: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
While I agree with you (and I sense a tangent coming on if we're not careful), I don't think that the Café Church advocates (or, to put it more technically, the advocates of church "in a third place") would say, "Let's go down to Costa and fellowship with our mates and that's sufficient ..".
I think they'd say, "Let's go down to Costa and fellowship with our mates because that's both culturally relevant and accessible". Where awe and wonder come into this is another question entirely; it could be argued that Café Church reduces Church to merely a fellowship level.
I don't think it is a tangent, as it does feed into the point of the op. When Christians join together to worship, it can be anywhere: in schools, halls, in the street, etc, but by observation it doesn't take long before they want their own church building. Why is that?
Whether it's from the story of Jesus driving out the moneychangers I don't know, it's highly likely, but for me a church building is and should be a house of prayer, first and foremost. It can be all kinds of other things too.
If it's deconsecrated, it might be a museum or a restaurant, that's OK. It's not called a church any more, and I wouldn't consider going in to use it to pray to God.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Whether it's from the story of Jesus driving out the moneychangers I don't know, it's highly likely, but for me a church building is and should be a house of prayer, first and foremost. It can be all kinds of other things too.
We're going 'round in circles here, but I still haven't heard you answer: what is a "house of prayer"? What does it look like? Is it only one thing? Can a cafe be a house of prayer? How about a garden? A small monastic cell? A large beautiful cathedral? Must a house of prayer be quiet, or can it be filled with music, with praise, or with many voices praying at once? (In some cultures, that's what corporate prayer is like-- not taking turns to pray, but everyone praying at once). I'm still very uncomfortable with the assumptions being made about which churches are or are not a "house of prayer" based solely on their architecture.
[code]
[ 22. July 2015, 15:46: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Whether it's from the story of Jesus driving out the moneychangers I don't know, it's highly likely, but for me a church building is and should be a house of prayer, first and foremost. It can be all kinds of other things too.
We're going 'round in circles here, but I still haven't heard you answer: what is a "house of prayer"? What does it look like? Is it only one thing? Can a cafe be a house of prayer? How about a garden? A small monastic cell? A large beautiful cathedral? Must a house of prayer be quiet, or can it be filled with music, with praise, or with many voices praying at once? (In some cultures, that's what corporate prayer is like-- not taking turns to pray, but everyone praying at once). I'm still very uncomfortable with the assumptions being made about which churches are or are not a "house of prayer" based solely on their architecture.
[code]
Who has said anything about architecture? I still don't think you understand what I'm talking about. To me, any building that Christians call a church is, or should be, a house of prayer. This doesn't imply that nowhere else can be used for prayer, nor that there's only one way of praying, nor that any one way is a better way.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think we get that, Raptor Eye, but perhaps 'ergonomics' might be a better term to use than 'architecture' - although architecture includes that, of course.
I didn't take it that you were implying that a building used for worship should be used exclusively for that function - nor indeed that you would restrict the term 'worship' purely to prayer, the singing of songs or whatever else that goes on in church services or meetings.
I'm still having difficulty, though, envisaging exactly what it was you encountered in the instance you cite.
It sounds to me like you went into a church building of some description which had chairs and tables laid out as if in a cafe. People were sat at those tables, presumably 'fellowshipping' in some way - and presumably over tea and coffee etc.
You were hoping to find a quiet corner in which to pray and because of the lay-out you found it distracting - or, rather - because you wanted to sit elsewhere for some quiet prayer and reflection, the others found it distracting because you weren't doing what they were doing.
Would that be it?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Whether it's from the story of Jesus driving out the moneychangers I don't know, it's highly likely, but for me a church building is and should be a house of prayer, first and foremost. It can be all kinds of other things too.
We're going 'round in circles here, but I still haven't heard you answer: what is a "house of prayer"? What does it look like? Is it only one thing? Can a cafe be a house of prayer? How about a garden? A small monastic cell? A large beautiful cathedral? Must a house of prayer be quiet, or can it be filled with music, with praise, or with many voices praying at once? (In some cultures, that's what corporate prayer is like-- not taking turns to pray, but everyone praying at once). I'm still very uncomfortable with the assumptions being made about which churches are or are not a "house of prayer" based solely on their architecture.
[code]
Who has said anything about architecture? I still don't think you understand what I'm talking about. To me, any building that Christians call a church is, or should be, a house of prayer. This doesn't imply that nowhere else can be used for prayer, nor that there's only one way of praying, nor that any one way is a better way.
But what is your basis for saying that a particular church is or is not "a house of prayer"? So far, as best I can understand (and we do seem to be talking past each other so most likely I am NOT understanding correctly) your basis is architecture-- primarily the absence of cafes. Although I'm still unclear on the positive-- what IS a house of prayer, only what it is NOT. But again, I'm probably still misreading-- and pleading for clarity to end our cycle of miscommunication!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Raptor Eye
I think the practical problem you have is that most churches are closed most of the week. Those that are open outside of communal worship are open either for some sort of social activity (whether evangelistic or secular) or else are cathedrals or important parish churches open for tourists as well as people who want to pop in for quiet prayer.
The 'ordinary' local church that happens to be open for quiet prayer when you need it is very rare. The funds and/or manpower don't allow for this in most cases. Perhaps security considerations mean that leaving a side room unattended while social stuff happens elsewhere is problematic.
I do think this is a shame, but I'm not sure that such provision would really be worth the effort in many churches. Sadly, quiet sanctuaries in some areas would be more likely to attract beggars or vandals than casual visitors who want to pray. I'm not dismissing anyone, but offering support and advice to people in trouble is quite a different service from providing space where people can pray in peace and quiet.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It sounds to me like you went into a church building of some description which had chairs and tables laid out as if in a cafe.
I thought he was talking about a church with an actual cafe. There are a few churches in these parts with an actual coffee shop - you walk in to the building and the first thing you see is a price list, a glass counter with pastries and the like, and someone in a church uniform polo shirt ready to sell you a hot beverage. It seems to be intended as outreach - get people through the door for a coffee, and maybe they'll come back for Christ. I have no idea whether it's successful.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Our local Pentecostal church has a cafe frontage ie. it has a popular cafe run by volunteers - although it isn't always open. Behind that is the actual meeting space - which is effectively a long portacabin style hut. They've recently secured grant aid to develop an extension as a community hub for the training of community volunteers, a drop centre for Citizens' Advice and a permanent location for the local Food Bank.
That's all good.
It certainly isn't the sort of building you'd want to drop into for some quiet prayer and contemplation - so in that sense it may well disqualify itself from being what Raptor Eye is calling a 'house of prayer'.
I don't think that applies - it's still a 'house of prayer' only in a different kind of way. The prayer takes place there on Sundays during their services - the rest of the week the building - or at least parts of it - are serving a different function - as a cafe and as a drop-in advice/community hub.
That's great. I fully applaud that. It might be an issue if it was the only church building around - but it isn't. One of the two Anglican parish church buildings is just a few hundred yards away and it has a policy of remaining open - despite incidents and petty vandalism - for quiet contemplation and prayer. I sometimes avail myself of that opportunity.
Interestingly, the previous vicar (they are now in an interregnum which is about to end within the next week) offered part of the church building - the old vestry area which is a small meeting room - to the local Community Support Officers - you know the folk who aren't police but who support the police. So, they keep their gear there and bob back to file reports, send emails and so on in between patrols.
Previously, they had to drive 5 miles to a nearby town to do that then come back again.
It's an arrangement that suits everyone and it also means that the church can stay open during the day without as much risk of vandalism.
So this strikes me as the best of both worlds.
Anyone wanting a quiet place to prayer or reflect can bob into the parish church in town if they so wish, whilst the Pentecostals are making the most of their central location and rather unprepossessing building to offer a valuable service to the community.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
It must be only me that has an idea in my mind that if a Christian church is open I may feel free to go in and pray to God in there. They are usually Anglican churches, agreed, as few other denominations leave the churches open.
Yes, a lot of churches are closed unless there is a specific event on, in which case of course the event whether a coffee morning or whatever will be noticeable. The church I left didn't have a notice to say that there was an event on, it seemed to be a cafe rather than a church, and not a place to pray, which triggered this reflection. Thank you all for your valuable input.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, it isn't just you, Raptor Eye ... I will often nip into a church and spend a few moments in quiet prayer and contemplation if I find one open - and yes, most often it'll be an Anglican church but RC churches are often open too ... it depends where you are.
So no, I don't think there's anything unusual in wanting to do that. I think what some of us were finding hard to grasp was your attitude towards this particular church you had in mind ... would it not be unrealistic to expect a church which didn't emphasise the setting aside of space for private prayer and contemplation to do so simply to fit in with your or my tastes?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
It'd be a bit like complaining that the local Pentecostal church has guitars and tambourines rather than an organ or some form of acapella singing.
Or that your nearest Orthodox parish didn't use drum'n'bass in its services ...
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I applied for a job once in a suburban church in a wealthy Virginia suburb. The church was on a quiet residential street. The rector showed me around and pointed out the big cross, hanging above the altar. They used to keep the doors unlocked, day and night, so that people could come in and meditate. Then one night very late a guy came in with a rifle. He tried to blast the cross away, and did some good damage. They left the bullets in there -- the marks are visible. But now they lock the doors at night.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I read somewhere that there is a subtle difference in "feel" between an open Anglican church and a Nonconformist one.
The former gives the sense of being part of the community, offering a welcome to anyone. In the latter, one may feel just as welcome, yet still have the slight feeling of intruding into someone's private domain.
I don't know if that's true; but, if it is, it reflects the different emphasis between the two traditions: ne on the Parish, the other on the Congregation.
With more and more CofE churches (at least in towns) becoming "gathered" communities, this distinction may be disappearing.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I think that distinction is disappearing in towns and cities and in suburban and even semi-rural areas too.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I do think that it is somehow possible to combine 'intentionality' and the sense of the church as a 'gathered community' with a sense of 'openness' too -- but I'm not sure I have the recipe for that ... it's a difficult balance to pull off.
If there was a 'choice' between having an intentional community and an amorphous, vaguely defined one then I'd go for the intentional one every time ... it all depends on how tightly we wind the elastic though.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
I thought the OP was about something -- maybe I'm inaccurately picking up two different topics on this thread. One, very practical discussion of use of space and use of church resources for community service, fund raising, all all other this world needs and functions of a church midweek; but the other:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...A place of prayer has an atmosphere all of its own, one which may carry through generations... I wonder why some have it and some don't....
Sometimes you (well, I) walk into a space and you can feel it in the atmosphere that in this space God is worshiped: regularly, deeply, for many years. I don't know if everyone feels it or just some people, I don't know if some people always feel it or just occasionally. I don't know why some churches have that atmosphere it and many don't, or why an individual feels it in one church but not in most.
It's, ah, just sit and bathe in that atmosphere is, I don't know the word, soothing, refreshing, soul touching; has nothing to do with the style of architecture or the decoration or lack of it or the denomination.
While one might (briefly) sense the presence of God anywhere, the felt spiritual sensing that God inhabits this place through years of exclusive use for worship, is rare. I have trouble imagining that atmosphere in a cafe, whether or not the cafe is inside a church building. Not because there's anything wrong about a cafe, but because there can be something spiritually different about a space dedicated to use only for worship.
Don't ask me about the theology, I know tiny tidbits of the broader reality, brief experiences, not how it all fits together.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well yes, I'd go along with that too ... and interestingly enough, a very liberal vicar friend says something very similar -- only in relation to whether a church community is friendly and outward looking or not.
He reckons he can tell that sometimes by wandering around or sitting in a church building - again, irrespective of churchmanship or denomination - simply by the atmosphere and the way things might be laid out ... he believes that if a building is 'loved' then it's also likely that people will be loved and welcomed too.
Obviously, that's not the only criteria and it would certainly be possible to put more effort into 'plant' than into people ...
Meanwhile, it looks as if Raptor Eye who posted the OP has departed this thread, so we are all posting in his shadow ...
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
No, I'm still around Gamaliel, thank you for your continued interest in the thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I thought the OP was about something -- maybe I'm inaccurately picking up two different topics on this thread. One, very practical discussion of use of space and use of church resources for community service, fund raising, all all other this world needs and functions of a church midweek; but the other:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...A place of prayer has an atmosphere all of its own, one which may carry through generations... I wonder why some have it and some don't....
Sometimes you (well, I) walk into a space and you can feel it in the atmosphere that in this space God is worshiped: regularly, deeply, for many years. I don't know if everyone feels it or just some people, I don't know if some people always feel it or just occasionally. I don't know why some churches have that atmosphere it and many don't, or why an individual feels it in one church but not in most.
It's, ah, just sit and bathe in that atmosphere is, I don't know the word, soothing, refreshing, soul touching; has nothing to do with the style of architecture or the decoration or lack of it or the denomination.
While one might (briefly) sense the presence of God anywhere, the felt spiritual sensing that God inhabits this place through years of exclusive use for worship, is rare. I have trouble imagining that atmosphere in a cafe, whether or not the cafe is inside a church building. Not because there's anything wrong about a cafe, but because there can be something spiritually different about a space dedicated to use only for worship.
Don't ask me about the theology, I know tiny tidbits of the broader reality, brief experiences, not how it all fits together.
Thank you Belle Ringer, this aspect seemed to either be misinterpreted as criticism or ignored, but it does feed into this too.
I'm not looking to find that spiritual sensing, it always comes as a blessing, but it is certainly found in some churches more than others. It doesn't need quiet, but silence seems to heighten it.
I don't expect anything, other than to feel as if it is OK, that I'm welcome to sit and pray somewhere in an open church whatever is going on. On reflection, it wasn't only that the atmosphere was more of a cafe than of a church, but also that I felt as if I was not welcome to sit and pray.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think it would be considered bad form to walk into a non-conformist church and sit down to pray whilst another activity was going on.
I recall many years ago being in a congregation when someone was physically carried out of the building because he was present at, but not engaging with, the service.
Whilst I can't imagine that this would happen if a person was quietly sitting and minding-their-own-business, I think it would/might be considered to be pretty strange and disrespectful.
I think this is quite definitely a culture difference. Churches with open-door policies expect people to be wandering in. Churches which only open for specific activities expect people who come in to engage with the activities.
Expecting anything else seems to me to misunderstand the nature of the churches in question.
[ 24. July 2015, 10:13: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mr cheesy: I think it would be considered bad form to walk into a non-conformist church and sit down to pray whilst another activity was going on.
I recall many years ago being in a congregation when someone was physically carried out of the building because he was present at, but not engaging with, the service.
Is a minimum amount of hand-waving required? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Expecting anything else seems to me to misunderstand the nature of the churches in question.
The nature of a church is surely inextricably bound with prayer. I am astounded that it might be considered disrespectful to pray in a church.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Is a minimum amount of hand-waving required?
I think he was masturbating. Nuff said.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The nature of a church is surely inextricably bound with prayer. I am astounded that it might be considered disrespectful to pray in a church.
I don't think it is the "prayer" that is the problem, I think the problem is that people in these kinds of churches want to have a level of control about what happens in their building.
One can walk into a Cathedral and sit down to pray without disturbing anyone, because there is a lot of space and this is a common behaviour.
When you're talking about a Baptist church which is only open for services, then I think the expectation is that visitors are there for services.
I appreciate this is hard to understand from both directions.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure - I think that's the case - although in the 'Nuff said' instance you cite, if the bloke was wanking at the back of the service then it's hardly surprising he was physically removed ...
I was once on a London bus - in the days of bus conductors - when the bus conductor physically removed a bloke who was engaged in said activity on the upper deck.
If you are being literal, I wouldn't expect anyone attending a non-conformist service and not joining in to be physically expelled - unless they were doing something that was unacceptable in a public place or disrupting the service in some way.
At worst, I suspect they'd mostly get the odd askance look.
But I take your point about the cultural difference.
It all depends on context. If someone attended a Pentecostal service, say, and started crossing themselves or swinging a thurible they'd get funny looks and might even be asked to desist.
Equally, if someone were start waving their arms around and 'speaking in tongues' in a cathedral service (other than one specifically geared up for charismatics) they might be politely asked to stop.
The late Douglas McBain, the Baptist renewalist, complained in one of his books that he could rarely find a Free Church building that was open for quiet contemplation and that he regularly used RC or Anglican church buildings for that purpose.
As for the instance that Raptor Eye cites, I'm now getting the impression that there was some kind of service - perhaps 'cafe style' - in progress and that he somehow felt excluded from that.
It strikes me that whatever style of church or service we're talking about, first time visitors or those unfamiliar with the tradition or the way things are done are going to feel somewhat out-on-a-limb - at least initially.
I was in a full-on charismatic church for 18 years and a mildly charismatic one for another 6 - and the parish I attend now has wannabe charismatic pretensions ... I didn't 'take' to charismatic style worship straight-away - indeed, when I first encountered it, I was repelled by it ...
Gradually, I became accustomed and acclimatised to it. The same when I first attending 'High Church' services occasionally - I found them repellent initially - but gradually I've grown accustomed to and comfortable with that particular style the more I've been exposed to it and the more I've tried to understand it and get to grips with what it's all about ...
I'm not saying that one is better than the other - simply that whatever style of worship or churchmanship it is - we are 'socialised' into it over time.
I have no idea whether there are people in that cafe-style church who go in for quiet contemplation and private prayer -- presumably, if they felt this was important corporately, then they would make space for that. Otherwise, they would probably leave it to individual members to seek that sort of thing out if they wanted it.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Is a minimum amount of hand-waving required?
I think he was masturbating. Nuff said.
So he was handwaving, just not in the approved manner?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
If this was the hymn being sung, then I guess it was appropriate.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for the instance that Raptor Eye cites, I'm now getting the impression that there was some kind of service - perhaps 'cafe style' - in progress and that he somehow felt excluded from that.
No, it was not a service, simply a cafe in a church, serving teas etc. I didn't sit near to it, I don't think I was intruding in any way.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think it would be considered bad form to walk into a non-conformist church and sit down to pray whilst another activity was going on.
Interestingly, I can imagine attending a black Pentecostal church and sitting in an attitude of fervent prayer for the whole service, but to do so in a Methodist church would feel disrespectful towards the preacher, and bizarre to the congregation.
I think perhaps this is because Pentecostal worship has a stronger emotional and individualistic component. It's quite normal for private prayers to take place amidst a hive of activity. Methodist worship is carefully put together so that each element illustrates a particular point, so willfully tuning any of that out would make little sense.
Regarding keeping churches open for private prayer outside of worship times, though, I'm inclined to think that this is what we in England have the CofE for. Other churches have a different calling. Churches have to prioritise what they spend their funds and manpower on.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok - but surely the same thing would apply, Raptor Eye, if you were to enter a church building for some quiet prayer and contemplation and found that the electricians were in fixing the wiring or that the cleaning rota team were mopping or hoovering ... ?
I've only once been inside the Anglican shrine at Walsingham - steeling myself to do so given my very strong Protestant sensibilities at that time ... I had my then 6 year old daughter with me (my wife refused to come in and stayed outside with our youngest). My 6 year old showed admirable reverence and respect, bless her ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Once I'd recovered from the shock and acclimatised myself to the atmosphere, I was quite taken to see a lady in a pinny brushing away behind the main sanctuary bit - with the big 'doll' or statue of Mary - while people were kneeling and praying etc. I thought that added a homely touch and I gave a wry smile.
Nobody who was there doing the Marian devotional bit seemed in the least perturbed that the cleaning lady was doing her stuff at one and the same time.
Ok, so I've not visited this particular church that you mention - I'm not sure what my reaction would be if I did. I suppose it would very much depend on what my reason was for being there.
In the Walsingham instance, I wasn't there to pray or join-in - I was simply there as a tourist - and out of interest as to what people get up to inside a Marian shrine.
I suspect my attitude in the instance you cite would depend on whether I was going there for a coffee or to spend some time in quiet and contemplation - the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I'd imagine a whole range of factors might come into play - including background, culture, personality type and much else besides.
Some people might feel entirely comfortable sat at a coffee tale with a latte and engaging in some kind of prayer/meditation at the same time. Others would consider that inappropriate ... it all depends on perspective, expectations and 'conditioning' in terms of how we've been 'socialised' - and we're all socialised into whatever position or tradition/expression that we happen to have adopted or been brought up in.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not saying that one is better than the other - simply that whatever style of worship or churchmanship it is - we are 'socialised' into it over time.
I have no idea whether there are people in that cafe-style church who go in for quiet contemplation and private prayer -- presumably, if they felt this was important corporately, then they would make space for that. Otherwise, they would probably leave it to individual members to seek that sort of thing out if they wanted it.
Exactly. further, I think there is an element of personality type involved-- or one might say "spirituality type". And we all have a tendency to extrapolate from our own experience to others. So someone who is hard-wired to experience God mostly through quiet contemplation is going to extrapolate that to others-- this is just "the way it is". And churches that facilitate that-- lots of quiet spaces, etc.-- are going to be experienced as more of a "house of prayer" than those who don't. People who are hard-wired to experience God more through communal worship are similarly going to extrapolate that to others-- you'll hear complaints about "rote" worship, "no Spirit there", etc.-- that really just reflect those sorts of personality/ spirituality differences.
That being said, I do think that while there are very different sorts of spirituality (much has been written about these different "types" and how to pursue that) and different churches that facilitate that, there are churches that are more or less "authentic" in each of those areas. There are churches where the contemplative liturgical services feel authentic, genuine, deep, significant-- and those where it feels rote and meaningless ritual. There are churches where loud charismatic worship feels like an authentic and exuberant response to God's greatness and grace-- and those where it feels like a crassly manipulative show. So you do get that "feel" thing others have talked about, even if it's impossible to measure. And of course, God can meet us individually even in churches that are less authentic.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I think that's right and I'd also suggest that the same thing can happen within those settings at one and the same time ... ie. a charismatic gathering may very well experience an authentic and spontaneous exuberance in one meeting, only to find themselves saddled with a crassly manipulative one the next ...
Conversely, the same 'rote' liturgy in a more sacramental setting can one day feel like a 'thin-place' where the veil between heaven and earth feels well ... thin ... and the very next week it could feel turgid, stilted and lifeless.
I don't think there's any 'recipe' or join-the-dots solution or way of 'legislating' for these things ...
It's a bit like having a social gathering with the same people one weekend and having a tremendous time and holding the same event a week later and somehow not re-capturing the same 'magic'.
I think it's partly just the way things go ...
But yes, I agree that all those factors you list come into play.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Good point-- totally agree. Reminds me of an amazing prayer service I led once where there was a real tangible sense of the Spirit's presence and some actually healings. So of course the next month I tried to do everything exactly the same way as the month before. And it was ... fine. But not like the prior week. You can't just bottle up the Spirit and require him to show up on schedule.
All of which probably argues for a bit more grace as we're assessing other people's worship services/ experiences.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well yes ... not to knock these august boards, but I think that kind of grace can be more apparent out there in 'real life' than it is on-line ...
I remember an Orthodox priest telling me once about a Pentecostal minister who attended one of their services. He'd just come back from a revivalist conference where he'd felt caught up in fervour and in the presence of God.
This old chap became very cross and grumpy during the Orthodox service and stormed out towards the end. The priest, who wasn't officiating but present at the service, knew the chap and caught up with him afterwards and asked why he'd had such a reaction - was he objecting to the more 'catholic' feel, the incense, the iconography and so on ...
'No,' said the Pentecostal minister, 'I felt the presence of God there just as powerfully with you as I had at the conference I'd just come from - and that's not supposed to happen!'
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'm obviously not Pentecostal, but is that the Holy Spirit's job? To give us good feelings during church services?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Good point-- totally agree. Reminds me of an amazing prayer service I led once where there was a real tangible sense of the Spirit's presence and some actually healings. So of course the next month I tried to do everything exactly the same way as the month before. And it was ... fine. But not like the prior week. You can't just bottle up the Spirit and require him to show up on schedule.
I've been healed - and prayed for others who were instantly healed - with no sensing of God's presence. I've been immersed in the felt presence of God yet no healing (or specific personal prophecy or anything else concrete) happened. These may be quite independent of each other, separate gifts that occasionally coincide.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm obviously not Pentecostal, but is that the Holy Spirit's job? To give us good feelings during church services?
The clergy in mainstream Protestant churches often talk about how the Holy Spirit is meant to challenge us rather than make us feel good.
[ 24. July 2015, 19:03: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm obviously not Pentecostal, but is that the Holy Spirit's job? To give us good feelings during church services?
I don't think anyone here was suggesting that.
I will say that what I love about Pentecostalism is the sense of expectation-- the realization that the Holy Spirit is HERE, the expectation and openness to the idea that something unexpected and uncontrollable can and probably will happen. The yearning simply for God's presence.
And what irks me is the persistent belief that it can only be found within our own tribe.
Both of which were addressed in Gamaliel's post.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
But perhaps I can be comforted by knowing that we're apparently not alone in that failing:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm obviously not Pentecostal, but is that the Holy Spirit's job? To give us good feelings during church services?
The clergy in mainstream Protestant churches often talk about how the Holy Spirit is meant to challenge us rather than make us feel good.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not Pentecostal and if anything am kind of post-charismatic ... which isn't the same as being ex-charismatic or anti-charismatic ...
But I agree with Cliffdweller that one of the strengths of Pentecostalism - if not THE main strength - is that sense of the immanence of God.
Other traditions have that too, of course, but it isn't always brought to the forefront as much - and it's expressed in different ways -- for the RCs it might be something that is almost literally 'reserved' for the 'reservation and exposition of the Blessed Sacrament' - for 'Benediction' and so on ...
For the Quakers it might be the sense of a 'gathered silence' ...
In the instance I cited, the Pentecostal minister wasn't taking about happy and joyful feelings so much as a sense of awe, a sense of the numinous, a sense of 'how awesome is this place, this none other than the house of God, the very gate of heaven ...' (Genesis 28:17)
At its best, I'd say that this is what Pentecostalism brings to the party - and it goes beyond joyful or clappy and exuberant choruses. It may start there -- but it doesn't stop there.
I don't see that as being in any way incompatible with the sense that the Holy Spirit challenges us or convicts us of wrong-doing or gives us more of a sense of compassion and concern or power for living a holy life and so on ...
There's all that to it as well. It's another of these both/and not either/or things.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Gamaliel
That's all true, but some churches are better at some bits than others. It's hardly surprising if some ministers or laypeople tend to emphasise the importance of those bits that are important to their own tradition and minimise the helpfulness of the bits that they don't do so well.
Of course, some people (such as yourself) experience a whole variety of faith traditions and pick useful spiritual influences and emphases from each. That's probably very helpful, but I imagine that many (British?) Christians don't get to do that to any great depth. But perhaps necessity or the postmodern condition is making this kind of journeying more likely. If we want access to a 'House of Prayer' in the future we'll just have to take what we can get
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Regarding paying for cathedral entry, it's more that I am on a very low income and so just can't afford it. I don't object to it in principle. Interesting to hear that Coventry has such high running costs, surely heating and lighting must be cheaper in a newer building?
A friend is from a free evangelical (originally FIEC but then charismatic from uni onwards) background and when he was living just outside Canterbury we went to the cathedral. The cathedral having a shop really bothered him and to him was a sign of being a 'secular' building and not a proper church. To me this seems a strange attitude because I can't see a huge difference between a Vineyard or NFI church running a cafe and a cathedral having a shop.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I don't know the details of Coventry, but a lot of stuff that went up in the 50s and 60s is not very energy-efficient and uses matarials that aren't ageing very well.
It sounds to me like your free evangelical friend was confirming his instinctive response to the cathedral (polite term for 'prejudices about it') rather than responding afresh to it.
[ 25. July 2015, 07:33: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think that's a position a lot of people are in already, SvitlanaV2 - taking what's available wherever they are or else not bothering with it at all ... in some ways we've got a multiplicity of choice but in other places far less
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
A few years ago Coventry did indeed have to replace the heating at a high cost. Last year they also resolved to reduce entry fees because they had less visitors and this is their main source of income.
Most Cathedrals have small congregations and get limited support from diocese.
If donations are too small, charging fees to visitors is one of the few ways to get funds. Of course this is a delicate balance, but that is they way it is. The same thing is happening to museums outside of London. Which is unfortunate if you have limited funds, but basically unavoidable. These buildings are not free to run.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A few years ago Coventry did indeed have to replace the heating at a high cost. Last year they also resolved to reduce entry fees because they had less visitors and this is their main source of income.
I can see both sides. These places are expensive to maintain; and often have small congregations.
As a tourist on a limited budget, the high price some churches charge for what will be a 15 minute visit is unaffordable, especially when you visit a cluster of moderate churches all of which want 5 pounds, and you've run through 20 pounds in less than an hour!
But one can't expect every church keep the doors open 7 days a week just in case some tourists want to drop in, without finding a way to pay for the extra costs of security, literature, and a fair share of the general upkeep of the place the tourists want to see as tourists, not as God-seekers. I don't know what is a fair price; I have sometimes turned away instead of paying what was too high a price for me at that time.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I don't have any problem with historic churches charging whatever the market will bear for those who are visiting purely as tourists. If you want to sell postcards or refrigerator magnets or snowglobes with the likeness of the cathedral, sure, whatever the market will bear.
The problem I think we've identified here is how to distinguish those who are merely tourists, wanting to ooh and aah over lovely architecture (not that there's anything wrong with that) and spiritual pilgrims who are coming to pray or to worship. It would be ironic if the beauty of a cathedral, intended to draw worshippers into an experience of the glory of God, resulted instead in such a push of tourism that they are unable to accommodate those sorts of spiritual pilgrims, but I can see where in some cases that might have to happen. As with California's missions, at that point the best option might be to decommission and turn it into solely a tourist venue, with a different facility for prayer and worship.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But one can't expect every church keep the doors open 7 days a week just in case some tourists want to drop in, without finding a way to pay for the extra costs of security, literature, and a fair share of the general upkeep of the place the tourists want to see as tourists, not as God-seekers.
I genuinely think (in Britain at least) that loads of folk think that the buildings are supported by the local Council/English Heritage/the denominations which are "rolling in money". They simply don't think of who is bearing the financial burden.
Equally true of many community groups who want to use the church (or hall) for free or a very small fee: at best they think of paying for lighting and heating but not maintenance, insurance, renewals, caretaking etc. As far as they're concerned, the church is "just there" for them.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The problem I think we've identified here is how to distinguish those who are merely tourists, wanting to ooh and aah over lovely architecture (not that there's anything wrong with that) and spiritual pilgrims who are coming to pray or to worship. It would be ironic if the beauty of a cathedral, intended to draw worshippers into an experience of the glory of God, resulted instead in such a push of tourism that they are unable to accommodate those sorts of spiritual pilgrims, but I can see where in some cases that might have to happen.
Yes. And saying, "It's free during services" doesn't help - I know of one Cathedral where tour guides deliberately brought groups in during service times. Everyone lost out: the worshippers who were disturbed by the noise, and the tourists who couldn't see round the whole place. I also had a nasty suspicion that the guides did well by pocketing money given to them for the entrance fees which didn't need to be paid ...
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
]I can see both sides. These places are expensive to maintain; and often have small congregations.
As a tourist on a limited budget, the high price some churches charge for what will be a 15 minute visit is unaffordable, especially when you visit a cluster of moderate churches all of which want 5 pounds, and you've run through 20 pounds in less than an hour!
The idea that one could look around Canterbury, or even Coventry in 15 minutes is quite bizarre. If you want to "experience it" spiritually, go to a service. There are at least 5 services a day in Canterbury and probably a similar number in Coventry. I'd guess that there are similar numbers at every other English Cathedral.
The problem here is that so many tourists seem to think that British cultural buildings and museums should be free, when the vast majority of them elsewhere are not free.
I also think your characterisation here that one is going to be looking at several churches with fees in a day is misplaced. There are not several churches which charge for entry in Coventry, Canterbury or almost anywhere outside of London. Even in London I don't think it would be possible to visit four churches that charge in a day, and there are a lot of large churches you could visit that do not charge.
Unlike other European countries, we don't tend to have more than one or two large church buildings in any one city, and in the main it is only the Cathedral which will charge because of the high costs of upkeep.
quote:
But one can't expect every church keep the doors open 7 days a week just in case some tourists want to drop in, without finding a way to pay for the extra costs of security, literature, and a fair share of the general upkeep of the place the tourists want to see as tourists, not as God-seekers. I don't know what is a fair price; I have sometimes turned away instead of paying what was too high a price for me at that time.
I think this is fair comment - if you don't want to pay, go somewhere else. For example in Coventry, one could visit the next door ruins (free), or the neighbouring large Anglican church called Trinity, which has medieval paintings (free). One can sit and pray in both of these.
Similarly in Canterbury, where there are other ancient churches in the city which do not charge.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes. And saying, "It's free during services" doesn't help - I know of one Cathedral where tour guides deliberately brought groups in during service times. Everyone lost out: the worshippers who were disturbed by the noise, and the tourists who couldn't see round the whole place. I also had a nasty suspicion that the guides did well by pocketing money given to them for the entrance fees which didn't need to be paid ...
I am not sure how long ago this was, but I have been to quite a few different Cathedral services recently and have noticed that they are well marshalled and "policed". I don't think one would get very far if trying to look around without paying by pretending to be in the service.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes, my experience was over 10 years ago.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I agree with mr cheesy. In most UK cities it's quite easy to look around the main churches or cathedral and find space for quiet. There are problems in some of the main honey-pot ones, but I've often found myself on my own in even some of the 'big name' ones.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
I too dislike shops inside cathedrals, not because they're secular but because of the atmosphere they create. It is usually possible to escape from it as the building is so large.
For me then there are some activities which shatter the prayerful atmosphere, but which are probably necessary so that the buildings will still be there for future generations, and who knows God may catch the visitors unawares through the snowstorms, the architecture or the history.
It's not all about me. I can pray anywhere. Who knows, pilgrimages may come back into fashion, and then every church will be filled with people who want to pray as well as drink the coffee....
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...and then every church will be filled with people who want to pray as well as drink the coffee....
Perhaps they already are...
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
I'm sure that's often true. What gets me is the automatic assumption from the meeters & greeters in there large places that visitors are there for anything & everything but prayer/worship. A little confidence goes down well - even the definitely non-church visitors are normally interested, if not expectant, to hear about the faith and worship of the community which gathers.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It can be disconcerting in a cathedral service being 'watched' by people who are there to 'look round' but even this can be two-way. Some years ago at Chester Cathedral - not ine of my favourites but still - a party of what looked like Spanish or Latin American tourists were looking around as the service was in progress - they stopped and crossed themselves solemnly before moving on. I found that strangely moving.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The African-American churches in Harlem have this problem. People are not coming to worship, but to listen to the great music and singing.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I suppose it's entirely natural and completely understandable that anywhere that offers:
- A sense of history and intriguing or astonishing architecture - often combined with marvellous choral music - such as medieval cathedrals.
- Historical importance in a place where most buildings are relatively new - as with the Californian missions.
- Or rousing and impressive music - as with the Afro-American churches in Harlem (perhaps combined, for some people, with a kind of exotic cultural 'frisson' see below).
- Or some kind of exotic cultural experience - as with Greek monasteries or Coptic churches in Egypt ...
Are going to attract a degree of tourist attention.
On the Grand Tour back in the day, it wasn't unusual for the sons of Protestant gentry to drop into the Sistine Chapel to hear Allegri's Misere or attend RC services in Italy and elsewhere as part of the cultural package, as it were ...
You can even see a form of nascent tourism in the 4th century with Elgeria's account of her pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
I s'pose the issue, then, is how we 'manage' that alongside the ongoing or 'regular' worship associated with whichever place we're talking about ...
I don't know much about the Californian mission stations that Cliffdweller has alluded to - although I know what they look like - and an American friend has described how much of a sense of history and 'presence' he felt there -- (I'm afraid I told him that was great, but he ought to try standing in Durham Cathedral during Evensong - a building where God has been worshipped for a thousand years ...)
My view with those, FWIW, would be that they shouldn't be deconsecrated and turned into museums unless or until such time as there was no viable congregation gathering to use them.
I visited an astonishing Italian church and monastery a few years ago. There were only about 5 monks there and they emerged on a Sunday evening to lead a Mass for anyone who gathered there for that purpose. There was a goodly crowd of mostly Italian people there - whether visitors or locals, I don't know.
It struck me that it would be wrong to turn this place into a museum whilst people still gathered for the Mass and while there were still monks living in community alongside the church building.
I don't know what happens in a place that gets 'swamped' with tourists though - Sacre Coeur up on Montmatre struck me as getting close to saturation point - but I don't know whether Westminister Abbey or Canterbury Cathedral are getting like that as I haven't visited either for a good many years - although I've walked past Westminster Abbey lots of times since I last went in.
I suppose a lot depends on the overall cultural importance - as mr cheesy says, in Canterbury and other English cathedral cities it's perfectly possible to find ancient churches to visit, sit in and/or explore without any charges and without any crowds.
I had a spooky experience in the RC cathedral in Norwich where I was the only person around, apart from a guy delivering some bits and bobs for some restoration work near the entrance.
Had I bobbed down to the Anglican cathedral on that occasion, I'd have undoubtedly have found mor people looking around - but I doubt I would have had to wade through the crowds ...
Same with Durham, York Minister even, Lincoln and Wells - I've been in all of these cathedrals when there's hardly anyone else there - although tourist numbers do seem to have increased in recent years. But as mr cheesy says, these days the cathedral staff/volunteers do seem to have learned how to marshal things.
As for the 'size' of cathedral congregations - some actually get a fair size congregation on a Sunday - although it's difficult to compare cathedral congregations to your average parish church congregation or to a Free Church congregation - such as a Baptist or Methodist ...
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm with those who think a church should be well used 7 days a week, whether it's for food banks, programs for at-risk youth, senior centers, whatever. That is indeed part of our worship.
And yes, there should absolutely be space for prayer. But what would that be? Is that a huge sanctuary with soaring ceilings and stained glass windows? A small, plain chapel with a few Bibles and few distractions? A beautiful garden with benches to pray while observing the beauty of creation? A coffee bar or pub where two Christian friends can share their journey and struggles in a relaxed setting? Or a classroom filled with small children joyfully playing? Any of these could be a "house of prayer."
Yoga sessions? Humanist societies?
K.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm with those who think a church should be well used 7 days a week, whether it's for food banks, programs for at-risk youth, senior centers, whatever. That is indeed part of our worship.[...]
Yoga sessions? Humanist societies?
K.
Yoga seems to be acceptable to mainstream churches. Humanist groups are probably acceptable to some, so long as they don't publicly condemn religion. But I doubt that most humanists groups would want to meet in a functioning church anyway.
Congregations don't always see a clear distinction between those groups whose presence is viewed as part of the church's mission and those that are there basically to pay the rent. IME of MOTR churches, almost anything that encourages the 'community' to enter the building is seen as mission in some way, even if church members have nothing to do with organising, staffing or funding the work. In this sense, hosting a humanist group would be seen as the church being a friendly neighbour, fostering good relations, etc. Some churches are even willing to house groups of worshippers of other religions out of this sense of service to the community.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well yes, and there are middle-ground positions between that and the more full-on 'it's an evangelistic opportunity' thing that you'd find in evangelical churches.
For pragmatic reasons these days, I'm aware of all sorts of non-churchy, non-religiously motivated things that go on in halls and premises owned by avowedly evangelical outfits -- although I think most of those I know would draw the line at yoga ('eastern mysticism' ...) or worship carried out by people of other faiths.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
There's a URC building near me that has a yoga group renting space, along with a whole bunch of other groups. But no, I don't suppose yoga is an evangelical thing. (When I refer to 'mainstream churches' as I did above I'm normally excluding evangelical congregations. This terminology may have to change in future, I imagine.)
I don't get the impression that evangelical churches rent out their buildings to the same extent as other Protestants. AFAICS most of the 'extracurricular' things taking place in evangelical churches are at least partially run or staffed by evangelicals, perhaps with some state funding for social projects, etc. So the vibe is different even if you exclude any obviously evangelistic tendencies.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Out of interest, though, could you say a bit more about the kinds of non-religious groups that have been allowed to rent space at the evangelical churches you know. Are you thinking of the usual keep fit lessons and Brownies. etc?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I can think of a number of evangelical churches that have started renting out rooms etc to groups that have nothing to do with churchy activities. This has been going on for some time with your usual keep fit and indoor bowling groups and so on ...
More recently, I've noticed some straying outside mums-and-tots activities that are run by people within the congregation to things like:
- Renting space for people who aren't connected with the church to run after-school clubs and counselling sessions and so on.
- General meeting facilities for any group - business, voluntary or what-have-you.
- Conference space.
The last two have been a feature of those evangelical churches which have built themselves whopping big auditoria and what have you and then find themselves needing to finance them ...
Some are quite successful in the meeting-space / conference market ... but others struggle to rent out space as people wonder what the heck it is they're supporting by renting space there ...
But it's certainly not unknown for evangelical churches to rent out space to other non-religious groups for whatever purpose -- although I suspect there are quite a number of things they'd draw the line at ...
On the 'mainstream' / non-mainstream thing -- I'm not sure that always applies. I mean, would an evangelical Anglican parish be considered 'mainstream'?
The denomination it's part of would certainly be seen as mainstream ...
So I think we've got to be careful with some of these definitions.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the 'mainstream' / non-mainstream thing -- I'm not sure that always applies. I mean, would an evangelical Anglican parish be considered 'mainstream'?
Most Anglican congregations are not evangelical (not yet, anyway) so they wouldn't be included in references to 'mainstream churches'. But the CofE is obviously a mainstream denomination in England.
Thanks for your other interesting comments. I admit I don't know much about the type of evangelicals who have huge auditoriums to pay for!
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Here's one such down this way, which is home to the All Nations Church. Very successful conference centre. They do jolly good sandwiches, too.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I suppose if you build somewhere like that, the intention is to be able to make money out of it. It's hardly an afterthought.
It's also interesting that there's no mention in the link that this building belongs to a church. The website for all the churchy stuff is kept separate.
[ 26. July 2015, 20:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Not actually built as a house of prayer in the first place? Is that OK?
There are questions arising in my mind as to at what point we might be encouraging people, including ourselves, to worship false idols: the folding paper ones being the most worshipped.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Well, I'd say a house of prayer 'plus'. Not my kind of church, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to say 'we want a high-quality building for all our various church activities, we can't afford to build and maintain one just from our own resources and even if we did it would not be used fully if only we used it, therefore let's have something that can pay its way in a reasonably ethical and useful (to the wider community) manner'.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose if you build somewhere like that, the intention is to be able to make money out of it. It's hardly an afterthought.
Really? Is that why the grand cathedrals were built?
Large evangelical sanctuaries are build for exactly the same reason-- to provide a place for worship that enables and equips the ministry of the congregation. Like large cathedrals, they may find the upkeep difficult and rent out space to help with costs-- or simply because it makes good ecological sense to make good use of a building rather than letting it sit empty most of the week. But that is no more the primary purpose for evangelical buildings than it is for other denominations' cathedrals.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I was talking about modern structures rather than cathedrals, and didn't say that making money was their only function. But I'd think it was obvious in modern, secular Britain that if you want to build such a huge place of worship with so many rooms and facilities then considering the rental value of what you're doing needs to be an important part of your plans. Otherwise you're risking ending up with an expensive millstone around your neck.
As for the old cathedrals, the people who built them obviously didn't have to worry too much about paying for upkeep. This is a different world now, though, hence the gift shops and entrance fees.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, I have some qualms about All Nations too -- but the conference thing wasn't there from the outset - as far as I can gather.
I can think of other, far smaller evangelical outfits which hire roooms and facilities.
It's not just the province of the large auditoria.
As for the CofE not being predominantly evangelical - yet.
This diocese is predominantly evangelical/MoR -- with some patchy Ang-Cath and Liberal Catholic elements.
The evangelical wing holds its own but I don't see it taking over - save perhaps in the London suburbs.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I was talking about modern structures rather than cathedrals, and didn't say that making money was their only function. But I'd think it was obvious in modern, secular Britain that if you want to build such a huge place of worship with so many rooms and facilities then considering the rental value of what you're doing needs to be an important part of your plans. Otherwise you're risking ending up with an expensive millstone around your neck.
As for the old cathedrals, the people who built them obviously didn't have to worry too much about paying for upkeep. This is a different world now, though, hence the gift shops and entrance fees.
I'm sure it's true that builders of both modern sanctuaries and newer but more traditional cathedrals will be practical enough to think about financing and upkeep. But that's not the same thing as making that secondary usage the primary purpose. The primary purpose and consideration for both large evangelical auditoriums and large cathedrals (whether old or new) is the same: the worship and ministry of the people of God, and that primary purpose will be the driving factor in the design.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Gamaliel
If evangelical churches around the country are now letting out their buildings in a big way that's a good thing - more cash for them.
I do think that new congregations need to consider where the the money is going to come from when they begin their work, and since most new churches are evangelical, I suppose this has become an important evangelical issue at a local level.
[ 26. July 2015, 22:41: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
cliffdweller
I didn't say that making money out of a rental income was the primary purpose. But in modern Britain, where churches are closing all the time due to a lack of funds for maintenance, it surely needs to be a pretty high priority when building a new church, unless the church in question can reasonably expect to fund itself almost entirely from other sources.
In some parts of Britain, perhaps in the South East, churchgoing is in a healthier state, and congregations may be generally larger and wealthier, so this could be less of an issue there.
[ 26. July 2015, 22:51: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
fair 'nuff. My bad for reading defensively.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, I have some qualms about All Nations too -- but the conference thing wasn't there from the outset - as far as I can gather.
I can think of other, far smaller evangelical outfits which hire roooms and facilities.
It's not just the province of the large auditoria.
As for the CofE not being predominantly evangelical - yet.
This diocese is predominantly evangelical/MoR -- with some patchy Ang-Cath and Liberal Catholic elements.
The evangelical wing holds its own but I don't see it taking over - save perhaps in the London suburbs.
Depends on the strand of evangelical. Con evos have taken over East Sussex (east of Brighton) since +Benn. Other patches of historic Nonconformism seem to be prone to conservative/Baptist-ish* evangelical Anglicans. Certainly when I was in East Sussex churches held pilates classes but not yoga classes (although there is a fair amount of hippyness in that part of the world, especially around Hastings, so people weren't lacking in yoga lessons!).
*sorry Baptists - looking for the best way to describe non-charismatic evangelical Anglicans who are still pretty moderate
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Funny how Coventry became an example for the thread - it was just a cathedral I knew charged off the top of my head, but it is an interesting example. I have no objection to cathedrals charging and am surprised that more don't - I totally understand why it is necessary. Whoever (Gamaliel?) said that the public don't realise why it is necessary is right though. People do think they are publicly-funded.
I don't know how many charging cathedrals do this (I think Canterbury does?) but free or subsidised entry for local residents seems a good idea to me. Obviously some form of proof needed, but it would build local connections and mean the cathedral isn't a total tourist trap. Would be good for local schools too.
[tangent]The RC Church of Notre Dame de France is a recent free-entry discovery of mine - RC churches seem to be a good bet. Don't know if it's open during the day, but St Augustine's in Manchester is another favourite (love the very retro diocesan archives/library upstairs - untouched midcentury modern). Also, their church hall sofas were very welcome when in Manchester for an SCM conference.[/tangent]
Posted by Notapassingphase (# 18422) on
:
quote:
IME of MOTR churches, almost anything that encourages the 'community' to enter the building is seen as mission in some way, even if church members have nothing to do with organising, staffing or funding the work. In this sense, hosting a humanist group would be seen as the church being a friendly neighbour, fostering good relations, etc.
And IMLE it actually works as mission. I think that if I'd not entered the building for a community musical production a few years ago (unconnected with the Church) I might never have gone back to try out its proper function.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I'm sorry to be nit-picky, but it is nonsense to talk as if all Evangelicals think the same on this issue.
Near here, a large Baptist Union church rebuilt their building in order to make it more usable by the wider public - including the layout of the main sanctuary, a cafe and other smaller rooms. A large city-centre Methodist church I know is widely used for many activities - including soup kitchens, music exams, orchestra practices, performances, plays etc. Another Evangelical church I know was rebuilt with various (secular) funds, and as part of the deal has offices which are well-used by many different charities and agencies - with the church only guaranteed exclusive access on a Sunday.
In contrast, I know many Evangelical churches who decry the whole idea of other "non-worship" activities in their buildings and will not allow any kind of commerce to take place in them.
Evangelicalism is not a monolith on this issue.
As to the idea that Evangelicals (or even Middle-of-the-road Evangelicals) are taking over the Anglican church - this is ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
nonsense.
In this deanery, we have roughly equal number of high-church and MOTR congregations. We also have a scattering of charismatics, baptist-like Evangelicals and extreme liberals. The Cathedral is ultra-high church, with prayers to Mary, genuflecting to the host and the like.
There is no take-over in prospect.
That said, almost all congregations are looking for new ways to earn funds in this deanery. There does not seem to be any kind of evangelical bias (for or against) on that score.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As to the idea that Evangelicals (or even Middle-of-the-road Evangelicals) are taking over the Anglican church - this is nonsense.
You are in a different diocese to me then.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
mr cheesy is in a different diocese to me, too, leo, but I think the situation he describes is closer to reality than the idea that evangelicals are taking over the entire CofE.
Actually, I think it was mr cheesy - rather than me, Pomona, who raised the issue that many people assume that cathedrals are publicly funded ...
I also agree with his comments about the evangelical world being by no means monolithic on the issue of how buildings are used.
I wouldn't say, in response to SvitlanaV2's comments that the evangelical churches I am most familiar are into hiring rooms and facilities in a 'big way' -- but I would say that many more are doing this sort of thing now than hitherto -- and going beyond the usual mums-and-tots and keep-fit groups. Like the Methodist church that mr cheesy cites, they may hire halls out for exams, for tuition, for adult-education purposes and a whole range of other things that are not directly linked to their own church activities.
I'm detecting less of a 'divide' between what SvitlanaV2 calls 'mainstream' and what she considers 'evangelical' on this issue -- although as with all these things there are always exceptions to the general rule.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
And me.
It may not be Evangelicals per se but is often a wishy-washy collection of interest groups, from the "lets-knit-a-liturgy" group, through to "any music on the organ, or in 4 part harmony, is anathema", taking in "all worship music from the USA is to be preferred, however incongruous or inappropriate to our liturgies" sub-group.
With regard to music in particular, the cultural vandalism that has taken place in the CofE over the past 45 years is akin to Mao's cultural revolution.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And me.
It may not be Evangelicals per se but is often a wishy-washy collection of interest groups, from the "lets-knit-a-liturgy" group, through to "any music on the organ, or in 4 part harmony, is anathema", taking in "all worship music from the USA is to be preferred, however incongruous or inappropriate to our liturgies" sub-group.
With regard to music in particular, the cultural vandalism that has taken place in the CofE over the past 45 years is akin to Mao's cultural revolution.
Seems to me that this is a different discussion - but surely music has been changing in Anglican churches on an almost constant basis.
Whilst it might be seen as "cultural vandalism" to relax forms of liturgy since the ASB in 1980, presumably there have been changes ever since organs were first installed in the 19 century.
It seems to me that "normal" is just what you've always enjoyed/experienced in an Anglican setting. There is no default "normal" Anglican church today. And probably has not been for hundreds of years.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, that also is true ... (I'm on a run/roll of agreement with mr cheesy)
That said, having attended choral evensong in a medieval parish church yesterday evening - my wife was singing in the choir as she does from time to time - I feel very reluctant to darken the door of my own parish next Sunday and put up with whatever musical monstrosities they're going to inflict on us in the interests of 'being relevant / contemporary' or whatever else ...
But then, people do vote with their feet ... and time was when I'd have voted with them and gone for the 'lively' and the happy-clappy ...
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
I've been to some pretty dire Evensong services, and I lay no claim to know much about music. In fact, I know someone who was turned off of going to church again as his first toe-dip was into an Evensong service. It didn't come across as a house of prayer as much as a house of torture.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I've been to some pretty dire Evensong services, and I lay no claim to know much about music. In fact, I know someone who was turned off of going to church again as his first toe-dip was into an Evensong service. It didn't come across as a house of prayer as much as a house of torture.
The idea that public officials are only constrained by the law is very strange. Let me introduce you to law enforcement, which has a whole lot of personal behaviour rules over-and-above what is legal/illegal.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Sorry, not sure what happened there, replying to a different thread!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
mr cheesy is in a different diocese to me, too, leo, but I think the situation he describes is closer to reality than the idea that evangelicals are taking over the entire CofE.
It would be interesting to compile a list of which theological colleges the current bishops were trained at.
I doubt it's Cuddeston in the lead any more.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Like anything else, Raptor Eye, it all depends on the quality of the choir and the way it's delivered ... you could equally find dire guitar and drum led worship or grisly singing in a non-conformist chapel with a wheezy harmonium ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The choir director at the church whose Evensong I attended last night is very good -- the choir aren't bad either - when they're on form.
It all depends on a whole host of factors. I'd have probably have hated it my teens or early 20s.
I'm firmly of the view that whatever 'style' of worship is our 'thing' we've become acclimatised and socialised into it somewhere along the line.
That applies to 'high', 'low' and all stations in between.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
My impression of the Anglican episcopate, leo, is that whatever their personal theological background or training, for purely pragmatic reasons they'll back anything that looks as if it puts bums on seats.
So, if it's cathedral Matins in one place, they'll back that -- if it's clap-hands-here-come's-Charlie somewhere else they'll support that - even though they probably barf on the way home afterwards ...
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It would be interesting to compile a list of which theological colleges the current bishops were trained at.
I doubt it's Cuddeston in the lead any more.
Using information from wikipedia, these are the origins of the current Diocesan bishops in England:
Wycliffe Hall: 5
Cramner: 3
Ridley Hall: 7
St Stephens: 3
St Johns: 5
Christ Church: 1
Westcott House: 3
Trinity College: 3
Cuddleston: 3
University College: 1
Kings College, London: 1
Mirfield: 1
Edinburgh: 1
Queens: 2
Outside the UK: 1
I don't know what any of this means, and it is entirely possible some of these are different names for the same thing.
Also some are a bit confusing - vacant or "acting".
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My impression of the Anglican episcopate, leo, is that whatever their personal theological background or training, for purely pragmatic reasons they'll back anything that looks as if it puts bums on seats.
So, if it's cathedral Matins in one place, they'll back that -- if it's clap-hands-here-come's-Charlie somewhere else they'll support that - even though they probably barf on the way home afterwards ...
As far as I can tell, bishops have limited power to influence the direction of churches in their diocese anyway. The mix of Evangelical, liberal, high etc is not something they can do much about.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I think that's certainly the case, mr cheesy - I was being somewhat flippant.
On the stats on the episcopal origins -- I recognise the names of the institutions of course and could identify the churchmanship behind a number of them -- St John's is definitely evangelical and fields 5 as opposed to Cuddesdon's 2 ... but it looks a pretty mixed playing-field to me ... hardly dominated by conservative or charismatic evangelicals.
Of course, there have been a number of noted evangelical bishops but by and large, as you rightly say, it's not generally the bishops who set the trend ... whatever their churchmanship they have to deal with whatever they find on their particular patch.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sorry, Cuddesdon's 3 ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sorry, Cuddesdon's 3 ...
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I'm sorry, I missed one for Oak Hill in the above.
I learn that:
Queens College, Edgbaston is known for ecumenicalism,
Cramner and St Johns are the same thing (Open Evangelical)
Ridley Hall is generally Evangelical
St Stephens is Anglo Catholic
Wycliffe Hall is Evangelical
Westcott House is liberal Catholic
Trinity College, Bristol is Evangelical
St John's Nottingham - don't know
I think we can conclude from that that the majority of Anglican bishops are from an Evangelical tradition.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Who would ever have thought we would see the day when St John's would produce more diocesans than Cuddesdon.
Whether or not anyone thinks that is a good thing is entirely up to them.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
St John's Nottingham is avowedly evangelical ...
So, there we have it. Leo is right. The evangelicals are taking over the CofE ...
Although, of course, not everyone who starts off evangelical remains that way ... thanks to various nefarious liberal, RC or Orthodox Plots ... mwa ha ha ha ... mwa ha ha ha ...
My own view is that I'm entirely comfortable with bishops coming from evangelical backgrounds - provided they bring the best aspects of evangelicalism with them and not the naff evangelical sub-culture elements ...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Near here, a large Baptist Union church rebuilt their building in order to make it more usable by the wider public - including the layout of the main sanctuary, a cafe and other smaller rooms. A large city-centre Methodist church I know is widely used for many activities - including soup kitchens, music exams, orchestra practices, performances, plays etc. Another Evangelical church I know was rebuilt with various (secular) funds, and as part of the deal has offices which are well-used by many different charities and agencies - with the church only guaranteed exclusive access on a Sunday.
In contrast, I know many Evangelical churches who decry the whole idea of other "non-worship" activities in their buildings and will not allow any kind of commerce to take place in them.
Evangelicalism is not a monolith on this issue.
I wasn't proposing that evangelicalism is 'a monolith on this issue'. My comments were based on the impression that the evangelical congregations I know are less likely to need to raise money by letting out their buildings as much as possible. (But I've learnt that in some areas their needs may be greater. Fair enough.)
I agreed that newly built churches today - most of which will be owned by evangelical congregations - do need to think about how to fund the upkeep of the new buildings in the long run, and ensuring that the new structures are rentable is to be highly advised.
The theological issues behind all of this are a different matter; but churches are skilled at making a virtue of necessity in any case....
(BTW, as a Methodist I'm well aware that Methodist congregations - most of which are not evangelical - try hard to rent out their church buildings if possible. On the whole they really do need the money, regardless of their theological position! If I were still a Methodist church steward I'd expect my church to be thinking not only of its service to the community, but also about how it can increase its rental income. IME it can be hard for some Methodist churches to get the balance right, so it's good to hear that the churches known to other people on this thread are successful at this.)
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
In practice Cranmer is very mixed because it's where most in the North East go, for practicality reasons. Most of my clergy/ordinand friends trained/are training there and it's a very wide variety of churchpersonships.
I don't think evangelicals are a monolith, experience has just made me sometimes forget that not all Anglican evangelicals are Oakhill/Sydney type evangelicals!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Most of the evangelical Anglicans I meet these days are more St John's in flavour - ie. open evangelical/charismatic ...
I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Sydney style evangelical Anglicans I've met.
I suspect it depends where you are geographically.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
BTW, as a Methodist I'm well aware that Methodist congregations - most of which are not evangelical - try hard to rent out their church buildings if possible. On the whole they really do need the money, regardless of their theological position! If I were still a Methodist church steward I'd expect my church to be thinking not only of its service to the community, but also about how it can increase its rental income. IME it can be hard for some Methodist churches to get the balance right, so it's good to hear that the churches known to other people on this thread are successful at this.
Yes. Some churches may want be so keen on wanting to help community organisations that they give them space for free or at unrealistically low rents. That means that all the expenses fall on to a (possibly small) congregation. Ultimately the churches could fail and close, leaving the community organisations in the street. Unfortunately some funders of such groups - e.g. Councils - make the same mistake and don't give enough money for rent.
Also, some churches rent out their spaces so much that, while having an assured income, they feel like intruders in their own building, and may have severely constrained their own attempts to use their premises for mission. Equally, the surrounding community may come to regard the building as being primarily a School (or whatever) rather than a Church building. I've had experience of this, trust me!
[ 28. July 2015, 13:16: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As far as I can tell, bishops have limited power to influence the direction of churches in their diocese anyway. The mix of Evangelical, liberal, high etc is not something they can do much about.
They have the power over new appointments - I could list many anglo-catholic parishes which have had an evangelical appoounted.
Many evangelicals are no longer 'low church' and don't object to vestments and incense - but they are not going to preach the catholic faith.
[ 28. July 2015, 17:17: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
St John's Nottingham is avowedly evangelical ...
So, there we have it. Leo is right. The evangelicals are taking over the CofE ...
Although, of course, not everyone who starts off evangelical remains that way
But St. John's is also pretty broad - they put on many interesting courses which don't stick to evangelical speakers.
And many who started off as evangelicals 'climb the candle' - I know one priest who trained at St. John's but who now regularly presides at Solemn Benediction.
[ 28. July 2015, 17:22: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Many evangelicals are no longer 'low church' and don't object to vestments and incense - but they are not going to preach the catholic faith.
I'm not Anglican, and I'm not British, so perhaps there's some cross-pond usage here, but I'm a bit surprised and more than a bit offended at the suggestion that evangelical Anglicans are not teaching small-c catholic faith. I'm wondering what doctrines in particular you are referring to? My tendency would be to define small-c catholic (or small-o orthodox) by the Apostle's and/or Nicene Creed, which would include most evangelicals, certainly any Anglican evangelicals I would think.
But then again, perhaps turn about is fair play, since many of my fellow evangelicals (albeit not any Anglican evangelicals I would think) are prone to making similar claims about mainliners.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not offended by leo's comment - but I can understand why it could cause offence. Leo is leo, I'm used to him on these boards ...
I took him to be using the term catholic with a Big C - but I might be wrong.
Even if he meant catholic with a small-c I wouldn't be offended, I'd simply go ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.
Anglo-Catholics can be 'spikey' but most of those I've met in real life aren't at all 'anti' evangelicalism - although I'm sure plenty are, but not those I've met. At worst, they'd consider it lacking in some aspects - and needful of being filled-out a bit more -- if that doesn't sound too patronising. But by and large, most Anglo-Catholic clergy I've met tend to be positive about the positive aspects of evangelicalism -- however cautious they are about other aspects.
It depends on their experiences of it -- quite a number are former evangelicals and some have a lot of respect for the tradition in which they grew up or found faith - others less so.
The mileage varies.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Many evangelicals are no longer 'low church' and don't object to vestments and incense - but they are not going to preach the catholic faith.
I'm not Anglican, and I'm not British, so perhaps there's some cross-pond usage here, but I'm a bit surprised and more than a bit offended at the suggestion that evangelical Anglicans are not teaching small-c catholic faith. I'm wondering what doctrines in particular you are referring to?
The role of Mary, intercession of the saints, real presence in the mass, purgatory, immaculate conception, the assumption, sacramental confession...
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I hope that nobody in the CofE, however A-C, is teaching as dogma, as opposed to as pious beliefs, the immaculate conception or the assumption.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Many evangelicals are no longer 'low church' and don't object to vestments and incense - but they are not going to preach the catholic faith.
I'm not Anglican, and I'm not British, so perhaps there's some cross-pond usage here, but I'm a bit surprised and more than a bit offended at the suggestion that evangelical Anglicans are not teaching small-c catholic faith. I'm wondering what doctrines in particular you are referring to?
The role of Mary, intercession of the saints, real presence in the mass, purgatory, immaculate conception, the assumption, sacramental confession...
I would call those things Big-C Catholic, not small-c catholic. Which may sound like nit-picking, but I think the distinction is important.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Many evangelicals are no longer 'low church' and don't object to vestments and incense - but they are not going to preach the catholic faith.
I'm not Anglican, and I'm not British, so perhaps there's some cross-pond usage here, but I'm a bit surprised and more than a bit offended at the suggestion that evangelical Anglicans are not teaching small-c catholic faith. I'm wondering what doctrines in particular you are referring to?
The role of Mary, intercession of the saints, real presence in the mass, purgatory, immaculate conception, the assumption, sacramental confession...
So, the catholic faith includes a whole bunch of stuff not deemed important enough to include in the Nicene Creed. Interesting.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Or indeed the Athanasian Creed, which of course contains the bald statement
And the Catholick Faith is this:
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But by and large, most Anglo-Catholic clergy I've met tend to be positive about the positive aspects of evangelicalism -- however cautious they are about other aspects.
Which only seems prudent. As we've seen, we're a diverse lot, which can veer into nutty territory at times.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It depends on their experiences of it -- quite a number are former evangelicals and some have a lot of respect for the tradition in which they grew up or found faith - others less so.
The mileage varies.
And the reverse as well, of course, when it comes to evangelicals who were raised in other denoms. Thankfully, it often changes over time. I was raised in the UCC-- one of the more liberal American mainline denoms, at the time very much part of the Social Gospel Movement. For years I had a typical evangelical disdain for my more liberal upbringing, but in recent years I've come to honor and appreciate those roots and the gifts they bring, and allowed that to shape my lefty evangelicalism. But in my Pentecostal church I still come across quite a few ex-Catholics, ex-Episcopalians, etc. who are very heavy on the "ex" part.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure - I've come across that a lot too.
Coming back to leo's list ... it does indeed seem not only Big C Catholic but also specifically Roman Catholic ...
The Orthodox, for instance, don't believe in Purgatory (although some believe in the heavenly toll-booths thing, although that's not counted as dogma ...)
So are we saying that the Orthodox are insufficiently Catholic (Big C) according to leo's criteria?
The Orthodox don't believe in the immaculate conception either and their views of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary also differ in several respects from the RC one ...
Which definition of Catholic is leo using?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which definition of Catholic is leo using?
Leo was speaking in the context of an evo priest being sent to an A-C parish. I understood him to say that many such priests were prepared to dress up in the A-C shack's tat, but would not preach or practice the "Catholic" parts of typical A-C faith.
It doesn't seem unreasonable for an A-C to want the C parts of his faith nourished even though they are not essential dogma. (And yes, obviously the C in this context is pretty close to Rome. Most A-Cs aren't terribly influenced by what the Orthies do.)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which definition of Catholic is leo using?
Leo was speaking in the context of an evo priest being sent to an A-C parish. I understood him to say that many such priests were prepared to dress up in the A-C shack's tat, but would not preach or practice the "Catholic" parts of typical A-C faith.
It doesn't seem unreasonable for an A-C to want the C parts of his faith nourished even though they are not essential dogma. (And yes, obviously the C in this context is pretty close to Rome. Most A-Cs aren't terribly influenced by what the Orthies do.)
Which, again, would be Big-C Catholic, not small-c. It's not an insignificant difference. Leo used small-c "catholic" but appears to actually mean Big-C Catholic. I have no quarrel with his list as it applies to big-C Catholicism.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Coming back to leo's list ... it does indeed seem not only Big C Catholic but also specifically Roman Catholic ...
In all the churches I have belonged to over 50 years - I think there are 5 of them - they'rfe all Anglican, not Roman.
The tragedy of the modern C of E is that it nhas lots its breadth of churchmanship so people think of anglo-catholicism as some sort of abheration.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Coming back to leo's list ... it does indeed seem not only Big C Catholic but also specifically Roman Catholic ...
In all the churches I have belonged to over 50 years - I think there are 5 of them - they'rfe all Anglican, not Roman.
The tragedy of the modern C of E is that it nhas lots its breadth of churchmanship so people think of anglo-catholicism as some sort of abheration.
So given that breadth within Anglicanism, much less Christianity as a whole, next time be a bit more careful about the small-c v. Big-C thing, huh? Again, it may seem like nit-picking but (much like the legendary iota) it really does make a difference.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
people think of anglo-catholicism as some sort of abheration.
Who said anything about Anglo-Catholicism being an aberation? The issue is whether it is appropriate to state that some distinctly Catholic doctrines (eg: intercession of the saints, real presence in the mass, purgatory, immaculate conception, the assumption, sacramental confession) should be believed by all Christians. In which case you are excluding evangelicals, and a large part of the rest of the Church, from the catholic faith. Which is, IMO, as wrong as those evangelicals who would declare ACs outside the faith because they do believe things that are not clearly taught in Scripture and contained in the historic Creeds.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Of course a relative minority of Anglicans are going to believe in those things! MOTR Anglicans, let alone evangelicals, are not. And that's fine. Anglicanism =/= Anglo-Catholicism. That IS Anglicanism being a broad church.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As has been noted upthread, this is particularly a problem when the sanctuary is also a tourist destination. Here in California, we have that problem with our historic missions (most of which have now been decommissioned for that reason).
A gentle correction: most of the California missions are still functioning as Catholic churches, either as parishes themselves or as part the local Catholic parish. At least two of them are still run by Franciscan friars: Santa Barbara (by the Friars Minor) and Santa Ynez (by the Capuchins).
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Agh. I was sure that was the case, but research proves I am mistaken. Having endured myself and then shepherded three kids through the obligatory 4th grade trip up El Camino Real, followed by the inevitable plaster-and-corregated cardboard building project, I oughta know better. They're gonna take my Disneyland parking pass away for that one.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Agh. I was sure that was the case, but research proves I am mistaken. Having endured myself and then shepherded three kids through the obligatory 4th grade trip up El Camino Real, followed by the inevitable plaster-and-corregated cardboard building project, I oughta know better. They're gonna take my Disneyland parking pass away for that one.
No worries. You weren't wrong about their problems as tourist destinations. For example, I believe at Misión Santa Bárbara the tabernacle was moved into a chapel because the presence of tourists in the nave could make prayer difficult.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Oh yeah--we tried to behave ourselves v. quietly when visiting San Luis Rey for fear of disturbing a couple of parishioners.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0