Ship of Fools: The Battle for Christianity

Thread: The Battle for Christianity 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=030072

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Did any Shipmates see Robert Beckford's epononymous documentary on BBC One last night, 10 minutes later than scheduled due to extended news coverage of the dreadful terrorist attacks in Brussels?

If so, whay did you think?

Overall, I thought it gave a reasonably broad overview of current trends and developments - church growth among migrants and marginalised communities, niche youth-based expressions of church, church plants, vibrant Polish RC congregations ... interesting social action projects ...

The emphasis was solely on the innovative, niche or controversial - so no mention of the quiet increase in cathedral congregations for instance.

Nevertheless, despite some broad-brush elements, I thought it gave a reasonably accurate impression.

I was intrigued by the comment by the academic from Lancaster -who has done a lot of research into contemporary church life in the UK. She observed how the growth in lively and enthusiastic groups was double-edged - these things 'put people off' because most people don't actually want 'religious enthusiasm.' They might want some form of religion to provide a framework and so on - but they don't necessarily want it to be the main thing that defines them.

For my own part, whilst I could understand the appeal of some of the churches and projects featured in the programme and would applaud many of the initiatives - I found most if them singularly unattractive ss places I might actually want to join - but then I'm an awkward so-and-so and been through all the lively stuff and come out the other side wondering what to do next ...

There were statements about these things not being the only way to do or be church - but one did get the impression that the loudness, lights and lairiness were put forward as the way of the future.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I did record it, and will be able to comment when I have actually watched it.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Yes, I saw it, and my reactions were the same as Gamaliel's, including the impression the academic from Lancaster made. I do so hope she's right.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

What struck me about it was an impression that could be entirely wrong on my part, but for what it might be worth it still left me unsettled. I was struck by the examples given as having so much to do with consumerism, fashion and a throw away culture. It looked to me like most of them might be irrelevant in as short a time as fifteen years because they were a kind of expression of throw away culture and appeared to have ditched much of the 'culture' of the church of the last two thousand years. It also struck me just how much of it looked like Pentecostalism and left me wondering why they stayed as Anglicans.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes, my comments echo Gamaliel's. It was a bit "bitty" (one could have made two or three programmes out of different aspects of the subject) and I thought that ++Justin was poorly edited. On the other hand there was nothing "sensationalist" about it, it was well researched, and it gave a much more positive picture of the Church than the usual doom and gloom.

What was especially good is that they got the "right" people to do this show. Beckford, Grace Davie and Linda Woodhead know their stuff, all being top-notch academics in the field of Sociology of Religion. I was surprised at Woodhead's fairly positive approach as, in the past, her department has sometimes appeared to be very negative about the prospects for religion in Britain ... but perhaps the academic discourse has changed in recent years!

I agree that there was no mention of the rise in cathedral worship (nor of more radical forms of "Fresh Expression") and, indeed, the impression was given that "traditional" worship has had its day ... and, for the vast majority of folk, that may be true. On the other hand, the emphasis on the quiet but significant work being done all over the country in Street Pastor or Food Bank schemes was commendable (they missed out Night Shelters but, hey, you can't have everything!)

We noted that this programme was not a commission but produced by the BBC itself. My wife and I heard the Head of BBC Religion speaking a year or two back (and were able to chat to him afterwards); we were impressed by his commitment to serious religious programme which went beyond the niche of "programmes for the faithful" and looked at the interaction between religion and society. I understand that there are moves afoot to downgrade his role; if that does happen it will be a shame.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I was struck by the examples given as having so much to do with consumerism, fashion and a throw away culture. It looked to me like most of them might be irrelevant in as short a time as fifteen years because they were a kind of expression of throw away culture and appeared to have ditched much of the 'culture' of the church of the last two thousand years.

I cross-posted with this: this is a real, and very difficult, question to answer - and always has been. To what extent should the Church adapt to prevailing cultural trends in order to proclaim the Gospel; and how much danger is it in of "selling its soul" or failing to challenge cultural norms by so doing?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I would recognise that a lot of it is personal too and that I might simply be one person whose approach and what I might specifically seek in a church is simply irrelevant to the vast majority of people. Most of what was shown in the programme would leave me completely cold and disengaged and it's somewhat hard to admit that I may be old and irrelevant, or the last vestige of a dying breed. I understand that it's about transition, but what really frightens me is just how much is lost in the transition or perhaps, the things I find important are now deemed unimportant and peripheral.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes, the programme raises questions about what is the "immutable esse" of the Church. Most Evangelicals would say that the forms of the Church are not of prime importance, its apostolicity residing largely in its Gospel message. This being the case, it can easily repackage itself and make its appeal more culturally relevant.

What I find interesting in this is that, although Evangelical Statements of Faith have not changed (and indeed remain highly conservative, which should delight FC's heart!) the emphasis of proclamation has changed over the years. A century ago it would have been "heavy" on sin and judgement; now it often seems to focus on self-fulfilment and Jesus offering a more "complete" life. So are these different emphases "perversions" or changes to the Gospel message, or are they sensible changes to make it more accessible in a different culture, following Paul's example of preaching in Athens?

Certainly we must ask whether traditional worship projects the image of "sacred" and "other" we fondly hope it does - to many folk it is simply "alien", "incomprehensible" and "boring".

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, that worries me too.

Our very low-church vicar is busily emptying the Anglican bath-water as he clearly thinks it's some kind of impediment to mission ...

In some ways, I would agree - at least on the structural level - but at the same time I'm concerned that he may lose some 'baby' with it ...

Not that I conflate Anglicanism with 'the baby' itself as it were ...

But you know what I mean.

The consumerist thing is a tricky one, because one could argue that some of the counter-moves to religious consumerism are themselves consumerist too - to a certain extent.

I don't know what the answer is.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Gamaliel cross-posted with me.

If his Vicar is already very low, then his bath-water presumably has less distance to flow ... [Devil]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Cross-posted with Baptist Trainfan ...

On one level, whatever style or tradition of worship we adopt - whether loud and lively or ceremonial and liturgical - we are all 'socialised' into it to some extent.

I didn't immediately start waving my arms around and dancing up and down when I first attended a charismatic service. Neither did I start lighting candles or kissing icons the first time I visited an Orthodox service.

People get acclimatised to these things.

What worries me about the louder and livelier end is that if we use that as an entry-level then where else is there to 'go' - where can you take people without them experiencing some kind of sense of 'disappointment' or let-down when the atmosphere becomes less high-octane?

Our vicar once shared an observation of his Dad's - a retired vicar - about the 1950s and '60s Billy Graham crusades. That there was a standard of professionalism and a polish about these meetings - as well as a certain liveliness - that wasn't replicated when people found themselves in parish churches, Gospel Halls or non-conformist chapels afterwards ...

I could see his point but observed that your average parish church or non-conformist chapel wouldn't have been able to put on George Beverley Shea and a massed choir of 2,000 voices every single week ...

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Gamaliel cross-posted with me.

If his Vicar is already very low, then his bath-water presumably has less distance to flow ...

He has to keep pulling the plug out as I keep turning the taps on to refill the bathtub ...

C'mon, Baptist Trainfan, get with the programme ...

[Big Grin]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

More seriously, I do think there are ways in which the novel and the experimental can tie in and dove-tail with traditional elements.

I think that forms of neo-monasticism and base-community can provide an element of that.

Obviously, it wouldn't have been possible to explore all aspects and facets of contemporary UK church-life in a single programme - as Baptist Trainfan says, there were bound to be things left out - such as Night Shelters - and I'm sure much else besides.

But I thought the programme was a welcome one and made a good fist of things.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes, I agree.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I'm going to check I've got it all recorded.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

What comes around comes around.
This story was told in the 60's after the arrival of Christians from the Caribbean, then told again in the 70's when the New Churches took off, then again in the 80's with the arrival of African Christians and then again recently with the arrival of Eastern Europeans. And most of the time it is a version of big grins and out-of-this-culture words like 'exciting' and 'amazing' and 'new'.
It seems to me that it is just a matter of time before the next wave of Christian expression appears (hopefully without too many extremes, but I am not holding my breath): meanwhile 'mainstream/traditional' Christian expressions will continue to decline.
To be fair, I live in the city and the extremes of Christianity have put me off altogether. Perhaps it's also that these new waves tend to be authoritarian.
Just the view of one who did Religious Studies at Lancaster. [Angel]

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I was struck by the examples given as having so much to do with consumerism, fashion and a throw away culture. It looked to me like most of them might be irrelevant in as short a time as fifteen years because they were a kind of expression of throw away culture and appeared to have ditched much of the 'culture' of the church of the last two thousand years.
I cross-posted with this: this is a real, and very difficult, question to answer - and always has been. To what extent should the Church adapt to prevailing cultural trends in order to proclaim the Gospel; and how much danger is it in of "selling its soul" or failing to challenge cultural norms by so doing?

In the dim and distant past I trained in cross-cultural mission (amongst other things) and I read "Christianity Rediscovered" by Vincent J. Donovan which proved one of the most influential books I have ever read.It addresses these issues and IMO it is applicable in any cultural setting be that Kenya or Southern England.

The touchstone for me is adapting the *how* of our communication of the Gospel in any given time or place but not moving from the principles of the message of Jesus- however I am well aware that there are many theological takes on what those principles might be.......

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

I cross-posted with this: this is a real, and very difficult, question to answer - and always has been. To what extent should the Church adapt to prevailing cultural trends in order to proclaim the Gospel; and how much danger is it in of "selling its soul" or failing to challenge cultural norms by so doing?

I am not sure that this necessarily addresses problem though - a lot of the examples given seemed to centre less on Christianity adopted to consumerism, than a form of Christianity as a consumer good.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Our vicar once shared an observation of his Dad's - a retired vicar - about the 1950s and '60s Billy Graham crusades. That there was a standard of professionalism and a polish about these meetings - as well as a certain liveliness - that wasn't replicated when people found themselves in parish churches, Gospel Halls or non-conformist chapels afterwards ...

I could see his point but observed that your average parish church or non-conformist chapel wouldn't have been able to put on George Beverley Shea and a massed choir of 2,000 voices every single week ...

But I think this is important, because it still applies to events like New Wine, Spring Harvest and (maybe to a lesser extent) Greenbelt.

There are a number of dangers of these type of events:

1. People come to expect their churches to be just like their conference experience. It isn't and never will be.

2. Church leaders think that by doing the same things as they see there (same music, same subjects) they can replicate it.

3. People who have powerful spiritual experiences there (and many do) come to relate "Experience of God" with "Big Event", and so struggle to find God in ordinary.

4. People relate "Experience of God" to "tired and emotional", and so don't experience him at home.

5. The success culture that these events promote infects the church. Success become numerical growth, writing books, the latest trend, instead of seeing God work in people.

I should point out I was a long-time Spring Harvest attendee and fan (20 years). I recognise some of these in myself as much as others.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I agree with all of that Schroedinger's Cat.

I used to know an Anglican chaplain who'd done a study of 'rave culture' and found similar parallels between that and charismatic church culture - including burn-out.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I’m not a fan of Beckford but I thought that this was one of his best programmes to date.

I try to understand the sort of worship that does ‘Jesus is my boyfriend’ songs with lots of hand-waving. My style is bells and smells, choral music in the classical Anglican tradition and some silence. But there are many more extroverts than introverts. So I think I want to encourage them to do Christianity in their way – let a thousand flowers bloom - so long as they don’t oppress me.

Grace Davie and Linda Woodhead were wise – though I also note that Woodhead suggested that Anglicanism started to decline once we introduced ‘modern’ language Parish Communion. Fringers were more able to come to Choral Matins whereas our eucharists seem to be for ‘members only’.

As an anglo-catholic, I think my section of the church is to do what we do best – only do it better – more transcendence – Benediction of the MBS as a ‘fresh expression’ anybody?

There was also good stuff about radical critique of the causes of poverty – going beyond food banks which relieve the symptoms like sticking plaster but that doesn’t staunch the wound.

[ 23. March 2016, 17:07: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I’m not a fan of Beckford but I thought that this was one of his best programmes to date.

I try to understand the sort of worship that does ‘Jesus is my boyfriend’ songs with lots of hand-waving. My style is bells and smells, choral music in the classical Anglican tradition and some silence. But there are many more extroverts than introverts. So I think I want to encourage them to do Christianity in their way – let a thousand flowers bloom - so long as they don’t oppress me.

Grace Davie and Linda Woodhead were wise – though I also note that Woodhead suggested that Anglicanism started to decline once we introduced ‘modern’ language Parish Communion. Fringers were more able to come to Choral Matins whereas our eucharists seem to be for ‘members only’.

As an anglo-catholic, I think my section of the church is to do what we do best – only do it better – more transcendence – Benediction of the MBS as a ‘fresh expression’ anybody?

There was also good stuff about radical critique of the causes of poverty – going beyond food banks which relieve the symptoms like sticking plaster but that doesn’t staunch the wound.

I don't think 'Jesus is my boyfriend' songs are about extroversion but emotional - it's about an emotional response to God rather than a rational/theological one. I certainly see a thread of that dramatic and emotional response to God running through Catholicism and into Wesleyanism and then into Pentecostalism - hence charismatic Catholicism. I think it's Heavenly Anarchist who has spoken about finding it easier to blend into a charismatic church as an introvert than a small church - certainly I know plenty of charismatic introverts.

Ultimately worship nourishes the soul, or should do - and for people from backgrounds where they had to repress their emotions in some way, 'Jesus is my boyfriend' type stuff can be really healing.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I’m not a fan of Beckford but I thought that this was one of his best programmes to date.

I try to understand the sort of worship that does ‘Jesus is my boyfriend’ songs with lots of hand-waving. My style is bells and smells, choral music in the classical Anglican tradition and some silence. But there are many more extroverts than introverts. So I think I want to encourage them to do Christianity in their way – let a thousand flowers bloom - so long as they don’t oppress me.

Grace Davie and Linda Woodhead were wise – though I also note that Woodhead suggested that Anglicanism started to decline once we introduced ‘modern’ language Parish Communion. Fringers were more able to come to Choral Matins whereas our eucharists seem to be for ‘members only’.

As an anglo-catholic, I think my section of the church is to do what we do best – only do it better – more transcendence – Benediction of the MBS as a ‘fresh expression’ anybody?

There was also good stuff about radical critique of the causes of poverty – going beyond food banks which relieve the symptoms like sticking plaster but that doesn’t staunch the wound.
I don't think 'Jesus is my boyfriend' songs are about extroversion but emotional - it's about an emotional response to God rather than a rational/theological one. I certainly see a thread of that dramatic and emotional response to God running through Catholicism and into Wesleyanism and then into Pentecostalism - hence charismatic Catholicism. I think it's Heavenly Anarchist who has spoken about finding it easier to blend into a charismatic church as an introvert than a small church - certainly I know plenty of charismatic introverts.

Ultimately worship nourishes the soul, or should do - and for people from backgrounds where they had to repress their emotions in some way, 'Jesus is my boyfriend' type stuff can be really healing.

My problem with this analysis is that the expression of worship in these churches demands participation - you cannot be an onlooker without feeling very uncomfortable. So, if you stay you get sucked in and the authoritarian nature of the group demands more and more involvement (on their terms, of course). This presumably is fine if you are extrovert but not if you are of an introvert tendancy ISTM.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mark Wuntoo: My problem with this analysis is that the expression of worship in these churches demands participation - you cannot be an onlooker without feeling very uncomfortable. So, if you stay you get sucked in and the authoritarian nature of the group demands more and more involvement (on their terms, of course). This presumably is fine if you are extrovert but not if you are of an introvert tendancy ISTM.

I'm an extrovert but this is definitely not fine for me.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

LeRoc: Sure thing! And I bet you wouldn't leave your brain at the door if you went in [Biased]

I didn't mean to imply that all extroverts are happy with such expressions.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mark Wuntoo: I didn't mean to imply that all extroverts are happy with such expressions.

OK. I'm in Africa a lot and this is one of the reasons I don't go much to Protestant churches there (coupled with being called on stage as a visitor and being expected to bare your whole spiritual life there).

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I've just been watching this on the iplayer.

I don't watch many TV documentaries, because they seem to imagine that people have got an incredibly short attention span, so just continually cut from one thing to the next every few seconds.

This was an unintelligible mess of different ideas. There was no real narrative. There was no real point which was to be found out, there was no journey from A to B to C. It was just some apparently randomly chosen churches (how representative are these of.. anything at all?) together with a bunch of incredibly badly cut interviews with some bishops and other boffins. At one point the ABofC was made to look like he was talking about a "dechristianised church" - which was obviously just a verbal slip when both he and the interviewer were talking about the possibility of a "dechristianised country".

Personally, I'd have liked to have spent some time hearing some more about some of these examples; the Hillsongs church, the farm church thingy, the Polish Catholic congregation. Not just cutting around, not just talking heads - some actual time to contemplate what the people are saying and what the churches are experiencing.

As it was, it just felt like a TV crew who have been given a large travel budget, a few afternoon interviews with a few people and a scatterbrained producer who says "we'll have a bit of this, and a bit of that and a bit of this.."

Don't care. Didn't think it said anything of any use with regard to the thesis of there being a "battle for Christianity".

I'll get my cocoa and settle back in front of the radio, where the pictures are better.

Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :

I thought it was a really interesting programme. With regard to looking at the causes of problems, rather than sticking on a plaster, I read somewhere (cant remember where) that one can only pull so many bodies out of the river before it becomes imperative to go upriver and find out who is pushing them in!
I count as an introvert on the MB scale, that is I am refreshed by being on my own, but I cannot stand choral evensong, BCP or anything with lots of twiddly bits. I find that most lively worship services are perfectly fine with someone sitting quietly and listening. Most people are so involved in their own worship that they don't really care what other people are doing.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Mark Wuntoo - there are quite a variety of churches that use that kind of worship music, not all are authoritarian or demand participation. I went to Oasis in Waterloo (Steve Chalke's place) and it was very laid back and touchy-feely - no demands on participation or authoritarianess.

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

I found it an interesting watch. Having been living outside the UK for nearly 10 years and planning on returning to live there this summer I thought it was (I hope) a catch up of at least of some of the things happening in the UK church scene. Bound to be limited and incomplete in a programme that is only an hour long of course!

Also was happy to see featured on it a former curate of a church we went to. Nice to see a little of what he is involved in now. And I thought I recognised one of the churches that appeared without being named and checking online later confirmed it is the local parish church in the place we are going back to live in the summer!

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Ok, I have watched it and I am unimpressed. I would agree that there was no real narrative through it - it was a series of stories with no real point or context.

The problem with a number of the churches is that they are aimed at a younger audience. While one person did say they need to readdress how to reach young people in 40 years time, the problem is as much whether the young people they are catering for NOW will continue to express a faith when they have moved out of that culture.

The other challenge, I think, is that so much of the numerical stability of the churches seems to be from immigrants. I have nothing against immigrants, but I wonder if they will become ghetto churches, catering for particular groups (not unlike the afro-carribean churches have often become).

Is there a battle for Christianity? IMO, no more than ever. It is just rather more public today. Is the church dying? Absolutely, in its current form. There is nothing in this program that convinces me otherwise, or that any of these projects offers a future. What is more, some of them look very like personality-led churches, and I am not convinced that they will the generation change (when the leader moves on).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The extent to which people are left alone to participate or not as they see fit in lively, charismatic churches tends to vary.

Some places are quite laid-back, others quite intrusive.

The mileage varies. I don't object to lively worship provided it doesn't veer into manipulative territory - but given the choice these days, I'd go for choral evensong or something liturgical. The worship-song medley style no longer 'does' it for me, I'm afraid - but as long as it isn't hurting anyone ...

I do wonder, though, how much of 'the whole counsel of God' people get these days - what with lectionaries and the calender ignored in many places and expository preaching in many evangelical circles replaced with ra-ra-rah pep talks.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The programme was bitty, but not as incoherent as some have claimed, I don't think - there were recaps, introductions ... but the editing was grim - among the worst I've seen.

I do wonder how sustainable some of these groups are but then, how sustainable are any forms of church these days.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

Baptist Trainfan wrote

quote:
To what extent should the Church adapt to prevailing cultural trends in order to proclaim the Gospel; and how much danger is it in of "selling its soul" or failing to challenge cultural norms by so doing?

I'm with Mrs Beaky on this, and Donovan's book is a classic for cross cultural mission. Jesus lived in a cultural context and his Gospel has always been commmunicated in cultural contexts. The difficulties come when one context becomes the default standard.

When today's 'Western' throwaway consumerism is the context, then perhaps some of the communications will inevitably reflect that. So the challenge is to present the cutting edge of the gospel of Jesus in a suitable way that reflects its unchanging and lasting nature.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The programme was bitty, but not as incoherent as some have claimed, I don't think - there were recaps, introductions ... but the editing was grim - among the worst I've seen.

I normally don't 'do' TV for exactly these reasons. I watched this one because I saw it referenced elsewhere - and tbh I don't think it was particularly bad as such things go. Perhaps I have a very low expectation though, most documentaries are bitty by their very nature.

quote:

I do wonder how sustainable some of these groups are but then, how sustainable are any forms of church these days.

If they dont' have both kids and people over the age of 30/40/50/whatever, probably not very.

However, I wonder if we are a little prone to overexaggerate the lifetimes of past movements. What we see - are by their very nature - the survivors. Yes, things are more ephemeral now, but they were always more ephemeral than we might think if all we consider are institutions over a hundred years old.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
However, I wonder if we are a little prone to overexaggerate the lifetimes of past movements. What we see - are by their very nature - the survivors. Yes, things are more ephemeral now, but they were always more ephemeral than we might think if all we consider are institutions over a hundred years old.

The problem is, to my mind, that these ephemeral movements seem to be the only places that the church is growing. Which means that when a number of them fail, it will have a major impact on the church as a whole.

If, as the program is suggesting (and I suspect to be true) these groups are the only ones showing growth, they are skewing the figures. What will happen at HTB, for example, if there isn't another Nicky Gumbel to take over?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

If, as the program is suggesting (and I suspect to be true) these groups are the only ones showing growth, they are skewing the figures. What will happen at HTB, for example, if there isn't another Nicky Gumbel to take over?

A lot of their church plants seem to do reasonably well, I don't see why HTB couldn't continue to self-perpetuate itself (at the very least) post Gumbel.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

And Gumbel was post-Sandy Millar

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And Gumbel was post-Sandy Millar

I believe Gumbel and Millar were in it together, then Millar went. Not quite the same, ISTM, as the death of a single charismatic leader - after which organisations tend to diminish.
Not at all sure about HTB self-perpetuating. It just doesn't happen like that in so many cases. Thus 'what comes around, comes around'.
And there is always 'the circulation of the saints' as two eminent sociologists described trends many years ago. (Leaving aside the waves of immigration.)

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And Gumbel was post-Sandy Millar

They were together, and made it what it is between them. Once they have both gone, someone needs to replace them.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And Gumbel was post-Sandy Millar
They were together, and made it what it is between them. Once they have both gone, someone needs to replace them.

But again, the various church plants they have engaged in show that they have at least some aptitude at growing leaders within the group. So I don't think you are looking at a Westminster Chapel like scenario.

They'll survive, they appeal to a particular demographic - of the increasingly well healed.
They may no longer have the advantage of a well known figurehead, but other large evangelical churches in London have survived the same thing.

There be some dispersion of the wider movement, but as a church in itself HTB is reasonably solid.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'd agree with Chris. Equally, there's more to charismatic evangelicalism in the UK than HTB.

FWIW, I suspect though, that many of today's HTB types will be less HTB-ish in five or 10 years time

I doubt if their demographic will change a great deal though.

My guess would be that many of today's charismatics will gradually tone things down over time - with some moving away from revivalism towards principled forms of social action - rather as the Quakers did. Others, though, will head off into charismatic hyper-drive, some even losing all semblance of rooted and grounded traditional Christianity. The language will remain Christian, but it'll be a thin patina on top of a somewhat fey, super-spiritualised self-help philosophy.

Still others will succeedvin marrying innovation with traditional and more incarnational Christian concerns. The future will be mixed - just as the past has been.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

The programme showed how diverse the Church is, how we are reaching out to different age groups and cultures as well as continuing to cater for existing congregations. It did seem to indicate that the way forward was pop religion, but in the same way that pop music may evolve and mature, so may pop religion. And classical never went away.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Raptor Eye: in the same way that pop music may evolve and mature

Pop music may not be a good example (I hope you're not calling present-day pop music mature?)

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Raptor Eye: in the same way that pop music may evolve and mature
Pop music may not be a good example (I hope you're not calling present-day pop music mature?)

It may mature and evolve, if immature now, as might we.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

I enjoyed it, and if I didn't have a new baby and Holy Week I would have blogged on it.

There was very little on new growth in sacramental expressions of church, or on what anchors the ecstatic in the mundane (that would be the sacramental again).

Ultimately a lot of the 'new' worship shown was a natural development of the post-toronto 'youth' worship movement. I appreciate it and value it, but out of it has come repeated movements to re-engage with the Tradition (or to be more provocative the faith of the early church).

A coming together of the Charismatic and the Catholic seems natural to me, and certainly works in the context I am in. It also strikes me as a mode achievable ideal than Hillsongs for the local church.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Edward Green--

Congrats on the new baby, and blessings! [Smile]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yayyy! Congratulations on the new baby, Edward. I hope Mrs Green and the infant are doing well.

Keep drawing on the Tradition ... and on the charismatic.

I know I'm probably seen as a post-charismatic here aboard Ship, but I'm probably still as charismatic as I've been ... it's just that I see these things more in terms of the numinous in the mundane - and God being everywhere and filling all things ... rather than the exercise of particular gifts and practices ...

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm in Africa a lot and this is one of the reasons I don't go much to Protestant churches there (coupled with being called on stage as a visitor and being expected to bare your whole spiritual life there).

There is a classic trick of asking visitors to raise their hands. (Can't be any harm in that one thinks). Then once hands are in the air for all to see they are asked to stand up. (OK, not too bad).

Then once standing they are invited to the front to greet the church and say a ward or to.

Response range from a wave, "Praise the Lord"-type-of-greeting and a swift return to the seat through to suspending proceedings for a 15-minute mini-sermon.

Introversion and extroversion seem to mean different things in different cultures.

Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :

An interesting programme, It is interesting to me that although I have been out of the church 'scene' for 10 or 15 years this documentary showed that not a lot has changed, the same old debates, the same 'trendy' styles, even the same names and faces involved!

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Don't honestly know what the title 'Battle for Christianity' was all about. There is a demand for charismatic worship, there isn't a demand for traditional worship. Hardly worth getting swords out and smoting each other. Besides which in-fighting among Christrians is as old as Christianity itself.

More like the Battle for TV ratings. It was mildly interesting to see how across-the-pond evangelism is faring in the UK, switched it off before the end.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

I watched it on the old iplayer, with Children A & B (aged 12 & 10). Their responses were interesting - eye rolling and slow handclapping from the 12 year old at the whole bakery won't bake a cake for a gay couple case. She also said "Enough with the cheesy music already", but then she was watching whilst reading Kerrang!.....

One of the bits that interested me most, perhaps because I was watching with the childer, was the Hillsong East London outreach to the young people; the Fearless project. They had identified low self esteem as an issue for their young people & were working to give them feelings of worth. This is a Good Thing, but the parallels with a lot of Child A's music were quite striking - taking a bunch of misfits & making them feel that they matter. The chief difference possibly being that My Chemical Romance have far better tunes.

Perhaps I am a miserable git. No perhaps about it actually, I am. But what I would also like church to be about is to give people purpose - to move from I am worth something to "and I can do something". It was all very introverted. It's that business of - Ok, we leave these things at the cross, what do we then pick up? This is an ongoing irritation for me at my low CofE place - one of Gamaliel's earlier posts resonated with me. Having dispensed with the lectionary and many other things, we're left with pep talks.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

Just realised I meant to say introspective, not introverted, sorry! I'd been reading the introverts hell thread.....

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
The chief difference possibly being that My Chemical Romance have far better tunes.

I think that is one of my problems with this - why would they continue going to this, when they can go and see some professional musicians doing the same sort of think only better?

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

I guess Hillsong's answer (to second guess them, which is unfair) would be along the lines that the other identities of outsider / emo / alternative rocker / whatever, are based on passing things, where as their identity is based on Christ. And, again in fairness to Hillsong, their work may go much further than that in terms of teaching & equipping people to go and live the Christian life. That wasn't evident in the telly programme, but may have been edited out.

But the Hillsong work still seems to me to be about identity politics. This istm is incredibly important to many people (at least from my own experience with Child A) - but is it really what church should do? Is the identity stuff another cultural appropriation which risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater? I'm reminded both of Fr Weber's comment in another thread about the relevance of Christianity

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
"Is Christianity relevant?" is the wrong question. The question is whether it is true.

and the good Fr's excellent signature.

[Incidentally, on the musical accomplishment front, I suspect the Hillsong band(s) are very good. Whether it's the type of music I like is best reserved for the DH thread where I may have contributed extensively. [Biased]

]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The programme went out quite late so hardly an attempt to garner TV ratings ... it wasn't prime-time TV.

That said, yes the title was sensationalist but the programme itself wasn't.

Meanwhile, I completely concur with Jemima the 9th.

To be fair, a lot of evangelical churches can marshal and motivate people to get out and do ...but the nature of the subculture is such that church life can take over to the point that people have hardly any time for anything else. Been there, done that ...

Some of the outfits on the programme seemed more holistic than others - but the level of intensity could appear a bit cult-like.

I quite liked the idea of that farm-church Fresh Expression thingy, but would run a mile from those sort of services these days.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

I've now finally seen it on iPlayer, and give the programme a positive review. Obviously, it was very pro-Church (with some critical notes), which was no doubt a reflection of the moderator's outlook , but after the full hour I think that this was far more constructive than the usual tear-them-apart attitudes to church that appear to populated our media landscape.
I found the programme's content challenging in as far as it was a cue for me to reflect on what is essential to a Church which aspires to be a force that makes the world a better place, and how I can be part of that with my limited time and energy.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

One other thing that I wondered about were the bits about the cake and the cinema prayer ad. On the one hand, the Ulster bakery was legally obliged to bake a cake carrying a message (potentially political) with which they did not agree, while the cinemas were able to flatly reject the CoE film on the basis that it was religious/political.
What is sauce for the goose is surely sauce for the gander.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

The question over the prayer video is surely this: did the film distribution change its policy after the video was commissioned (in which case it was a "ban") or did the CofE expect them to run it despite its policy?

This article could be of interest.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
One other thing that I wondered about were the bits about the cake and the cinema prayer ad. On the one hand, the Ulster bakery was legally obliged to bake a cake carrying a message (potentially political) with which they did not agree, while the cinemas were able to flatly reject the CoE film on the basis that it was religious/political.
What is sauce for the goose is surely sauce for the gander.

A good point!

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What an outrageous FALSE comparison.

Between homophobia and weird, unaware, money burning, Evangelical piety.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
One other thing that I wondered about were the bits about the cake and the cinema prayer ad. On the one hand, the Ulster bakery was legally obliged to bake a cake carrying a message (potentially political) with which they did not agree, while the cinemas were able to flatly reject the CoE film on the basis that it was religious/political.
What is sauce for the goose is surely sauce for the gander.

I think, on the face of it, the Ulster Bakery should be perfectly allowed not to take an order that it didn't want. I suspect the truth is that they accepted the order and then refused to ice it as requested. that is a breach of contract.

Of course, CC played it up as an attack on Christianity. But I am not sure that it was in fact about the slogan, it was more about contract law.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What, allowed to be commercially homophobic?

[ 27. March 2016, 12:07: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

This battle for Christianity is hardly the Reformation relived, thank God. People just want to have a good time, and why shouldn' they.
Ah yes, throw the cake thing in just to stir the shite, that's what programme makers and cutting room bods do best.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What, we should let the Christian shite lie?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What, allowed to be commercially homophobic?

They are allowed to state that they will not take orders for cakes with messages that they disagree with. Just like the advertising agency is allowed to state that it refuses advertising that does not fall within its guidelines.

If a shop were to indicate this, I would not patronise it, and I am sure many others wouldn't. Commercially, it would probably be a disaster.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Er, if it's legal, how come it's ... illegal?

Despite Peter Tatchell's moving change of heart in defense of their right!

Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :

If Asher's bakery had a policy that they did not accept any orders relating to marriage then they would not be in breach of the Equalities Act. But once you discriminate against one particular sort of marriage, and not all of them, you are discriminating on a characteristic on which you cannot do so (in this case, sexuality). The cinema chain has a policy that it accepts no religious advertising, so it is not discriminating against Christians, as the same treatment could be expected by any other faith group. That does not conflict with the Equalities Act.

The law is there to stop businesses refusing service due to a protected characteristic only. Such as the oft quoted example of 1960s boarding houses with "No Irish, No Dogs, No Blacks" signs. Being unreasonable, however, is not protected, so reserving the right not to provide a service for unreasonable customers (i.e. ones who abuse staff) is OK. Political opinion is also not protected, so if the BNP wanted to hire your village hall for a meeting you are at liberty to refuse. Except, of course, in Northern Ireland, where (I believe) political views are also protected, owing to the troubled history of the province.

For me Asher's were being disingenuous, claiming that they didn't want to make a cake that was supporting something contrary to their religious views. I'm sure they have made plenty of wedding cakes for couples remarrying after divorce.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
So much of the numerical stability of the churches seems to be from immigrants. I have nothing against immigrants, but I wonder if they will become ghetto churches, catering for particular groups (not unlike the afro-carribean churches have often become).

I'm not sure it's meaningful to say that African Caribbean churches have often become 'ghetto churches'.

Firstly, most of them are part of American denominations which are still largely white in the USA. In fact, some black British theologians think the white American influence - or the inheritance of a British colonial mindset - is a far greater problem than the racial makeup of black congregations.

Secondly, 'African Caribbean' is a label which contains its own diversity. A Jamaican is not a Trinidadian or an Antiguan. Moreover, although these churches often grew as a result of black people joining them, they often claimed to be churches of 'whosoever will'. Some of their members may be uneasy about an emphasis on their church's 'Caribbean/black/black-led' identity.

These days, too, ecumenical relationships are a feature of church life in cities, a reality which works against ghettoisation.

Regarding the TV programme, I've been reflecting on the title. It was presumably meant to refer to a battle for souls (a term Beckford used at one point) and/or the battles with secular society highlighted by the lawsuits mentioned in the show. The problem of empty pews wasn't presented as a battle, though. And perhaps cathedral worship wasn't mentioned because CofE cathedrals don't fit easily into a discourse about battles with the culture?

The emphasis on immigrants, Londoners and well-heeled Brits in the countryside was telling. Worship in Brum was mentioned, but the show implied that the indigenous population in the underprivileged provinces relates to the church as a provider of social rather than religious assistance. One wonders how long the churches in these places will be able to provide such assistance if they're unable or unwilling to make converts. After all, the work doesn't happen by itself.

[ 01. April 2016, 21:40: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think, in some places, the church has become a "ghetto church" - this is not referring to the afro-carribean churches, but to all of them, including the White Anglican ones.

Svetlana - I do take all your points, but I was partly thinking of a church that meets across the road from me. I know of nobody who goes there, Or who has been there in the past (which in my area, is very unusual - I have connections with all sorts of churches). Most people drive in, and they have a style of worship that would not appeal to me (which is not a criticism, as it appeals to them).

When I used to live in East London, there was another church that was similarly introvert in style, extrovert in worship. I never knew anyone from there either.

I think what I meant by a Ghetto Church is that they focus on their congregation needs, and possibly the slightly wider needs of the social group these people come from. Like many Anglican churches do, in fact. And it is a problem there too.

So I didn't mean it pejoratively with respect to the afro-carribean churches. I know some of the history, and I know who is to blame (us). But it is a bad route to be going down.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

I suspect that traditionalist C of E churches, who ask for alternative episcopal oversight, are at particular risk of becoming ghetto churches in the way that Schrodinger's Cat is talking about.

They tend to be much more interested in their own internal order than in the outside world, from my experience. This is indeed one of the main elements that keeps me out of them, aside from certain DH issues.

Sometimes I wonder what such churches bring to the wider church, and indeed the world, and why a church should tear itself apart to facilitate their existence.

I'm not saying that this is a universal characteristic of such churches, but it's what I've seen, and what has made me wonder.

One contrary question that necessarily arises is whether any church has any chance of being anything but a ghetto church, in SC's sense. Are churches permitted by the wider culture to contribute to it in a generous, open spirit, or is the very concept of a church so threatening to that culture that barriers arise before generosity is possible? Has this pitch of paranoia been reached?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Svitlana and S'sCat: you might find this article, written by a respected Baptist pastor, to be helpful.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

I think what I meant by a Ghetto Church is that they focus on their congregation needs, and possibly the slightly wider needs of the social group these people come from. Like many Anglican churches do, in fact. And it is a problem there too.

So I didn't mean it pejoratively with respect to the afro-carribean churches. I know some of the history, and I know who is to blame (us). But it is a bad route to be going down.

What you've said reminds me that churches are interesting places in that they reveal how like attracts like, while also offering a mixture of diverse social relationships that you're unlikely to find outside church. This is surely true even for church that appears to attract an exclusive set of people none of whom belong to your own social circle. In a postmodern culture no church is quite as monochrome as it seems from the outside....

I'm also inclined to say that a church which supports and uplifts members of a socially disadvantaged racio-cultural community can hardly be described as a 'bad'. It's been said that such churches have helped to integrate their members into the wider society. These churches also offer a chance for worshippers to validate forms of religious cultural expression that would otherwise be denied and/or denigrated.

As Baptist Trainfan's link shows, if these churches try to tone things down to appeal to white visitors, they may fail to offer the spiritual and indeed societal encouragement needed by their black members. A largely white, middle class congregation is unlikely to face quite the same problem if it decides to 'diversify' (although, of course, changing worship styles is controversial in any church context). A white church may gradually become multi-racial, but becoming multi-cultural is harder.

If we were to discuss what the church's role is regarding 'the community', I'd suggest that although all Christians must be of service, traditional, normative denominations have a different role from that of newer churches with a less advantaged cultural, financial or racial status. The CofE has the history, the cultural permission and (in theory) the money to see itself as the 'provider' for everyone in a particular community. I'm not convinced that all congregations of all denominations should necessarily aim for the same sort of all-purpose, no-strings outreach. It depends on a number of internal and external factors.

That being said, the majority of churchgoers of African Caribbean descent in Britain now attend churches belonging to the historical, traditionally white denominations. The TV show didn't highlight this.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
That being said, the majority of churchgoers of African Caribbean descent in Britain now attend churches belonging to the historical, traditionally white denominations. The TV show didn't highlight this.

True, although I can think of a number of such churches which are "new congregations" that have started up within the older denominations - for instance Trinity Baptist in south London and Calvary Charismatic in Poplar.

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

Digging to find references for something else, I found this (Guardian) article from 2006 by Michael Hampson, discussing his book Last Rites: the End of the Church of England.

His take is that the Church of England has moved from supporting the marginalised and weak (HIV, miners) in the 1980s to being more reactionary than any time since the Civil War. He concluded that:

quote:
This reversal is a tragedy of enormous proportions. A 400-year-old liberal Anglican tradition has been destroyed in 20 years by an entirely novel, entirely alien, evangelical fundamentalism. It is truly last rites for the Church of England ...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Don't worry, the mantle has fallen COMPLETELY on Steve Chalke from away-with-fairies, magic thinking, pious, platitudinous, homophobic, exceptionalist, gnostic, exclusive, huddled, closed, placist, paternalist, rich, privileged, helpless, crypto-damnationist warmongers.

And yes I am familiar with projection.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Digging to find references for something else, I found this (Guardian) article from 2006 by Michael Hampson, discussing his book Last Rites: the End of the Church of England.

His take is that the Church of England has moved from supporting the marginalised and weak (HIV, miners) in the 1980s to being more reactionary than any time since the Civil War.

That's a very interesting book, but the TV programme was careful to show that the CofE does still care about social things - we were given an insight into a CofE Street Pastors ministry, as well as a type of food bank.

If you're just looking at the homosexuality issue, though, then the CofE has seemingly become more divided. (That a more evangelical denomination like the Baptists is divided over this issue is surely not surprising.)

Unfortunately, though, the numerical and other weaknesses in the CofE are most apparent at the 'non-reactionary' end. It's hard to represent the dominant ethos of your denomination when you're struggling with a range of problems. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that the public image of the CofE is of a solidly reactionary institution. Out of date, boring, middle class, left wingers, Tories at prayer, friendly, etc., are terms that might also emerge from ordinary people who have any thoughts about the CofE at all.

[ 03. April 2016, 12:35: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, I agree with that. As far as attitudes/impressions of the CofE go, there are all sorts of regional variations and socio-economic factors that play into the perception.

For example, I've met plenty of people who aren't aware - or are only vaguely aware - that there is even an evangelical or charismatic element within the CofE. I'm sure there are lots of other examples ...

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
This reversal is a tragedy of enormous proportions. A 400-year-old liberal Anglican tradition has been destroyed in 20 years by an entirely novel, entirely alien, evangelical fundamentalism. It is truly last rites for the Church of England ...

How can any movements retreat within the church be anyone's fault but that movement? Secular theology failed to produce converts and vocations. It failed to envision people to invest time, talents or money.

So whilst I affirm the theological contribution of secular theology it doesn't actually work for parish churches. It's a bit like the cathedral music tradition. Wonderful and enriching in context, but not great in a typical community church (and the same could be said about Contemporary Worship).

In parish ministry I encounter people who have been told that God doesn't intervene in the world, that the scriptures are not trustworthy even within the intentions of the original authors and that the sacraments are just symbols. I am not convinced that it has done them much good.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If you're just looking at the homosexuality issue, though, then the CofE has seemingly become more divided. (That a more evangelical denomination like the Baptists is divided over this issue is surely not surprising.)

The majority of Creedal Evangelicals and Catholics in the church support the ordination of women. Catholics tend to see the 'de-genderization' of one sacrament as applicable to another - marriage. I suspect Evangelicals will follow.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

The takeover of the C of E by extremist evangelicals is no more the fault of liberals than is the tendency of Japanese knotweed to take over gardens the fault of the soil in which it occurs. By that, I mean that it's an alien force to which our religious culture had no immunity.

My reaction may sound extreme, but it's my reaction. The liberal turn was, and still in its remaining adherents, an attempt to re-imagine, re-pray, re-express the religious impulse to engage with God and the traditions of the church accumulated over its 2000 year history in ways that engage with the whole of creation, rather than reinforcing the identity and functioning of the church. In its sacramentalist turn, which is what engaged me, it affirms the fundamental link between the sacraments of the church and the everyday experiences of human life, and in particular with psychological processes. This is by its nature a fragile and provisional process, though I believe it has greater capacity for longevity than the evangelical movement because it engages with a far greater part of human reality. In my hopeful moments, because I believe it to be more authentic, I see it outlasting the evangelical turn, albeit in less than full health.

The evangelical movement, in my opinion, is doing the love of God no favour by reinforcing the institution of the church at the expense of nearly everything else. It may even be a faustian pact.

If we can't do better than this, we deserve to fail.

I appreciate this will be offensive to evangelicals, but I can't express in any other way how much of a dead end I think HTB and all its works are, because they reinforce institutional identity and the requirement for individuals to identify with the institutional church above everything else. It recruits many things in support of this process, including the expression of certain emotions, but again these are modified, even denatured, and effused, rather than being engaged and processed.

[ 15. April 2016, 20:05: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Thunderbunk - I'm intrigued by your last paragraph, and by Edward Green's post before, which both happened to touch on some of my own more recent musings. I'll give it some more thought.

But in passing, I think you overstate the position with regard to evangelicalism in the CofE. To take your knotweed analogy further, the reason any plant flourishes to the exclusion of others is due to the absence of effective competition. Knotweed cannot take over the world, but it can make a royal mess of gardens, which are essentially repositories of highly-bred forms of growth unsuited to life in the wild. But don't read too much into any analogy.

In any event, what's with this "foreign" epithet? The CofE effectively has three historical roots, of which the Calvinistic was always one from the start. At certain times it has almost eclipsed the others. It's not my tradition, but whatever you may think of it, foreign it ain't.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

In terms of foreignness, I was thinking more culturally than theologically. It is, at least, foreign to the Church of England's cultural ecology, if not to England's.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
In terms of foreignness, I was thinking more culturally than theologically. It is, at least, foreign to the Church of England's cultural ecology, if not to England's.

OK - you are using "liberal" in its broadest context I assume.

Even so, the relative balance between the different wings of the CofE has not been static. There was the great 18th century evangelical revival in England before it which probably disrupted the existing ecology more than the current rise of evangelicalism has done. It too fell into decline in its own time.

Actually if there is one thing any of these wings show consistently, it is the ability to become self-absorbed and institutionally effete. They all need a good dose of reality from time to time to survive.

I guess I'm saying - be of good cheer! The old may be passing away, but if it is it is because it is fatally attached to something moribund. It's the job of those that remain to prune that off in order to hold on to what is good.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Apologies for the double post, but I'm not saying that I think the liberal movement within the C of E has been any good at all at ensuring its continued progress and even existence. I think Rowan Williams's archiepiscopacy was both typical and a kind of swansong, as we are discovering to my horror.

My feelings on the subject are complex. The typical element was his complete lack of self-confidence and his obsession with only ever listening to those he disagreed with, which completely sapped his confidence in his own position. He also became obsessed with certain elements of the catholic understanding of episcopacy, in particular the role as a focus of unity, which again prevented him from ever actually doing anything. If the liberal turn has a besetting fault, it is that it is afraid of its own insights, and insists on excessive debate before going as far as empirical experience. Also faults of my own.

The wholesale waste of the opportunity of the kind of liberal re-imagining of the sacraments that started in the late 80s and on into the 90s is an opportunity which the church is ruing, and will continue to, because it was the prime opportunity to engage with people who will never be engaged by Alpha and its minions. In the meantime, it has become so much harder from a cultural point of view to develop relational experiences that anything like that seems to be on an indefinite hiatus, though I do find the lack of any kind of vigour in that direction (i.e. a true liberal sacramentalism, as I described before) an occasion for great grief.

I am aware that this is not coherent, and I apologise, but hopefully as the thread develops, so will my coherence.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
So whilst I affirm the theological contribution of secular theology it doesn't actually work for parish churches. It's a bit like the cathedral music tradition. Wonderful and enriching in context, but not great i a typical community church (and the same could be said about Contemporary Worship).

In parish ministry I encounter people who have been told that God doesn't intervene in the world, that the scriptures are not trustworthy even within the intentions of the original authors and that the sacraments are just symbols. I am not convinced that it has done them much good.

As an average churchgoer, though, what I'd like would be a discussion about what secular theology actually is. I didn't know it had a name, despite being in the middle of Tillich's Shaking of the Foundations book, and finding it fascinating, and full of ideas that I have never encountered in my parish church. A couple of years ago, a friend started a Theology Book Club, which is run monthly by a retired priest who remains PTO. I love it. It's hardly undergraduate study level stuff, but we've read Vincent Donovan, Rowan Williams, Tom Wright, Evelyn Underhill, Paul Tillich..... The ideas we discuss are almost never addressed in sermons.

I could be being overly prickly, but I would also like to decide for myself what might be good for me, if that's alright... [Biased]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Thunderbunk, if you are not too upset by my bluntness, I don't think you're appreciating or engaging with something important that Honest Ron Bacardi has just said about the range of tradition in the Church of England.

The only periods when the sort of theological liberalism whose eclipse you are regretting, achieved much of an eminence in the CofE were the first two quarters of the C18 and the middle two in the C20. It does not, historically have the sort of monopoly you are imagining. Any evaluation of what either the CofE or Anglicanism stand for must include various other strands that go into the tradition.

Perhaps regrettably, I am afraid that also include spiritual complacency.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Thunderbunk, if you are not too upset by my bluntness, I don't think you're appreciating or engaging with something important that Honest Ron Bacardi has just said about the range of tradition in the Church of England.

The only periods when the sort of theological liberalism whose eclipse you are regretting, achieved much of an eminence in the CofE were the first two quarters of the C18 and the middle two in the C20. It does not, historically have the sort of monopoly you are imagining. Any evaluation of what either the CofE or Anglicanism stand for must include various other strands that go into the tradition.

Perhaps regrettably, I am afraid that also include spiritual complacency.

The Church of England is a complex entity, or chain of entities, and I make no claim to a great deal of knowledge. I am also very aware that I am talking quite specifically about a moment. My defence for this is that it is the moment mentioned in the original post - the moment characterised by the publication of the Faith in the City report, and the decline that the liberal wing has experienced since then.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Fret not ThunderBunk. God is in the desert.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Thunderbunk, if you are not too upset by my bluntness, I don't think you're appreciating or engaging with something important that Honest Ron Bacardi has just said about the range of tradition in the Church of England.

The only periods when the sort of theological liberalism whose eclipse you are regretting, achieved much of an eminence in the CofE were the first two quarters of the C18 and the middle two in the C20. It does not, historically have the sort of monopoly you are imagining. Any evaluation of what either the CofE or Anglicanism stand for must include various other strands that go into the tradition.

Perhaps regrettably, I am afraid that also include spiritual complacency.
The Church of England is a complex entity, or chain of entities, and I make no claim to a great deal of knowledge. I am also very aware that I am talking quite specifically about a moment. My defence for this is that it is the moment mentioned in the original post - the moment characterised by the publication of the Faith in the City report, and the decline that the liberal wing has experienced since then.

I did see the programme quoted in the OP, but I don't remember "Faith in the City" being mentioned, though I guess I must have missed it. But are you simply using that as a marker for a high-water point in your view? "Faith in the City" wasn't a specifically liberal (theologically) piece of work.

Just seeking to understand your point a bit better.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
In parish ministry I encounter people who have been told that God doesn't intervene in the world, that the scriptures are not trustworthy even within the intentions of the original authors and that the sacraments are just symbols. I am not convinced that it has done them much good.

So Edward Green, we certainly shouldn't frighten the children with the truth, and we should go further and lie to them? We should tell them that God DOES intervene in the world, that the bible is inerrant in its plain meaning and that magic happens?

[ 15. April 2016, 22:54: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I think Rowan Williams's archiepiscopacy was both typical and a kind of swansong, as we are discovering to my horror.

Rowan was and is a catholic first and a 'liberal' second. He recognised the way the wind was blowing and has paved the way for closer working relationships between the catholic and evangelical wings of the church, at great personal cost.

Although those two wings of the church have not always held those names, they have been the driving force in renewal of spiritual life in the history of the Church of England. They have not always been distinct either with Wesleyanism having elements of both 'wings'. The Church of England is diverse and complex and has always made space for the broad in its nest, but its essence is in a Reformed Catholic tension - seeking to be modeled on the apostolic church.

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:

I could be being overly prickly, but I would also like to decide for myself what might be good for me, if that's alright...

Well so would I, but I am under the authority of the church, tradition and scripture! Even when I disagree with the CofE's position I have to make it clear that I am disagreeing with the teaching of the church.

Your theological discussion group sounds like an excellent place that is reading widely. All power to it.

[ 15. April 2016, 22:59: Message edited by: Edward Green ]

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So Edward Green, we certainly shouldn't frighten the children with the truth, and we should go further and lie to them? We should tell them that God DOES intervene in the world, that the bible is inerrant in its plain meaning and that magic happens?

God does intervene in the world.

The Bible is trustworthy as intended by the human authors (genre/context/narrative).

The Supranatural happens.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So Edward Green, we certainly shouldn't frighten the children with the truth, and we should go further and lie to them? We should tell them that God DOES intervene in the world, that the bible is inerrant in its plain meaning and that magic happens?
God does intervene in the world.

Oh? Can you supply one fact to substantiate that claim?

[ 16. April 2016, 05:56: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

There are none whatsoever SusanDoris, as we ALL know. Including Edward Green. But of course I'm the intersection between you and him. Demonstrating that He ... does.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So Edward Green, we certainly shouldn't frighten the children with the truth, and we should go further and lie to them? We should tell them that God DOES intervene in the world, that the bible is inerrant in its plain meaning and that magic happens?
God does intervene in the world.
Oh? Can you supply one fact to substantiate that claim?

Yup. The resurrection of Jesus. And we've been over all the evidence for that so don't bother asking me to repeat it all [Smile]

[ 16. April 2016, 10:27: Message edited by: Truman White ]

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I guess Hillsong's answer (to second guess them, which is unfair) would be along the lines that the other identities of outsider / emo / alternative rocker / whatever, are based on passing things, where as their identity is based on Christ. And, again in fairness to Hillsong, their work may go much further than that in terms of teaching & equipping people to go and live the Christian life. That wasn't evident in the telly programme, but may have been edited out.

In fairness they do other stuff - like this
this as a quick example.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

Watching - got to the bit about Fearless.. and there goes the "Lord..." keepalive packet...

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:

I could be being overly prickly, but I would also like to decide for myself what might be good for me, if that's alright...
Well so would I, but I am under the authority of the church, tradition and scripture! Even when I disagree with the CofE's position I have to make it clear that I am disagreeing with the teaching of the church.

I don't think there's any such thing as the settled teaching of the church. Surely, one of the things that the high value placed on the communion of saints, i.e. the life of the Church over the last 2000 years is that just about every possible viewpoint, with some outliers admittedly, has been both orthodox and heretical at some point.

Which is not to say that it's an entire pick and mix, because integrity is vital. It is, however, to say that the franchising of thinking, which is where I see that position going if left unchallenged (if only by the law of the conservation of momentum), is not something which I see the history of the church as supporting. There is near-infinite breadth within the church, and one has to position oneself somewhere with reference to that breadth.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

If there's no 'settled teaching of the church' then there are going to be times when some theologies become more prominent than others. The focus will shift from evangelicalism to something else at some point.

Moreover, church-sect theory argues that evangelicalism eventually loses its strictness and merges into a more moderate position. This will no doubt happen within the CofE eventually.

In the meantime, non-evangelical Anglicans need to do more than blame evangelicalism for their woes. They need to find ways of promoting their own theological perspective that will invigorate their congregations and help them connect more effectively with the wider public.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

In the meantime, non-evangelical Anglicans need to do more than blame evangelicalism for their woes. They need to find ways of promoting their own theological perspective that will invigorate their congregations and help them connect more effectively with the wider public.

To some extent, I agree. However, it is also legitimate to cry "foul" when people find that their best endeavours are totally rendered null by the activities of apparently all-conquering might/right.

For example, the Alpha Course is doing a huge amount of subtle damage. It convinces people that they know the only authentic form of Christianity, meaning that, if they find that it no longer nourishes them, they reject Christianity entirely rather than exploring other expressions of it.

I want to make it clear that I don't see this as being true exclusively of the Alpha course, or indeed of evangelicalism more widely. It can be true of more or less any relatively brief exposure which is taken to be sufficient and explanatory in and of itself. The problem created by this phenomenon is that it adds huge numbers to the considerable ranks of the unchurched, among whom any kind of spreading of the gospel, however gentle, is just about impossible.

It just so happens that at the moment, the Alpha course is one of the major causes of this phenomenon, which is something which I believe merits serious consideration.

[ 16. April 2016, 14:16: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Digging to find references for something else, I found this (Guardian) article from 2006 by Michael Hampson, discussing his book Last Rites: the End of the Church of England.

His take is that the Church of England has moved from supporting the marginalised and weak (HIV, miners) in the 1980s to being more reactionary than any time since the Civil War. He concluded that:

quote:
This reversal is a tragedy of enormous proportions. A 400-year-old liberal Anglican tradition has been destroyed in 20 years by an entirely novel, entirely alien, evangelical fundamentalism. It is truly last rites for the Church of England ...

Apologies: this is the post I was referring to in my earlier post. Faith in the City was the report which galvanised a lot of the work done in the 1980s to support the poor and marginalised.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

For example, the Alpha Course is doing a huge amount of subtle damage. It convinces people that they know the only authentic form of Christianity, meaning that, if they find that it no longer nourishes them, they reject Christianity entirely rather than exploring other expressions of it.

I suppose you could say this about any course or movement that becomes popular. People are drawn to its popularity, but if it doesn't suit them they don't necessarily look for less obvious alternatives. Why would they, when they only got involved with or paid attention to something because it was fashionable?

The only answer in this particular case is for the supposedly more sensible, moderate Christian groups, to get better at marketing their sensible, moderate agenda. They shouldn't always be in the position of letting evangelicals do the running, and then complaining that other Christians can't be heard. That's not a good look.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
That's not a good look.

Neither is colluding with a blatantly unchristian dominant culture of marketing and spin, to the point where those who don't engage in it are rendered invisible.

This is rather my point. Playing by those rules would involve a complete loss of integrity. Better the desert than the fowl of Egypt.

[ 16. April 2016, 14:52: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So Edward Green, we certainly shouldn't frighten the children with the truth, and we should go further and lie to them? We should tell them that God DOES intervene in the world, that the bible is inerrant in its plain meaning and that magic happens?
God does intervene in the world.
Oh? Can you supply one fact to substantiate that claim?
Yup. The resurrection of Jesus. And we've been over all the evidence for that so don't bother asking me to repeat it all

It's not a fact. I can't not believe it. Despite the idea of unnecessary complexity above matter being utterly absurd. It's no fact. And I'm glad you concur that there are NO others. It is a claim. The ONLY one that matters. All claims merely predicated upon it, in name only, are false. ALL.

Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on :

It's equally possible that things like the Alpha course will keep alive liberal Christianity as people convert into evangelical Christianity and then deepen and mature (or backslide depending upon perspective) into a more liberal form of Christianity.

It's hard for liberal Christianity to gain converts from the non-churched as it is doesn't have a clear message; and is often intellectually complex to the point of being incomprehensible.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
It's equally possible that things like the Alpha course will keep alive liberal Christianity as people convert into evangelical Christianity and then deepen and mature (or backslide depending upon perspective) into a more liberal form of Christianity.

It's hard for liberal Christianity to gain converts from the non-churched as it is doesn't have a clear message; and is often intellectually complex to the point of being incomprehensible.

WRT your first point, that's kind of how the relationship between liberal and evangelical Christianity has always worked. My fear, for which I think there is evidence, that there are features of HTB-related phenomena which stop this from happening.

To my mind, the sacraments are the royal road through the double bind you describe. The further layer to that is the nole me tangere (don't touch me) culture we live in, and with which I see phenomena such as Alpha as deliberately colluding.

There are always elements of popular culture with which the church can creatively cooperate, and those which we must resist. To my mind, this is top of the latter list, and I find the collusion very hard to take.

I think I might need to explain what I mean, because some dismiss evangelical worship and other expressions as excessively touchy-feely. My objection is not the touchy-feeliness, it's the extent to which this is manufactured, induced, artificial and transient. That's how I experience this phenomenon. I fear it is making the body of Christ sick.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

There is much I dislike in a lot of Evangelicalism. But (a) I think you are tarring all its many strands with the same brush and (b) it's not all bad - indeed there are good, honest, intelligent and socially aware folk within it.

[ 16. April 2016, 15:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
That's not a good look.
Neither is colluding with a blatantly unchristian dominant culture of marketing and spin, to the point where those who don't engage in it are rendered invisible.

This is rather my point. Playing by those rules would involve a complete loss of integrity. Better the desert than the fowl of Egypt.

But surely it's the duty of every Christian to promote what they believe to be the correct doctrines? If your doctrines are better than theirs then it's your job to espouse them. If you refuse to do that, what's the point in complaining?

David didn't complain about being smaller and weaker than Goliath. He just got on with what he had to do.

I agree with Green Mario that if nothing else, evangelistic programmes such as Alpha at least generate material for moderates to work with further down the line. There are many ex-/post-/struggling evangelicals on the Ship. They're moved higher up the candle, and to the left theologically, but it was the dynamic engagement of evangelistic evangelicalism that brought them into the Christian faith, or kept them there if they were already raised in it. It seems that moderate Christianity needs evangelicalism to 'process' believers in this direction; and the need is only going to increase, as moderate churches find themselves in greater and greater difficulty.

Yes, evangelicals often leave the faith. But that's utterly normal in moderate church circles, if we're honest. It's just less dramatic, less noteworthy when someone leaves a MOTR church.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There is much I dislike in a lot of Evangelicalism. But (a) I think you are tarring all its many strands with the same brush and (b) it's not all bad - indeed there are good, honest, intelligent and socially aware folk within it.

Indeed.

But there are so many people that seem to want to believe it's universal panacea, and my intention is to point out that it causes as many ills as it cures.

Not something in which it is unique, but neither something to which it is immune.

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

OK, I started this one with that quotation, which I do have a lot of sympathy with as another liberal. There are other courses available, Emmaus is one.

The local MOTR CofE church suggested that Emmaus (pdf) would be a good course to offer, rather than offering Alpha, which was offered by the local Elim church. The very vocal tiny evangelical group* within that church have taken over the teaching and youth work then ran an "Emmaus" course that had been adapted and included a lot of stuff that I could only find on the Kingdom Faith site.

I was part of a group, together with the clergy team, that tried offering alternative views at some of the courses - I was asked to go along to lob in more orthodox Christianity and quoted different verses of the Bible regularly. I took alternative Bibles along to Bible studies because I like discussing how different translations tackle the verses and got laughed out of the course with "Where did you get that Bible?" The proper Bible I should have brought along was the NIV. And the Bible class wasn't about discussion it was all about teaching the right way to think.

We also offered other things, but when alternatives are being run down by that same vocal group as "not being sound" it's fairly dispiriting, although we did get a whole series of things going. But I burnt out.

* This group attends Kingdom Faith Camp to "feed their faith" - about 10% of the church. They are very vocal and active in leading prayer and teaching, not the boring stuff of just keeping the church going. They also drag all children out to their teaching instead of allowing them to stay in church to hear the sermon and remain in the choir or serving as an acolyte.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I agree with Baptist Trainfan, but equally, I think there is something rotten in the state of evangelicalism ...

I don't think all is lost, but I long since came to the conclusion that in order to maintain some form of spiritual health, bog-standard evangelicalism needs to draw from a wider frame of reference.

Full-on card-carrying evangelicals like the USA's Mark Noll would happily acknowledge as much - and have written books to that effect.

I'm not sure how substantial Thunderbunk's alarmism is when it comes to HTB, for instance. I would submit that certain sections of the New Wine orbit are far 'worse' than HTB in terms of disrespect for the wider Anglican tradition.

I recently - and hearten-ingly - heard from a very liberal vicar how an uber-High friend of his had been mightily impressed by the way HTB conducted a church-plant on his patch, giving new respect and consideration for the particular tradition his parish represented. They had effectively revitalised things and brought young people and families back in, whilst letting him getting on with his bells and smells without let or hindrance.

I can't imagine some of the New Wine-y types being quite so accommodating.

Now, one might dismiss this as cynical pragmatism on the part of Nicky Gumbel et al - but I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

There's a lot I don't like about the Alpha/HTB side of things and about New Wine and the trendy-wendy end of Anglican charismatic evangelicalism. However, they do at least have some awareness and sensitivity towards some of the broader aspects of Anglicanism.

How long that will continue, I have no idea.

I don't think that the entire evangelical/charismatic scene is a busted flush.

That said, I have found over the years that burnt-out or disillusioned charismatics tend to drop out of organised church-life entirely rather than moving over to more liberal positions/groupings.

This is partly due to exhaustion, I think, but also partly to them imbibing a line that high-octane, full-on lively Christianity is the only 'authentic' kind that there is ... and that everywhere else is 'dead' or not worth bothering with.

I suspect that's the tendency Thunderbunk is railing against. I think there's been an element of that, but by the same token I think that's changing.

I can cite an for instance where the incredibly bright and highly precocious daughter of some friends in a 'new church' setting decided of her own volition that she wanted to go to their decidedly traditional and somewhat 'High' Anglican parish instead and to get confirmed and become one of the altar servers and so on.

Not only her parents, but the rest of the congregation accepted this with equanimity and were fully and incredibly supportive - in a way they would not have been 10 or 20 years previously. They attended her confirmation service, gave her cards and good wishes and so on.

I was encouraged by that.

One swallow doesn't make a summer but I do think there's been a 'thaw' in attitudes in many quarters.

Ok, you'll still hear snarky comments from evangelical Anglicans about liberals or High Church people - but the same thing happens in the other direction too. No 'wing' of the CofE is entirely free of snarky attitudes towards the others - and as Baptist Trainfan and ExclamationMark have shared here too, they can sometimes be sniffy and arsey with non-conformists.

These things cut both ways.

All that said, I do concur with Thunderbunk that the more sacramental aspects of Anglicanism are 'at risk' from some elements within the evangelical and charismatic constituency - as these things are some kind of bolt-on or added extra.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But surely it's the duty of every Christian to promote what they believe to be the correct doctrines? If your doctrines are better than theirs then it's your job to espouse them. If you refuse to do that, what's the point in complaining?

David didn't complain about being smaller and weaker than Goliath. He just got on with what he had to do.

Angels and ministers of grace defend us. It is our duty to live our faith, not to promote our doctrines. We are not running an advertising agency, we are being members of the living body of Christ.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry ... 'as IF these things are a bolt-on or added extra ...'

The same applies to the Calendar too, of course. I've heard our local evangelical vicar talk as if the only 'point' of Easter is to have an occasion - that remains, as yet, relatively less commercialised than Christmas - on which to invite people to church.

Ok, I don't have an issue with people inviting friends and neighbours to church at Easter, but that's not ALL it's about, surely?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

ThunderBunk [Axe murder]

Curiosity killed ... [Axe murder]

God is in the desert.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But surely it's the duty of every Christian to promote what they believe to be the correct doctrines? If your doctrines are better than theirs then it's your job to espouse them. If you refuse to do that, what's the point in complaining?

David didn't complain about being smaller and weaker than Goliath. He just got on with what he had to do.

Angels and ministers of grace defend us. It is our duty to live our faith, not to promote our doctrines. We are not running an advertising agency, we are being members of the living body of Christ.

Well, if others find themselves just as convinced that the Bible teaches them to promote their doctrines then you're likely to be the ones that lose out. But so be it.

Now, when I say 'you' I mean me as well, because I'm certainly from a moderate, sensible Christian tradition. It started off as a very evangelistic movement, but developed otherwise. And now it's in danger of disappearing entirely in the UK, and few can pretend otherwise. But perhaps its precipitous decline is just a sign of its purity? I'm talking about Methodism.

Fortunately for the CofE, its sensible moderates benefit from having more churches, more clergy and best of all, more money. You may mock capitalism, but a denomination with money can keep poorly attended but theologically impeccable churches open. That's one reason why I worship with the CofE these days: you lot complain about evangelicals, but the 'normal' churches are still plentiful, chugging along, doing what they do. You have less to complain about than you think.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

The following comes with some hesitation, since this is a discussion forum and not a blog, but I think it's useful for understanding some of the crude shorthands I've been using, and other signs of ignorance and oversensitivity which you may be detecting.

I am still in the process of emerging into the wider church after some 13 years spent in an anglo-catholic church which was still trying to behave like it was 1998 or thereabouts. That church decided to move in a direction I could not support, so I had to leave. I am now discovering the realities between the shadows I had previously glimpsed at the cave-mouth. This process is far from complete, and some of the shadows are still very deep and rather unilluminated.

The church I am now seeing more closely is one I barely recognise, significant parts of which I find disturbing. This process, coupled with an increased awareness that the previous berth was in certain respects a Procrustean bed, means that my perceptions are partial and extreme. I also moved diocese immediately before settling on my previous church, meaning that my previous experience of the wider church is even more distant.

This means, I think, that I am a peculiar witness from the point of view of this discussion, in that my perception of the wider church is more purely formed by the status quo ante, rather than the adjustments that have occurred in response to the increasing power of evangelicalism. I am therefore seeing the latter in rather heightened relief.

On the other hand, living round the corner from a church which has been taken over by our local HTB outfit and turned into something which I barely recognise and which seems to have little to do with anything other than their whim, I have this isolated, possibly untypical, strand of current experience to draw on.

Before I leave this process of personal disclosure, I will also add that I find the atrophy and lack of energy in much of the liberal catholic movement in the church utterly horrifying, though I am currently not at all clear if and how I can help do anything about this. I still believe that my way of living my faith has the potential to be attractive to others, and want to find ways of communicating it. But this can't be done in complete isolation, and requires a huge amount of energy if it is not to be done in empty, repugnant slogans.

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

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
That's one reason why I worship with the CofE these days: you lot complain about evangelicals, but the 'normal' churches are still plentiful, chugging along, doing what they do. You have less to complain about than you think.

You may think that but ... that attitude rings incredibly hollow to someone driven out of their local church, which is where I am, and from what Thunderbunk has been posting elsewhere, he's encountering evangelicals in the CofE in a similar way to the way I have.

Yes, I could commute to attend other churches. London is in reach, but three hours commuting every working day doesn't particularly enamour me to commuting another three hours at the weekend.

eta - in response to a cross post with Thunderbunk

[ 16. April 2016, 16:44: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

If you live in an area with an insufficient choice of churches it must be a problem.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thing is, there's nothing more complicated going on here other than different perspectives gleaned from different vantage points or ecclesial experiences.

From SvitlanaV2's perspective, then disgruntlement with evangelicals must seem like an expensive luxury - after all, she's seen MoTR Methodist churches close left, right and centre.

But from the backgrounds and experiences that CK and Thunderbunk represent, SvitlanaV2's defence of evangelicalism must ring hollow to say the least - particularly when she isn't an evangelical herself ...

I'm not saying that Baptist Trainfan or myself are in a 'better' position to form a judgement having come from more evangelical backgrounds and 'broadened out' as it were - but I suspect if we all gathered our individual perspectives together there'd be overlaps as well as gaps and divergence.

Thunderbunk's sharp relief might then melt into chiaroscuro ...

FWIW, I think that evangelicalism per se is undergoing the same upheavals and tensions - over Dead Horse issues and much else besides - as anyone else. They may have ths money and the muscle but they don't always have the moral high-ground.

In my more full-on evangelical days I'd have said that liberal Christianity was like a mule - it could not reproduce itself and that it could only draw parasitically from more conservative traditions.

Now, I'd suggest that most forms of Chritianity in the Western world tend to draw to a greater or lesser extent from one another. The idea that evangelicals draw in unchurched people from the street who later go in a more liberal direction and bolster/prop-up more MoTR congregations is a naive and outmoded one.

It's not what happens anymore, at least not among what might be called white, indigeneous populations.

Aside from BME and other minority groups, evangelical growth is slowing down - and certainly among students -if university chaplains I know are to be believed - the transition from ardent evangelicalism to dropping out entirely - or moving to more measured or moderate forms of faith - is happening in a more accelerated way than in the past.

Certainly, some of them seem to see their role as 'being there' for when the born-again bubble bursts in the students' final year.

I agree with SvitlanaV2 that erosion happens more silently in MoTR settings, but there's more of a revolving-door in many apparently successful evangelical settings than many people realise.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

Skipping over evidence for the resurrection (which I am sure has been discussed before) and keeping on track.

Alpha has had some issues. But having used the course recently in an inclusive sacramental parish I found the video material deeply affirming of catholic spirituality. Yes in places the presentation is simplistic, but the the basic message is sound.

I have have had good and bad experiences of working with christians of different traditions. Locally I feel my faith is recognised and affirmed by those of an evangelical and charismatic expression. The openness I have met towards the sacramental and liturgical has been humbling.

This hasn't always been my experience. But it is happening.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And the openness toward the truth?

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Skipping over evidence for the resurrection (which I am sure has been discussed before) and keeping on track.

Alpha has had some issues. But having used the course recently in an inclusive sacramental parish I found the video material deeply affirming of catholic spirituality. Yes in places the presentation is simplistic, but the the basic message is sound.

I have have had good and bad experiences of working with christians of different traditions. Locally I feel my faith is recognised and affirmed by those of an evangelical and charismatic expression. The openness I have met towards the sacramental and liturgical has been humbling.

This hasn't always been my experience. But it is happening.

I'm very pleased that you have had positive experiences in working with the Christians around you.

However, I don't think that entirely negates my point, as I am coming to discover it to be (I find myself reminded of a recent hell thread, in which it was held to be scandalous for people to find out what they mean only by hearing themselves speak. If it is, I'm sorry, but that is what I find myself doing).

My point is that there appears to be something in current culture, within the church and outside, which is deeply inimical to the kind of thing I would like to share - a relational, subtle faith that is indeed nourished by the sacraments and by the bible, understood and digested in its textual and other context. This is my alternative to the "terms and conditions Christianity" which to me is the real problem. That, of course, is not only evangelical in flavour, though I think this is the dominant flavour at the moment. (I owe the phrase to Rowan Williams, the last time I heard him speak, after the Julian lecture in 2014).

Fundamentally, I feel that the church militant will lose a lot if the gentle, daring exploration of people like H A Williams, John A T Robinson, Jim Cotter and others is allowed to pass from its lived experience. Our way of doing this now will change, but I think that process of exploring at the soft, delicate edges of faith and our understanding of God rather than speaking brashly from the centre of accreted certainty is vital to the health of Christianity, and to its ability to be heard by people whose ear is bruised by certainty. There is also the issue of finding a way of speaking to such people that they will hear, and I don't pretend to have that sorted - I've tried one way, which partially worked and partially failed - but I don't think that failure was entirely down to deficiencies in the enterprise itself. There was, and is, something in the air which poisoned it.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Amen.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

ThunderBunk

You speak as if two or more ways of being Christian can't exist in the same society. I'm not sure why this should be the case. Why should evangelical environments prevent the 'daring, gentle exploration' from taking place in non-evangelical environments?

The majority of British congregations probably aren't evangelical anyway (although this isn't much consolation if you live in a small community that's oversupplied with them and not much else. Probably in the South East.)

Do Gamaliel's comments encourage you? What he says is that indigenous British evangelicalism (CofE or otherwise) is faltering. It won't be an enemy or a distraction for much longer. It's hard edges are wearing off in some places, and in others, it's just not attracting or keeping hold of the same numbers of people.

IMO, whether or not the evangelicals are attracting attention won't matter much in a society where the majority of committed believers may soon be Muslim, not Christian (the Anglicans are apparently already outnumbered). In parts of the South East, moderate indigenous Christians may continue to battle against their strict evangelical adversaries, but will anyone else really care?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Liberals have to swim in conservative shoals. It gets VERY wearing. And worse. Suffocating. Impossible to have ANY conversation.

[ 17. April 2016, 12:02: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Martin60: Liberals have to swim in conservative shoals.

I prefer to surf.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

A solitary vice.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Liberals have to swim in conservative shoals.

I understand that definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative' can be quite broad, but IME MOTR/liberal(-catholic)/moderate churches aren't dominated by theological conservatism (although there's quite a lot of conservatism in terms of church culture.)

The idea that a liberal would choose to be in a theologically conservative church and then have to complain about it strikes me as most unfortunate and unnecessary - but then again, I live in a large city, where it's quite easy to avoid theologically conservative churches. Many of you obviously live in smaller towns where there's not much choice.

(I also have the suspicion that some of you attend conservative churches largely because that's where the 'life' is. That's understandable, but it would be surely be more honorable and more psychologically satisfying for you to join a struggling but theologically moderate church and help to build it up.)

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

SvitlanaV2, you are making some very sweeping assumptions here. I have lived:

where I am now, a market town with more churches than anywhere I've been before other than London as a student: a dying Methodist church now working with the URC, a small Elim Pentecostal church that doesn't have its own building any more, a Friends Meeting House, Church of England and RC churches. There was a Brethren Church, but that's now folded
Another small rural town where the choice was the local CofE, a Methodist Church with a regular congregation of 6 and the local Congregational Church which was falling to pieces following and scandal and before the amalganation into the URC.
Another market town with a local CofE church full stop.
a village with a CofE church which was part of a team with 6 other churches
another village with a CofE church and a non-conformist chapel that closed while I lived there.

I was also a student in London where the student union church was HTB. There were other churches locally but we were never told of them (which is very similar to my daughter's experience at her undergraduate university). I took one look at HTB and stopped attending church for years.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I've made my assumptions based on the complaints about evangelical churches. But I now find that there were plenty of other churches you might have attended instead. So the question is, why didn't you attend those?

Evangelicalism would die a death if people chose to support their local Methodist/URC/MOTR CofE churches instead. But they won't do that, so the 'moderate' churches struggle and close, while Christians such as yourself (no disrespect meant) just grumble about evangelicalism. As someone who tried to keep a Methodist church going, and failed, that upsets me.

And why does someone have to be 'told' about a church? Can't you find something suitable for yourself?

[ 17. April 2016, 13:07: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

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

My question is why the evangelical group don't support the local Elim Pentecostal church, which is far more in tune with their beliefs, rather than try to change the MOTR CofE church to fit in with them? But I know the answer to that one, because I've been told, it's because they "fish in a bigger pool".

One of the leading lights of this group sent her children to the Elim Pentecostal church as "more fun", while continuing to run the Sunday school at the CofE church. Others, who run the youth group during the Sunday Service, find the services so dull that they have chosen to stay out even when they don't have any takers for the youth group.

Personally I got a lot from those services, liturgical standard Common Worship services, before they were changed to add "better hymns", (otherwise known here as Jesus as my boyfriend) and interactive talks rather than sermons with some material to think about. With screens set up to hide the chancel, high altar and rood screen to project onto, because those who don't like the architecture and visual aids in the building would prefer to hide them and present their own visual aids. I know I'm not the only person who has gone because the services have changed.

The Methodist/URC minister has been creationist for the last few years and the services are all that I struggle with in the way the MOTR CofE services have gone - no liturgy, no rhythm of the church year, no time for silence, no pauses to pray quietly, instructions on how to think in the preamble to the readings and the way the prayers are structured.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Your scenario is obviously a very different one from mine.

Most Methodist and URC ministers are unlikely to be literal creationists, or at least not publicly. They wouldn't get much support from the wider denomination.

Maybe there are clusters in these things. Methodism doesn't work well if only one minister in a circuit has prominently evangelical views, so perhaps all the evangelical ones end up in the same circuits. Or you might get an anomaly in which one minister has oversight of only one congregation, rather than a bunch of them. If this one congregation approves, the minister can presumably get away with promoting a more pronounced evangelical presence.

Regarding the evo/CofE 'fish in a bigger pool' thing, that must be regional as well. In areas where the CofE is fairly weak and doesn't have strong growth potential, there can't be much of an advantage in an evangelical 'takeover'.

What I can't understand, I suppose, is how a takeover can happen in a CofE congregation if the members don't want it. This would be very difficult to do in a Methodist church because the worship there is usually led by the laity.

As for Sunday Schools, the problem is that MOTR churches tend to have poor facilities for children's work, and far too few available teachers. In my old Methodist church, the minister and his wife, who weren't even evangelicals, eventually sent their kids to an evangelical church down the road! I don't know how long that 'experiment' lasted, though.

Going back to the final point I made in my previous post, apart from being sent to a particular Methodist church as a girl, my churchgoing options have mostly been chosen by myself. When I went to uni I wasn't introduced to or urged into any particular church, and wasn't channelled into CU as some sort of guiding light for all things Christian. I made my own choices, and similarly when I lived alone as a young adult.

Perhaps young people from uniformly evangelical backgrounds feel more trammelled down particular avenues, and expect to be told what to do. When the advice fails, they feel they have to give up on church entirely, because they have no experience of making their own choices.

[ 17. April 2016, 14:14: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think there are several things going on here, and regional and rural/suburban/rural issues come into play too.

Where to start ...?

Evangelical take-overs do happen in Anglican churches - generally by making those uncomfortable with it feel so uncomfortable that they leave.

Methodism varies a great deal - as you're well aware. Hereabouts, there are plenty of evangelical Methodists and even some very Creationist ones - but the clergy tend to be moderately evangelical/liberal.

In some rural areas it's the CofE and not much else.

As for evangelical kids at university and thinking for oneself ... it might sound strange to non-evangelicals, but if it's been drummed into you that the only 'real' Christians are evangelical ones then if you fall out with church or have a crisis of faith then the default option for many people from an evangelical background isn't to climb the candle, go liberal, mystic or whatever else, but to drop out of church entirely.

That said, unlike some parts of the USA, there do tend to be alternatives to an evangelical paradigm - but it can be difficult for people who have been hurt by evangelicalism in some way to find alternatives they can trust.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

I think it may be time to broaden this out a bit - though not, sadly, in a happy way.

Thinking about all of my experience over the last couple of years, I'm not, currently, sure that any wing of the church is serving the whole body well. Some by being so weak and shell-shocked that they are not able to do much. Others by being so obsessed with talking to themselves and asserting their distinctiveness that they have no time for looking to serve the wider body of the church or, indeed, God's creation. Others are so certain of their own rectitude that they shun contact with all that is not them.

Many by disappearing into various of these cul-de-sacs at different times, sequentially or simultaneously.

I have a feeling that we are nearing a point where our understanding of what the church is and how to be part of it needs to fall into the earth and die, before a re-invigorated church can start to grow. Maybe there are some shoots now; may be it is a process which carries on all the time and comes to prominence periodically. If that's the case, I think it's about to come front and centre.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It is the duty of liberals to stay in their local conservative shoal. To subvert it. That is our calling. It conquered Rome.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm not sure anyone - Thunderbunk or whoever else - should be encouraged by my comments on evangelicalism - if anything, Edward Green's comments are more so.

I don't want evangelicals to lose their commitment to the Gospel or to become the same as everyone else - but I would like to see a move away from some of the commercialism, spin and overly simplistic platitudes that bedevil the movement.

Every tradition has its strengths and weaknesses.

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

I've got other stories of evangelical take overs, two different ends of the country:

an area bishop deliberately placing evangelical clergy in churches, against the ethos of those churches, with nationally reported dire consequences in one case;
another diocese, another bishop putting in an evangelical curate into the only Anglo-Catholic church in the city/diocese, a pale shadow compared to ASMS or others, but all things are comparative, and insisting on evangelical speakers to preach the sermon regularly. Each time the congregation shrank further and the RC church gained a few more.

Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on :

Martin60 - did Liberal Christians conquer Rome?

There has been talk about evangelical takeovers of churches in the Anglican Church.

Does this happen with all elements of the Anglican church - are parishes ever taken over by liberal or progressive elements (either lay or clergy) or does this only ever go in one direction? If it only ever goes in one direction why are there churches in the Anglican church that are still not evangelical (struggling to understand how this works....)? what is the mechanism for progressive or AC churches becoming that way or staying that way?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Er, was Jesus a liberal compared with His culture? Or any until the C19th? And they're mixed since. Patchy. A timeless liberal? Inclusive? Empowering? Was He racist? Sectarian? Sexist? Homophobic? Disablist? Nationalistic? Violent?

Neither were his followers for three centuries.

Up against fascist theocracies.

Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on :

That's a different dichotomy than the one I thought was being discussed.

I thought we were discussing the evangelical - liberal continuum which is more a continuum in a view about the degree to which scripture is inspired by God and authoritative.

To the extent that evangelical is at the opposite end of a continuum to liberal it isn't because it is racist, violent, sexist or a nationalist world-view.

Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on :

Rome was very liberal and inclusive when it came to its theology and gods although perhaps fascist and authoritarian in other ways.

It was fine to add new gods to the pantheon; what wasn't fine was the exclusive claims of the Christian God to be the only true God, that Jesus was the only true Lord.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

As Caesar was.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

Just saw this on iPlayer. Good to see a positive presentation of the Christian Faith affirming the contributions of all spectrums of the church. Good to be reminded that the church will only ever thrive if it's true to its heritage as a missional movement. Whether you count yourself liberal or conservative, all can respond to the repeated refrain from the prog "Get out there!"

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

By this do you mean that?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I agree with being missional, but the programme didn't show 'all spectrums of the Church' - it concentrated mainly on the charismatic side of things.

Which is fine -providing we don't take that to be 'all spectrums of thd Church.'

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The programme's title probably wouldn't sit very well with a group of liberal catholic Anglicans doing messy church, for example. Christians like that don't really talk in terms of 'battles', IME.

I think ThunderBunk may well be right in suggesting that the (indigenous) British Church may have to die. If the evangelicals devote themselves to greater theological study and liberalisation, and also give up on self-promotion, that may bring them intellectual and social credit, but it won't help them to evangelise (just as it hasn't helped the moderate congregations in that particular task). And since they're now weakening on evangelism, those distractions may simply hasten the process.

But maybe that's how things have to be. Why should they be spared the virtuous death that awaits other indigenous Protestant groups?

Of course, not all evangelical churches face extinction any time this century, but the survivors will certainly be niche products. The future of the black churches is especially interesting. They may become more diverse as the communities around them become more diverse. But as the white British middle classes retreat further from diverse areas (according to Erik Kaufmann) they may have less and less contact with people unlike themselves. This will be compounded by a decreasing interest in evangelism. It all suggests a reduction in their influence on the culture and the world.

Who knows?

[ 17. April 2016, 23:16: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm sorry, but I find this very sweeping too.

The Orthodox didn't disappear under centuries of Ottoman rule nor under Communist persecution, even though their capacity to evangelise or to 'take centre stage' was diminished.

It remains to be seen whether increasing Western-style secularism will undermine their apparent resurgence in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

As far as evangelicals go, I think it's a truism that the less 'evangelical' they become the less evangelistic they become. However, there are other ways of evangelising and maintaining and bearing witness than thrusting tracts at people on street corners or holding rallies.

I'm not sure we have to see these things in terms of a binary divide between otherworldly and evangelistic and socially-conscious and less evangelistic.

I agree that it'll be interesting to see how the 'black-led' churches develop. Already there are signs of more 'mainstream' concerns and approaches there and I suspect this will continue. Whether this will erode their cutting-edge and distinctiveness remains to be seen.

I would submit that bog-standard 'indigeneous' forms of evangelicalism have already made some forms of accommodation to the zeitgeist.

There doesn't seem to be much future, it seems to me, for 'traditional' Brethren, Grace Baptists or other forms of home-grown independent evangelical outfits, unless they broaden out in some way.

I don't see what we might call 'indigeneous' forms of evangelicalism dying out - but I do see them losing the appeal they once had - but they were always an acquired taste and only ever gained traction in certain settings and under certain circumstances.

Overall, I don't see see the prognosis as one for tremendous optimism, at least not in number terms. But neither do I see any grounds for doom, gloom and despondency.

As far as the more enthusiastic elements go - using enthusiasm in its 18th century sense - that's always been cyclical. The Wesleys and others recognised that.

Even full-on Pentecostalism has its quieter patches in between the whoop-ups and revivals.

What does concern me, is that if the only 'flavour' of Christianity that people can see is an 'enthusiastic' one then that limits the appeal still further. 'Heck, I'm not joining them if they're expecting me to do THAT! ....'

I'm not sure what the answer is to that one.

Various forms of Christianity look increasingly exotic and 'out-there' in a post-Christian, secularised context ... whether it's genuflecting and making the sign of the cross or waving one's arms around charismatic fashion ...

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I agree that it'll be interesting to see how the 'black-led' churches develop. Already there are signs of more 'mainstream' concerns and approaches there and I suspect this will continue. Whether this will erode their cutting-edge and distinctiveness remains to be seen.

I think one factor that is being ignored is that the BME church scene is by no means as static as is being presented. There has been a large degree of churn in the churches/groups that are most active over last few decades, with lots of older (quite often Pentecostal) churches shrinking and dying out as they struggle to compete with some of the newer Pentecostal groups.

Also, I don't see that BME churches will be any less likely to undergo the same processes of the rest of the church in the UK, the only difference is the amount of time it will take before second and third generation immigrants assimilate.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I wonder though if, some years down the line, there will a reaction among some BME churches which predominantly draw from one ethnicity to "go back to their roots" and reassert their specific identity?

In a sense this is what we are seeing within some sectors of the Muslim community.

[ 18. April 2016, 10:06: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

My point is that there appears to be something in current culture, within the church and outside, which is deeply inimical to the kind of thing I would like to share - a relational, subtle faith that is indeed nourished by the sacraments and by the bible, understood and digested in its textual and other context. This is my alternative to the "terms and conditions Christianity" which to me is the real problem. That, of course, is not only evangelical in flavour, though I think this is the dominant flavour at the moment. (I owe the phrase to Rowan Williams, the last time I heard him speak, after the Julian lecture in 2014).

Fundamentally, I feel that the church militant will lose a lot if the gentle, daring exploration of people like H A Williams, John A T Robinson, Jim Cotter and others is allowed to pass from its lived experience. Our way of doing this now will change, but I think that process of exploring at the soft, delicate edges of faith and our understanding of God rather than speaking brashly from the centre of accreted certainty is vital to the health of Christianity, and to its ability to be heard by people whose ear is bruised by certainty.

I shouted "Yes!" to this so loudly I think I might have frightened the neighbours. [Ultra confused]

Thanks so much for putting your finger on how I am feeling.

A while ago on another thread someone posted a link to a group set up in church called Heretics Anonymous - link to pdf here http://carrslane.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/HA-2015-16-Themes.pdf

I would love to set something up like this in my own church, though currently my mental health doesn't permit it. But one of the worries in approaching the clergy saying I'd like to do this discussion group, is that I can already hear the reply, "Oh but we have alpha for that". It is as though if we have questions, we do alpha. If we wonder about our place in the church we do a Shape course. If we think we might want to contribute more, we do a course to be a Pastoral Assistant. Life as a Christian in the local church is becoming professionalised & streamlined (whilst at the same time, the actual getting things done doesn't seem to happen any faster!) There seems much less room for a gentle, relational, exploring lived faith.

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:

I could be being overly prickly, but I would also like to decide for myself what might be good for me, if that's alright...
Well so would I, but I am under the authority of the church, tradition and scripture! Even when I disagree with the CofE's position I have to make it clear that I am disagreeing with the teaching of the church.

Your theological discussion group sounds like an excellent place that is reading widely. All power to it.

Thanks for your kind reply & encouragement. The thing about the way you are teaching, though, is that istm you say, roughly, "Here is what I think. Because of x. The church's teaching is y because of z. I disagree because...." Please forgive me if I'm wrong.

In doing what you do, there is enough substance for the churchgoer to know a) that there is official church teaching, b) that there may be other views and c) how they might go about exploring those for themselves. Very, very little of such teaching happens in my church.

This is why the idea of (say) uni-age post-evangelicals (for want of a better term) looking to move to other churches higher up the candle, or a more mystical spirituality, or whatever, doesn't fit with my experience. If you have been told that the evangelical way is the only way, that Anglo-Catholics are a bit dodgy, frankly, Roman Catholics are distinctly suspect, and as for the Quakers, well.........you're left with the impression that you might as well jack in Christianity altogether.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:

This is why the idea of (say) uni-age post-evangelicals (for want of a better term) looking to move to other churches higher up the candle, or a more mystical spirituality, or whatever, doesn't fit with my experience.

Yeah, but is this not true of every other group - in actual practice. I mean, to the extent it is true, is it not also true of RCs (re evangelicals and quakers and so on - I assume the numbers of lapsing quakers who decide to try their local con-evo church as a Hail Mary pass would be fairly low).

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I agree that it'll be interesting to see how the 'black-led' churches develop. Already there are signs of more 'mainstream' concerns and approaches there and I suspect this will continue. Whether this will erode their cutting-edge and distinctiveness remains to be seen.
I think one factor that is being ignored is that the BME church scene is by no means as static as is being presented. There has been a large degree of churn in the churches/groups that are most active over last few decades, with lots of older (quite often Pentecostal) churches shrinking and dying out as they struggle to compete with some of the newer Pentecostal groups.

Also, I don't see that BME churches will be any less likely to undergo the same processes of the rest of the church in the UK, the only difference is the amount of time it will take before second and third generation immigrants assimilate.

Are we talking Pente churches in general, or BME pente in particular? You got a source for this - I have some contacts with BME churches but haven't discussed this with them. Be interested in where you got this info.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think it's pretty apparent, Truman White, simply by looking around.

Traditional black-led Holiness and Pentecostal churches such as the Wesleyan Holiness Church and the New Testament Church of God, seem to be struggling in comparison with some of the newer BME churches that have developed more recently.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

Still be interested in Chris's take since he posted it.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:

This is why the idea of (say) uni-age post-evangelicals (for want of a better term) looking to move to other churches higher up the candle, or a more mystical spirituality, or whatever, doesn't fit with my experience.
Yeah, but is this not true of every other group - in actual practice. I mean, to the extent it is true, is it not also true of RCs (re evangelicals and quakers and so on - I assume the numbers of lapsing quakers who decide to try their local con-evo church as a Hail Mary pass would be fairly low).

Yes, good point. I suppose if you've been told your way is the One True Way (TM) it's going to be difficult to explore other options whatever that One True Way (TM) was.

I was reflecting on my own experience, and that of many of my peers. I thought I was also responding to something Svitlana said, but I can't find it now....

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:

Are we talking Pente churches in general, or BME pente in particular? You got a source for this - I have some contacts with BME churches but haven't discussed this with them. Be interested in where you got this info.

I was talking about BME churches in general (I think largely denominational flavour didn't matter so much).

In general, there were a number that dated back to the 50s-80s, which were set up - bluntly - because immigrants didn't feel welcomed by the churches already in this country. A lot of these are either dead, or dying - with the second and third generation either assimilating into being un-churched, joining younger churches with mixed congregations or moving on to one of the newer BME groups (often for what seemed to be aspirational reasons).

My sources are variously a number of people I know in ministry in London - a few of which were directly trying to tackle the issue of getting churches in their local area to work together (with some degree of success).

[ 18. April 2016, 13:00: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
A while ago on another thread someone posted a link to a group set up in church called Heretics Anonymous - link to pdf here http://carrslane.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/HA-2015-16-Themes.pdf

That's atCarr's Lane URC, Biringham - a very successful, thriving chuercvh with a large congreation. Who says it is only evangelicals who grow numerically?

One of its earliest ministers was ths famous liberal, Dr. R. W. Dale.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

@Chris Stiles. Thanks for that. Makes sense. NT Churches of God, from what I know about 'em were set up with a community-centred focus. Like you say, they were a response to the unwelcoming indigenous church.

Don't know about too many other of these first generation churches but can imagine they had a particular "day" and that new generations of BME people are gravitating elsewhere.

I'm told there's about 130 NTCofG congregations knocking around these days - don't know how that compares to the 50's and 60's.

Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on :

quote:
Yes, good point. I suppose if you've been told your way is the One True Way (TM) it's going to be difficult to explore other options whatever that One True Way (TM) was.

I was reflecting on my own experience, and that of many of my peers. I thought I was also responding to something Svitlana said, but I can't find it now.... [/QB]

I think it also depends on how far the option is from the One True Way. I might encourage a friend to engage with a church at the Rowan William level of liberalness (theologically) if they were in the process of rejecting a "One True Way" version of the faith (which I hold to - let assume for the purpose of the argument that it is "the one true way"); or a Roman Catholic church; they would still be my brother or sister in Christ even thought it would mean they were more wrong than they had to be.

On the other hand I would see a church based on the theology of someone like Spong to be too far away from the "One True Way" to be something I could encourage someone towards.

Presumably if you were a liberal AC you might feel able to encourage someone towards HTB (hypothetically) but not the "1st fundamentalist church of the Nutjobs USA".

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Who is to say that you aren't more wrong than you had to be?

I can imagine a Roman Catholic or a Rowan Williams level of liberal Anglican saying that they would draw the line at Spong but still regard people like your good self as brothers and sisters in Christ ...

'He'alright that Green Mario but it's such a shame he is more wrong than he has to be on X, Y or Z ...'

Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on :

I am without doubt much more wrong that I have to be!

I would try to be less wrong but the difficulty is knowing on which issues, in which direction and to what degree [Smile]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm sorry, but I find this very sweeping too.

The Orthodox didn't disappear under centuries of Ottoman rule nor under Communist persecution, even though their capacity to evangelise or to 'take centre stage' was diminished.

It remains to be seen whether increasing Western-style secularism will undermine their apparent resurgence in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

I certainly wasn't referring to East Europe! I thought we were talking about the UK here.

Anyway, the obvious difference with the UK is that British Christians aren't experiencing any sort of oppression, so that's unlikely to be a factor in enabling any sort of Christian resurgence or maintaining a Christian identity.

quote:

Overall, I don't see see the prognosis as one for tremendous optimism, at least not in number terms. But neither do I see any grounds for doom, gloom and despondency.

The possible death of the British church doesn't necessarily have to be about 'doom, gloom and despondency'. Some Christians think it might be a good thing. Something new might grow out of it. The numerical decline of evangelical Christians might hasten their adoption of the kinds of theology and values that some want to see more of, in which case, their decline (which you've recently described) might be seen as a positive thing.

quote:

What does concern me, is that if the only 'flavour' of Christianity that people can see is an 'enthusiastic' one then that limits the appeal still further. 'Heck, I'm not joining them if they're expecting me to do THAT! ....'

I'm not sure what the answer is to that one.

The answer is that the 'sensible' churches can't be all shy and retiring, but then complain that other churches get all the limelight. I don't think that makes any sense.

quote:

Traditional black-led Holiness and Pentecostal churches such as the Wesleyan Holiness Church and the New Testament Church of God, seem to be struggling in comparison with some of the newer BME churches that have developed more recently.

The New Testament Church of God is actually one of the ones that's still growing, overall.

However, I would agree that the big story now is the African churches (particularly the Redeemed Christian Church of God), rather than the African Caribbean ones set up by a previous generation. African Caribbeans are in any case a far less prominent ethno-cultural group in Britain than they used to be. They're marrying out at a very high rate, and also likely to be dispersed among other ethnic groups rather than staying together in order to maintain a particular cultural identity.

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

I don't see that BME churches will be any less likely to undergo the same processes of the rest of the church in the UK, the only difference is the amount of time it will take before second and third generation immigrants assimilate.

This is an interesting issue. I heard Grace Davie speak about religion in London recently, and she seemed to think that London was likely to continue as a city that bucked the trend regarding secularisation. London, of course, is where most BME churches are. And if immigration into the city continues at a high rate, some BME churches will benefit from continued replenishment.

As far as assimilation is concerned, the indigenous, secular population is leaving London at a fairly high rate, so there's probably less for BME Christians there to 'assimilate' into. And young people may be leaving these churches for reasons that have little to do with assimilation: under achievement at school, poor life chances, the sense that the church doesn't understand their problems, etc. I think studies also show that some are leaving for other kinds of church.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
A while ago on another thread someone posted a link to a group set up in church called Heretics Anonymous - link to pdf here http://carrslane.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/HA-2015-16-Themes.pdf
That's at Carr's Lane URC, Birmingham - a very successful, thriving church with a large congregation. Who says it is only evangelicals who grow numerically?

I think I was the person who posted about Heretics Anonymous. It involves Christians from many churches.

I know Carrs Lane Church, and I wouldn't describe it has having a 'large congregation', unless things have changed rapidly in just a two or three years (but I am aware that it's now an LEP). The building is used by more than one church group, though, and various projects are based there, as you say, so no doubt lots of people are involved with the church overall.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Hmmmm ...

On one level there's the thing about about God being able to raise up 'children of Abraham' from 'these stones' as it were ... Luke 3:8.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+3%3A8&version=NIV

Impressive, but creating 'sons' (or daughters) from 'stones' is still not ex nihilo ...

There is something there, even if it is inanimate ...

However we cut it, though, other than in the Middle East, any form of Christianity anywhere in the world isn't 'indigenous' originally but some form of import from outside ...

That applies to 'indigenous British Christianity' as much as it does to Christianity in China, India, Africa, Australasia or the Americas.

So, yes, if 'indigeneous British Christianity' were to become extinct seeds could still blow in from elsewhere and take root.

But it'd still be a shame. There's no guarantee that anything would replace it, either.

The Christian Church in North Africa was all but wiped out apart from in Egypt. Ok, so later RC and Protestant missionaries have re-introduced Christianity to Algeria and elsewhere, but we can only speculate about what has been lost.

If the Indian Rhinoceros were to become extinct, would we console ourselves that there were at least still mongoose (mongeese?) living in India?

I remember a good few years ago now, the RC heirarchy talking about seeds of growth spilling out beyond the 'official' channels and taking root in unexpected places. The image of buddleia was used, how it springs up on waste ground, former industrial sites and so on.

I can see that, but one could see it as an acceptance of inevitable decline. It depends on the perspective. Is it growth or is it weeds? Is it wheat or is it tares?

Both grow together until the harvest at the end of the age ...

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hmmmm ...

On one level there's the thing about about God being able to raise up 'children of Abraham' from 'these stones' as it were ... Luke 3:8.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+3%3A8&version=NIV

Impressive, but creating 'sons' (or daughters) from 'stones' is still not ex nihilo ...

There is something there, even if it is inanimate

Unless you're being absolutely literal, I think the implication is that the "adopted" sons are being grafted onto the "tree of Abraham" and that the stones are a literal device to suggest some kind of "ex nihilo". Hence the whole New Testament thingy.

quote:
However we cut it, though, other than in the Middle East, any form of Christianity anywhere in the world isn't 'indigenous' originally but some form of import from outside ...

That's an argument which tends towards the absurd unless you're meaning that 2000 is not long enough to produce any kind of "indigenous" spirituality.

quote:
That applies to 'indigenous British Christianity' as much as it does to Christianity in China, India, Africa, Australasia or the Americas.

I'm not sure it does, to be very honest with you. Even in England we've had Christianity mixing with indigenous culture for a many many centuries to the extent that it has become indistinguishable. And, arguably, other places like India, Cyprus, Ethiopia etc have had it even longer (not that the length of exposure really makes any difference to the cultural impact of it anyway).

quote:
So, yes, if 'indigeneous British Christianity' were to become extinct seeds could still blow in from elsewhere and take root.

That's silly, unless you're saying that absolutely everything about British culture is imported (which is probably is). That's just not how cultures work.

Ideas that have been around for a very long time have become part of the established society to the extent that they can be described as indigenous, otherwise you're extending the term to the extent that it doesn't mean anything.

In British forestry (just to give one example of the way the term is used in other fields), indigenous trees in the so-called "Wild Wood" are described as those which were here before IIRC 500 AD. Similar with much of British botany, I think. If we'd use your definition, then arguably we'd have no indigenous trees or flora or fauna or anything else.

quote:
But it'd still be a shame. There's no guarantee that anything would replace it, either.

The Christian Church in North Africa was all but wiped out apart from in Egypt. Ok, so later RC and Protestant missionaries have re-introduced Christianity to Algeria and elsewhere, but we can only speculate about what has been lost.

True, but that's quite a strange point to make given what you said above. And I'm not sure how much speculation there is about the great libraries of Alexandria..

quote:
If the Indian Rhinoceros were to become extinct, would we console ourselves that there were at least still mongoose (mongeese?) living in India?

If Rhinos had been wiped out 3000 years ago and the Mongoose introduced 2000 years ago, then I think it is fair to call the former extinct and the latter indigenous.

quote:
I remember a good few years ago now, the RC heirarchy talking about seeds of growth spilling out beyond the 'official' channels and taking root in unexpected places. The image of buddleia was used, how it springs up on waste ground, former industrial sites and so on.

I can see that, but one could see it as an acceptance of inevitable decline. It depends on the perspective. Is it growth or is it weeds? Is it wheat or is it tares?

Both grow together until the harvest at the end of the age ...

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

As far as assimilation is concerned, the indigenous, secular population is leaving London at a fairly high rate, so there's probably less for BME Christians there to 'assimilate' into.

And young people may be leaving these churches for reasons that have little to do with assimilation: under achievement at school, poor life chances, the sense that the church doesn't understand their problems, etc. I think studies also show that some are leaving for other kinds of church.

Well, a lot of second and third generation immigrants are following a similar path to that of the 'indigenous' population as they are either priced out of housing or move for professional/family reasons.

Similarly - and often subsequent to the above, they can also change church or become part of the non-churched for aspirational reasons.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think you are taking a rather literal approach, mr cheesy or stretching my analogies further than they can bear ...

Most analogies only stretch so far.

My point was that I'd be sad to see indigenous British Christianity fade away, in the same way as I'd be sad to see the Ethiopian, Indian or any other variety become extinct ...

My comments were simply a rhetorical way of saying that it'd be a shame and that there'd not necessarily be anything lovely, fresh and new to replace it.

Hence the mongoose and rhino thing. Once the rhinos have gone, they're gone. Like the brontosaurus, the dodo, various forms of newt or seabird ...

As for the great library of Alexandria - that was a tragedy - and perpetrated by Christians too. Whose descendants, presumably, live on in contemporary Egypt in the form of the Copts.

Whereas, as far as I know, there are no direct descendants of the indigenous churches that once flourished in Carthage and other parts of North Africa that aren't Alexandria ...

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

As far as assimilation is concerned, the indigenous, secular population is leaving London at a fairly high rate, so there's probably less for BME Christians there to 'assimilate' into.

And young people may be leaving these churches for reasons that have little to do with assimilation: under achievement at school, poor life chances, the sense that the church doesn't understand their problems, etc. I think studies also show that some are leaving for other kinds of church.
Well, a lot of second and third generation immigrants are following a similar path to that of the 'indigenous' population as they are either priced out of housing or move for professional/family reasons.

Similarly - and often subsequent to the above, they can also change church or become part of the non-churched for aspirational reasons.

I was working amongst black-led churches in the 70's and 80's. My observation, admitedly now rather dated and mainly within the London area, is that black-led churches, as expected actually, have followed the securalisation pathway proposed by some sociologists. They have become less 'sect-like' as they have appointed professional ministers and bought their own premises. Many smaller congregations have disappeared altogether. IMO all this will continue.
I agree that 'African' congregations are now far more visible than 'Caribbean'.
Another factor in the movement of black Christians is that, in my area at least, most mainline denominational congregations have a majority of black worshippers and sometimes are led by black ministers.
Then, into this general equation should be added Christians from Easter Europe.
I think it might have been Gerald Coates (he of the New Churches and gold dust phenomena) who coined the phrase 'constant change is here to stay' - how true in London.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think you are taking a rather literal approach, mr cheesy or stretching my analogies further than they can bear ...

Most analogies only stretch so far.

My point was that I'd be sad to see indigenous British Christianity fade away, in the same way as I'd be sad to see the Ethiopian, Indian or any other variety become extinct ...

My comments were simply a rhetorical way of saying that it'd be a shame and that there'd not necessarily be anything lovely, fresh and new to replace it.

OK then you need to be clearer what it is that you're trying to say because I didn't get any of that from what you actually wrote.

I'm generally ambivalent about the way these things change - because in the evolution of ideas, the only constant is change. Ideas get refined and those that can't are replaced. I don't know that there is any point in mourning for ideas that don't make the cut - although one could attempt to prevent extinction if one felt strongly enough about it.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

On Evangelical Take Overs in the Church of England

Last time I checked the majority of Anglican Ordinands were Evangelical. There are simply not enough MOTR/Liberal clergy to go round. I am not sure I know more than one ordained person who would say they are MOTR or Liberal. Those who share Rowan Williams' theology certainly wouldn't describe themselves as Liberal

If anything Open Evangelical /is/ the new MOTR.

I have noted a number of MOTR churches given the choice between an Open Evangelical future and a more Anglo-Catholic candidate actually choose the former. It seems that clapping songs are less threatening than continental religion!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Obviously there can be many reasons for this. But surely the prime one is that it's the Evangelical churches which are lively and growing therefore attract younger people, from where the supply of Ordinands potentially comes (although I recognise that not all Ordinands are young!)

Whether the younger clergy of today will still be as Evangelical in 20 years time is a different question!

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

Coming from a sending and training church that most of you would see as Anglo-Catholic, it is a sweeping generalisation. Most of the ordinands I know now have attended Westcott. Different areas of the country have different traditions.

Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on :

I rather dislike the way that 'lively' and 'Evangelical' have come to be seen as synonyms - are we saying that any other kind of church is, um, deathly?

That simply isn't true. Nor is it true that it is only Evangelical churches that are growing - that certainly isn't the case round here. And while it might be the case that the majority of ordinands at the theological colleges in the Church of England are Evangelical, the picture on regional courses is much more mixed. (Also on regional courses people encounter different church traditions in a way that they don't, say, at Ridley Hall or Trinity College.)

I suspect that it's wiser to take the long view. Evangelicalism is in the ascendant right now, but what seems so 'lively' now may be thought dull and moribund in a few years.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

All kinds of church can be successful, but the contexts in which MOTR, Anglo-C/High Church or 'liberal' congregations can flourish in contemporary Britain seem to be somewhat more restricted.

I think there'll always be room for non-evangelical clergy, since most churches are non-evangelical. But I fear that in the upcoming decades even more of them are going to be expected to manage decline, closure and merges. There won't be enough jobs for everyone who wants to work in the vigorous but non-evangelical churches or parishes. And most probably won't have the temperament, skills or time to turn around congregations or to plant new ones.

As you say, lively evangelicalism may gradually lose its liveliness and its evangelicalism, but new or 'revitalised' forms of evangelicalism are also likely to arise.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

The churches (or rather groups) that survive will be the ones who either provide a specialised form of ministry (type of service) or those who commit to taking the church into their local community. The latter will not survive if all they do is social action - it will be grounded in a simple belief with clear principles which can be embraced by anyone.

Belief will be broad but there will be a return to propositional truths as the basis of that belief.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Hmmm ... I'm interested in the ecclesiology behind that observation, ExclamationMark.

What is the difference between 'churches' and 'groups' in this context, coming at it, as you are, from a Baptist perspective rather than, say, a 'High Church' position in terms of ecclesiology?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I don't know if EM has seen this article by a fellow Baptist minister, but it may well reflect his thinking ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Which is fair enough, but it doesn't address the ecclesiological issue, which is what my question was about ie, what is the difference between a 'group' and a 'church'.

EM's post implied that he believes that there is.

I'm interested to know what that difference is from his perspective.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

AFAIUI sociologists make a distinction between a 'church' and what they see as newer, more informal, less institutionalised and sometimes more theologically defined (although less theologically sophisticated) 'groups' or fellowships.

If you have a kind of church plant or fellowship meeting that has little formal connection with an denomination (and hasn't yet created its own denominational structures) you might refer to that as a group. In the Baptist case that's surely not hard to imagine, as the notion of denominational oversight seems to be weaker there than it would be for the CofE, the RCC or the the Orthodox churches, for example.

I feel that Fresh Expressions of church (i,.e. those founded by the CofE and Methodists, etc.) are in a kind of grey zone. In some cases there's probably a strong denominational allegiance and influence, while in others there might be a hands-off approach which could lead to a more independent, even a more sectarian identity.

[ 04. May 2016, 14:03: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, I understand all that SvitlanaV2. I was interested in EM's 'take' as he seemed to imply that 'groups' rather than 'churches' in the formal sense, would survive longer into the future.

I'm interested to hear more on his perspective on that and when a 'group' becomes a 'church' in his opinion.

It's rather like the comments I've made on these boards before about what happens to 'Emerging Church' once it has 'Emerged' ...?

Or what happens to 'Fresh Expressions' when they aren't as 'Fresh' as they once were ...?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Gamaliel--

Probably have growing pains, like most movements do?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The churches (or rather groups) that survive will be the ones who either provide a specialised form of ministry (type of service) or those who commit to taking the church into their local community. The latter will not survive if all they do is social action - it will be grounded in a simple belief with clear principles which can be embraced by anyone.

Belief will be broad but there will be a return to propositional truths as the basis of that belief.

By this shall all men know you ...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Regarding the lifespan of groups, it was interesting to read that in 17th c. Germany there were some Reformed groups that lasted almost 200 years, and became seedbeds for revival in the 19th c.

We should remember that church institutions frequently have a finite existence. Countless formal congregations ceased to exist in my city in the 20th c., and many church buildings are long gone. I understand that previous centuries saw lots of demolitions, and sometimes I wonder what happened to all those church communities that were torn apart long before people started to talk about secularisation.

Then there are entire denominations that fizzled out or came to a more dramtic end. Honestly, with regard to Europe ISTM that if you didnt get in the game early and accrue financial power and influence, like tbe RCC, the Orthodox and the various national churches, then your Christian movement was always going to be on borrowed time. But if thats how things have to be, then we just have to accept it. On a local level today in many parts of the Uk there is no guarantee that any gathering of Christians, whether official or not, will be able to maintain its presence for another 100 years.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

An RC priest once told me how he'd heard a speaker say at a conference that the effective life-expectancy of an RC religious order - such as the Carthusians, Franciscans, etc etc - was up to 600 years.

The effective life-expectancy of a Protestant denomination, such as the Methodists, was around 200 to 300 years.

However, the effective life-expectancy of the 'newer' Protestant groups - the US 'non-denomins' say, or their equivalent here in the UK and elsewhere, was a generation at most, essentially the life-spans of their leaders.

I'm not sure how we could prove or disprove that but it's an interesting observation.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

If the RCC can maintain their orders for such a long time (which is to be expected, considering how long the RCC has been around) then good on them.

However, I get the impression that in the UK the membership of the various religious orders is currently ageing quite significantly. Many of us admire kindly monks and nuns, but who wants that life for themselves or their children? Hardly anyone now, so it seems.

In any case, new Protestant movements aren't in competition with ancient RC orders. They appeal to different people.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Of course. The priest wasn't being triumphalist. It's well known that many RC religious orders are struggling.

Their 600 years are running out, just as 300 years are for the Methodists.

I'm not suggesting that some form of monastic order is a guarantee of longevity. There were a number of Anglican orders formed in the wake of the Oxford Movement, for instance, but little over a century on, few remain active.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The point is that with regards to ExclamationMark's earlier post, the longevity of several RC orders is not particularly relevant. What's relevant in the current and forthcoming context of many British towns and cities is that many institutional church congregations will most likely disappear. This includes the RC orders.

This being the case, some of the new (initially) informal groups that are likely to emerge over the next 50 years or so will quite likely outlive some of the institutional congregations. (Indeed, I imagine that many will come into existence to fill the gaps left by church closures). But that doesn't mean they will last as long as them. No one on this thread has said that they would - certainly not ExclamationMark. No one could make such a prediction, in any case. Even specialist sociological projections don't attempt to cover the next 3-400 years!

Moreover, the implication that longevity is always an advantage for religious groups could surely be challenged in a number of ways. What's gained in one aspect is frequently lost in another.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I understand all that SvitlanaV2. I was interested in EM's 'take' as he seemed to imply that 'groups' rather than 'churches' in the formal sense, would survive longer into the future.

I'm interested to hear more on his perspective on that and when a 'group' becomes a 'church' in his opinion.

It's rather like the comments I've made on these boards before about what happens to 'Emerging Church' once it has 'Emerged' ...?

Or what happens to 'Fresh Expressions' when they aren't as 'Fresh' as they once were ...?

'Emerging' and 'Fresh' churches demonstrate one thing - the church is as consumerist as the rest of society. OK, existing church may not be meeting our needs but is it about that or something else? Most of these kind of groups form, not because of a desire to do new things, usually from a need to get away from a "traditional" form of church. It's partly a pull, but more strongly a push.

In any event most of these kinds of churches have a very limited lifespan - usually until the first argument or until people's life and faith circumstances change. They are more likely to disappear than they are to transition: splitting up and moving on becomes a learned spiritual behaviour and the participants in such churches often move on to another expression that meets their (changed or current) needs or perceptions.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that if something is easy to set up and easy to dissolve then the turnover of such churches is likely to be very high. If the need to meet your needs becomes greater than the claims of community then fragmentation occurs. Boredom can also set in for spiritual thrill seekers who then move on to the next fix - we get enough of that in the mainstream churches where inertia tends to keep people in even if they don't find much there - once you've moved out, then you'll do it again when the same conditions occur. It's easier too after the first time.

Groups which survive the 3 year boredom threshold become churches and usually align with denominations. They may call it a gathering or something else to sound cool, trendy and/or non churchy but it is what it is - a church. There's leaders, a constitution, links to other churches, liturgy (the way they do things), even doctrine (fluid non propositional truths are doctrine whatever else you may claim to call it). In short they become what many of them despise.

The pace of such change gets faste: soem time back the life span of "cutting edge" was 7 year on avergae, thn it became 5, now I'm seeing it cut in after 3 years. We seem to b e getting pop up churches almost.

I think that will be the future - I don't agree with it and I find it sad that commitment to a community trying to work things out doesn't last the course. It's non especially biblical in the sense of replicating the early church that such groups seem to want to do: I don't for example see many of them living in community, embracing poverty and sharing their lives and possessions. It's actually C1 church with C21 values and mores. The talk is of being radical - well its about as radical as ordering a skinny latte with full fat milk.

Denominations will struggle but those with strong and stated values will, I think survive. URC and Methodism where finding doctrinal belief in the churches is like nailing jelly to a wall with 6 inch nails, will implode in the next 10 years unless something drastic happens. (I believe in revival but for that to happen prayer is vital and humility essential: both seem in short supply).

The Baptists (BUGB) will probably fragment over SSM and arguments about what "covenanting together" means. A recent reorganisation was botched as it didn't go far enough. There's a move towards more elder driven governance (CIO's anyone) which will alienate many who find the concept of every member ministry winsome.

The CofE will survive. It will be propped up by the state, the buildings will get alternative uses, and in some places there will remain an authentic faith witness with many liturgical expressions. It could even be the future of UK Christianity.

Small groups will survive but will either morph into mainstream denomination or will continually churn into more and more, smaller and smaller, groups - each of which has a particular expression of faith - e.g arts, music etc. They will become the exclusive enclaves they have been keen to escape.

It may seem bleak but actually it isn't. I think the dross from the UK church will fall away faster and faster, to be left with a committed core which is no longer the core but the whole. OK it will be small but that's how the church started: I think there will be aturn of the tide but as to when - who knows?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok, thanks, that's really interesting ExclamationMark and I find myself in broad agreement with your take here - although I'm not so sure that State sanction of the CofE will continue into the mid-term future ... but I don't see Disestablishment happening any time soon either.

I think you've articulated my own concerns about 'pop-up' church (great phrase) and so called Fresh Expressions better than I could have done myself ... in fact, you've helped me in my own thinking here.

It reminds me of some of the public school kids I used to know at university who would try to be 'wadical' by joining the Socialist Worker's Party or some radical feminist group or something of that kind. You'd see them outside the Students' Union, 'Seychellist Workah ... Seychellist Workah ...'

[Disappointed]

So yes, bugger all radical about some of the new 'pop-up' groups, it's just about hanging out down at Starbucks or Costa with their mates thinking they're being 'New Testament' and changing the world ...

The only concern/difference of opinion I might have with your projection is that all churches, of whatever stripe, need a 'periphery' to draw on.

I'm all for 'gathered churches' but there's gathering and there's strait-jacketing ... It depends on how tightly you strap the stays ...

If all we end up with is some kind of apparently pure and committed core then that, in itself, is problematic. At least with the more traditional Big C Churches where nominalism is certainly a problem, there is a periphery to draw on. People can be brought into the core as it were ...

If all we have is a 'core' then it becomes difficult to pack things around it ...

One of the observations that rang true with me from the Beckford programme came from the Lancaster University academic who has studied these things. She said that whilst enthusiatic forms of religion can be successful to an extent, they ultimately end up undermining themselves because not everyone wants to be a full-on religious enthusiast.

I think you can see the effects of that in Wales, for instance, where the 1904-05 Revivalists insistence on meetings, meetings, meetings and more bloody meetings - at the expense of people's legitimate involvement in sports, social activities, political groups and whatever else - effectively estranged the next generation.

People broke away from the chapels to engage in rugby, football, Nationalist or Labour Party politics, choirs and Eisteddfodau and so on ...

As I've said before, there's only so long you can stand in church singing 'Here is love vast as the ocean ...' over and over and over again.

Heck, to be honest, I think you can see it in my own life. I've gone from being church, church, church all the time to getting involved with local politics, the local arts scene and all sorts of other things ... I'm still involved with church but I have no interest whatsoever in going to prayer meetings, house-groups and the like - at least not regularly.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

,

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
(I believe in revival but for that to happen prayer is vital and humility essential: both seem in short supply).

Very interesting post. Perhaps the reason is thate it is becoming clear to a greater number of people that (a) prayers to their God for ) violent extremism to stop are ineffective, (b) that it is only human endeavour that will make a difference, whether those people pray or not, and (c) that trying to revive situationsbeliefs and formats which, because they are declining, is something that no longer merits the time (and money) spent on them.

As far as humility is concerned, I cannot think of any situation where I should be humble. Respectful, and all sorts of other positions? Yes, but humble? No. I received a letter this morning from a local committee chairman who said he was ‘honoured but humbled’ to be voted to the position. He could have left out the word humbled.

quote:
The CofE will survive.

With this, I very much agree. Principally, because it is part of the historical, traditional background way of things and is one of those things that ‘ain’t broke’, so doesn’t need ‘fixing’ at the moment. It will become less influential as time passes because more and more people prefer to deal with practical, real things of life and know they can rely on tried and tested technology etc etc in all areas of life. They are also aware that humans alone are responsible for their success or failure. And, as I mention on occasions, I am firmly of the opinion that the status quo is better than any other religious faith becoming dominant.

quote:
It will be propped up by the state, the buildings will get alternative uses, and in some places there will remain an authentic faith witness with many liturgical expressions. It could even be the future of UK Christianity.

I raise my eyebrows slightly at the phrase ‘authentic faith, but that’s all, as I know what you mean. All religious beliefs will gradually become a minority over this century. I hope so, anyway.

quote:
It may seem bleak but actually it isn't. I think the dross from the UK church will fall away faster and faster, to be left with a committed core which is no longer the core but the whole. OK it will be small but that's how the church started: I think there will be aturn of the tide but as to when - who knows?

Yes, I think you are right. I think there is much to be optimistic about.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You'd see them outside the Students' Union, 'Seychellist Workah ... Seychellist Workah ...'

Ours said, "BUY the Socialist Worker, SMASH the Tory Government" - which always seemed to be a bit of a non-sequitur.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So yes, bugger all radical about some of the new 'pop-up' groups, it's just about hanging out down at Starbucks or Costa with their mates thinking they're being 'New Testament' and changing the world ...

quote:
The only concern/difference of opinion I might have with your projection is that all churches, of whatever stripe, need a 'periphery' to draw on.

I'm all for 'gathered churches' but there's gathering and there's strait-jacketing ... It depends on how tightly you strap the stays ...

If all we end up with is some kind of apparently pure and committed core then that, in itself, is problematic. At least with the more traditional Big C Churches where nominalism is certainly a problem, there is a periphery to draw on. People can be brought into the core as it were ...

This to me is a real problem. I agree with having the periphery or fringe; the problem is that many folk in that area think of themselves as "proper Christians" and are very unresponsive when they are approached to be drawn in further.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Depends what you mean by a 'proper Christian' of course.

Is an indifferent or apathetic Christian not a Christian in the first place, or are they a Christian who is indifferent or apathetic?

There are various ways of approaching that condundrum, just as there are of trying to challenge/stimulate people to engage with faith in a more committed or serious way ...

But how to do that without resorting to guilt-inducement ... a preacher's short-cut stock in trade ... or manipulative techniques of one form or other?

This isn't something restricted purely to the Big C Churches where there might be nominal allegiance.

I don't know what the answer is. An Orthodox priest friend tells me that he's tried reasoning, hectoring or 'shaming' those who come in for the 'Christ is Risen!' part of the Paschal Vigil but who don't engage with anything else, stay for the Eucharist etc etc ... and they simply shrug and walk out. How should he 'tackle' or engage such people?

We can take horses to water but we can't make them drink.

Nor should we encourage thirst, I don't think, by putting salt in their food ...

The best we can do is be salty ourselves and perhaps they'll see something that will rub off, as it were.

But that's easier said than done.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

It's my guess, if we don't know what to do (and in my context, I don't) then prayer is probably a safe bet...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

In what sense? Not doing what to do and living with mess and ambuguity is part of the human condition.

I don't see us being able to pray our way out of those conundrums.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Not that I'm advocating not praying, of course.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I think that not knowing is actually a promising sign. It is one of the marks of dealing with God.

So to pray, and therefore remain in the place of not knowing, seems right. And much better than doing something, anything, to avoid the difficulty of not knowing.

Everyone in every church I know is always asking themselves what the way forward is. Thinking harder won't bring an answer. Waiting might.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, there can all too easily be a 'Mr Fix-it' attitude ... we all want to get things done, but when it comes to dealing with people's spirituality and personal lives, we have to be careful.

It can all too easily spill over into interference or manipulation. I think all of us here are aware of the dangers of that.

However we cut it, people are people not 'programmes' to be marshalled and manipulated or 'resources' to be consumed in pursuit of some goal or other ...

Coming back to the smaller and apparently 'purer' idea of church as a gathering of the committed and the fervent ... well, it strikes me that this wasn't necessarily the case from the get-go ...

The original Jesus Movement, if you like, within Judaism had a hinterland and a periphery - it consisted of every Jewish person who hadn't 'recognised' Christ as the Messiah at that point - and then the radiating, concentric circles of God-fearing Gentiles, fellow-travellers and then the wider pagan society as a whole ...

Whatever else we can deduce from Acts there's this radiating movement outwards from Jerusalem to Rome.

Yes, the action takes place on the streets, in market-places, in lecture-halls, in the Temple forecourts, in the Areopagus and many other places besides ... Cornelius's household, a Philippian jail ...

But it happens with groups of people and the periphery of those groups of people.

If nothing else, the pastoral Epistles then tell us how messy things were - people getting drunk at love-feasts, people forming relationships that were considered illicit ...

Hardly a perfect band of stalwarts.

By the time we get to St John Chrysostom's Easter sermon, of course, it's pretty evident that there are occasional and casual attenders as well as a core of committed 'regulars' as it were.

So this idea that cutting things back to a committed core somehow makes for greater purity isn't necessarily pertinent, in my view.

It's not as clear cut and simple as that.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think that not knowing is actually a promising sign. It is one of the marks of dealing with God.

So to pray, and therefore remain in the place of not knowing, seems right. And much better than doing something, anything, to avoid the difficulty of not knowing.

Everyone in every church I know is always asking themselves what the way forward is. Thinking harder won't bring an answer. Waiting might.

This is very good. In general, I am a big fan of not knowing, being confused, and so on.

I used to help run meditation retreats, and you would notice that some people would start off in a tone of bright certainty, about who they are, and their purpose in life, and so on, but after a few days, this would disappear, and you would hear the cry, 'I don't know'. Well, I won't bore you with the rest of it, but it can be the gateway. Ah, but to what, I hear you cry.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

I think though that EM was using the 'committed core' term different to how you are using it above. Applying it to groups is somewhat different from applying it to the individuals within that group.

So, I can see a case for what he was saying, alongside what you were saying. The 'committed core' of groups surviving comprising those with relatively strong identities - though inside them there will probably be a 'core' plus a whole bunch of people at the periphery.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

ExclamationMark

Thanks for returning to this thread to discuss your thoughts on all this. Myself, I'm rather more critical of traditional forms of church structure and engagement, although I fully accept that they're convenient for most practising Christians, and valuable from a cultural and historical perspective.

While small groups may be 'consumerist', nothing seems to swallow up more money than a fully fledged church with buildings and hierarchies to maintain. I think this is a challenge for the churches. Most people don't want to have to shell out endlessly to uphold institutions which you imply ought to be uninterested in their 'needs and perceptions'.

Moreover, 'commitment to a community trying to work things out' is nice idea, but problematic. As you say, we live in a fast paced culture. People move around, move on from relationships and jobs. Christians are more likely to switch denominations nowadays (though this does make us more ecumenically aware). Making a lifelong effort to fit in with people who don't agree with you is a lot of hassle, and who has the time for that? Christians have other things to do.

Hanging around to squabble about differences may be tolerable in the CofE (which, I agree, is likely to survive) as it has strong brand recognition , but even the CofE might be a more effective institution if it could focus on evangelism rather than pretending to reconcile conflicting beliefs about, say, homosexuality.

Otherwise, be honest: aren't you grateful that the restless ingrates you mention aren't members of your own church? If they're so self-centred, with delusions of their own importance, and likely to spread their dissatisfaction to other churchgoers surely it's better for your mission that they leave, or don't join churches like yours in the first place!

Finally, re the problems of boredom for new, exciting movements; perhaps Christians need to learn how to be bored at church. I think regular churchgoers in regular churches mostly accept that they're going to be bored a certain amount of the time, but this remains unspoken. We probably need to develop a theology of churchly boredom.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Chris Stiles, thanks, yes, I take your point and you've issued a valuable corrective there.

EM was indeed talking about groups rather than individuals within groups.

I agree with him that those groups that have a clear and more definable stance are more likely to survive than those that don't.

@SvitlanaV2. We are all influenced by what we've experienced. You've experienced decline within a traditional denominational setting, so that's inevitably going to make you more suspicious of traditional denominational structures.

I get that.

EM (and myself to an extent) have seen the opposite, groups setting out full of zeal and life and vitality which ultimately have to face reality and get on with the day to day drudgery of keeping the show on the road just like everyone else.

Of course, small groups may not have expensive church buildings and heirarchies to maintain, but in my experience they consume an inordinate amount of their members time and energies. They easily lead to burn-out.

There's some kind of balance somewhere.

As far as the CofE goes, the impression I get isn't that everyone is squabbling about Dead Horse issues and so on but simply trying to keep things afloat.

I take your point about life being too fast-paced to hang around trying to acclimatise oneself to viewpoints and positions one might not hold oneself ... and yes, I'm experiencing that myself at the moment. I have to grit my teeth whenever I'm around people from our parish church. Thing is, it might well be like that elsewhere, only over different issues. That's life. Unless I were to go and live on a desert island or drop out of church life altogether, I don't see any way around that one.

On learning to be bored at church. Yes, well we do need a 'theology' of that. That's part of the problem with the new, more exciting movements. They don't allow for that. Consequently, when apparent routine sets in they find themselves reinventing things, stirring and whipping things up and bending over backwards to try and create the initial buzz and excitement that they first had.

They don't realise that this is simply par for the course, part and parcel of the way things are, the way human beings operate.

The problem is that they confuse 'boredom' or mundanity with lack of spiritual drive and if things aren't on Cloud Nine the whole time they think there's something wrong. They have to pray harder, sing more loudly, do this that or the other a lot more ...

It becomes a vicious circle. Rather like rave-culture with highs followed by depressed lows.

Ok, most groups will settle into some kind of equilibrium on that score, but I do think that a kind of high-octane religious enthusiasm is hard to maintain over the medium to longer term.

Which is why I think that interest in retreats, in neo-monastic movements and so on can serve as a healthy antidote to such tendencies.

It's interesting when looking at the way the Quakers developed how quickly initial fiery enthusiasm gave way to a kind of principled Quietism. Perhaps we'll see parallels to that with some of the current rah-rah-rah lively groups?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Of course, small groups may not have expensive church buildings and heirarchies to maintain, but in my experience they consume an inordinate amount of their members time and energies. They easily lead to burn-out.

and in some ways this is a 'feature' rather than a 'bug'. Momentum in such groups are generally kept up by the sense of an external mission, and so activities are both expected and a large part of keeping everyone excited.

At the same time, I question Svitlana's complaint about buildings and hierarchies. Eventually all groups/denominations (call them what you like) are going to have to offer something to actually be seen as valuable - and to be able to grow they have to be based around more than simply some kind of organic model (which usually actually comes down to a bunch of people who find it comfortable to be friends/acquaintances with each other and just hang out) - so some infrastructure is needed, whether it be a building, the ability the hire someone full/part time who thinks the thoughts that others do not have time to do and so on.

and tbh buildings being the big expense is very much a locational thing.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The cynic in me supposes that 'balance' occurs when people do what they like, and then stop doing it when they don't like it anymore. On a more positive note, From Anecdote to Evidence talks about various established CofE congregations that seem to be lively and active without out being wacky.

Re burden of buildings being a very localised thing, I'd have to disagree. Of course, I fully accept that in the places you know the churches are probably fortunate enough to be well-attended and well-funded. But the burden of expensive and often underused buildings has been a widespread challenge in Britain for a century or more, and has been documented by scholars of church history. The burden has been felt most strongly among the Nonconformists. Two interesting books, 'The Myth of the Empty Church' and 'The Empty Church Revisited', both by Robin Gill have more to say about this.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I agree with SvitlanaV2 that buildings can be a burden wherever the location. The restorationist 'new church' I was part of from 1982 to 2000 has recently got rid of its burdensome building and begun hiring a hall again because it could no longer maintain and upkeep the building it'd purchased after many years of nomadic hall-hiring ...

I also agree that it's possible to be lively and engaging without being whacky.

However, I also think that Chris Stiles is right with his observation that you need some form of infrastructure to maintain and sustain things beyond a group of like-minded people meeting together several times a week.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I suppose it's a question of what one means by an essential infrastructure, and what will be gained and lost by buying into some aspect of it. No doubt, there could be mileage in discussing what kind of church government and organisation has been the most successful according to various criteria.

Put bluntly, I think it's also a matter of what any particular merry band of Christians are willing and able to pay for.

[ 11. May 2016, 13:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with SvitlanaV2 that buildings can be a burden wherever the location.

Of course they *can* be, the point was that they didn't have to be - a lot of the issues are around; heritage buildings and the high cost of property/buildings - this isn't something that has to be universally true.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, Chris, but buildings and infrastructure are going to be a significant drain on any church's resources.

I know an Orthodox parish which is using a redundant Anglican church building on a pepper-corn rent. The Anglicans may well turn round and let them have it for next to nothing rather than maintain it. So, at the moment it's not costing them a great deal to run, but as soon as they have it as 'their's' for keeps, that's when the bills will start. They're already planning to put in loos and plumbing - at the moment the altar-boys pee in the church yard or in the scout hut opposite. That's going to cost them a pretty penny when the average Sunday attendance is only between 20 and 40 people.

I think there's scope for more creative ways of sharing and using buildings, but they are always going to be a source of great expense.

As for what types or kinds of church are likely to be more sustainable into the future, well, that'll depend on all sorts of criteria.

I'm not sure the 'Let's all meet at Starbuck's with our mates' approach is any more sustainable than the existing traditional models.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with SvitlanaV2 that buildings can be a burden wherever the location.
Of course they *can* be, the point was that they didn't have to be - a lot of the issues are around; heritage buildings and the high cost of property/buildings - this isn't something that has to be universally true.

Just to add to what Gamaliel has said, let's remember that at this point most churches aren't starting afresh, are they? They have to deal with the buildings they've got. Even a new group looking to buy in a particular area has to choose from what's available. Gill above notes, for example, that the black congregations that have bought hulking old Nonconformist churches are facing the same expensive challenges in looking after them that the Methodists and the URC had before them. I agree with him.

Knocking down a money pit of a 19th c. church building (or even a badly designed mid-20th c. replacement) isn't cheap either, and raising the funds to do that takes a whole lot of time and effort that could be spent on something else. Unfortunately, in some cases the effort spent on rebuilding isn't spent on refocusing the church's mission and long term future adequately, so the churches may still end up having to close.

For the Nonconformists and other independents, it doesn't matter how big a congregation is; if the members can't afford to run their church building or attract every Tom, Dick and Harry to rent church rooms on a regular basis, then they have to close. My former minister described one building in the circuit as a letting agency with a church attached(!) but I'd say that any Methodist church now in the lucky position to move or rebuild should have the same goal: theologically you're a church, but on a practical level, be a letting agency with a church attached. Money rules the real world.

The CofE is willing to support tiny congregations in huge, ancient churches to an extent that no other British denomination could ever imitate. But even the CofE has to draw the line somewhere, and there are a number of ex-CofE churches (in terms of not being used for CofE worship) around.

[ 11. May 2016, 15:10: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think that not knowing is actually a promising sign. It is one of the marks of dealing with God.

So to pray, and therefore remain in the place of not knowing, seems right. And much better than doing something, anything, to avoid the difficulty of not knowing.

Everyone in every church I know is always asking themselves what the way forward is. Thinking harder won't bring an answer. Waiting might.
This is very good. In general, I am a big fan of not knowing, being confused, and so on.

I used to help run meditation retreats, and you would notice that some people would start off in a tone of bright certainty, about who they are, and their purpose in life, and so on, but after a few days, this would disappear, and you would hear the cry, 'I don't know'. Well, I won't bore you with the rest of it, but it can be the gateway. Ah, but to what, I hear you cry.

It's fine if you really don't know. It isn't much good though if you use "don't know" when you do know - ie as a means of avoiding tough decisions or commitments.

Don't know can also be equated to don't want to know - ie I'll happily sit dialogueing over some issue because I don't actually care about the outcome. Don't know is, in those cases, n excuse for inertia.

[ 11. May 2016, 15:37: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Picking up the issue with buildings ... there's a lot of church buildings which are underused. Soem can't be used by others (locations, listings, willingness), others might be but aren't.

Think of it this way: if a church moves its mindset from mission to maintenance (that is, it is simply trying to "be" there, keep the show on the road), then does it deserve to be kept going? Isn't God's big plan something about going out and not staying at home?

I hear all the arguments about incarnation and intention, but these can be substitutes for laziness and complacency, especially if you have an endowment fund or cash in the bank.

The questions for all of us should be along the lines of exactly what are we quantifiably contributing to the mission of the church? How are we proclaiming Christ through our concerts, Toddler Groups etc and what steps are we taking to bring the people who attend these to a place where they meet Christ?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

They have to deal with the buildings they've got.

Sure, and I'm not sure what else you are suggesting, apart from wringing ones hands.

quote:

Gill above notes, for example, that the black congregations that have bought hulking old Nonconformist churches are facing the same expensive challenges in looking after them that the Methodists and the URC had before them.

Yes, and this is a perfect example of making an existing situation much worse than it has to be (presumably they bought them out of a misplaced desire to get a building that 'looked' like a church).

I'm not suggesting that these issues magically go away - but that we can look to the past and make adjustments (and that additionally the building issue is much more of an issue in places like the UK than in other places).

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

They have to deal with the buildings they've got.
Sure, and I'm not sure what else you are suggesting, apart from wringing ones hands.

Speaking personally, I'm suggesting that more congregations should be willing to do without buildings. (That's not a popular idea among those of you with experience of smug middle class men in t-shirts who meet for fellowship in coffee shops. Fair enough. More of them should probably be led by working class ladies in dungarees, maybe meeting in a greasy spoon, or something....)

As I said above, if you must own a building, another another option is to become a 'letting agency with a church attached'. What this does is create less anxiety about finances and frees up the church to focus on its true God-given mission and calling.

However, our congregations are free to do what seems best to them, according to their denominational history and expectations.

quote:

quote:

Gill above notes, for example, that the black congregations that have bought hulking old Nonconformist churches are facing the same expensive challenges in looking after them that the Methodists and the URC had before them.
Yes, and this is a perfect example of making an existing situation much worse than it has to be (presumably they bought them out of a misplaced desire to get a building that 'looked' like a church).

I'm not suggesting that these issues magically go away - but that we can look to the past and make adjustments (and that additionally the building issue is much more of an issue in places like the UK than in other places).

Looking like a church would be part of it, but it would be strange for an advocate of traditional church structures to knock them for that. The more obvious reason is that their membership had grown. There was a limit to how many worshippers would hold in a bedsit in Wolverhampton in the 1960s.

Moreover, such groups had no foundational theology of 'organic church' or whatever - they were just doing what it took to pursue a Christian ministry in a strange land. Most of them had come from institutional churches in their homelands.

I'm not sure what you mean about looking to the past and making adjustments. What adjustments are you thinking of?

(BTW, my comments are focused on the UK, but there are no doubt interesting comparisons that could be made with other countries.)

[the Battle for Correct UBB Code]

[ 11. May 2016, 16:56: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Speaking personally, I'm suggesting that more congregations should be willing to do without buildings. (That's not a popular idea among those of you with experience of smug middle class men in t-shirts who meet for fellowship in coffee shops. Fair enough. More of them should probably be led by working class ladies in dungarees, maybe meeting in a greasy spoon, or something....)

Sure, and I'm all for renting/hiring rather than buying - though the areas that are expensive to buy in tend to be equally expensive to rent in (hence all those swanky coffee shops) - and finding room for a church of any size is usually a huge problem (there will be all sorts of issues around parking, noise and so on - and most ethnic church will face more than their fair share of complaints around these issues).

quote:

Moreover, such groups had no foundational theology of 'organic church' or whatever - they were just doing what it took to pursue a Christian ministry in a strange land.

I did not claim that they had to be an organic church - however buying creaking old buildings wasn't the wisest thing to do (having been a disinterested observer to a couple of these things of things).

I think the redevelopment option which you outline will work for some churches, but perhaps in future we should tend towards building plain churches that aren't likely to end up as the targets of the heritage industry.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I can't imagine much church building going on in the future, THB. I live in a city, and there wouldn't be the room. It's going to be hard enough to find the space for everyone just to have a home! And where would the average mid 21st c. church group (which is likely to remain smaller than churches of the past) find the money?

I know of Pentecostal churches that meet in redundant office blocks and converted industrial properties. This practice may increase. There are also lots of empty shops in some town centres, so the 'store front church' might become a more common sight in 21st c. Britain. Maybe that depends on whether the stigma against such churches will fade. Also, will the declining number of practising Christians want to spend money to establish ministries in dying urban centuries? It remains to be seen.

Talking of crumbly old church buildings, many of the ones in my region have been converted into mosques and gurdwaras. The Muslim and Sikh communities don't appear to be struggling to maintain them. What is obvious is firstly that mosques in particular tend to be in much more frequent use than churches, and the numbers of people involved are much larger.

Secondly, these faith groups appear able to raise much more community funding than churches usually can. It seems that even the people on the fringe of public worship are donating money to the mosques. Conversely, most churches these days only belong to the people who attend them, and the ability to raise regular funds from a vague Christian penumbra is surely decreasing. The CofE is only a partial exception to this, depending on the area.

Some claim that the mosques are also partly funded by donations from abroad. I don't know how true this is, but it's another very different scenario from most British churches.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

'urban centres'!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I have no idea how mosques are funded; but I suspect that they either exist in areas with high concentrations of Muslims, or draw from a wide area. Either way, not quite the same demographic as your average church these days.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I can't imagine much church building going on in the future, THB. I live in a city, and there wouldn't be the room.

Presumably these would be the same urban centres that are dying later on in your post [Biased]

I'm not sure I can decipher what your entire argument is - other than that a number of MOR churches in certain denominations are going to have difficulties around finding/owning places to meet.

quote:

I know of Pentecostal churches that meet in redundant office blocks and converted industrial properties. .... Maybe that depends on whether the stigma against such churches will fade.

A number of churches in London have gone down the route of using a converted warehouse - either some or all the time - clearly among their congregation (which include the charismatic, ethnic and young) there isn't any stigma (by which I take it you mean stigma around meeting in a building that doesn't look like a traditional church). Certainly this is more realistic than taking over a crumbling old Victorian pile which is incredibly hard to modify and retrofit with modern facilities assuming the planning rules permit such use.

That some types of churches are being priced out of some areas is part of the wider issue of young people being priced out of the same areas - and I'd rather tackle the social issues at that level rather than necessarily worry about whether or not a particular church tradition may disappear in that same area.

[ 11. May 2016, 23:51: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I can't imagine much church building going on in the future, THB. I live in a city, and there wouldn't be the room.
Presumably these would be the same urban centres that are dying later on in your post I'm not sure I can decipher what your entire argument is - other than that a number of MOR churches in certain denominations are going to have difficulties around finding/owning places to meet.

I've already told you what my argument is: I think fewer church groups should spend their money on expensive buildings. Those that do so will need to ensure they can fund not just the purchase but the upkeep. The upkeep will be significant whether they take on a crumbly old building or decide to demolish something else and rebuild. I also mentioned some others options, which might or not be manageable for some churches in the future.

My city is not one of those with a dying urban centre, but I can think of smaller towns in the wider region where this is an issue. The problem, ISTM, is that where population growth is highest, there will be less and less room for church building, even if the demand and the money are there. However, where there are dying urban centres there may also be smaller populations - but probably not much energy and money among the few churchgoers among them to 'build' new churches or to engage in a significant ministry.

Tackling the problems of young people being priced out of homes in the South East is an important issue. Kudos to you if you're able to do something about that! I'm simply talking here about the challenges of church buildings, and normative church structures more broadly - particularly outside the South East.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I agree that there's not likely to be a great deal of church-building in the future, other than, perhaps, by well-resourced megachurches that might develop from some of the BME churches and streams ... I think Kingsway International Christian Centre in London already have significant plant across the city.

Elsewhere, it'll be make-do and mend, and yes, 19th century non-conformist chapels and old Anglo-Catholic 'barns' are all going to be difficult to maintain.

On the missional aspect that EM mentions - quite rightly.

I find myself in a quandary on this one, as whilst I believe that mission should be at the heart of what churches do and are all about, I'm struggling to find how that applies to me and mine at this point .. there's not a great deal of evangelistic activity (in the traditional sense) that I feel particularly comfortable with these days ...

Time for another thread, I think ...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0