Ship of Fools: Evangelism for the un-evangelistically inclined

Thread: Evangelism for the un-evangelistically inclined 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=030115

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I have a conundrum. One among many.

I believe, like ExclamationMark on the 'Battle for Christianity' thread, that mission should be at the heart of what churches are all about.

I believe in evangelism.

My difficulty is discerning what that should look like in my own case as a somewhat post-evangelical type who baulks at some of the methods and assumptions apparent at my local evangelical parish.

I'm involved with community stuff - town council, local arts groups, occasional voluntary charitable work - and these days my focus tends to lie more in those directions than in church meetings, house-groups, prayer-meetings and so on and so forth.

Our local parish is planning to get welcome packs together and to meet/greet and engage with people moving into some planned new housing developments (the number of households in the parish may increase by 40% over the next few years).

I'm happy to supply some facts, figures and details from knowledge picked up as a town councillor and to help edit or supply material for packs. I wouldn't particular object to knocking on doors and inviting people to things if I thought it was appropriate - even though I mightn't be that interested myself in the activity promoted (such as Alpha or 'meet the neighbours' evenings and so on).

What I don't want to do is 'prayer walk' and get involved with prayer meetings and traditional forms of evangelism ... not because I don't believe in prayer, nor that I don't believe in evangelism ... but it's just - you know - the kinds of prayers, assumptions and the way these things would be presented would act as a complete turn-off.

They would give me the screaming ab-dabs.

I don't knock the zeal, energy and commitment of those who are enthusiastically getting behind these initiatives but I'm afraid I can't muster a great deal of enthusiasm myself.

I'm sure Shippies who've had a similar 'journey' to myself (dreadful phrase) will know where I'm coming from on that.

The thing is, though, at least these zealous evangelical types are doing something ... the liberals and MoTR folk aren't.

Is this a conundrum I simply have to grin and bear?

[Confused]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I think it helps to tease out what actually constitutes evangelism from what is branded as evangelism.

To actually constitute evangelism, a number of criteria have to be fulfilled, for instance:

- the activity has to include the Gospel message

- but also not put any unnecessary obstacle in the way of the hearer

- the person evangelising has to be doing so with integrity (so no qualms or hypocrisy)

I would add that it has to have a good cost-benefit ratio. Too many huge projects are exhausting, drain church resouces, and don't produce any tangible results.

One event I recently partipated in with enthusiasm was an inter-church artistic event called 'Seeds of Hope'. Held in an attractive school venue, it featured two photo exhibits, sketches, musical performances, and a short address. Guests sat around tables and were offered talking points between presentations. Overall this was fun, unembarrassing, impactful - and relatively inexpensive.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

Perhaps the route is to look for ways in which all your particular vocations can be used to serve the people inside the area that your church has decided is its mission field (the new development), and then let the evangelistic bits emerge as a natural byproduct?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I think the idea that all of us should be evangelists is not in fact supported by the Bible, although it is a very good way of making the congregation feel guilty:

quote:
Ephesians 4:11-12

The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ.

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

An outsider's view. We are a new suburban estate though an unusual one (self built). In the last 10 years we've had regular visits from JW, also (less frequently) Seventh Day Adventists and least often Buddhists.

Maybe others have called and I've been out, I'm not aware of visits from Methodists (chapel, a couple of hundred yards down the road) or Anglicans (must have a church somewhere near ...) or any other group.

JW want to talk about religion but will politely settle for handing you a leaflet.

The SDA are mature ladies of Afro-carribean descent. They are jolly, talk about the gardens, children, and generally easy to get on with. There is a leaflet if you want it.

The last Buddhist (Triratna) visitor was looking for support for their charity (as it happens we've supported it since before he was born!). There was also a leaflet on their meetings.

If I were tempted (ignoring what I know of their doctrines), it would by the last two: they are outward looking which I think appeals to more people than religion (or religiosity) in itself.

So for me, Gamaliel, you'd be welcome any time - maybe we could skip the prayers.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Gamaliel:

I warm to what you say, especially as I'm working hard to try to "build" evangelism into a church with a liberal tradition. The problems we're facing includes a suspicion of anything which might be called "proselytisation" and also the very real difficulty which people have I articulating their faith (among themselves, let alone with outsiders).

I think the crucial thing - as hinted by Eutychus - is to create situations where talking about God/Jesus can naturally and easily occur. The problem is that it's easy to arrange all sorts of events such as community days, coffee mornings, concerts and the like, only to find that the Christians will talk about anything except their faith: the weather, the church, the music, the price of fish. Perhaps it's seen as counter-cultural to talk of religion?

We had a very good church meeting recently with a chap called Peter Thomas from a Baptist church in Chelmsford. He has a very good website which includes a lot of very helpful (and cheap!) suggestions as to what can be done. Clearly different things will "work" in different situations - but nothing will be any good unless Christians themselves are prepared to "tell their stories". So enabling that has to be the key; and hesitancy in sharing may in fact be more helpful than know-it-all arrogance.

By the way, there is an excellent book by Elmer Thiessen on "The Ethics of Evangelism" - integrity and honesty are crucial!

Chris Stiles:

Clearly you're right. The problem is that the "evangelistic bits" simply don't seem to "emerge as a natural byproduct" - the church probably needs to be a bit more intentional than that.

[ 12. May 2016, 09:42: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Perhaps it's seen as counter-cultural to talk of religion?

I think it is - by Christians.

I think many traditional forms of in-yer-face evangelism are completely anachronistic, but I reject utterly the notion that people don't want to talk about religion, belief, or the Gospel. It's the way we often do it that they want no truck with.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

Chris Stiles:

Clearly you're right. The problem is that the "evangelistic bits" simply don't seem to "emerge as a natural byproduct" - the church probably needs to be a bit more intentional than that.

I would agree with what Eutychus said in his last post - and combine that with what Gamaliel's motivation seems to be in the OP - and suggest that perhaps evangelistic opportunities would emerge as a natural byproduct.

My experience is the same as that of Eutychus - a lot of people are happy to talk about religion and so on once they get to know you - it's the way that Christians try to do it that usually puts them off.

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

Why does it have to be all about talking? I like the quote about preaching the gospel but only using words when necessary. My small contributions to evangelism (two atheists to Anglicans and one militant atheist to agnostic) didn't involve me trying to persuade with words. I don't know how it happened tbh - I think it might be that NOT trying to persuade people into faith (while continuing to act as much as possible like a decent human being) surprised them so much they kind of came along anyway.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

To be fair to our local parish church, even though it's one I don't see eye-to-eye with on all sorts of fronts and issues, the vicar isn't out to make people feel guilty on this issue.

He's fully aware that not everyone wants to go round prayer-walking or knocking on doors. He's not putting any pressure on me to engage in any of that, he's simply happy for me to chip in where I feel comfortable to do so.

I think the 'intentionality' thing is an issue for me at the moment, as I don't know what 'shape' that can take within the kinds of activities I'm primarily involved with - town council, community arts.

The town council used to have prayer at the outset and close of its sessions, it no longer does so. Some councillors preferred to sit out of that part. It does have an annual civic service at the Methodist church.

As far as the artsy things go, we use t'other parish church as a venue for concerts as it's the most appropriate building for that in the town. We do use other venues for other types of music. Some styles work better there than others.

There's nothing explicitly 'religious' about the majority of the arty events we organise and promote - although there was an interesting one at the URC once with poetry and music around a sculpture exhibition on themes of grief and loss - which was actually a lot more uplifting than it sounds.

What I find when I lead/compere open-mic sessions (and I'm doing so this evening alongside a guest poet reading at our regular Poems & Pints at my favourite local pub) is that very often someone will get up and perform a ranty piece about the evils of religion yadda yadda yadda ...

I've found that such people sometimes have a background in extreme or repressive forms of religion - the JWs say, or perhaps they were beaten (or buggered?) by the Christian Brothers - but by and large they haven't had any negative experiences of religion at all ... they're simply jumping on a band wagon and think they're being radical and subversive.

I may occasionally interject with a positive anecdote about religion or some such comment, but mostly I'll let it go and move onto the next item.

At any rate, I'm not sure how 'intentionally' evangelistic I can be in that kind of context nor on the town council, other than to conduct myself in a manner commensurate with what I believe to be core Christian principles.

So it's the 'intentionality' thing and how that might possibly emerge that is puzzling me at the moment.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Cross-posted with Helen Eva ...

Yes, I like the 'use words if necessary' thing about St Francis of Assisi, but apparently it was a misattributed quote and whatever else we might say about St Francis, he certainly wasn't backward in articulating his beliefs. He used words all the time. He went and preached to the Sultan of Egypt for goodness sake ... hoping either to share the Gospel or gain martyrdom.

I've seen some reactions against the conventional understanding of the much used saying, 'Preach the Gospel, use words if necessary' on RC websites - so it's not only conservative evangelicals who can object to the use/misuse of the phrase.

Of course, it's another of these both/and not either/or things - we should witness in word and deed - and our actions should be commensurate with our words.

Sadly, that's not often the case with any of us ...

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

When it comes to evangelism, I often take as my watchword Matthew 10:16

quote:
See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

It can probably be summed up in the word 'efficacy'. What may have worked in one time may not in another, but there can be tendencies to be a bit slow, getting stuck in our ways.

Take open air preaching for example. In the 18th century, John Wesley could draw a crowd that would listen to what he had to say. Today, I have yet to find a street preacher who is anything but an embarrassment. It does more harm than good and I wouldn't be sad to the back of it.

That said, given the diversity of the societies we live in, there needs to be a variety of evangelistic "techniques" (for want of a better word) and some churches and denominations will naturally be better at some than at others.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
very often someone will get up and perform a ranty piece about the evils of religion yadda yadda yadda ...

Great. So you buy them a pint and say, "tell me more about what inspired you to write that". If you've done a good contribution yourself, that gives you that bit more credibility. Where's the problem?

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Today, I have yet to find a street preacher who is anything but an embarrassment. It does more harm than good and I wouldn't be sad to the back of it.

I used to do a lot of non-ranty street preaching with a sketchboard having been trained by Open Air Campaigners. I think its day may have passed in the main, but we had a lot of fun and some great conversations - and I don't think it was too much of an embarrassment.

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:

Today, I have yet to find a street preacher who is anything but an embarrassment. It does more harm than good and I wouldn't be sad to the back of it.

All you have to do is ask the Preacher what he thinks of Homosexuals or Muslims, and then report them for hate speech.

Works for 8 out of 10 (non-Manic) Street Preachers I understand.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I found the report very refreshing. Although I don't consider myself to be an 'evangelist' I already do, or have done, quite a few of the things he suggests. Ditto my church which isn't 'evangelical'.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
very often someone will get up and perform a ranty piece about the evils of religion yadda yadda yadda ...
Great. So you buy them a pint and say, "tell me more about what inspired you to write that". If you've done a good contribution yourself, that gives you that bit more credibility. Where's the problem?

It's not a problem. I'd be more than happy to do that. Not always feasible when you're the bloke doing the MC-ing, though.

I s'pose the point I was making was that there'll sometimes be some kind of 'opportunity' for conversation that arises in these contexts, but that's about as far is it goes.

Most of my artsy contacts are probably aware that I'm a Christian but by no means all of them, and other than with one or two it's not led to many conversations about issues of faith and so on - although it has in some instances.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
very often someone will get up and perform a ranty piece about the evils of religion yadda yadda yadda ...
Great. So you buy them a pint and say, "tell me more about what inspired you to write that". If you've done a good contribution yourself, that gives you that bit more credibility. Where's the problem?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

If you want to be more pro-active (I'm sorry, I just can't bring myself to use "intentional", it seems over-egged to me...) then get a bunch of churches to stage some kind of arty event with content (like our "Seeds of Hope").

We have done this enough times now to convince Christians that it's not cheesy, thus encouraging them to happily invite their friends (it must be good - I even invited some of mine, which is unprecedented!). And I'm confident that our quality is as good as any other amateur event.

It's all about getting the right thing and having genuine faith in it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That's a good idea - in theory. Not sure how I could see it working out in practice here, though.

The evangelical parish has staged Christian stand-up comedy events which were apparently accessible and non-cheesy (I didn't go, so I don't know).

It also staged a Gospel duo who were supposed to be non-cheesy but which I found indigestible.

People's mileage varies on things like that. My cheesy-tolerance level isn't very high.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's a good idea - in theory. Not sure how I could see it working out in practice here, though.

The evangelical parish has staged Christian stand-up comedy events which were apparently accessible and non-cheesy (I didn't go, so I don't know).

Artists symposium as an event? Inviting people who are thoughtful about their artistic process and/or Christians as well to present/lead sessions?

Do it as a service to the artistic community you are part of and don't worry overly about 'how this becomes an evangelistic event'

The intentionality is all around 'make a good shoe and sell it for a fair price'.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Exactly.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I quite like the word intention. I think we read intention very well indeed. The person who calls me, checks I'm the person he wants, and then, before telling me why he's calling, asks me if I'm having a good day, that person is a con artist. I don't need to hear any more; our conversation is over. I don't want fake friendship for the sake of someone's sales.

On the other hand the new member of staff who gets flustered and makes a mess of my order, can easily be forgiven. Intention trumps delivery.

If our evangelism is really about our desire to fill our church, people will know this at once. They will probably smell it before we open our mouths. I think we all know this, and that this is why many of us avoid 'evangelism'.

But one beggar telling another beggar where to get bread, we know that's ok.

I think that in our evangelism we have to be open to learning something ourselves, and being changed ourselves. Perhaps that should actually be our intention, to receive as much as to give.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I agree with all that, hatless.

One of the things that makes me feel uncomfortable about some of the proposals from our parish is that they want to 'get in' before the town council and other agencies - even Churches Together - with a list of amenities, contact numbers and so on for all 'non-salesy' organisations in the locality (they'll get details of plumbers, joiners and so on through the local free-distribution newsletter thingummy).

So, along with this welcome-pack with gubbings about where things are in and around the town, there'd be a welcome/invitation to some kind of church event.

I don't like this.

Give people details of what there is round and about, for sure, include details of your church, fine - but to use this as a thinly veiled attempt to invite everyone to some kind of event at YOUR church doesn't sit very well with me, I'm afraid.

To be fair, the parish church does a lot of good work with youth, runs a good Job Club in partnership with other agencies and a midweek coffee and communion for the otherwise house-bound - with a raft of volunteers giving old ladies lifts.

I'm not knocking any of that. But once it strays over the line into pushiness ... sorry ...

On the arts thing. I did organise some events for an atheist poet who has collaborated very fruitfully with an American Christian painter - who asked him to write poems in response to his very explicitly Christian-themed paintings.

That went well. There was a 'dialogue' if you like between the very questioning poems and the very in-your-face Christian art (which was actually quite good art too, it has to be said). The poet has taken this on the road to various venues around the county and beyond - there's a kind of slide-show presentation with background to the project and the poems and paintings working off each other alongside email conversations which show how a genuinely warm friendship and respect developed between the two men - who have yet to meet face-to-face ...

So, yes, thinking about it, I have facilitated some events with a kind of faith/non-faith interaction involved.

Perhaps there's scope for more?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Hatless is definitely onto something when he says intent is key.

To me the antidote to high-pressure evangelism is grace.

That speaks of spontaneity, no hidden agendas, no expectation of anything in return, and being secure in who you are and what you have to say.

Advertising a christian presence is fine if you believe you are genuinely and disinterestedly serving the community, not seeing it as potential pew fodder.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
To me the antidote to high-pressure evangelism is grace.

Related to that is the idea of trying to put oneself in another's place. All too often, evangelism is phrased with a level of frustration along the lines of "[why don't you understand this? We all get it]".

For example, in the supermarket car park a few weeks ago, someone was just randomly accosting passers-by by shouting "Jesus loves you" at people. To many a christian, this may be a succinct and powerful statement, but there is little appreciation that to the average person on the street it's fairly meaningless.

The worst evangelism, in my view, is akin to giving directions that you may have walked down from A to D via B & C, but the person you are talking to is starting from F and needs to be taken via E.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

One problem is that, annoyingly, cheesy evangelism can work.

The mother of one long-suffering lady in our church used to drive around town in a car emblazoned with Gospel texts in letters more than a foot high. We all felt this was wholly cringeworthy until another (wholly uncheesy, lefty, militant, activist type) lady in our church related in her baptism testimony that in her spiritual quest she closed her eyes, asked for a sign from God - and opened them to behold the car in question (without knowing whose it was).

There's no excuse for being deliberately foolish, but I do get the feeling, born of experience, that it has pleased God to save people through the foolishness of preaching.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, but because something 'works' doesn't necessarily make it right or ideal ...

Of course, God in his grace is bigger than all of this stuff, 'There's a wideness in God's mercy ...'

I've known people come to faith through presentations and tactics I'd have no hesitation in condemning as manipulative, wrong-headed or daft.

There is a balance in all of this but much contemporary charismatic evangelicalism is cursed by pragmatism. If something is seen to 'work' somewhere then there's a rush to adopt it, irrespective at times as to how sensible or even ethical it is ...

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I don't believe that mission should be at the heart of what churches are all about.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't believe that mission should be at the heart of what churches are all about.

I think that all depends on how "mission" is defined, on what it is understood to entail. IMHO, too many Christians and too many churches have a very limited view of "mission."

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

So, yes, thinking about it, I have facilitated some events with a kind of faith/non-faith interaction involved.

Perhaps there's scope for more?

Yes, totally. I assume that your activities in this area are a fairly long term thing for the most part - so doing more of this is simply applying the whole of your persona to a particular area of service.

So if that's the way you are being led settle happily for faithful presence over the long term and leave the rest to God.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't believe that mission should be at the heart of what churches are all about.

I sort of agree - we are solely for worship. But did you read the report? - it is very persuasive on saying that churches that don't evangelise are ignoring a core function.

[ 12. May 2016, 19:39: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't believe that mission should be at the heart of what churches are all about.
I sort of agree - we are solely for worship.

But what about the whole "go into all the world and preach the Gospel" directive? Or feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, clothing the naked, etc.?

Or are you perhaps considering doing those things in the name of Christ to be worship?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

I am getting increasingly tired of words ending in -al as people seem to be able to make them mean what they want to mean. They have become a ind of in house churchspeak that is very hard to pin down.

You can be as intentional as you like but at what point do you bring faith into it? You can just be "doing" things under the guise of intentionality and never have any kind of spiritual impact, however friendly you may get.

On the other hand I've had two recent instances of where "gentle" evangelism has arisen out of church based activities involving rites of passage. In one case at a funeral it was a discussion about the hereafter, in another it was a couple who came to see me after attending someone else's wedding. They found it so "normal" that they too want to get married. In both cases, a faith based discussion was initiated by both parties but only after they'd heard Good News at the respective services.

Christianity exists not to make bad people nice but to bring the lost to life. I don't see "intentional" delivering that.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
leo: I sort of agree - we are solely for worship.

I don't agree with this either.

quote:
Nick Tamen: But what about the whole "go into all the world and preach the Gospel" directive?

I ignore that directive.

quote:
Nick Tamen: Or feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, clothing the naked, etc.?

I'm not sure whether this counts as evangelisation.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
leo: I sort of agree - we are solely for worship.
I don't agree with this either.

quote:
Nick Tamen: But what about the whole "go into all the world and preach the Gospel" directive?
I ignore that directive.

quote:
Nick Tamen: Or feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, clothing the naked, etc.?
I'm not sure whether this counts as evangelisation.

So what do you understand to be at the heart of what churches are all about?

My view is admittedly very expansive: that the church is to be the Body of Christ in the world. That includes proclaiming the Gospel, which to me is not at all the same as telling people to repent or burn for eternity. It includes feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and proclaiming release from anything the binds or holds a person captive. It means making Jesus present in the flesh. To me, that is the church's mission (literally, what the church is sent into the world to do), and it is for the church a life of sacrificial worship.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

That's nice dear.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I too have concerns about the ways in which we might evangelise. I wouldn't start up a conversation about Jesus, Christianity, Church, the Bible, etc and although I would be ready to talk about them it seems that people outside of the faith don't want to know. If anything, they seem to want to challenge and put down what they think my beliefs are, but check themselves rather than think they might upset me.

For too long, we have been silent. Therefore many people really don't know anything about Jesus or the Christian Faith at all, and urban myths become their truths. I heard someone say today 'we know a lot more so we don't need faith in our lives as much now'. Someone else posted a humanist quote on Facebook today which said in effect that observation and reason have no place in religion.

If we don't learn how to tell people the truth about our religion and to talk about Jesus as well as putting his teaching into practice, they will continue to be led astray by the lies.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't believe that mission should be at the heart of what churches are all about.
I sort of agree - we are solely for worship.

What are the greatest commandments? And, do they not apply to churches as much as to individual Christians?

Worship is love of God, with all our heart, mind, soul and strength.

Mission is love of our neighbours.

Christian life, individual or corporate, is dead if either of those is missing.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Don't. Please. Unless it is something like the Rennaissance choir and organ concert we are planning on this Sunday afternoon. Now that's evangelism. Such leads me by the soul to God. The evangello stuff leads me to a dark dark place of spiritual refridgeration.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

I suppose if you're identified as a christian – or maybe as a churchgoer – and a listener, and you are seen doing community helpful things, then there is an opening for people to engage in other than superficial chat if they want to.

For many years I was the New Zealand contact for the Letter from Taizé, (now on-line, one posted from France). I was impressed by the stories of brothers who lived in third world situations and simply went on doing whatever the people around them needed – sharing food, engaging with the kids, whatever – and worshiping three times a day, when some neighbours would come along. Everyone welcome.

A suburban 21st century congregation can't adopt that exact pattern, but there might be something there for us to think about – yes, our congregation is doing some deep thinking about our mission.

My other congregation began a free meal in their small town, where the die-hards said 'There aren't any poor people here'. It's still successful, and not just for the many poor but for the lonely. It doesn't take from church funds, as local people, gardeners, supermarkets give what is needed. But I hear that the congregation was talking about not delivering meals, thus leaving out those who genuinely can't come but really need help. It's hard to convince the traditional churchgoers.

(Tangent alert)
A family legend has it that my elderly unmarried aunt, who'd spent maybe half a century working in the community and the church, teaching Sunday School etc, answered the door to a pimply youth (that's how I heard it) whose opening was 'I wonder if you've ever thought about Jesus?' History did not record her answer, but I bet it was a kindly one.

GG

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Don't. Please. Unless it is something like the Rennaissance choir and organ concert we are planning on this Sunday afternoon. Now that's evangelism. Such leads me by the soul to God.

How, precisely?

And does any choir, piece of music day of the week, or venue qualify as evangelism?

Why/why not?

I somehow can't see the Gospel having reached us today if all anyone did following Christ's resurrection was compose organ pieces.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
leo: I sort of agree - we are solely for worship.
I don't agree with this either.

quote:
Nick Tamen: But what about the whole "go into all the world and preach the Gospel" directive?
I ignore that directive.

quote:
Nick Tamen: Or feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, clothing the naked, etc.?
I'm not sure whether this counts as evangelisation.

What do you believe? How is that belief reflected in the way you live?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Thinking about my Muslim neighbours and colleagues, who I grow increasingly fond of, any organised attempt by them to change me or 'convert' me would be very unwelcome. And completely out of character, I'm happy to say.

One recently said he was looking forward to Ramadan, which he described as a sort of detoxing. He is already fasting for parts of days in preparation for the long hours this June. It seemed an entirely natural chat where he was reporting something he has learned about his religion and himself (he was also explaining why he was flagging a bit in the strenuous gardening task we were doing together.

Another has become the sort of friend with whom I can have honest and personal conversations about our feelings about our own faiths.

If they had meetings at the masjid (mosque - one explained why he prefers masjid) about impacting colleagues and neighbours, and if I came to suspect that our conversations or their choice of words were not entirely natural, if I detected a Muslim motive, that would be a permanent cloud over our friendships.

When you think about it, there is an extraordinary amount of duplicity in much that people call evangelism.

[ 13. May 2016, 07:46: Message edited by: hatless ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I agree, but it's hard to walk away from the new testament without the idea of there being a message, with specific content, that followers of Jesus have a responsibility to communicate. Excise that imperative and I'm not sure what's left.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Eutychus

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...
quote:

Don't. Please. Unless it is something like the Rennaissance choir and organ concert we are planning on this Sunday afternoon. Now that's evangelism. Such leads me by the soul to God.
How, precisely?

And does any choir, piece of music day of the week, or venue qualify as evangelism?

Why/why not?

I somehow can't see the Gospel having reached us today if all anyone did following Christ's resurrection was compose organ pieces.

To take your questions in order:

1. If you accept that the musical genius of some people is a gift from God, then you must also accept that the fruits of that - the compositions - are inspired by God and that exposing people to them through performance is to show people a work inspired by the Almighty.

2. Any choir? Possibly not but those happy groups which manage to produce faultless performances/ interpretations are surely fleshing-out the God inspired composition(s) and, therefore, shewing the hand of God. The day of the week doesn't enter into it; however, the venue can if it is somewhere that has been divinely inspired or shows in visible form the same God-given talent as the music - the Sistine Chapel comes to mind.

3. You may not think the Gospel has reached people through the medium of organ composition but I can assure you that there are people who find (for them) confirmation of the existence of the Almighty through listening to the genius of J S Bach or Marcel Dupre. While not wishing to blow my own trumpet, at my own church, the work of the choir has been quoted by several people as being what first attracted them to come to our services, and not all were already church-going people.

Of course, with the arts (aural, oral and visual) there is always the thorny issue of subjectivity, but just because I don't happen to like some worship songs doesn't mean that I don't think the Almighty didn't inspire at least some of them.

What riles some of us is that we're told that all contemporary worship songs are inspired while being assured by the same people that the work of other composers of a bygone age is worthless or not inspired. I kid you not, I've been assured, with great earnestness, that a Mozart mass setting is less inspiring than a Graham Kendrick song because "Mozart didn't mean it when he was writing it, he only wrote it for a patron." While taste is subjective, surely it has to be accepted that at least some individuals are uniquely gifted.

Of course, after that you rapidly descend into the nature/nurture debate...

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
1. If you accept that the musical genius of some people is a gift from God, then you must also accept that the fruits of that - the compositions - are inspired by God and that exposing people to them through performance is to show people a work inspired by the Almighty.

I don't agree with "inspired by God". I think a case can be made for music reflecting the image of God, but that's not the same as a particular work being "inspired". I find lots of music of all genres, including explicitly non-Christian music, stirs me and may draw me God-wards, but I don't think it's inspired in the sense of God-breathed.

quote:
3. You may not think the Gospel has reached people through the medium of organ composition but I can assure you that there are people who find (for them) confirmation of the existence of the Almighty through listening to the genius of J S Bach or Marcel Dupre

I have nothing against music. I play and listen to everything from classical music through to and including the Sex Pistols via Wintergatan (which I just can't stop listening to right now).

This thread is not about religious music or worship styles; it's about evangelism. By definition, that means there has to be some propositional content; some Good News. So no, I don't think the Gospel reaches people through organ music alone.

The Gospel may indeed be about our hearts being strangely warmed, but it's also about knowing why that is. The way Luke tells it, the Holy Spirit didn't descend on Cornelius' household until Peter had got a bare minimum of the Good News out.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

We're getting into the thorny territory of 'inspiration'/'expiration' here ...

[Biased]

I don't have any problem with the idea of God 'working' in and through organ recitals, choirs, impressive landscapes, even the quotidian things we all do each and every day.

If there's anything I've learned and taken from the Orthodox it's that 'God is everywhere present and filleth all things.'

I'm not saying there doesn't have to be a propositional dimension but arguably the more Protestant and particularly evangelical traditions have over-dosed on the idea of a Gospel message - a set of propositional truths that they have to present to everybody on each and every occasion otherwise they're not doing their job properly ...

Properly understood, I submit that the Gospel is a Person - rather than a message as such - a Person who embodied/embodies that message in a supreme form - Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

That's not to say that there isn't room for the didactic or the apologetic, the kind of flip-board presentations Eutychus has made in the past.

Nor is it to suggest that all we have to do is lay on sublime performances of choral music by Tallis, Byrd and Bach and bingo, we've done the job ...

We can't reduce any of these things to snappy sound-bites and 'Four Spiritual Laws' and so on.

Heck, I used to go out into Students' Unions with Campus Crusade tracts and so on and so forth. The best conversations I had came when I put the tracts to one side and started to relate to people 'normally' and in a less 'forced' - and as hatless says, less duplicitous way.

Now, I don't regard holding a choral concert, a brass-band or wind orchestra gig, an amateur choir performance or a classical piano recital in a church building as 'evangelism' in a formal sense ... but I don't consider it unimportant either. I see it as a way of building a sense of community, of engaging with people in different ways and at all sorts of levels and creating a kind of environment/milieu where further contact and perhaps discussions can take place.

Some forms of pre-evangelism are necessary to provide a platform for evangelism. The key, though, as hatless has identified is to be intentional (sorry about the 'al' word ExclamationMark) without being deceitful or duplicitous. I could tell stories about the latter that would make your hair stand on end - but I'll leave those to one side.

It doesn't do to be too reductionist about any of these things, they all play a part.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Over-systematisation, duplicity, and sales techniques are all bad. So is trashing everything that isn't propositional.

But at some point, content is still vital.

If there's no content, it's not spreading the Gospel, whatever else it is.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Propositional content? That sounds so dry and dead.

The Good News or evangel always seems to come wrapped in a person. Jesus didn't write anything, and because we have varying reports of the things he said and did, his actual words can't be confidently reconstructed and in any case, what we have and respond to are stories of his interactions with people. It's to the space between that we are directed.

Jesus doesn't drill his disciples in techniques or tactics, he sends them out to interact at some personal risk. It is to be at least as much an adventure for those sent as for those they are sent to.

Perhaps we should regard the Good News not as something we know and can take with us and dole out along the way, but as something wholly divine and as impossible to possess as manna, which we must find for ourselves as we go, pointing it out to others as we do so.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

One of the things about music as a medium for conveying a sense of wonder and worship is that it only works if the audience already knows the gospel message. Without that prior knowledge of the gospel then the message of the music has no context to allow it to make sense, there need to be some words as well as the music if that is going to convey the gospel message to those who do not already know it. Of course, a choral piece includes words - but even then usually the dictates of the art form mean that the words are poetical and the message somewhat subtle.

The church holding concerts does give the message that we're not all dour kill-joys determined to stop anyone enjoying life. So, it does good work in countering some misconceptions about the faith. It may be, and probably quite often is, an opportunity to refresh the faith of people who have the knowledge of the faith but have drifted from regular church attendance. It will almost certainly provide an opportunity for those who may not get out often a chance to hear good music, a chance for people to be entertained, to spend time together ... all that and more make such concerts a valuable part of the mission of the church and a very good thing to do. But, by itself, is not a very effective means of proclaiming the gospel to those who haven't heard it before.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

One thing you can say about music is that it is mysterious. You can listen to some Bach, say (because he's clearly the best), and not only like the music, but think it wonderful that it could be written, that you could hear it, and that you were born and exist to experience this moment.

There is a given-ness about music, and a natural gratitude in our response to it, that seems to me to have a deep goodness about it.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Propositional content? That sounds so dry and dead.

In isolation, yes. But whatever one has without it is devoid of meaning.

quote:
The Good News or evangel always seems to come wrapped in a person.

Absolutely, and this is vital. But I'm glad that my Quality Street tin doesn't consist entirely of wrappers. Especially those square purple ones.

quote:
what we have and respond to are stories of his interactions with people. It's to the space between that we are directed.

You keep saying things like this, but I contend that while interaction is important, the Gospel has positive content. It's more than a blank which everyone fills in as they wish.

quote:
Jesus doesn't drill his disciples in techniques or tactics, he sends them out to interact at some personal risk. It is to be at least as much an adventure for those sent as for those they are sent to.

Again, I agree entirely, but he sent them out with some specific instructions, not simply "go forth and explore the space between you and your neighbour".

quote:
Perhaps we should regard the Good News not as something we know and can take with us and dole out along the way, but as something wholly divine and as impossible to possess as manna, which we must find for ourselves as we go, pointing it out to others as we do so.

Wasn't it you who referred earlier to "one beggar telling another where to find bread"? If there's no bread to be found, we have nothing to tell.

We read that we are bearers of life and hold treasure, albeit in jars of clay. Trying to turn that into TreasureDelivery™ and then market it as a course is a travesty. Assuming there is no other life or treasure at all anywhere else is simply arrogant. But nevertheless we carry Christ within us, the hope of glory.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
One of the things about music as a medium for conveying a sense of wonder and worship is that it only works if the audience already knows the gospel message. Without that prior knowledge of the gospel then the message of the music has no context to allow it to make sense, there need to be some words as well as the music if that is going to convey the gospel message to those who do not already know it. Of course, a choral piece includes words - but even then usually the dictates of the art form mean that the words are poetical and the message somewhat subtle.

Doesn't it matter who is doing the thing? Can someone be an evangelist for a cause they don't believe in?

I don't know about the spiritual life of the composers of the organ music - nor, I suppose, know the inner spiritual life of Redman, Kendrick and the others.

But I think we can say without contradiction that it is perfectly possible to be an organist, a Cathedral choir member, orchestra musician etc without being a member of the faith - and still be able to give an uplifting (possibly spiritual) experience. I am reminded of the popularity of Handel's Messiah in Israel amongst predominantly Jewish communities and with predominantly Jewish musicians.

It seems highly unlikely that anyone is persuaded to become a Christian solely on the basis of hearing any kind of music.

Those that find the music uplifting and edifying for their Christian worship (which isn't me, I can't stand the crashing notes of most organ music) are able to transcend the composer, musicians and any subtle errors.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Propositional content? That sounds so dry and dead.
In isolation, yes. But whatever one has without it is devoid of meaning.

You're dead right, especially about the purple Quality Street.

But what is the propositional content of the Gospel? Any attempt to articulate it will cause disagreement here and now, and look totally weird in three hundred years.

The best you can do is say something that refers to the story of Jesus. 'God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself', is good. Very short, and doesn't really mean anything until you unpack it. 'Himself' is a problem these days, of course.

There must be some content to the Good News, but we can't really say what it is. It's can only be properly expressed in personal ways. It can be approximated in stories. It sits very uncomfortably in propositional language.

Regarding the bread, yes there is some bread or manna there, but none of us has a reliable supply of it. We are all beggars, not bakers and customers.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But what is the propositional content of the Gospel? Any attempt to articulate it will cause disagreement here and now, and look totally weird in three hundred years.

Previous threads have proven the truth of this statement.

Nevertheless, I persist, sharing the Good News includes content. Maybe propositional was the wrong word. Exact details might vary, but as you concede, there must be some... articulated (?) content. It's no good just showing a photograph or playing an instrumental piece and looking soulful.

quote:
The best you can do is say something that refers to the story of Jesus. 'God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself'

That's in one of my favourite chapters in what is in strong contention to be my favourite book of the Bible [Smile]

(not least because of all that stuff about propositional content, sorry, the letter, being so dry and dead without the Spirit).

I love the idea of the believers fleeing the persecution in Jerusalem "gossiping the Gospel". There was something to gossip about.

[ 13. May 2016, 11:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Propositional content? That sounds so dry and dead.

The Good News or evangel always seems to come wrapped in a person. Jesus didn't write anything, and because we have varying reports of the things he said and did, his actual words can't be confidently reconstructed and in any case, what we have and respond to are stories of his interactions with people. It's to the space between that we are directed.

Jesus doesn't drill his disciples in techniques or tactics, he sends them out to interact at some personal risk. It is to be at least as much an adventure for those sent as for those they are sent to.

Perhaps we should regard the Good News not as something we know and can take with us and dole out along the way, but as something wholly divine and as impossible to possess as manna, which we must find for ourselves as we go, pointing it out to others as we do so.

Thank you for this, hatless.

We can let go of trying to work out how to evangelise. As long as we're ready to talk about Jesus and our faith as and when, genuinely and with integrity, we can allow the Holy Spirit to lead us into new territory with new people, and let God do the rest.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The challenge for moderate or MOTR congregations is that doctrinal unity and understanding are not normally considered to be a high priority for the laity. This must be a problem for congregational evangelism. Promoting 'the gospel' to your friends when you're a bit hazy yourself, or if you know that others in your church believe rather differently, is surely rather problematic. Simply 'being ready to talk about Jesus' (Raptor Eye) can lead us into points of controversy - especially since those are the issues that modern people often bring up!

Anyway, the tolerance at the heart of this outlook must make evangelism seem rather unnecessary, or even theologically undesirable.

I think the MOTR leaning is rather that the Christian journey of understanding and discipleship has psychological and social benefits which some individuals might find very helpful. The church is seen as a Christian community that can help with the journey - which is convenient, because the church desperately needs people to help maintain its institutional as well as its spiritual existence.

Of course, many people see themselves as Christians or as 'spiritual' people without any particular help from the church. Their benign indifference is hard to overcome.

[ 13. May 2016, 12:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry to be a pest, but I think we're in danger of positing a false dichotomy between 'mystery' and what we might call 'propositional content'.

To use Orthodoxy as an example - and I do so because it's a Christian tradition that seems to combine elements of both ...

I've heard it said, by Western converts, that in parts of Greece you'll find people who haven't the foggiest idea what's being said or sung in the Liturgy (because it's in medieval Greek) yet who are somehow impacted or 'caught up' in it all in some kind of mysterious way that goes beyond the purely propositional and cognitive ...

On the other hand, I've came across cradle Orthodox Greeks who grew up here in the UK who are not afraid to state, quite categorically, that a lot of their compatriots back in the home country haven't the foggiest idea what's going on in the Liturgy and simply know how to go through the motions and how to behave ... when to bow, when to cross themselves, when to make a prostration ...

Now, which account do we go with? Whose version of events do we favour?

Well, clearly that'll itself reflect where we are coming from ourselves in terms of our own understandings of these things and our own tradition.

I suspect, though, that there'll be a bit of both going on ... there'll be people who don't understand all the words and symbols and so on but who somehow 'connect' with the Faith, if you like, in some kind of subliminal way or by osmosis. There'll also be others who simply 'go through the motions'. And all points in between.

The same, I would submit, would be the case with the performance of a Bach chorale, a Gospel choir, a barber-shop quartet or a Salvation Army brass-band ...

In the case of the Greeks, my own view would be that it would certainly be preferable for all sorts of reasons if the Liturgy were 'in a language understanded of the people'. Yet, at the same time, I wouldn't want to see a loss of the sense of mystery and timelessness that you do get in Orthodox worship.

I think we're missing the point to some extent if we fixate about whether this, that or the other form of musical or artistic expression is going to connect to people. There'll be as many reactions to it as there are people.

I remember going on a 'behind the scenes' tour of Durham Cathedral as part of the social programme on a works conference in that fair city. People were oohing and ahhing and saying how transcendent and spiritual it all was, whilst a Swiss delegate shrugged his shoulders and said that the cathedral was a dreadful thing because, for him, it represented a complete waste of energy (the hours and man-power spent building it) and symbolised the oppressive nature of religion and the terrible track-record of the Christian Church ...

So what is spiritual and transcendent for one person may be a complete turn-off to somebody else.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think SvitlanaV2 has raised some interesting and pertinent points there.

Congregational 'evangelism' surely necessitates the vast majority of participants being 'on message' and on the same page ...

Something that is patently not often the case, even in the most monolithic of churches in terms of shared beliefs.

That's where the 'programme' element falls down for me.

Back in the day, in my full-on restorationist charismatic days, times of outreach and particular programmed campaigns were introduced with all sorts of promises and assurances of 'success'.

Once these times were over and there was little - very often - to show for our efforts in terms of our expectations (often over-egged ones) there was then little or no reflection on what had gone well, what had gone badly, what might be done differently.

Unfulfilled expectations and unfulfilled 'prophecies' were mostly swept under the carpet. Then we'd do the whole darn thing again a few months later on ... and again with similar 'results'.

It's my observation and experience that churches that do engage in 'intentional' or programmed forms of evangelism do grow - at least for a time - but this often doesn't come as a direct result of the evangelistic programmmes themselves (although it can do).

Rather, what happens is that these things create an outreach mindset, if you like, and a semblance of life and vitality which attracts people in from the periphery or from further out.

I'm not knocking that, necessarily, simply identifying it as a feature ... just as SvitlanaV2 has identified systemic features of more MoTR congregations.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The challenge for moderate or MOTR congregations is that doctrinal unity and understanding are not normally considered to be a high priority for the laity. This must be a problem for congregational evangelism. Promoting 'the gospel' to your friends when you're a bit hazy yourself, or if you know that others in your church believe rather differently, is surely rather problematic.

Certainly true for us.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

Just popping by to say that if anyone has a surplus of purple Quality Street I can take them off your hands. Not my favourite but chocolate is chocolate.

Also, thread has moved on a bit, but I was reminded earlier about Paul's thing where he said he was happy when the gospel was preached, even for dodgy motives.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't believe that mission should be at the heart of what churches are all about.
I sort of agree - we are solely for worship.
But what about the whole "go into all the world and preach the Gospel" directive? Or feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, clothing the naked, etc.?

Or are you perhaps considering doing those things in the name of Christ to be worship?

Yes, in a way, but the chief purpose of the Church is to worship.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

One chocoholic telling another chocoholic where to get purple Quality Street

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Nick Tamen: So what do you understand to be at the heart of what churches are all about?

Not sure. To be honest I'm not a big fan of the church. The way I like to express it is: I have a love-hate relationship with the church, where the balance is tipped somewhat towards hate.

Of course, we can stretch the definition of 'evangelism' so far that any interaction I as a Christian have with another person counts as evangelism. I'm not sure if the word still has meaning if we do that. So let me clear then: I don't try to convince anyone to become Christian, even for very soft values of 'convince'.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

leo

I remember reading somewhere that the pre-eminence of worship in the church is misplaced. In the case of MOTR congregations which are reluctant to talk about God outside of the formal worship context I'm inclined to agree.

Telling God how wonderful he is is lovely, but it seems to be of limited benefit in showing us how to obey him and helping us to do so. Singing 'Go, tell it on the mountain' doesn't seem to help us when we want to tell people about Jesus.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
One chocoholic telling another chocoholic where to get purple Quality Street

Now that's a strategy that I can get behind...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
leo

I remember reading somewhere that the pre-eminence of worship in the church is misplaced. In the case of MOTR congregations which are reluctant to talk about God outside of the formal worship context I'm inclined to agree.

Telling God how wonderful he is is lovely, but it seems to be of limited benefit in showing us how to obey him and helping us to do so. Singing 'Go, tell it on the mountain' doesn't seem to help us when we want to tell people about Jesus.

That's not how I envisage worship. In offering the eucharist, we imagine the world to be different from the narrative sold to us by consumerism.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Another interesting observation, SvitlanaV2 but I wonder whether we are getting tied up in rather mechanical ideas about cause and effect?

I do wonder how much 'self-fulfilling prophecy' there is about a lot of this stuff.

I was thinking only the other day whether the charismatic thing served to make me 'bold' in witness as the apparent experience of 'baptism in the Spirit' and its attendant phenomena were supposed to - according to those most keen to promote the experience/practice.

I honestly don't know. I did go through a phase where I was a lot more active in sharing my faith - often accosting strangers on trains and so on - but I wonder whether I did this to fulfil expectations in some kind of 'this is the fruit of it' type of way ...

That said, in my early charismatic days I certainly did experience instances of almost overwhelming joy and a sense of conviction and certainty that did lead to my expressing that to people in quite spontaneous ways ...

These things are difficult to evaluate.

I'm not sure it's as simple as suggesting that, say, the more high-octane 'We're going to take this land for Jesus ...' type songs of the full-on charismatic kind are more conducive to motivate people to reach-out evangelistically than, say, 'Go tell it on the mountain' or whatever else ...

What I do think happens, though, is that there is a sense of 'intentionality' and enterprise in some of the livelier settings that does promote a sense of urgency in terms of external engagement and evangelism.

No question about that.

It's a question of theology, worship style and ethos and practice.

By their very nature, more contemplative or less demonstrative forms of worship are going to encourage people to become more contemplative and less demonstrative in the way they act.

I could be quite extrovert in my full-on charismatic days because that was the kind of behaviour that was valued, expected and encouraged.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
One of the things about music as a medium for conveying a sense of wonder and worship is that it only works if the audience already knows the gospel message. Without that prior knowledge of the gospel then the message of the music has no context to allow it to make sense, there need to be some words as well as the music if that is going to convey the gospel message to those who do not already know it. Of course, a choral piece includes words - but even then usually the dictates of the art form mean that the words are poetical and the message somewhat subtle.

The church holding concerts does give the message that we're not all dour kill-joys determined to stop anyone enjoying life. So, it does good work in countering some misconceptions about the faith. It may be, and probably quite often is, an opportunity to refresh the faith of people who have the knowledge of the faith but have drifted from regular church attendance. It will almost certainly provide an opportunity for those who may not get out often a chance to hear good music, a chance for people to be entertained, to spend time together ... all that and more make such concerts a valuable part of the mission of the church and a very good thing to do. But, by itself, is not a very effective means of proclaiming the gospel to those who haven't heard it before.

Respectfully, I disagree rather much. It is precisely not knowing and perhaps either not being interested or being hostile to "the gospel message" that can allow aesthetic truth to reach some.

The things Leibnitz didn't discover but named "perennial philosophy" and stated by St Augustine seem helpful:

"The very thing that is now called the Christian religion was not wanting among the ancients from the beginning of the human race, until Christ came in the flesh, after which the true religion, which had already existed, began to be called "Christian". (this quote is rather available internetish many places)

We just need to read "ancient" as "electronic media" and otherwise leap into the present and future.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It is precisely not knowing and perhaps either not being interested or being hostile to "the gospel message" that can allow aesthetic truth to reach some.

But, what is this "aesthetic truth"? It seems to me, and correct me if I'm misreading you, that it's that gut feeling of "there's something more, bigger" which many of us feel when uplifted by great music, sit admiring majestic scenery etc.

Which is all very good, but doesn't say very much at all about what that "something more, bigger" is. Surely for something to be categorised as Christian evangelism then it needs to pointing at least in the general direction of Jesus? Otherwise all you have is a great concert - and, I've no problems at all with churches holding concerts, there are lots of good missional reasons for doing so, just don't pretend that in doing so you are proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

No one is pretending. Proclaiming is all words, no? Which capture some things. And fail on some essentials. The concepts actually repell many. For me, many of them seem minutiae, unessential, and (forgive me) idiot tales told by idiots. They confine, they don't expand.

Sure, many of us might end up in a hell (which we may prefer) because we don't claim certainty like the confident proclaimers. Or we question the things confident evangellos take as absolute. I would never get my 90 year old father into a church otherwise.

[ 14. May 2016, 00:15: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I'm not seeing anyone here claiming that proclaiming the gospel is all words. The old maxim "preach the gospel at all times. If necessary use words" has already been repeated - I guess I'm saying that using words is always a necessary part of that preaching. That preaching the gospel requires some content that can only be conveyed in words.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes. To put it more theologically, "general revelation" can only take people so far. The churches have to witness to Christ, the Eternal Word of God - which ultimately requires our words.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

My tuppenceworth on this subject is that the best evangelism is to live our lives well. Doorstepping repels me. Street evangelists will have me crossing to the other side of the road. Helpful tube travellers who, having lifted my heavy case for me, say that they do it "for my Lord Jesus" make me back off several steps, even though I may be on crutches.(Actual case.) Words may be necessary at some stage, but not until some trust has been established, and that takes time. Or may never happen at all.

[ 14. May 2016, 06:57: Message edited by: jacobsen ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't believe that mission should be at the heart of what churches are all about.
I sort of agree - we are solely for worship.
But what about the whole "go into all the world and preach the Gospel" directive? Or feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, clothing the naked, etc.?

Or are you perhaps considering doing those things in the name of Christ to be worship?
Yes, in a way, but the chief purpose of the Church is to worship.

Go to a weekly concert interrupted by a lecture? Is that the example Jesus set?

[ 14. May 2016, 07:02: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That's not how I envisage worship. In offering the eucharist, we imagine the world to be different from the narrative sold to us by consumerism.

And this is why I don't believe in the sacrament.

We are one body. All of us. In the Eucharist we celebrate the breaking of Christ's body. In life we live the breaking of Christ's body, the church, in the world.

There is no distinction between the two. Worship does not happen in the church, it doesn't happen when the priest lifts the bread, when the Baptist minister preaches, the Methodist sings hymns etc.

Either our lives are worship - in all its complexities - or they're not. Either our lives exhibit the truth of our profession or they don't.

To attempt to limit it to something which can only happen in a particular place at a particular time by a particular person is to try to put God into a box, and as far as I'm concerned is the antithesis of the gospel.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Exactly. Perfectly orthodox.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Both/and not either/or.

Are Quakers saying that God can only be apprehended during an hour's silence on a Sunday morning?

No, of course not.

Are sacramentists saying that the only locus for any sense of the divine occurs in the Eucharist?

No, of course not.

Is the Baptist minister saying that the only way his congregation can encounter divine truths is when he preaches on a Sunday morning.

No, of course not.

This thread is becoming like False Dichotomy City.

As far as evangelism goes we need words and actions.

Same with worship. Same with anything else.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Yeah, both the 1% a week spent around singing hymns and the 99% working, travelling, slumping in front of the telly, eating.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

Go to a weekly concert interrupted by a lecture? Is that the example Jesus set?

Did Jesus sing hymns? Yes

Did Jesus read and listen to the scriptures being read? Yes

Did Jesus pray? Yes

Did Jesus preach? Yes

Did Jesus break the bread and drink the wine? Yes

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yeah, both the 1% a week spent around singing hymns and the 99% working, travelling, slumping in front of the telly, eating.

Yes, of course. Who's saying otherwise?

Are the Quakers only Quakers for the one hour a week they spend in Meeting?

Is an RC Christian or an Anglican Christian or an Orthodox Christian only such when they receive communion on a Sunday morning?

Is a Baptist minister only a Baptist minister when he/she preaches a 40 minute sermon on a Sunday?

Or are her/his congregation only Christians when they're sat listening to it (or zoning out or thinking about their Sunday dinner or whatever they happen to be doing)?

If it were all down to how long we spend in church services then monks and nuns would be the only 'real' Christians around ...

Why this dichotomy between worship and service, or between worship and witness, worship and mission?

I don't see why we need to be reductionist about any of this stuff - either from a High Church perspective, a Low Church one or all stations in between.

It's like the old saying I've heard preachers use (and read in guilt-inducing evangelical books ...) that if you carry your Bible to church you preach a sermon a mile long ...

As if being seen carrying a Bible in and of itself acts as some kind of incontrovertible testimony ...

That's just as daft, in my view, as the statement I've heard around here when Christians find out we're running music concerts in one of the churches:

'At least it's getting people into a church building ...'

As if the very act of walking into a church building is going to generate spiritual vibes that will somehow rub off on them ...

Enough of this mechanistic stuff already.

I'm involved with organising concerts because I think it's a good thing to do. I run open-mic poetry and folky music events in pubs because I think they're the best venue for these things and I enjoy a pint and a bit of craic.

I use church buildings for some events, secular ones for others. If some form of evangelism flows out of it, fine, that's great. If it doesn't then that's fine too because it's achieving something else - bringing people together, raising money for charity, adding to life's rich tapestry in some way ...

It's all good.

Now, there still remains the issue of evangelism and how best to go about that ... but I suspect there are as many answers and issues around that as there are people and different types and flavours of church ...

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not seeing anyone here claiming that proclaiming the gospel is all words. The old maxim "preach the gospel at all times. If necessary use words" has already been repeated - I guess I'm saying that using words is always a necessary part of that preaching. That preaching the gospel requires some content that can only be conveyed in words.

Am I misunderstanding? The evangelical churches here spend much time doing the conversion sales job. Perhaps there's a softer sell elsewhere. Nonliturgical. Free standing in most cases. Winning hearts for Jesus is the aim.

[ 14. May 2016, 14:45: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That's not how I envisage worship. In offering the eucharist, we imagine the world to be different from the narrative sold to us by consumerism.
And this is why I don't believe in the sacrament.

We are one body. All of us. In the Eucharist we celebrate the breaking of Christ's body. In life we live the breaking of Christ's body, the church, in the world.

There is no distinction between the two. Worship does not happen in the church, it doesn't happen when the priest lifts the bread, when the Baptist minister preaches, the Methodist sings hymns etc.

Either our lives are worship - in all its complexities - or they're not. Either our lives exhibit the truth of our profession or they don't.

To attempt to limit it to something which can only happen in a particular place at a particular time by a particular person is to try to put God into a box, and as far as I'm concerned is the antithesis of the gospel.

I agree except for the first and last points.

I could have responded more directly to SvitlanaV2 - his idea of 'worship' is really 'praise', which is only one part of worship.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I'm not sure it's as simple as suggesting that, say, the more high-octane 'We're going to take this land for Jesus ...' type songs of the full-on charismatic kind are more conducive to motivate people to reach-out evangelistically than, say, 'Go tell it on the mountain' or whatever else ...

What I do think happens, though, is that there is a sense of 'intentionality' and enterprise in some of the livelier settings that does promote a sense of urgency in terms of external engagement and evangelism.

I just want to make it clear that on this thread I've said nothing about any sort of 'take this land for Jesus' evangelism. My focus has been on the challenges that other approaches, especially in moderate churches, might face.

On a positive note, I agree with mr cheesy who said above, our whole lives have to be a witness, not just our evangelistic methods, nor any particular worship style. Cultivating personal and congregational holiness should surely be a high priority for all churches ahead of any evangelistic programme.

Regarding your particular situation, I don't think it's a good idea for you to go around promoting church groups and activities that you have reservations about, to put it mildly. IMO the best people to talk about these things are those who've participated in them and enjoyed them.

You'd be of most use on the technology and admin side of things, or helping with transport, I think. Otherwise, if you have the time, inclination and permission you could start a Christian meditation group, or something else that would stand outside the evangelical emphasis of your church without undermining it.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

I could have responded more directly to SvitlanaV2 - his idea of 'worship' is really 'praise', which is only one part of worship.

I take your point that the word 'worship' can mean more than praise; the whole of one's life should be an act of worship, etc.

Still, most of the time and in most church contexts it refers to the dominant parts of the Sunday morning service, or to the content of the whole service itself (a 'worship service'). IME teaching and learning as activities are not normally considered to be significant features of 'worship', and this is what I find to be a problem. But I realise that some people will probably disagree with me.

BTW, as my Ukrainian online name suggests, I happen to be female!

[ 14. May 2016, 17:27: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Still, most of the time and in most church contexts it refers to the dominant parts of the Sunday morning service, or to the content of the whole service itself (a 'worship service'). IME teaching and learning as activities are not normally considered to be significant features of 'worship', and this is what I find to be a problem.

Don't agree - evangelicals sometimes talk aout 'a time of worship' and a lot of guitar strumming follows.

But in the mainstream, readings, prayers anmd sermon are definitely 'worship'. Hence our entire lituergy comes from a book called 'Common Woship'.

This fairly established website explains how psalms, readings etc. are 'worship'.

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

quote:
By Gamaliel
Now, there still remains the issue of evangelism and how best to go about that..

I wonder if we spend too much time worrying about the unconvertable. I suppose it stems from that ghastly bit of our theology involving the wrath of God.

Jeus did not seem to expect many followers. He spoke of 'salt', 'yeast', light. All needed in small quantities in this world to continue to improve the loaf.

How about the Church getting involved with all the good community organisations and talking to those who are being called? They are bound to turn up and continue the work of the Holy Spirit.

Communal worship is just a Christian thing.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not seeing anyone here claiming that proclaiming the gospel is all words. The old maxim "preach the gospel at all times. If necessary use words" has already been repeated - I guess I'm saying that using words is always a necessary part of that preaching. That preaching the gospel requires some content that can only be conveyed in words.
Am I misunderstanding? The evangelical churches here spend much time doing the conversion sales job.

Yes, there are some evangelical churches, a very small (but usually by their nature vocal) minority of evangelical churches IME, where evangelism consists of exclusively using words to tell people the gospel. But, even those churches would also say that those words have less power if they are not accompanied by a lifestyle that is not in contradiction to the message.

But, my point was that no-one here, contributing to this thread, has expressed a view that evangelism is just telling people the message. Evangelicals of that persuasion don't tend to hang around on the Ship.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Still, most of the time and in most church contexts it refers to the dominant parts of the Sunday morning service, or to the content of the whole service itself (a 'worship service'). IME teaching and learning as activities are not normally considered to be significant features of 'worship', and this is what I find to be a problem.
Don't agree - evangelicals sometimes talk aout 'a time of worship' and a lot of guitar strumming follows.

But in the mainstream, readings, prayers anmd sermon are definitely 'worship'. Hence our entire lituergy comes from a book called 'Common Woship'.

In evangelicalism there will often be times when one particular aspect of the faith becomes the emphasis. We often have times when we will focus particularly in offering worship to God through music, times when we focus particularly on offering our prayers to God, times when we focus particularly on the reading and exposition of Scripture, times when we particularly focus on sharing the gospel message with unbelievers etc. We tend to use a shorthand notation, "time of worship", "prayer time", "Bible study", "evangelism". But, we (well, most of us) know this is short hand and that in our "worship time" we also pray and listen to Scripture, that in our Bible Study we worship.

We would also affirm that worship is not confined to a couple of hours in the church building on a Sunday. Our worship continues through the week as we help out at the homeless shelter, stock take at the food bank, spend time with friends over a meal, go to work, offer quick prayers as the latest atrocity gets splashed across our TVs in the evening news. Although we can sometimes be very bad at compartmentalising our churches into different times for prioritising different activities, we are usually also very good at not compartmentalising life into "church" and "not church", with worship, prayer, love of God and neighbour spreading through the whole of our lives (in theory at least, in practice most of us struggle to some extent).

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Nice one Raptor Eye. I'll try and remember that when I'm trying to make it work tomorrow. Unless om gooin Fabric Guild in Lesto' AGAIN to get the missus a rotary cutter for her piquage, which she SHOULD have got last week of course, but she couldn't see the point, she'd never used one before, it wasn't how she did it years ago ... but I'd sown the seed obviously. I'll be showing her how to use the hexagonal template, which we got in NORTHAMPTON today, via Leamington, with it after.

If that's not love, sacrifice, praise, worship and a hundred miles, I don't know what is.

If I do, do you think I'll miss Jesus turning up at church?

You know, I watched Stigmata again tonight, thrust it on the missus who hadn't seen it before. As good as the first time and frit her good and proper. It actually made me hanker for a proper Roman Catholic service, despite its sublimely evangelistic message.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@SvitlanaV2. Indeed and that's part of my conundrum and dilemma.

I'm glad they are evangelising, but I don't particularly want to do it their way, nor am I interested in the particular events and activities they promote.

I'm not that involved other than editing the church mag and leading the prayers at the 9am service once every five or six weeks. I don't go to house-groups or prayer meetings. They're best doing these things without me.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Gamaliel

I don't think you face too much of a dilemma, unless the church is begging you to do things you don't want to do. That would be unfortunate.

It sounds like a lively church with a sizeable congregation, so there should be no need for unsuitable demands to be made on you. Surely there are other gifted members whose commitment to the church's ethos and identity would make them better suited to 'fronting' this sort of evangelistic programme?

You're more of a free spirit, so you'll no doubt continue to have your own evangelistic conversations, etc. without regard to what your church is doing.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Well I went and the ratio of old women to old men was only 3:2 today. I did try and humble myself and go with and be grateful for the simplicity. How I make the Holy Spirit real, to fully and constantly submit to God when I'm neck deep in too much and too little mindless techy work and commuting for 12 hours tomorrow, I don't know. How I'm to be the living embodiment of the risen Jesus to my colleagues apart from trying to be pleasant with the odd person except Ron (to whom one does not exist) when going for coffee, or encouraging to James in his needs and expect them to want what I've got, to ask what is it about me that's so compelling, I don't know. Well I do, I use elegant matching.

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

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I remember reading somewhere that the pre-eminence of worship in the church is misplaced. In the case of MOTR congregations which are reluctant to talk about God outside of the formal worship context I'm inclined to agree.

That's making assumptions that the people who attend that church aren't engaging in challenging work in the community in their day to day lives and need that worship to refocus and recharge their batteries.

quote:
Telling God how wonderful he is is lovely, but it seems to be of limited benefit in showing us how to obey him and helping us to do so. Singing 'Go, tell it on the mountain' doesn't seem to help us when we want to tell people about Jesus.

But it might mean that the congregant can face another week of working in the day job of social work, teaching or health care. Why are those professions not seen as Christian work?

I work with the excluded or soon to be excluded teenagers, who push every button on purpose. One, slightly more reflective, 15 year old once asked me how I managed to keep coming back smiling for more of the abuse and I said pray. That Sunday service was, at the time, the pause for thought and put the work and world in focus for me.

If I have spent all week working with challenging teenagers trying to support them to achieve an education and not be dumped on the scrapheap at 15, why should I then be expected to go out and do more missional work? Churches can't have it both ways - have people working in their communities to serve that community and also expect those same people to run the church. There's only so much stretch in most people's lives.

(Yes, I have had a few conversations about faith, but only because I was asked directly by the students, not because it was anything I pushed. You can't in education, it's very frowned upon. Where I am now, it might well get me sacked.)

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

Gamaliel - going back to something you said earlier in the thread. Locally there was a dialogue with the local art society. That society exhibits in the church a couple of times a year. One year they were challenged to produce a series of Stations of the Cross which were then exhibited in the church during Lent and Easter with their notes alongside. There was a booklet for sale with pictures and notes. It was voluntary, with only those who were interested taking part, very few of whom were churchgoers.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I remember reading somewhere that the pre-eminence of worship in the church is misplaced. In the case of MOTR congregations which are reluctant to talk about God outside of the formal worship context I'm inclined to agree.
That's making assumptions that the people who attend that church aren't engaging in challenging work in the community in their day to day lives and need that worship to refocus and recharge their batteries.

quote:
Telling God how wonderful he is is lovely, but it seems to be of limited benefit in showing us how to obey him and helping us to do so. Singing 'Go, tell it on the mountain' doesn't seem to help us when we want to tell people about Jesus.
But it might mean that the congregant can face another week of working in the day job of social work, teaching or health care. Why are those professions not seen as Christian work?

I've worked in the public sector myself, and you make a good point about how busy these people are. More generally, the fast pace of much of modern life probably militates against church as much more than a refilling station for many people.

Furthermore, in many professional situations evangelism of any kind is likely to be seen as an offense.

My comments had nothing to do with which professions might be seen as 'Christian', though; my issue is that what we call church worship doesn't offer enough teaching (and sermons are only of limited use in this respect). In turn, more teaching isn't what churchgoers want or expect.

One could argue that this wouldn't matter in practical terms if we were still in the early 20th c. and all our churches were chugging along nicely on their reserves. The trouble is that outside the favoured corners of the South East and a few well-heeled places elsewhere this isn't how things are. Nationally churchgoing has declined a great deal, and belief has declined in its wake. We mutter about the evangelical response, but the real issue is what the mainstream churches can do to prevent their weaknesses from becoming terminal.

However, if stuff isn't broken where you are, there's no point in trying to fix it.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Curiosity killed ... your laborare est orare.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure ...

@Curiosity Killed: yes, I'd applaud those kinds of initiatives and would aspire to be involved in them. I'm planning a Stations of the Cross event for November based around Chester Cathedral's WW1 Stations of the Cross artworks and with input from the British Legion, local community theatre etc.

@SvitlanaV2 - yes, you're right on one level. It's not much of a dilemma at all ... there are more than enough people to 'front' and engage in evangelistic activity at my local evangelical Anglican parish church without any input from me.

They'd do it a lot more effectively on their own and without my input.

No, the dilemma isn't one of being 'forced' or expected to engage in stuff I don't feel comfortable with but the kind of transition/development that is taking place in my own mind and approach - the kind of ongoing paradigm shift away from a full-on evangelical perspective and position that's been taking place with me over the last 20 years or so ...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
BTW, as my Ukrainian online name suggests, I happen to be female!

Whoops, sorry

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Nick Tamen: So what do you understand to be at the heart of what churches are all about?
Not sure. To be honest I'm not a big fan of the church. The way I like to express it is: I have a love-hate relationship with the church, where the balance is tipped somewhat towards hate.

Of course, we can stretch the definition of 'evangelism' so far that any interaction I as a Christian have with another person counts as evangelism. I'm not sure if the word still has meaning if we do that. So let me clear then: I don't try to convince anyone to become Christian, even for very soft values of 'convince'.

Thanks LeRoc. I appreciate the frank response. (And sorry I didn't reply sooner; I've been out of pocket for a few days.)

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That's not how I envisage worship. In offering the eucharist, we imagine the world to be different from the narrative sold to us by consumerism.
And this is why I don't believe in the sacrament.

We are one body. All of us. In the Eucharist we celebrate the breaking of Christ's body. In life we live the breaking of Christ's body, the church, in the world.

There is no distinction between the two. Worship does not happen in the church, it doesn't happen when the priest lifts the bread, when the Baptist minister preaches, the Methodist sings hymns etc.

Either our lives are worship - in all its complexities - or they're not. Either our lives exhibit the truth of our profession or they don't.

To attempt to limit it to something which can only happen in a particular place at a particular time by a particular person is to try to put God into a box, and as far as I'm concerned is the antithesis of the gospel.
I agree except for the first and last points.

I'd say I agree with all of it, except that what follows the first sentence is part of why I do believe in the sacrament. At the Table, I think the church is reminded (and re-made into) who and what it is, not just for our own sake, but for the sake of the world. We come to the Table in order to be sent from the Table.

Meanwhile, my thoughts about evangelism are much like those expressed by Jacobsen.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The dilemma isn't one of being 'forced' or expected to engage in stuff I don't feel comfortable with but the kind of transition/development that is taking place in my own mind and approach - the kind of ongoing paradigm shift away from a full-on evangelical perspective and position that's been taking place with me over the last 20 years or so ...

You also seem to be in the middle of shifting from one congregation to another. AFAIUI you have a foot in the CofE and another in the Orthodox Church. That must make it awkward to evangelise wholeheartedly on behalf of either.

I get the impression (probably the wrong one!) that you're still affiliated to your local evangelical CofE congregation because that's where things are happening, that's where there's interaction with the wider community, whereas your attraction to the Orthodox Church is primarily about meeting your personal spiritual needs. Reconciling these two poles of attraction (so to speak) must be very challenging.

Do the Orthodox churches you know of have much of an evangelistic sensibility in the modern era? Perhaps you might think about what you could offer in that context, if anything.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I s'pose one of the reasons I started this thread was because of the sort of tensions you've identified ...

On one level, I'd rather the evangelical Anglicans and the Pentecostals here were doing what they're doing in terms of evangelism than what everyone else isn't doing. As far as the Orthodox go, they aren't particular 'evangelistic' as such and if I went that way it'd mean travelling 15 miles to worship on a Sunday morning or 4 miles midweek (they have a small Chapel of Ease 4 miles from here and their t'other building - which they use on a Sunday) is across the otherside of our nearest conurbation.

As far as the other Anglican parish here goes, it's pretty liberal and whilst the new incumbent there is keen on 'liturgical formation' I'm not sure that's something she shares with the rest of the congregation ... I've heard a few grumbles and gripes from the regulars who don't like her liturgical precision and the fact that the services can now last over an hour at times ...

In fact, they've lost a few of the older people who've dropped out entirely since she started ratcheting things up a wee bit on the liturgical side.

So, you're right, I'm not really sure where I fit in.

I've moved away from bog-standard evangelicalism and do have a penchant towards the more reflective and contemplative as well as the more avowedly sacramental ... but in ecclesial terms I've felt as if I've been in this position for a long, long time ...

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGFR3zz12p0

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The dilemma isn't one of being 'forced' or expected to engage in stuff I don't feel comfortable with but the kind of transition/development that is taking place in my own mind and approach - the kind of ongoing paradigm shift away from a full-on evangelical perspective and position that's been taking place with me over the last 20 years or so ...
You also seem to be in the middle of shifting from one congregation to another. AFAIUI you have a foot in the CofE and another in the Orthodox Church. That must make it awkward to evangelise wholeheartedly on behalf of either.

I get the impression (probably the wrong one!) that you're still affiliated to your local evangelical CofE congregation because that's where things are happening, that's where there's interaction with the wider community, whereas your attraction to the Orthodox Church is primarily about meeting your personal spiritual needs. Reconciling these two poles of attraction (so to speak) must be very challenging.

Do the Orthodox churches you know of have much of an evangelistic sensibility in the modern era? Perhaps you might think about what you could offer in that context, if anything.

Sorry to double-post, but you've hit on a few key points here ...

As far as the Orthodox go, I'm not sure what I could offer them. I don't particularly have a desire to proselytise RCs and Protestants on behalf of the One True Catholic and Apostolic ChurchTM ... although I s'pose if I were involved with what I was convinced was the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church I would - in a mild kind of way - be keen and willing to share that with people who I might consider not to be ...

But the idea of being a pain-in-the-arse convert telling everyone else that they've got it wrong doesn't particularly appeal.

I do also wonder, with the Orthodox, how - on a practical level - they're expecting people in any great numbers to skip Sunday lunch and travel to an awkward location. If I visit the Orthodox on a Sunday morning I know I'm not going to be back here in time for Sunday dinner with my family and my mum-in-law who suffers from Alzheimer's and who I pick up for Sunday dinner every week ...

('Funny, I prefer a roast chicken ...' the old one's are the best ...)

So, yes, I do retain a foot in the evangelical parish because part of me still has this thing about supporting your local expression of Christianity in some way ... and I don't mind helping out with certain things.

But no, if I were to be consumerist about it, it doesn't meet my 'spiritual needs' ... if that doesn't sound too needy.

I'm on a different page to them on all sorts of issues.

But that would probably apply wherever I was.

The previous liberal vicar once observed to me that if churches only had liturgy then I'd be alright ... it's as soon as anyone starts talking that the problems start ...

[Big Grin]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Gamaliel

So am I right in saying you'd like to see liturgical, non-chatty forms of evangelism? How about a Palm Sunday walk of witness? Communion services in public places? Prayer tents at secular festivals? There are various of forms of communal evangelism that do take place that don't have to involve promoting an evangelical or dogmatic theology.

It's a shame that the nearest Orthodox congregation to you is so out of the way (though I'm surprised at the implication that 'sheep stealing' would be their thing!). That being the case, your liberal, liturgical CofE congregation perhaps deserves another look, its internal squabbles notwithstanding. Such churches tend to welcome worshippers from all theological backgrounds, and in addition you might get the opportunity to influence any of their future evangelistic strategies rather than just being expected to fit in with what they're already doing.

Congregations of elderly people must be challenging if you're not used to worshipping in that environment, but on the plus side, they're often very appreciative of the help that more energetic, younger people can offer. Also, I know you're not keen on an overabundance of church groups, and such churches tend not to have very many of them. Pastoral care is a bigger concern.

If your evangelical church is as lively as it sounds it can use you easily, but it probably doesn't need you all that much. I suppose you have to decide how much you want to be where the need is greatest, how much you want to be where it's at, and how much you want to tend to your own spiritual condition. That's if there's a choice to be made, which is often the case.

[ 18. May 2016, 16:13: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, that all makes sense, SvitlanaV2.

On the Orthodox thing, generally speaking they aren't particularly pushy in terms of proselytising among other Christians, but some of the converts can be inclined that way.

They tend to simply get on with things and leave it up to anyone who wants to join them to do so.

I'm not sure that 'non-chatty' forms of evangelism is where I'm at ... I'm big on chat. As regulars here can tell ... [Help]

It's more the style and delivery that bothers me, and the tendency of many evangelicals to offer rather glib answers and engage in pretty ropey apologetics.

I agree with you that the evangelical parish doesn't 'need' me as such, but they do value what I do in terms of helping edit material and so on - and I'd be happy to do that even if I weren't involved directly.

When you talk about community engagement - that's something I have through my town council and voluntary activities and it's something that includes/touches on all the churches here - so that's not a big issue.

The liberal parish is probably rather too liberal for me - but then the evangelical parish is rather too evangelical for me ...

[Biased]

I do wonder whether we'd be having this conversation at all if I lived in a cathedral city. I'd probably be happy going along to a cathedral style service on Sundays and engaging in something else mid-week.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

When you say the liberal parish is 'too liberal', what do you mean, exactly?

Surely, the whole point of liberalism in churches is that there's tolerance for different theological perspectives. I imagine that many of the old ladies who attend the church in question are not 'liberal' in the same way as their highly educated vicar. Cathedral worship may suit you better on a liturgical level, but would it be any less 'liberal', by and large, than the average parish church?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

All good questions and I don't particularly have an adequate answer.

Stepping back a bit from the theological aspects for a moment, you made a comment about having to get used to knocking around with older people in church services if I move away from the 'livelier' end of things.

Well, I've done that already. I can no longer tolerate the 11am lively service and so haven't darkened its door for several years. I only go to the more 'traditional' 9am service - and that's largely attended by people older than I am (and I'm no spring chicken, I've just reached 55 (yes, I know, unbelievable isn't it given how I behave ... [Biased]

) ...

But there are cross-over people as it were at the 9am, people who attend either service depending on what's going on.

I do retain a residual evangelicalism in the broader sense, I don't go down the Spong and Cupitt route - and I was uncomfortable at the liberal incumbent's repeated use of the female pronoun for the Holy Spirit during her Pentecost Sunday sermon.

Sure, I know all about the identification of the Holy Spirit with Sophia - the Wisdom of God - which is personified in female terms in the OT - but even whilst I don't think of God as male in any literal sense - he's not an old white guy with a white beard - I do prefer to retain masculine pronouns when talking about God ... call me old-fashioned ...

I dunno. It's an interesting point. At what point does something become 'too liberal' and what point does it become 'too conservative'?

That's work in progress for me ...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Evangelism among elderly members of the community might be a good idea. Encouraging them to participate in church life seems to be more about focusing on the benefits of community and belonging than about urging them down a particular evangelical path.

As for the vicar who referred to God as female, that's unlikely to happen every service, and it might be tolerable if you only have to deal with it now and again. When I've come across that approach I've found it interesting, but I wouldn't want it all the time.

Spong and co. belong to discussion groups. AFAIK that sort of thing isn't normally preached from mainstream pulpits, which means even very liberal clergy can avoid offending their more orthodox members - in theory anyway.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Surely, the whole point of liberalism in churches is that there's tolerance for different theological perspectives.

Yes, but it doesn't work like that in practice. Liberalism can in fact be very intolerant of many perspectives (particularly anything Evangelical).

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Aye, that's weak hostile liberalism. As opposed to strong benevolent. Mine vacillates between weak benevolent and strong hostile, which I manage to keep to myself usually.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Baptist Trainfan

Well, at certain points the two are obviously opposed, so if they want to live in the same space one is likely to be the dominant voice and the other subordinate. Or else you get a theology of the lowest common denominator.

Some congregations IME work by avoiding conflict. In such cases the members might be quite liberal or evangelical in their own time, but disrupting the communal environment with potentially controversial opinions or beliefs is not on.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, liberals can be very illiberal - particularly towards evangelicalism.

That said, all of the liberal clergy I've known reasonably closely have always had a respect for individual evangelicals and some aspects of evangelicalism.

The bits they don't like would generally correspond to those aspects of evangelicalism I also find off-putting.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

On the outreach to elderly people aspect, the evangelical parish here is good at that with its fortnightly mid-week Coffee & Communion. My mother-in-law lives it although, with her dementia, she can't tell you much about it afterwards.

But it does a good job with the elderly and house-bound.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Good. What that reminds us is that there are different kinds of church ministry that can be labelled as evangelism. If we choose those that fit in with our values and theology then that makes things easier for us.

What seems to happen, though, is that certain activities and approaches are often labelled evangelism, while others are labelled pastoral work or 'serving the community', etc. This is problematic, because any of them could lead to faith, or to commitment to the life of the church. (Whether they are all equally successful is another matter.)

It may be relevant here to refer to the sociologist David Voas, who says that what churches need to do is offer what people want and can't get elsewhere. He sees community as a more important factor than religion, because most people want positive human relationships more than they want any particular religious ideology.

If this is the case, and assuming that the churches in question are actually able to offer a high quality experience of community, it could be argued that the promotion of an evangelical religious message is not really key to bringing people into the fold.

The problem is that evangelical methods are better at creating community, because members of the group are expected to pull in the same direction. Contributing to a common cause is the priority. One can see the dilemma played out here on the Ship; people want the benefits of belonging to a strong community (i.e. a 'thriving church'), but they also want to be individuals who believe, live and contribute according to their own rather than group values.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Svitlana - would be interesting to compare and contrast Evangelicals and Roman Catholics going by your last paragraph.

Gamaliel, sorry if you've said this and I've missed it, but what about the local Roman Catholics?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I get on well with the local RCs. I've joined them for lectio divina a number of times during Lent and once attended their Easter Vigil ... only that seemed a bit mild and 'nesh' after Orthodox ones I've been to ...

I'm friends with a few people there but don't see myself crossing the Tiber somehow ...

The stuff I like about Rome tends to be those things they share most closely in common with either the Orthodox or the Anglicans, not things that are particularly distinctive about themselves ...

The Deacon at the RCs is lovely. The priest is very sweet but on another planet. He's nice but somewhat absent-minded.

I get on with them fine but not sure I could take to the statues and kitsch. I've enjoyed visiting more Byzantine style RC church buildings in Italy, but the rather florid Baroque style of much Roman Catholicism leaves me cold.

I've been friends with some impressive RC priests in the past but find I baulk at some aspects of popular RC devotion ... but then, that's probably my residual evangelicalism talking. There can be something a bit creepy about the upper reaches of Anglo-Catholicism and some aspects of Roman Catholicism ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

One thing I've noticed about the local RCs is that a number of them seemed to have jumped ship for the Pentecostals a few years ago, only to return to the RC fold after a while - yet retaining some admiration for the Penties.

I've noticed that a few have started attending the local evangelical Anglican parish too. Whether they'll move over to evangelicalism or simply explore it for a while remains to be seen.

I've got a lot of time for RC 'religious' and have met some impressive monks and nuns in my time.

Not sure I could feel at home with Rome though, but if I lived in an RC country I could perhaps get used to it ...

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

"Evangelicals are better at creating community".

Really? This being purgatory, I shall refrain from what was going through my mind, but the experience of friends who have lived in London and attended the figurehead evangelical churches there, who found the focus on teaching excluded anything more provisional and personal, and that at as result they attended for years without making any kind of relationships with anyone there, ring in my ears.

The sacraments have about them both the intensely personal and the deeply social, it's a mistake to allow either to obscure the other, or worse exclude.

What they have in their favour, if it is allowed to work like that, is the ability to touch people, to move people to acknowledge and embrace their own vulnerability and each other's. I don't recognise Svitlana's picture of the sacramentally inclined as being caught in our own pious bubble at all. It can happen, but no more than among evangelicals.

The real difficulty is that sacraments are intrinsically touchy-feely: even the most ardent ritualists have never found a way of preventing this. In a world that dislikes touch, how can one possibly share sacraments authentically?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

This thread is teaching me about cultural and location differences in the description of a church as evangelical. Evangelical here means nonliturgical, a band, altar calls, emotionally based worship, testimonials, +/- hands in air and people saying amen and hallelulah. The stereotype is anti-intellectual, born againism, conservative and like the TV televangelists. Charismatic is conflated with it. That is also seen as anti-intellectual. RCs, Anglican, Lutherans, Orthodox (virtually all Ukrainain), United Church of Canada by definition not evangello.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I think I would say that evangelicals provide for and create different forms of community than more sacramentalist churches. Specifically, the Sunday service is, for evangelicals, less of a focus for community building. Evangelicals tend to form communities elsewhere - midweek prayer and study groups, working together in mission teams, etc.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
"Evangelicals are better at creating community".

Really? This being purgatory, I shall refrain from what was going through my mind, but the experience of friends who have lived in London and attended the figurehead evangelical churches there, who found the focus on teaching excluded anything more provisional and personal, and that at as result they attended for years without making any kind of relationships with anyone there, ring in my ears.

The sacraments have about them both the intensely personal and the deeply social, it's a mistake to allow either to obscure the other, or worse exclude.

What they have in their favour, if it is allowed to work like that, is the ability to touch people, to move people to acknowledge and embrace their own vulnerability and each other's. I don't recognise Svitlana's picture of the sacramentally inclined as being caught in our own pious bubble at all. It can happen, but no more than among evangelicals.

With regard to 'figurehead evangelical churches in London' being impersonal, one of the problems, I understand, is that it's fairly easy to get lost in large congregations, and largeness is usually a feature of evangelical rather than other kinds of churches.

However, I currently attend Evensong at a sacramental church, and despite the congregation there being tiny, only two or three people there have ever really tried to have a conversation with me!

In both cases, it's probably true to say that you have to push yourself forward in some churches if you want to build strong friendships. In a large evangelical church I presume that means joining a small group.

Alternatively, if you want people to be all over you from the start, join a Methodist church. Very friendly. But you

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

...
but you WILL be on a rota before long, if you turn up with any regularity.

I agree that in terms of evangelism, growing churches don't necessarily have to be evangelical, certainly not in the CofE. In that sense, evangelical churches are not automatically better at creating community, no. But as I said before, even if community is more important than theological tradition, some theological traditions seem more able - at least in some circumstances - to tap into that need.

According to one report I've read, Anglican churches in middle class suburbs apparently have good growth potential. I suspect that being evangelical isn't a significant factor in such cases.

[ 23. May 2016, 00:51: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I wouldn't say it was an insignificant one. With some exceptions, I'd argue that evangelical Anglicanism is largely a suburban thing.

That doesn't mean that liberal or more sacramental forms of Anglicanism can't thrive in suburbia, though.

Meanwhile, as an aside, you seem to be attending Evensong and not anything else where you are. Have you given up on the communion? You may, or may not find, that people are more chatty or approachable in that context.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's fairly easy to get lost in large congregations.

Which is what some folk actually want.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

The following is a theory that is very possibly wrong.

Note: I've been in low-Anglican and non-conformist evangelical churches for most of my life and have only attended an Anglican Cathedral for the last year.

I'm wondering whether there is a difference in emphasis between the most liturgical and the lowest Anglican churches which leads to a difference in the way that incomers are viewed.

For most regular Cathedral service attendees (and I'm going to exclude for the moment the Cathedral chapter and other "professionals") the pivotal purpose of the church is in the liturgy, in particular the Eucharist and the music. Most of these seem to take the spiritual moments in this format to be a space for communion between the individual and God.

I think in contrast, for most low Anglicans, most non-conformists and most other Evangelicals I've ever experienced, the pivotal purpose of the church is located elsewhere; namely in communal senses of worship, in teaching and in a strong sense of community, particularly over coffee after (or sometimes before) the service.

For the liturgical, perhaps, the effort is to find that individual connection, for the evangelical it is to find that communal connection.

Hence it seems to me that it is much more difficult to find community in the Cathedral setting - at least in the sense that I have always previously experienced it - because those who attend are not particularly looking for community but communion.

For me, that's quite refreshing. I don't have to justify myself, I don't have to fend off well-meaning people who want something from me, I don't have people trying to sign me up for anything. I needed that form of detox.

On the downside, nobody really knows me.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I think that accords well with my experience.

I do wonder though if there may be a difference between the "great historic" cathedrals and those which are newer and/or function as a parish church too? For instance, I occasionally worship at St. Edmundsbury and that seems a friendly and welcoming place.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
For instance, I occasionally worship at St. Edmundsbury and that seems a friendly and welcoming place.

I don't think the Cathedral is "unfriendly and unwelcoming" exactly, those are the wrong words.

Everyone is welcomed to the services, people do not deliberately give others the cold-shoulder and I've witnessed the stewards assist with and include people whom other churches I know would exclude. In that sense, the place is welcoming of many different varieties of clothing and dress, the poor time-keepers, the bored, the screaming child and so on.

Just to take one of those; other churches I've attended have closed the door after a certain point in the service, so even entering can be difficult, particularly for someone who is not known there.

Again, I think the difference is about purpose. With so many people coming to so many different services, the Cathedral as a church is not trying to make personal friendships between people, but trying to meet their immediate needs.

[ 23. May 2016, 10:09: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Fair enough.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Other churches I've attended have closed the door after a certain point in the service, so even entering can be difficult, particularly for someone who is not known there.

This was a problem for Para Handy, the Clyde "puffer" captain, when his crew played a trick on him after the clocks changed:

The beadle was shutting the door of the church as they approached to enter. "Where are ye goin'?" he asked, with a curious look at them.

"Where would we be goin' but to hear my good frien', John M'Queen," said the Captain fervently.

"Then ye'll better come back at half-past eleven," said the beadle dryly. "This is no' the place for you at all; it's the Sunday School."

"Holy sailors!" exclaimed the Captain; "what o'clock iss't?"

"Exactly half-past nine by the summer time," said the beadle, "but it's only half-past eight by naiture."

The Captain looked at Dougie. "Aren't we," said he, "the fools to be leavin' nocks and watches to fellows like Sunny Jim and Macphail! The tricky duvvles! There's no' an inch o' a chentleman between them. It's no' wan oor but three they put us forrit, and they're still snore-snorin' yonder!"

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

PS Not as much of a problem as churches which are closed when they ought to be open! Prof. Leslie Francis did a survey of many rural (English) churches and found that a lot of them didn't keep to the advertised service times ... it was assumed that village gossip would pass round the correct times, which is no good for a visitor from outside.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

A church near me has 'lost' 3 of its regular evening services (2 evensongs and a eucharist) and now has something called 'Evening Praise'. This takes place with people sitting on chairs in a circle and a member of the congregation (who works as a medium - is quite well-known nationally) 'does' healing: the doors are locked before the service starts.

Am I alone in thinking this is wrong on so many fronts?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Am I alone in thinking this is wrong on so many fronts?

Hard to imagine the archdeacon and/or bishop have authorised this.

So no.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Archdeacon was told: his response was "sometimes the ministry of healing is misunderstood" [Confused]

Meanwhile another church, which was struggling with evening services has gained a new lease of life - and those who now go to them in the evening are tending to go in the morning as well.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

On the cathedral vs congregation thing ...

People tell me that some of the old cathedrals - Chester for instance - do have something of a 'community' or congregational element about them - but by and large, I suspect mr cheesy is right in his analysis.

I think there's a kind of mirror-image thing going on here ... for many evangelicals church is the locus and focus of community - often to the exclusion of anything else that might be going on around them. Some of the evangelicals at our local parish church seem heavily involved with that and rarely seen anywhere else - but that's certainly not true of all of them.

Conversely, for some of the more liturgical/sacramental types, 'community' happens elsewhere - with other stuff they're involved with - so it's less important for them on a Sunday morning.

Now, that's a very, very broad generalisation and I'm sure there are liturgically/sacramentally inclined people who enjoy fellowship together in quite a close knit kind of way - particularly those involved with choirs and so on.

But in some evangelical and particularly charismatic evangelical churches, almost everything seems to revolve around the close fellowship and sense of community ... which is great, if that's what you are looking for - but it can become a bit of a goldfish bowl and it can become somewhat claustrophobic.

I was once struck by an article in The Baptist Times by a Baptist minister who was involved with some kind of local activist group working on social issues. One day, a very left-wing member of the group turned to him and said, 'It's great that you're here and that you're involved, but where are the rest of your congregation?'

Whilst not knocking the level of commitment, energy and enterprise shown by the loyal core at the heart of my local evangelical parish, they are so intensely involved with that it's hard to see how they can have time for anything else but work, meal-times and sleep.

There's got to be some kind of balance somewhere.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Of course there is the odd evangelical/low church/offbeat cathedral or minster such as Coventry - I don't know much about the level of community there, but I'm fairly sure there's a big student community there which is unusual for a cathedral (it is right next door to the main campus of Coventry University).

Chris Howson at Sunderland Minster is doing interesting work with refugees there.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

You seem to be attending Evensong and not anything else where you are. Have you given up on the communion? You may, or may not find, that people are more chatty or approachable in that context.

I'm not heavily into communion, really, although I do go to a communion service sometimes.

At this point in time I'm not really looking for a chatty church. Where there's chattiness, rotas are not far away....

quote:

I think there's a kind of mirror-image thing going on here ... for many evangelicals church is the locus and focus of community - often to the exclusion of anything else that might be going on around them. Some of the evangelicals at our local parish church seem heavily involved with that and rarely seen anywhere else - but that's certainly not true of all of them.

Conversely, for some of the more liturgical/sacramental types, 'community' happens elsewhere - with other stuff they're involved with - so it's less important for them on a Sunday morning.
[...]
There's got to be some kind of balance somewhere.

Maybe in Methodism. Although class meetings have mostly disappeared you can usually join some kind of group if you want to. But if you just want to be there on Sunday mornings that's perfectly acceptable, and indeed normal.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Of course there is the odd evangelical/low church/offbeat cathedral or minster such as Coventry - I don't know much about the level of community there, but I'm fairly sure there's a big student community there which is unusual for a cathedral (it is right next door to the main campus of Coventry University).

Chris Howson at Sunderland Minster is doing interesting work with refugees there.

Coventry is in an interesting phase in terms of candle position. Its canon pastor is decidedly Catholic in understanding, and a fantastic celebrant. Her presiding at Pentecost very nearly had me in tears of joy.

ETA: they also exposed the blessed sacrament, in full monstrance, in the chapel where it is reserved, throughout the day on Ascension day.

[ 23. May 2016, 17:57: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was once struck by an article in The Baptist Times.

There is yet hope for your salvation! We of Ye One True Church will continue to pray for Thy soul. [Devil]

[ 23. May 2016, 18:03: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Of course there is the odd evangelical/low church/offbeat cathedral or minster such as Coventry - I don't know much about the level of community there, but I'm fairly sure there's a big student community there which is unusual for a cathedral (it is right next door to the main campus of Coventry University).

Chris Howson at Sunderland Minster is doing interesting work with refugees there.
Coventry is in an interesting phase in terms of candle position. Its canon pastor is decidedly Catholic in understanding, and a fantastic celebrant. Her presiding at Pentecost very nearly had me in tears of joy.

ETA: they also exposed the blessed sacrament, in full monstrance, in the chapel where it is reserved, throughout the day on Ascension day.

That is very interesting, although part of me feels like having an evangelical cathedral representing what is an evangelical diocese would be a good thing. How is it going down within the diocese? I am from Coventry but left in my teens before I became a Christian, and my family are not religious so I have not much experience of churches there (when I visit I attend St Mary Magdalen by Hearsall Common).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was once struck by an article in The Baptist Times.
There is yet hope for your salvation! We of Ye One True Church will continue to pray for Thy soul.

Well, judging by the article I was referring to, that particular Baptist congregation had better be praying for their own souls ...

As well as getting out of their heretickal conventicles and getting involved with the real world.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
That is very interesting, although part of me feels like having an evangelical cathedral representing what is an evangelical diocese would be a good thing. How is it going down within the diocese? I am from Coventry but left in my teens before I became a Christian, and my family are not religious so I have not much experience of churches there (when I visit I attend St Mary Magdalen by Hearsall Common).

I've not lived in Cov for some years, but it sounds like the Cathedral has had some readjustment since the days of John Irvine, Justin Welby and Andrew White - Irvine is a conservative Evangelical in the Holy Trinity Brompton tradition, White is a charismatic ex-Pentecostal (IIRC) and Welby has Evangelical history - although when he was in Coventry he was easily the most proficient with the liturgical aspects of the Cathedral staff.

In those days the student work was of a particularly low-brow form and led by a worker who subsequently became the minister of Cov's main Baptist church.

Anyway, as others have said, Coventry is a parish church as well as a Cathedral and has historically had a weird relationship with Holy Trinity, a large and broad Evangelical/Evensong church which lies only yards away. Of course, this reflects something of the history of St Michaels and Trinity, which were supported by rival camps within the medieval city.

As to the diocese - I've near heard that it is particularly Evangelical, and has a wide mix of urban, suburban and rural parishes. But even if it is, I'm not sure that a change of direction at the Cathedral is particularly unwelcome.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0