Ah yes - the "but I always sit there" brigade. Don't you know that newcomers are supposed to ask first, to be sure that they don't accidentally sit in Mrs. Fortescue's favoured spot?
</sarcasm>
I don't think I've ever been to a church that has family pews in current use - do they still exist? I've been to a couple that have old nameplates that haven't been in use for decades, but are retained for some sort of vaguely historical reason. Perhaps a village church that still has the original family living in the big house?
(As an aside, I'd say that more than 80% of our congregation has a favourite spot that they "always" sit in, but none of them are sufficiently attached to it that they can't move forward or back a row or two if "their" spot happens to be occupied when they arrive.)
I believe there are family pews that are retained for historical reasons but there aren't any members of the family using them - eg Haworth parish church has Brontë family pews still intact, and it's still a working church but I believe the pews are not used. Being in Jane Austen Land I wonder about her father's church? Box pews are fairly common around here.
Perhaps a village church that still has the original family living in the big house?
I can think of at least one, where the family not only still live in the big house, but hold the living.
Mind you, it's the same place where the occupier of said pew and holder of said living has been known to go round the (tied) village to drum up more of the tenantry if he thinks the service is sparsely attended.
If the 10000 new *communities* meet in (say) old warehouses, or whatever, they probably won't need pews, anyway. They may even find that there is on-site parking, easy access for wheelchairs etc. etc.
What's not to like?
OTOH, some may take over existing church buildings which do have pews, which might lead to some interesting tussles between Shiny New Community and English Outrage Heritage...
A pew tale. When my parents turned up at the rural church, they looked for a suitable pew and found a short one which was closed off by a pillar. Nobody told them, until much, much later, after the pew wars, that that had been the doctor's pew, and the doctor just moved back a row, and then they didn't tell them, they told me.
The pew in front held three elderly ladies associated with a small local private school. They made a point of it being "their" pew, and would turn visitors out if they dared to sit there. Time passed, and so did two of them. And then one Sunday a friend of the remaining lady turned up with her husband, and was ushered, by the remaining lady, into the pew we were expecting to sit in. So we sat further back. Apparently, the elderly lady had told them my parents wouldn't mind. She had a full length pew all to herself!
The following week, we turned up early, by chance, and got "our" pew again. But she didn't have her friends in her pew. It was the next week that alerted us to what was happening.
That following week, they arrived even earlier, and back we were, further back. Looking at a fox fur.
The following week, we got there another five minutes earlier, and were back in the short pew. This time, we were choosing to be early.
And it was clear, the next week, they weren't going to give up. So we did, and worked out where we could sit without upsetting anyone else. It had stopped being funny, and become petty and childish.
Apparently, the drama had been arousing much amusement among such people as the church wardens, and I was told some time later, when my parents had moved, and I popped back in to take photos of the kneelers my Mum had done the tapestry for.
I really have never grasped what sort of mind those people had. The utter selfishness, self- centredness, and supposedly during worship.
If the 10000 new *communities* meet in (say) old warehouses, or whatever, they probably won't need pews, anyway. They may even find that there is on-site parking, easy access for wheelchairs etc. etc.
Warehouses, or empty office buildings in office parks have a lot to commend themselves for many churches, though from observation of friends churches that have gone this route it's hard to find places that are equally accessible via public transport (office parks being somewhat better), so often the choice is between continuing to rent a school (only available at weekends and during holidays) or having access issues.
As a side note; the 10K figure is being bandied around a lot, do we know how much resource is being poured into this initiative? It may be that a few hundred new church-starts ends up being the realistic and reasonable outcome.
OTOH, some may take over existing church buildings which do have pews, which might lead to some interesting tussles between Shiny New Community and English Outrage Heritage...
This was the other half of what I was alluding to up thread. I've heard someone from Sidney once say that they deliberately try and avoid creating future heritage sites, and while I wouldn't advocate that approach I can understand it.
Unfortunately society at large is becoming more reactionary too - public approval of LGBTQ+ rights has fallen, and hate crimes have increased (even accounting for increased recording of crime).
Is this actually "society becoming more reactionary"?
When the headline story was gay marriage, or a collection of the rather petty-seeming businessfolk who didn't want to sell flowers, cakes, photographs, or whatever else to a gay couple, it's easy for someone to take the line "I'm not gay, and I think it's icky, but it's not actually bothering me, so why shouldn't they get married".
Today's headlines are about things like trans women competing in women's sports, and swinging penes in women's changing rooms. Those are, by their nature, a bit more confrontational. A gay couple getting married really doesn't affect anyone outside the couple. There's no cost to supporting them. A trans woman competing against cis women in an athletic contest is a potential cost, though: she might beat them. And it's reasonable to argue "she's a woman - it's OK if she beats other women", but it's also reasonable to ask other questions (like "why do we have separate women's sports - what are we trying to achieve, and is "women" the right grouping of people to achieve that?")
So I'm not sure that society is becoming more reactionary - it seems to me that the current headline issues are ones on which it's harder to take a neutral "this doesn't affect me" position.
Or it could be that people are confused as to what rights they need, which they don't already have
To get back on topic, churches and other religious organisations are some of the few groups legally able to wholly ignore trans people's legal gender changes and also have access to their original birth certificate (which is usually illegal and which not even DBS checks have access to - trans people and others like those escaping abuse use a special sensitive DBS check system). It's perfectly legal for an ABC resolution parish to not employ a trans man because they consider him to be a woman and any church can refuse to marry a trans person in general.
Churches are one of the few organisations to be exempt from anti-discrimination legislation as a whole. This does not exactly endear people to them. People generally view churches as doing their best to get out of having to follow the laws that everyone else has to follow.
I think the problem is wider. "We're so reactionary that sex equality legislation and practice that's been the accepted norm for decades now still can't apply to us" is such a poor message to be sending out.
Churches are one of the few organisations to be exempt from anti-discrimination legislation as a whole. This does not exactly endear people to them. People generally view churches as doing their best to get out of having to follow the laws that everyone else has to follow.
Unfortunately in my experience as a social researcher, that view of the church people have (which is absolutely on the money for people who think anything about the church) is coming from two different places:
1) it's outrageous that you're exempt from the law you reactionary lunatics, why can't you change to be like everyone else?
2) how come you get an exemption for your belief? It's my belief too and I don't get the exemption in my work/life/interaction with others, it's not fair. Why didn't you fight harder to stop the law being changed so that we could all just carry on doing what we wanted? Same old church, won't stand up for us.
I *think* those coming from place 1 are more numerous than those coming from place 2, but I also think that those coming from place 2 are a lot more numerous than any of us would like to think.
In fairness, there's also place 3, where a lot of people are (the majority?) - they neither know nor care what the churches are doing (good or bad). People generally aren't remotely interested IME.
Oh yeah, I definitely think group 2 is a problem too. Which is why people like McGinley here are so dangerous, because those are the people he will end up appealing too and going more mask-off about his reactionary social views. This isn't fearmongering, it's already happening.
In fairness, there's also place 3, where a lot of people are (the majority?) - they neither know nor care what the churches are doing (good or bad). People generally aren't remotely interested IME.
This general indifference is more harmful in the long term than active persecution, IMNSHO.
Re:passengers and Charo-evos... I'd echo what someone said previously about it being unconceivable that they would think of people praying as being "passengers".
I remember hearing years ago, when he was vicar of HTB, Sandy Miller stressing the point after he made a home communion with a house bound parishioner who bemoaned that she couldn't help at church any more and could only pray.
"Only pray? Only pray? My dear, there is NO higher calling, your prayers are vital!!"
Sorry to go off at a tangent, but the previous and following articles (flagged at the bottom of the page) probably tell us quite a lot about the Church of England.
Previous: 'Church gets grant to show that science is a gift from God'
Next: 'Action needed: APCM returns'
Re:passengers and Charo-evos... I'd echo what someone said previously about it being unconceivable that they would think of people praying as being "passengers".
I remember hearing years ago, when he was vicar of HTB, Sandy Miller stressing the point after he made a home communion with a house bound parishioner who bemoaned that she couldn't help at church any more and could only pray.
"Only pray? Only pray? My dear, there is NO higher calling, your prayers are vital!!"
This is always frustrating when I hear it from (usually) elderly and disabled people. I usually go off on a rant along the lines of "Don't you REALIZE how many freaking missionaries (that being the group I'm a part of, and know) are so freaking desperate to have you praying for them that they try to poach one another's prayer supporters?"(Okay, maybe overstatement, but there has been a definite avaricious gleam in the eyes of several I've mentioned a particular pray-er to, and a studiedly not-really-interested tone as they offhandedly inquire as to her contact details.)
Unfortunately, the people I'm talking to usually remain unconvinced.
Unfortunately, the people I'm talking to usually remain unconvinced.
You have to remember that you have a gift of faith that most of us can only hope and pray for (or possibly run for fear of, if we're honest with ourselves, or maybe that's just me).
FWIW, I don't think I'm any different from anybody else in this area. I just started younger, maybe. It was a long long series of God saying (no, except on one occasion it wasn't audible) "Will you do this?" starting with tiny tiny tiny crap (which was a bit scary to me, but not over the top) and slowly moving up. Sort of how you get a child used to putting his face in the water.... and then to holding his nose and going under for a brief moment... and so on and so forth, until with much much MUCH patience and time, the kid is swimming.
I don't remember much about the earliest of the "would yous", which were probably tiny tiny things like "don't make a face the next time your mother mentions church," and "open your mouth the next time your teacher asks if anybody has heard this story before." But some midlevel ones were things like "NOT withdraw your name from the election late for a youth group post that nobody but nobody wants, even though it's a complete figurehead and you need do no work at all" and another one "go sit in this meeting and say and do nothing at all, just listen." There were also ones like "Refrain from telling the mentally disabled kid that you don't want her following you around at high school lunch" (note that he didn't say: "welcome her," which would have been a step too much, as she was annoying as hell and had been driven off by everybody else for just that reason. All he asked was gritted teeth for 30 minutes). And there was "make polite conversation with the weirdo from another country in your morning class," which turned into "try the food he is offering you even though you don't know what the heck is in it," and it looked like some underwater creepo thing. (It was sugar beet bulbs in a coffee/tea like liquid, as I found out years later.)
This eventually progressed to "attend a family dinner where you don't speak the language," and once I was comfortable with that, "let this guy teach you how to drive," which I was terrified of. He was quite a good teacher. Then "help these kids with their homework on a sporadic basis," and that morphed into "teach them, or at least take responsibility for supervising them during the worship hour, as they speak no Vietnamese and nobody else down there has fluent English."
You see how this goes. At any point I could have gotten off the train by digging my feet in and refusing--and no doubt I DID fuck up any number of times, which have conveniently faded from my memory. But IMHO faith is ... not saying yes, it's just not saying no. And God is unscrupulous, and he will settle for that and work with that. No matter how small it is.
Grrrrrr.
ETA: he doesn't mind at all if you swear. Or yell at him. In fact, it's the smile that is most annoying as you seek for a way to wriggle out of whatever the latest small challenge is.
My concern is that the Church, not just the CofE will destroy itself because it just doesn't know what it wants to be:
1) Does it want to be a chaplain to people in that its primary work is to nurture, support and counsel people in need?
2) Does it want to be an evangelist to outsiders, proclaiming the saving gospel to Jesus Christ?
3) Does it want to be a social activist, on the streets, advocating for political and social change?
My impression is that the institutional church tries to do all three, but it does #1, reasonably well, and on #2 and #3, at best mediocre.
I think it is very easy to polarise this issue, unfairly in my opinion, and this is what Giles Fraser, whom I normally like, has done. I too would hate to see an evangelical takeover of the Church of England. The Church needs its intertwining threads of Catholic, Evangelical, Liberal and Charismatic. However, Archbishop Stephen is unlikely to be planning one, an evanglical takeover that is. The bloke who has the cheek to talk about 'passengers', however, may be.
But the new Christian communities it is suggested that the C of E could create are in 'the four areas of home, work/education, social and digital' which these days cannot be the focus for a parish priest. So it looks to me as though the Church is attempting on a large scale to go to where people are, rather than where we would like them to be - in our crumbling church buildings. And the parish system has already broken down in rural areas like ours, with clergy meant to look after multiple churches.
Giles Fraser's example of what is happening in the Diocese of Chelmsford is misleading. To pick at his rhetoric, " 'limiting factor' clergy", as he archly describes them, can't be 'being culled', because as he himself points out it is posts that are being culled when clergy and others leave them. And the reason for the culling, as my very conservative vicar and area dean pointed out to me yesterday, as we jointly planned our parish LLF course, is just money.
Abp Justin is the one openly implementing an evangelical takeover. Look at his history. Look at all the parallel structures he has created. Look at his involvement with bash camps etc.
How can I say yes or no to God when all I have from him is silence?
KarlLB, forgive me if I sound annoyed, because I am. Look, I'm not God's manager. I can't make him show up and do stuff. If you say you're getting nothing but silence, I believe you. I would change that if I possibly could. And in no way do I think you're to blame for getting radio silence. But you've said this sort of thing in response to my posts so many times that I'm left wondering: Would you prefer me to just shut up about my faith? Because I get the strong, strong sense that I annoy the fuck out of you just by being different. And I don't WANT to annoy the fuck out of you. Would it be better if I simply stopped saying anything about how God deals with me personally on board the Ship? Serious question.
My concern is that the Church, not just the CofE will destroy itself because it just doesn't know what it wants to be:
1) Does it want to be a chaplain to people in that its primary work is to nurture, support and counsel people in need?
2) Does it want to be an evangelist to outsiders, proclaiming the saving gospel to Jesus Christ?
3) Does it want to be a social activist, on the streets, advocating for political and social change?
My impression is that the institutional church tries to do all three, but it does #1, reasonably well, and on #2 and #3, at best mediocre.
The Church, being the people who follow Christ, will never destroy itself. Others tried to destroy it, and failed, from the beginning.
Many of the people I know who believe do all three of the above, and more, and often think it is not enough and so we run ourselves ragged if we’re not careful, often not even allowing ourselves time to sit at Jesus’ feet and listen.
I think that there are two things we need to remember and live every day:
God wants us to be, primarily, and to do as and when guided; and
Loving God and others is the top priority, not money.
My concern is that the Church, not just the CofE will destroy itself because it just doesn't know what it wants to be:
1) Does it want to be a chaplain to people in that its primary work is to nurture, support and counsel people in need?
2) Does it want to be an evangelist to outsiders, proclaiming the saving gospel to Jesus Christ?
3) Does it want to be a social activist, on the streets, advocating for political and social change?
My impression is that the institutional church tries to do all three, but it does #1, reasonably well, and on #2 and #3, at best mediocre.
The Church is alive and well just above Lambeth. Doing all three.
My concern is that the Church, not just the CofE will destroy itself because it just doesn't know what it wants to be:
1) Does it want to be a chaplain to people in that its primary work is to nurture, support and counsel people in need?
2) Does it want to be an evangelist to outsiders, proclaiming the saving gospel to Jesus Christ?
3) Does it want to be a social activist, on the streets, advocating for political and social change?
My impression some churches have an aspiration to do #2 and some to do #3 and the ones that aspire to do both are few and far between. Very few do #3 particularly well, unless they are also doing #2, and a lot do #3 unconsciously as a kind of somewhat reactionary small-c conservatism (and not just on social issues).
That said, very few do #1 in the pastoral sense particularly well, whether that's at the small end of the scale (where the vicar is too busy just making sure the building doesn't fall down) or the large end (vicar is in his office between 9 and 5, you can get an appointment at some point). The visiting vicar in the Baxter mould is uncommon and may even be uneconomical/unsupportable/impossible for most churches/vicars (so I'm not saying it should be aspirational). Crossing threads for a bit and pulling one of Karl's posts over:
2. They create an entire Christian ecosystem that it's harder to drop out of. House groups, prayer groups, mens' breakfast (no idea what it is but it appears on lots of Evangelical Church noticeboards), bible study groups - you name it, you can fill your social calendar from a lot of Evangelical church notice sheets.
To the extent that system is sticky, it is because it ends up offering the kind of pastoral care that most churches are actually very bad at. Large numbers of people are very isolated and have to rely on themselves for self-care and meetings of these kinds are a rare opportunity to engage with others on more than just an economic basis (look to the popularity of mutual aid groups in the first part of the pandemic as indication of the need people usually feel but need an occasion to express).
How can I say yes or no to God when all I have from him is silence?
KarlLB, forgive me if I sound annoyed, because I am. Look, I'm not God's manager. I can't make him show up and do stuff. If you say you're getting nothing but silence, I believe you. I would change that if I possibly could. And in no way do I think you're to blame for getting radio silence. But you've said this sort of thing in response to my posts so many times that I'm left wondering: Would you prefer me to just shut up about my faith? Because I get the strong, strong sense that I annoy the fuck out of you just by being different. And I don't WANT to annoy the fuck out of you. Would it be better if I simply stopped saying anything about how God deals with me personally on board the Ship? Serious question.
No. I need to shut up really. I just want to hear so much. Did one of my best blues efforts about it, long ago. Perhaps I'll stop bothering people with it when the folk clubs open up. Sorry.
I think there's a danger of being a little too holy here, specifically because the ship tends to attract large number of people from traditions outside evangelicalism. The current situation is a product of the fact that some churches grew and others didn't, there's a case for redistribution at the edges, but I'm not sure that either large numbers of people are accidentally or deliberately in churches they actively like less than the alternative, or that there are large numbers of the unchurched that would be in church if only they had happened on a church of the right tradition.
May I disagree? I am sure "that there large numbers of the unchurched that would be in church if only they had happened on a church of the right tradition".
Everybody has a cultural bias, be it to informality, popular styles of music, emotionalism, exuberance, formality, order, highbrow music, quietness, reflectiveness, and so on. These have nothing to do with religion, they are just common, normal, traits which to a greater or or lesser extent we all share. But religion of any sort comes, inevitably, in a cultural packaging containing some selection of these characteristics.
The question therefore must be: what cultural packaging is best for any specific personality type? I live in a town where there are two Anglican churches, one charismatic-evo and exuberant, one bells and smells and very orderly. They are both fine churches with decent sized congregations, which suggests that all is well. But common observation also suggests that there is a large middle ground of normal people who do not feel at ease with either culture and would prefer something less obviously 'religious' and full-on.
Can we not do what supermarkets do and provide something for everyone? It would not be difficult if each church was more self aware and offered in addition a scaled-down version of its preferred style? Where large RC churches have High Mass and Low Mass it is noticeable that most people prefer the low!
I think there's a danger of being a little too holy here, specifically because the ship tends to attract large number of people from traditions outside evangelicalism. The current situation is a product of the fact that some churches grew and others didn't, there's a case for redistribution at the edges, but I'm not sure that either large numbers of people are accidentally or deliberately in churches they actively like less than the alternative, or that there are large numbers of the unchurched that would be in church if only they had happened on a church of the right tradition.
May I disagree? I am sure "that there large numbers of the unchurched that would be in church if only they had happened on a church of the right tradition".
The counterpoint is that we reached the present situation via having churches of different traditions and the ones that we left are largely the ones that continued to draw people.
I think there's a danger of being a little too holy here, specifically because the ship tends to attract large number of people from traditions outside evangelicalism. The current situation is a product of the fact that some churches grew and others didn't, there's a case for redistribution at the edges, but I'm not sure that either large numbers of people are accidentally or deliberately in churches they actively like less than the alternative, or that there are large numbers of the unchurched that would be in church if only they had happened on a church of the right tradition.
May I disagree? I am sure "that there large numbers of the unchurched that would be in church if only they had happened on a church of the right tradition".
The counterpoint is that we reached the present situation via having churches of different traditions and the ones that we left are largely the ones that continued to draw people.
Another counterpoint is that the vast majority of people never happen on a church of any tradition. I don't buy that people aren't going because they don't like the churches on offer (OK, we're not going at the moment because we don't like the churches on offer but I don't think we represent anyone beyond ourselves and - it's complicated). They don't go for the same reason I don't go and play tennis - because it's not something they feel any need or desire to do. And that's where the church as a whole has failed and the evangelicals succeeded, because most of us don't give people a reason to go and the evangelicals do. They make it more important than life and death.
I don't buy that people aren't going because they don't like the churches on offer ... They don't go for the same reason I don't go and play tennis - because it's not something they feel any need or desire to do.
I think that is the crucial point. The danger is that the churches then market themselves as "offering something that people need", distorting and commodifying the Gospel message in the process.
I don't buy that people aren't going because they don't like the churches on offer ... They don't go for the same reason I don't go and play tennis - because it's not something they feel any need or desire to do.
I think that is the crucial point. The danger is that the churches then market themselves as "offering something that people need", distorting and commodifying the Gospel message in the process.
That is the difficult thing about any attempt to 'be' Church. We offer what people need: Jesus Christ. But what we present is ourselves because we're the flesh and blood human embodiment of the Body of Christ, wounded, pathetic, bigoted and ignorant as we are. (We can be many things that are positive, too, of course.) If we're lucky we find fellow travellers who want to share the journey and fellowship is possible. If we're really lucky we're animated by the Holy Spirit and something of Christ becomes possible. But that's hard work. Having such a precious treasure in earthen vessels sounds like a stupid plan. But it seems to be the only one God has given us.
I'd never come across the term 'passengers' before in this context. 'Nominal Christians' was the phrase that was popular for such attenders. I've never liked it, even though it is tempting to regard as 'inactive' those who could help share the work, but choose not to. But I find it very hard to separate church 'work' into categories like the so-called spiritual stuff and the grunt work. They also serve who stand and wait - kind of thing.
I think there's a danger of being a little too holy here, specifically because the ship tends to attract large number of people from traditions outside evangelicalism. The current situation is a product of the fact that some churches grew and others didn't, there's a case for redistribution at the edges, but I'm not sure that either large numbers of people are accidentally or deliberately in churches they actively like less than the alternative, or that there are large numbers of the unchurched that would be in church if only they had happened on a church of the right tradition.
May I disagree? I am sure "that there large numbers of the unchurched that would be in church if only they had happened on a church of the right tradition".
The counterpoint is that we reached the present situation via having churches of different traditions and the ones that we left are largely the ones that continued to draw people.
Another counterpoint is that the vast majority of people never happen on a church of any tradition. I don't buy that people aren't going because they don't like the churches on offer (OK, we're not going at the moment because we don't like the churches on offer but I don't think we represent anyone beyond ourselves and - it's complicated). They don't go for the same reason I don't go and play tennis - because it's not something they feel any need or desire to do. And that's where the church as a whole has failed and the evangelicals succeeded, because most of us don't give people a reason to go and the evangelicals do. They make it more important than life and death.
Correct me if I'm wrong (it has been known ), but I don't recall Jesus saying anywhere in the Gospels that the *church* was going to be huge, or would include *everybody*.
That doesn't excuse Christians from proclaiming the Kingdom. These words, possibly from the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, are as true today as they were in the 1st Century:
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and [people] do not see it.
How to enable and encourage people to see and enter the Kingdom themselves is the difficult bit...
I asked my dad, (devout Anglican), about this what did he think. He’d not heard of it, I said CofE were thinking of setting up thousands of lay led churches, he said: “what again ?”
My concern is that the Church, not just the CofE will destroy itself because it just doesn't know what it wants to be:
1) Does it want to be a chaplain to people in that its primary work is to nurture, support and counsel people in need?
2) Does it want to be an evangelist to outsiders, proclaiming the saving gospel to Jesus Christ?
3) Does it want to be a social activist, on the streets, advocating for political and social change?
My impression is that the institutional church tries to do all three, but it does #1, reasonably well, and on #2 and #3, at best mediocre.
The Church is alive and well just north of Lambeth.
He's talking about Oasis church (link to their website), because that's the church he's been raving about for ages. It's in Waterloo, which is in the London Borough of Lambeth, but the area/ward of Lambeth is where the Imperial War Museum is found, a bit south of there.
He's talking about Oasis church (link to their website), because that's the church he's been raving about for ages. It's in Waterloo, which is in the London Borough of Lambeth, but the area/ward of Lambeth is where the Imperial War Museum is found, a bit south of there.
“Raving about”? Really?
Must have missed something there and I generally don’t scroll past Martin’s posts….
Comments
</sarcasm>
I don't think I've ever been to a church that has family pews in current use - do they still exist? I've been to a couple that have old nameplates that haven't been in use for decades, but are retained for some sort of vaguely historical reason. Perhaps a village church that still has the original family living in the big house?
(As an aside, I'd say that more than 80% of our congregation has a favourite spot that they "always" sit in, but none of them are sufficiently attached to it that they can't move forward or back a row or two if "their" spot happens to be occupied when they arrive.)
Does that mean it would be in breech of the listing to install pews?
I can think of at least one, where the family not only still live in the big house, but hold the living.
Mind you, it's the same place where the occupier of said pew and holder of said living has been known to go round the (tied) village to drum up more of the tenantry if he thinks the service is sparsely attended.
And no, I am absolutely not saying where that is.
What's not to like?
OTOH, some may take over existing church buildings which do have pews, which might lead to some interesting tussles between Shiny New Community and English Outrage Heritage...
The pew in front held three elderly ladies associated with a small local private school. They made a point of it being "their" pew, and would turn visitors out if they dared to sit there. Time passed, and so did two of them. And then one Sunday a friend of the remaining lady turned up with her husband, and was ushered, by the remaining lady, into the pew we were expecting to sit in. So we sat further back. Apparently, the elderly lady had told them my parents wouldn't mind. She had a full length pew all to herself!
The following week, we turned up early, by chance, and got "our" pew again. But she didn't have her friends in her pew. It was the next week that alerted us to what was happening.
That following week, they arrived even earlier, and back we were, further back. Looking at a fox fur.
The following week, we got there another five minutes earlier, and were back in the short pew. This time, we were choosing to be early.
And it was clear, the next week, they weren't going to give up. So we did, and worked out where we could sit without upsetting anyone else. It had stopped being funny, and become petty and childish.
Apparently, the drama had been arousing much amusement among such people as the church wardens, and I was told some time later, when my parents had moved, and I popped back in to take photos of the kneelers my Mum had done the tapestry for.
I really have never grasped what sort of mind those people had. The utter selfishness, self- centredness, and supposedly during worship.
Warehouses, or empty office buildings in office parks have a lot to commend themselves for many churches, though from observation of friends churches that have gone this route it's hard to find places that are equally accessible via public transport (office parks being somewhat better), so often the choice is between continuing to rent a school (only available at weekends and during holidays) or having access issues.
As a side note; the 10K figure is being bandied around a lot, do we know how much resource is being poured into this initiative? It may be that a few hundred new church-starts ends up being the realistic and reasonable outcome.
This was the other half of what I was alluding to up thread. I've heard someone from Sidney once say that they deliberately try and avoid creating future heritage sites, and while I wouldn't advocate that approach I can understand it.
No, I'm pretty sure that trans women aren't confused about wanting to be treated as women.
Do you think that Legislation would persuade everyone that they were women ?
If they're not convinced by the women themselves telling them they're women I don't know what hope there is.
Churches are one of the few organisations to be exempt from anti-discrimination legislation as a whole. This does not exactly endear people to them. People generally view churches as doing their best to get out of having to follow the laws that everyone else has to follow.
Unfortunately in my experience as a social researcher, that view of the church people have (which is absolutely on the money for people who think anything about the church) is coming from two different places:
1) it's outrageous that you're exempt from the law you reactionary lunatics, why can't you change to be like everyone else?
2) how come you get an exemption for your belief? It's my belief too and I don't get the exemption in my work/life/interaction with others, it's not fair. Why didn't you fight harder to stop the law being changed so that we could all just carry on doing what we wanted? Same old church, won't stand up for us.
I *think* those coming from place 1 are more numerous than those coming from place 2, but I also think that those coming from place 2 are a lot more numerous than any of us would like to think.
In fairness, there's also place 3, where a lot of people are (the majority?) - they neither know nor care what the churches are doing (good or bad). People generally aren't remotely interested IME.
This general indifference is more harmful in the long term than active persecution, IMNSHO.
Yes, I know - be careful what you wish for...
https://www.gloucester.anglican.org/2021/message-from-bishop-robert-9/
I remember hearing years ago, when he was vicar of HTB, Sandy Miller stressing the point after he made a home communion with a house bound parishioner who bemoaned that she couldn't help at church any more and could only pray.
"Only pray? Only pray? My dear, there is NO higher calling, your prayers are vital!!"
Sorry to go off at a tangent, but the previous and following articles (flagged at the bottom of the page) probably tell us quite a lot about the Church of England.
Previous: 'Church gets grant to show that science is a gift from God'
Next: 'Action needed: APCM returns'
This is always frustrating when I hear it from (usually) elderly and disabled people. I usually go off on a rant along the lines of "Don't you REALIZE how many freaking missionaries (that being the group I'm a part of, and know) are so freaking desperate to have you praying for them that they try to poach one another's prayer supporters?"(Okay, maybe overstatement, but there has been a definite avaricious gleam in the eyes of several I've mentioned a particular pray-er to, and a studiedly not-really-interested tone as they offhandedly inquire as to her contact details.)
Unfortunately, the people I'm talking to usually remain unconvinced.
You have to remember that you have a gift of faith that most of us can only hope and pray for (or possibly run for fear of, if we're honest with ourselves, or maybe that's just me).
I don't remember much about the earliest of the "would yous", which were probably tiny tiny things like "don't make a face the next time your mother mentions church," and "open your mouth the next time your teacher asks if anybody has heard this story before." But some midlevel ones were things like "NOT withdraw your name from the election late for a youth group post that nobody but nobody wants, even though it's a complete figurehead and you need do no work at all" and another one "go sit in this meeting and say and do nothing at all, just listen." There were also ones like "Refrain from telling the mentally disabled kid that you don't want her following you around at high school lunch" (note that he didn't say: "welcome her," which would have been a step too much, as she was annoying as hell and had been driven off by everybody else for just that reason. All he asked was gritted teeth for 30 minutes). And there was "make polite conversation with the weirdo from another country in your morning class," which turned into "try the food he is offering you even though you don't know what the heck is in it," and it looked like some underwater creepo thing. (It was sugar beet bulbs in a coffee/tea like liquid, as I found out years later.)
This eventually progressed to "attend a family dinner where you don't speak the language," and once I was comfortable with that, "let this guy teach you how to drive," which I was terrified of. He was quite a good teacher. Then "help these kids with their homework on a sporadic basis," and that morphed into "teach them, or at least take responsibility for supervising them during the worship hour, as they speak no Vietnamese and nobody else down there has fluent English."
You see how this goes. At any point I could have gotten off the train by digging my feet in and refusing--and no doubt I DID fuck up any number of times, which have conveniently faded from my memory. But IMHO faith is ... not saying yes, it's just not saying no. And God is unscrupulous, and he will settle for that and work with that. No matter how small it is.
Grrrrrr.
ETA: he doesn't mind at all if you swear. Or yell at him. In fact, it's the smile that is most annoying as you seek for a way to wriggle out of whatever the latest small challenge is.
1) Does it want to be a chaplain to people in that its primary work is to nurture, support and counsel people in need?
2) Does it want to be an evangelist to outsiders, proclaiming the saving gospel to Jesus Christ?
3) Does it want to be a social activist, on the streets, advocating for political and social change?
My impression is that the institutional church tries to do all three, but it does #1, reasonably well, and on #2 and #3, at best mediocre.
Hmm. Not sure where I'm going with that thought...
The problem is the silence of someone not speaking, of someone who isn't there, and someone you can't hear all sound the same.
But the new Christian communities it is suggested that the C of E could create are in 'the four areas of home, work/education, social and digital' which these days cannot be the focus for a parish priest. So it looks to me as though the Church is attempting on a large scale to go to where people are, rather than where we would like them to be - in our crumbling church buildings. And the parish system has already broken down in rural areas like ours, with clergy meant to look after multiple churches.
Giles Fraser's example of what is happening in the Diocese of Chelmsford is misleading. To pick at his rhetoric, " 'limiting factor' clergy", as he archly describes them, can't be 'being culled', because as he himself points out it is posts that are being culled when clergy and others leave them. And the reason for the culling, as my very conservative vicar and area dean pointed out to me yesterday, as we jointly planned our parish LLF course, is just money.
KarlLB, forgive me if I sound annoyed, because I am. Look, I'm not God's manager. I can't make him show up and do stuff. If you say you're getting nothing but silence, I believe you. I would change that if I possibly could. And in no way do I think you're to blame for getting radio silence. But you've said this sort of thing in response to my posts so many times that I'm left wondering: Would you prefer me to just shut up about my faith? Because I get the strong, strong sense that I annoy the fuck out of you just by being different. And I don't WANT to annoy the fuck out of you. Would it be better if I simply stopped saying anything about how God deals with me personally on board the Ship? Serious question.
The Church, being the people who follow Christ, will never destroy itself. Others tried to destroy it, and failed, from the beginning.
Many of the people I know who believe do all three of the above, and more, and often think it is not enough and so we run ourselves ragged if we’re not careful, often not even allowing ourselves time to sit at Jesus’ feet and listen.
I think that there are two things we need to remember and live every day:
God wants us to be, primarily, and to do as and when guided; and
Loving God and others is the top priority, not money.
Thanks for posting that Stephen. I was beginning to wonder where compassion had disappeared to.
The Church is alive and well just above Lambeth. Doing all three.
My impression some churches have an aspiration to do #2 and some to do #3 and the ones that aspire to do both are few and far between. Very few do #3 particularly well, unless they are also doing #2, and a lot do #3 unconsciously as a kind of somewhat reactionary small-c conservatism (and not just on social issues).
That said, very few do #1 in the pastoral sense particularly well, whether that's at the small end of the scale (where the vicar is too busy just making sure the building doesn't fall down) or the large end (vicar is in his office between 9 and 5, you can get an appointment at some point). The visiting vicar in the Baxter mould is uncommon and may even be uneconomical/unsupportable/impossible for most churches/vicars (so I'm not saying it should be aspirational). Crossing threads for a bit and pulling one of Karl's posts over:
To the extent that system is sticky, it is because it ends up offering the kind of pastoral care that most churches are actually very bad at. Large numbers of people are very isolated and have to rely on themselves for self-care and meetings of these kinds are a rare opportunity to engage with others on more than just an economic basis (look to the popularity of mutual aid groups in the first part of the pandemic as indication of the need people usually feel but need an occasion to express).
No. I need to shut up really. I just want to hear so much. Did one of my best blues efforts about it, long ago. Perhaps I'll stop bothering people with it when the folk clubs open up. Sorry.
May I disagree? I am sure "that there large numbers of the unchurched that would be in church if only they had happened on a church of the right tradition".
Everybody has a cultural bias, be it to informality, popular styles of music, emotionalism, exuberance, formality, order, highbrow music, quietness, reflectiveness, and so on. These have nothing to do with religion, they are just common, normal, traits which to a greater or or lesser extent we all share. But religion of any sort comes, inevitably, in a cultural packaging containing some selection of these characteristics.
The question therefore must be: what cultural packaging is best for any specific personality type? I live in a town where there are two Anglican churches, one charismatic-evo and exuberant, one bells and smells and very orderly. They are both fine churches with decent sized congregations, which suggests that all is well. But common observation also suggests that there is a large middle ground of normal people who do not feel at ease with either culture and would prefer something less obviously 'religious' and full-on.
Can we not do what supermarkets do and provide something for everyone? It would not be difficult if each church was more self aware and offered in addition a scaled-down version of its preferred style? Where large RC churches have High Mass and Low Mass it is noticeable that most people prefer the low!
The counterpoint is that we reached the present situation via having churches of different traditions and the ones that we left are largely the ones that continued to draw people.
Another counterpoint is that the vast majority of people never happen on a church of any tradition. I don't buy that people aren't going because they don't like the churches on offer (OK, we're not going at the moment because we don't like the churches on offer but I don't think we represent anyone beyond ourselves and - it's complicated). They don't go for the same reason I don't go and play tennis - because it's not something they feel any need or desire to do. And that's where the church as a whole has failed and the evangelicals succeeded, because most of us don't give people a reason to go and the evangelicals do. They make it more important than life and death.
That is the difficult thing about any attempt to 'be' Church. We offer what people need: Jesus Christ. But what we present is ourselves because we're the flesh and blood human embodiment of the Body of Christ, wounded, pathetic, bigoted and ignorant as we are. (We can be many things that are positive, too, of course.) If we're lucky we find fellow travellers who want to share the journey and fellowship is possible. If we're really lucky we're animated by the Holy Spirit and something of Christ becomes possible. But that's hard work. Having such a precious treasure in earthen vessels sounds like a stupid plan. But it seems to be the only one God has given us.
I'd never come across the term 'passengers' before in this context. 'Nominal Christians' was the phrase that was popular for such attenders. I've never liked it, even though it is tempting to regard as 'inactive' those who could help share the work, but choose not to. But I find it very hard to separate church 'work' into categories like the so-called spiritual stuff and the grunt work. They also serve who stand and wait - kind of thing.
spot on
That doesn't excuse Christians from proclaiming the Kingdom. These words, possibly from the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, are as true today as they were in the 1st Century:
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and [people] do not see it.
How to enable and encourage people to see and enter the Kingdom themselves is the difficult bit...
The Church is alive and well just north of Lambeth.
“Raving about”? Really?
Must have missed something there and I generally don’t scroll past Martin’s posts….