When one leaves the faith associated with the church and its community, with no spiritual reason to seek a new church community, then what?
Well, I think one just gains awarenesses, draws distinctions, and makes decisions about participating in church-community events that aren't faith-focused. I can very easily sit around a bonfire or a table at a potluck supper and enjoy people, or attend a concert, etc. That's easily done. Of course, if you're an introvert, you're only taking-in a fraction of community offerings already.
What experiences have my shipmates had in regard to church as community? Leaving one church for another? Leaving church altogether?
My parents were pretty nomadic in their shared faith journey, so my siblings and I probably got better than most kids/teens at shoehorning into new communities. As a church musician, I've always enjoyed built-in, enthusiastic sub-communities of choirs, cantors and instrumentalists and their families, so even though my personal faith has waned pretty decidedly over the years, sharing music with those folks persists, even if iI can't ascribe to the music's theology. Currently, this is made all the easier via the fact that I'm a lapsed Episcopalian serving in a RC parish.
As I've mentioned over on Eccles I struggle with the concept of church as community. To be honest, I struggle with the concept of community. I have friends, I have people I know quite well but don’t connect with, I have people I sort of know but I'm not friends with. Other people at church I don’t know at all. Who is in my community? What does it mean? It feels like one of those words like "standards" and "values" that people use and never define but assume their audience understands.
@The_Riv mentioned Introversion and think this has something to do with it. We find socialising hard; socialising with people we don't know counts double. It causes massive anxiety. So we can be quietly attending church (or any other regular social event) and hardly know anyone. Perhaps that's why it doesn't feel like anything we might be inclined to call community.
There are demographic challenges as well. Try as I might, as a geeky 50 something male into heavy rock, table-top RPGs, Tolkien, science and comparative linguistics, I find it difficult to find anything to talk about with other church members who are mostly twenty years older and have a completely different set of interests. It's hard to get past a stilted discussion of the weather.
There are demographic challenges as well. Try as I might, as a geeky 50 something male into heavy rock, table-top RPGs, Tolkien, science and comparative linguistics, I find it difficult to find anything to talk about with other church members who are mostly twenty years older and have a completely different set of interests. It's hard to get past a stilted discussion of the weather.
I resemble these remarks
People at church always seem to want to discuss recent sports games in which I have no interest. I just tend to nod politely. Mostly it's Americans wanting to talk about football, but we have one recent immigrant from India who was delighted to hear my accent, because he thought he'd have someone to talk about cricket with. I find cricket a perfectly acceptable backdrop to a decent pint and a chat outside a village pub. I have no interest in actually watching it.
Sometimes I can get the old guys reminiscing about local history, which sometimes contains nuggets of interest, and otherwise I can just nod politely and let it wash over me.
I suppose I have a reasonable working definition of community: Suppose you told me that someone had broken a leg / had a baby / something. Would I offer to go round with a meal? If so, that person is part of my community.
As I've mentioned over on Eccles I struggle with the concept of church as community. To be honest, I struggle with the concept of community. I have friends, I have people I know quite well but don’t connect with, I have people I sort of know but I'm not friends with. Other people at church I don’t know at all. Who is in my community? What does it mean? It feels like one of those words like "standards" and "values" that people use and never define but assume their audience understands.
@The_Riv mentioned Introversion and think this has something to do with it. We find socialising hard; socialising with people we don't know counts double. It causes massive anxiety. So we can be quietly attending church (or any other regular social event) and hardly know anyone. Perhaps that's why it doesn't feel like anything we might be inclined to call community.
There are demographic challenges as well. Try as I might, as a geeky 50 something male into heavy rock, table-top RPGs, Tolkien, science and comparative linguistics, I find it difficult to find anything to talk about with other church members who are mostly twenty years older and have a completely different set of interests. It's hard to get past a stilted discussion of the weather.
I s'pose the crass answer would be that your 'community/ies' are fellow metal-heads, table-top gamesters, Tolkien-fans, science and comparative linguistic geeks that you encounter whilst pursuing those interests. If they aren't around at church is that any great loss providing you rub-shoulders with like-minded people to the extent you feel comfortable with outside of churchy contexts?
I do see what you mean, of course and am not unsympathetic.
I'm into poetry and run a poetry group. It doesn't bother me whether or not people at church like poetry or not.
But yes, getting past stilted conversations about the weather is certainly an issue. I don't know what to talk to Eastern Europeans about and many of them don't speak a great deal of English. I do discuss Orthodox faith and practice with some of the British people at church but don't get along that often for family reasons.
I can only speak for myself but I find I have several parallel 'communities' running at one and the same time - a poetry one, a political one and a general living in the same place one - as well as friends and relatives in different places.
I certainly no longer expect church to provide all my social needs - and I'm not saying you do either. But yes, I can see your dilemma.
As I've mentioned over on Eccles I struggle with the concept of church as community. To be honest, I struggle with the concept of community. I have friends, I have people I know quite well but don’t connect with, I have people I sort of know but I'm not friends with. Other people at church I don’t know at all. Who is in my community? What does it mean? It feels like one of those words like "standards" and "values" that people use and never define but assume their audience understands.
@The_Riv mentioned Introversion and think this has something to do with it. We find socialising hard; socialising with people we don't know counts double. It causes massive anxiety. So we can be quietly attending church (or any other regular social event) and hardly know anyone. Perhaps that's why it doesn't feel like anything we might be inclined to call community.
There are demographic challenges as well. Try as I might, as a geeky 50 something male into heavy rock, table-top RPGs, Tolkien, science and comparative linguistics, I find it difficult to find anything to talk about with other church members who are mostly twenty years older and have a completely different set of interests. It's hard to get past a stilted discussion of the weather.
You're right @KarlLB ; "Community" is a vague term. One of the things I hoped would come up in this thread, and it has, is the variety of ways people understand the term, and the different things they expect of whatever it is they call "Community."
Your point about the challenges of being an introvert in social situations is important. I'm an introvert, too, but of the outgoing variety. I enjoy being around (most) people, and the connections I feel with all sorts of people are important to me. But people also exhaust me. And even more than people specifically, demands for my attention and layers of interruption can just do me in. In those situations, if I can, I do as @Leorning Cniht suggested, and let it wash over me.
Generally, unless the discussion is about sports, I'm more inclined to enjoy conversations with men at church. I'm always afraid that this will be seen as inappropriate, or that I'm hunting. But conversations amonh the men don't usually revolve around child-rearing. I love my girls. I also don't want to waste adult conversation opportunities, when they present themselves. At church, I am rarely able to find women who are interested in topics I"m interested in, or in the ways I'm interested in them.
Can anyone, please direct me to the Geek Squad or the Gear Heads?
Again, hopefully without causing offence and in a 'thinking aloud / thinking allowed' way, why should we assume or expect to encounter people with similar interests to ourselves at church?
I sometimes get involved with amateur dramatics (all the drama occurs off-stage) and to do so contact my local amateur theatre group. I don't expect to find such activities at church, although some churches have drama groups of course.
I know it's easier said than done but I suspect @Kendel that you may find the 'Geek Squad and the Gear Heads' in your locality somewhere other than in church.
I'm not dismissing the importance of fellowship or finding like-minded people in whatever kind of church we are involved with but surely if we are to be 'salt and light' we ought to be involved in 'the world' as well as our own particular faith community?
I'm not saying I'm any great example but if I want to knock around with people who share my interest in poetry I attend poetry readings and workshops and so on.
If I was interested in photography I'd join a photography club. I wouldn't necessarily expect to find people at church who shared that interest.
I once heard of an Anglican Bishop who encouraged the clergy in his diocese to have wider interests - time permitting - than churchy things. Very wise I think.
The independent charismatic evangelical church I was involved with for 18 years had all sorts going on. We hardly had time to do anything else. When I was single I was always babysitting for people or helping people move house or decorating or ...
I almost lost touch completely with my non-Christian friends. Everything was church, church, church. It wasn't healthy at all.
Don't get me wrong, there were lots of creative and energetic people and all sorts of initiatives but ultimately it was all so intense. It was like a hot-house. It's hardly surprising people burned themselves out.
There are days when I miss all that but in the cold light of day I no longer want anything that intense.
As I've mentioned over on Eccles I struggle with the concept of church as community. To be honest, I struggle with the concept of community. I have friends, I have people I know quite well but don’t connect with, I have people I sort of know but I'm not friends with. Other people at church I don’t know at all. Who is in my community? What does it mean? It feels like one of those words like "standards" and "values" that people use and never define but assume their audience understands.
@The_Riv mentioned Introversion and think this has something to do with it. We find socialising hard; socialising with people we don't know counts double. It causes massive anxiety. So we can be quietly attending church (or any other regular social event) and hardly know anyone. Perhaps that's why it doesn't feel like anything we might be inclined to call community.
There are demographic challenges as well. Try as I might, as a geeky 50 something male into heavy rock, table-top RPGs, Tolkien, science and comparative linguistics, I find it difficult to find anything to talk about with other church members who are mostly twenty years older and have a completely different set of interests. It's hard to get past a stilted discussion of the weather.
I s'pose the crass answer would be that your 'community/ies' are fellow metal-heads, table-top gamesters, Tolkien-fans, science and comparative linguistic geeks that you encounter whilst pursuing those interests. If they aren't around at church is that any great loss providing you rub-shoulders with like-minded people to the extent you feel comfortable with outside of churchy contexts?
I have no problem with that really, but it does mean that the answer to "church as community" for me is "no, it isn't"
It's not all bad. It does mean that it if I change churches or stop going or whatever it's no great wrench.
Again, hopefully without causing offence and in a 'thinking aloud / thinking allowed' way, why should we assume or expect to encounter people with similar interests to ourselves at church?
One would hope that a common faith would in itself generate at least a few common interests -- beyond childrearing or homeschooling or home economics for the womenfolk.
(I exagerate. Minimally.)
The independent charismatic evangelical church I was involved with for 18 years had all sorts going on. We hardly had time to do anything else. When I was single I was always babysitting for people or helping people move house or decorating or ...
I almost lost touch completely with my non-Christian friends. Everything was church, church, church. It wasn't healthy at all.
Church has always been an important part of my life, but not the focus of it as it is for many people I know. I could not integrate myself so thoroughly into any church community I know without abandoning significant parts of my self. Or developing callouses on my tongue.
I have always worked "out in the world," and probably half or more of my friends and acquaintances are not Christians, much less Christians from my church.
I'd love not to have to draw sharp lines between my intellectual life and my church life; my Christian friends and acquaintances and the people I can talk with about "issues;" the people with backgrounds in theology, history, philosophy at church and the people I can talk with about those things.
Community for me is people I feel some responsibility for and would lay myself out to help (the extent is going to depend on the individual relationship, plus my circumstances and resources of the moment); and that I hope and have some reason to expect would do the same for me.
So this might be soup, or tutoring, or a listening ear--all the way up to crisis housing and money. Because they are a part of my community (and maybe I have several communities? They certainly don't all look comfortable with each other on the rare occasions we have thrown massive parties and invited people from the different areas of our lives)... because, I say, they are a part of my community, they get quicker and less hesitant access to the help I can give them. A stranger on the street is theoretically entitled to help also just by Christianity, but I'm going to hedge it around with a lot of self-protective vetting that I have mostly done already with my community. For instance, I'm not going to be anywhere near as worried about being lied to or duped or betrayed with people in my community, as opposed to out of it. And so on and so forth.
In my own context, I share a common faith with the Eastern Europeans at church but due to cultural, educational and language differences I'm hardly likely to engage them in the kind of theological discussions we have here or that I have with some of the clergy and Anglophone converts.
If 'community' is to mean anything then surely it has to involve engaging in some way with people who don't necessarily share the same background, tastes, life experiences and predilection as ourselves?
From what I can see, and I don't mean to flatter her but simply make an observation, @Lamb Chopped is embodying 'community' in a particularly costly way.
In all honesty I sometimes feel that my own Christian faith is something of a 'hobby' by comparison. Not that it's a 'competition'.
I completely understand where @Kendel and @KarlLB are coming from and I'm probably not a million miles from either of them in terms of ethos.
Talk of 'homeschooling' and the kind of Stepford Wives 'down home' US suburban domesticity that seems expected of Midwestern evangelicals is obviously foreign to me as a British bloke though. That said, I can detect milder versions of this with British evangelicalism. I daresay other Shipmates would have more insightful comments on this than me, though.
I could represent my late wife's observations about that side of things but it would be second hand, God rest her soul.
I s'pose I'm in a privileged position in that I can allow myself to attend things like a particular annual ecumenical conference with a fairly high level of theological content. So I have outlets for the things that float my boat outside of a local church context. Not everyone can get access to stuff like that.
But it's not all about us us it? What we get out of it. Surely it must be about what we can contribute that helps and supports others?
Not entirely relevant to the thread but this well-known phrase popped into my head while thinking about church as community:
"Friends will help you move. Real friends will help you move a body."
My train of thought leapt from the slightly dubious connotations of the phrase to Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, who did indeed help each other move the body of Jesus. From there I began wondering about the metaphor of church as the body of Christ, and how we are all engaged in "moving" the body of Christ. Are our "real friends", our community in the church, those with whom we work to move it?
I moved to a new Church twelve months ago (we moved house, four hours from our last home, to be near our son). I was very active and happy at the last place.
I love my new place with an unexpected intensity. When I go on holiday I miss it and when I get back I’m happy and grateful - often quite emotional.
The people have been so very kind and welcoming. The building is small and absolutely beautiful.
I think part of my reaction is that the congregation is so tiny (twelve of us when we are all there) and elderly. So I know it won’t last and I’m making the most of it. Another part is that I’ve been a Methodist all my life and the services are so very similar to my last place I just felt immediately at home and ‘grounded’ when everything else in life was changing so much.
I moved to a new Church twelve months ago (we moved house, four hours from our last home, to be near our son). I was very active and happy at the last place.
I love my new place with an unexpected intensity. When I go on holiday I miss it and when I get back I’m happy and grateful - often quite emotional.
The people have been so very kind and welcoming. The building is small and absolutely beautiful.
I think part of my reaction is that the congregation is so tiny (twelve of us when we are all there) and elderly. So I know it won’t last and I’m making the most of it. Another part is that I’ve been a Methodist all my life and the services are so very similar to my last place I just felt immediately at home and ‘grounded’ when everything else in life was changing so much.
Theologically - no change at all. 😊
Part of it is you're an extrovert.
It would take me six months of attending just to feel confident about which name belonged to which person. And to work out who could cope with my weirdness and who was unable to.
I moved to a new Church twelve months ago (we moved house, four hours from our last home, to be near our son). I was very active and happy at the last place.
I love my new place with an unexpected intensity. When I go on holiday I miss it and when I get back I’m happy and grateful - often quite emotional.
The people have been so very kind and welcoming. The building is small and absolutely beautiful.
I think part of my reaction is that the congregation is so tiny (twelve of us when we are all there) and elderly. So I know it won’t last and I’m making the most of it. Another part is that I’ve been a Methodist all my life and the services are so very similar to my last place I just felt immediately at home and ‘grounded’ when everything else in life was changing so much.
Theologically - no change at all. 😊
Part of it is you're an extrovert.
It would take me six months of attending just to feel confident about which name belonged to which person. And to work out who could cope with my weirdness and who was unable to.
6 months?! It was probably 6 years here before I could reliably name the regular attenders.
Not entirely relevant to the thread but this well-known phrase popped into my head while thinking about church as community:
"Friends will help you move. Real friends will help you move a body."
My train of thought leapt from the slightly dubious connotations of the phrase to Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, who did indeed help each other move the body of Jesus. From there I began wondering about the metaphor of church as the body of Christ, and how we are all engaged in "moving" the body of Christ. Are our "real friends", our community in the church, those with whom we work to move it?
Hmmm ... your metaphor about Christ's body makes it sound inert, as if the Resurrection hasn't taken place.
But then, if we are Christ's body on earth, as it were then we don't often show a great deal of 'movement' or vitality - and by that I don't mean that we have to be 'lively' or 'vibrant' in the current parlance to be 'alive'.
Was it St Theresa of Avila who said that Christ has no 'hands' or 'feet' on earth but ours?
The Southern US is another country. They do things differently there.
@chrisstiles - yes, @Kendel's list does contain features that would apply to any group dynamic whatever the size, but the impression it gave me at least was of the conditions she described. Namely unfeasibly large congregations by British and other Western European standards.
But that's only implied because of the general 'getting to know strangers' theme over much of them, whereas in the case of the UK you can have quite small churches where people don't really know each other.
Other than a cultural difference, I think a large part of it is down to property. It's easier to entertain - especially casually - once you have a little more space, and similarly outside the bigger cities many American churches are on decent sized lots.
One would hope that a common faith would in itself generate at least a few common interests --
Why would it? Given that theoretically anyone can be a Christian, why would sharing a faith generate common interests if nothing else does?
Well, the faith itself would be a common interest, but given that people approach their faith in very different ways, that's not necessarily a useful common interest. If we share a faith, but think in completely different ways, then you telling me how you approach your faith and how your faith guides your choices probably isn't useful for me, and vice versa.
It would take me six months of attending just to feel confident about which name belonged to which person. And to work out who could cope with my weirdness and who was unable to.
One of the joys of zoom was that everyone's face appeared with their name conveniently beneath it.
I wouldn't be able to define community either, except as a shared "something". (Something more than an interest, although that might be a focus.) Also that it's related to our sense of belonging.
But I do believe that community is integral to our humanity, which poses something of a dilemma for those of us who find that engaging with it doesn't come naturally.
I think it might be more accurate to say that community is essential to humanity, without necessarily being essential to every individual human. A bit like sex.
I think it might be more accurate to say that community is essential to humanity, without necessarily being essential to every individual human. A bit like sex.
Hah! I get that, generationally - "humanity" in the sense of the whole human race.
By "our humanity", I was considering "the condition or quality of being human" (and maybe the "quality of being humane" to boot). Gravitationally (figuratively), the earth on which we live has an ongoing effect on all of us, from the vast majority with their feet on the ground to those few orbiting at a distance.
Conversely, how would a human being, who grew, developed and reached maturity in a non-human environment see themselves or understand their humanity?
I wouldn't be able to define community either, except as a shared "something". (Something more than an interest, although that might be a focus.) Also that it's related to our sense of belonging.
But I do believe that community is integral to our humanity, which poses something of a dilemma for those of us who find that engaging with it doesn't come naturally.
It's more complicated. Some people have a gregarious period in life, but become more introverted. Jung has the useful word "individuation", when people often need to separate off from family, tribe, etc.
I wouldn't be able to define community either, except as a shared "something". (Something more than an interest, although that might be a focus.) Also that it's related to our sense of belonging.
But I do believe that community is integral to our humanity, which poses something of a dilemma for those of us who find that engaging with it doesn't come naturally.
It's more complicated. Some people have a gregarious period in life, but become more introverted. Jung has the useful word "individuation", when people often need to separate off from family, tribe, etc.
It looks like what Jung is saying is that we all need space - to develop as individuals, and maybe at other times. Which is fair enough - human community is not a hive mind.
And it seems that individuation occurs in the context of community - eg the NYAAP ("our community of Jungian analysts in the New York metropolitan area").
While many people are drawn to Jung’s ideas because of his emphasis on the importance of being true to our unique selves, we can also learn from him about the essential role that participation in community plays in individuation.
Jung recognized that human beings are social creatures and society is a “necessary condition” for us. Each of us is part of the whole web of life and the process of individuating makes one aware of this wholeness and the unity of all. The process also makes us aware of the unconscious, which—in Jung’s concept of the “collective unconscious”—is common to all humankind. The individuated person is “at-one-ment” with him/herself and also with humanity. Working toward individuation leads us to a deeper sense of connection with others and fosters a desire to serve others.
But because the process of individuating entails being “born out” of identity with family, tribe, ethnic group etc., the individuated person does not fall back into his or her original social network. Time and again as I work with students at the Jungian Center I hear them note how they have found themselves creating new friendships and new social networks. Their old friends seem not to have similar interests or outlook. “As within, so without:” having changed inwardly, individuating people discover that outer life also changes, including their social contacts and friendships.
... and they often wind up feeling “different” or isolated, until they link up with like-minded individuals.
Meanwhile, I see that individuation is one of those words and concepts that appears in several different domains, including media, data privacy and quantum mechanics.
Ah. Although maybe a relief once through it, if you've gained new perspectives - I don't know how big an "if" that is. But yes, a painful transition, nonetheless.
Liverpool RC cathedral is lovely. Most welcoming. The CoE one is staggeringly and sadly beautiful.
Why "sadly"? (I've not been there BTW)
I can't speak for @Martin54 but as a low-church person myself I see the places we worship as reflective of our values. Which are largely indicated by how we spend our money.
Liverpool RC cathedral is lovely. Most welcoming. The CoE one is staggeringly and sadly beautiful.
Why "sadly"? (I've not been there BTW)
I can't speak for @Martin54 but as a low-church person myself I see the places we worship as reflective of our values. Which are largely indicated by how we spend our money.
I've visited the Anglican cathedral in Liverpool and think I know what Martin means about its 'sad' beauty. There's a kind of air of melancholy about the place which contrasts with the rather '60s upbeat feel of the city's iconic RC cathedral.
This isn't a 'low church / high church' thing. Back in the day plenty of 'non-conformist' congregations spent large amounts of money on chapels and buildings - often to compete with rival denominations down the road.
From what I've seen of US Christianity plenty of 'low church' churches spend oodles of money on plant and premises.
Many American churches of all stripes have staffing levels and ministerial salaries set at levels way above what would be the norm here.
I once landed on the website of a Baptist church in the US when googling for one with the same name here in the UK and was aghast at the size of its buildings and facilities and the number of staff it had. This was by no means a megachurch either.
I see your point. High/low may not be the right point of view. More importantly, though, I think what churches do with their money is reflective of their values, the same way it is in a household.
There are many circumstances that affect the cost-effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of how churches are organized and staffed.
I'm from a church tradition that is quite frugal. Buildings are modest but comfortable. The staff is always overworked. In these churches there is little opportunity to use the building as a money-making tool. The building exists to serve the worship and spiritual education of the congregation. And maybe the homeschool basketball league. Even weddings are limited to people with a connection to the church.
Our previous church spends a significant chunk of the budget on a director and a part time secretary to run a family care center that provides food, counseling, referral services, minimal legal direction and Bible study help to people from all the surrounding rural counties. They also support a large number of foreign and domestic missionaries.
The church has a senior pastor, assistant pastor, youth pastor and music minister on staff, but the congregation has over 700 members. There are additional regular attenders. There is also a custodian, maintenance person, and two secretaries. The elders and deacons are unpaid, and work hard as well.
I'm not sure that many church buildings are 'money making tools' aa such. Buildings tend to be money pits.
Sure, historic cathedrals get tourist revenue but I'd imagine most of that goes on maintenance. Your average Anglican parish church here wouldn't be making money from its buildings, even if they are historic or architectural gems.
I can only speak for the UK but generally speaking, I think most churches of whatever stripe are quite frugal at the grassroots level.
I'd certainly question some Diocesan expenditure if I were Anglican though. I've been involved with churches that hired rather than owned buildings and where most of the expenditure was on salaried, room hire and various forms of outreach. Looking back, though, some of the expenditure was mismanaged and misdirected.
My own parish has received a sizeable anonymous donation but this could easily be swallowed up in keeping the roof over our heads.
Buildings are a pain. They cost money to run. They aren't generally sources of revenue.
On the high/low thing - and I know you've moved away from that @Kendel - I think these things cut both ways. I've known very 'low' church people criticise 'higher' churches for spending money on robes and vestments, say, whilst not batting an eyelid when their own congregation invests in an expensive sound-system or something of that kind.
Generally, I'm not sure it behoves any of us to point the finger at this, that or the other church down the road - but we all do it. 😞
Generally speaking, people and mission should take priority over buildings and paraphernalia but many churches have inherited buildings they need to maintain and don't have much choice in the matter.
I'd generally be wary of criticising any church for its expenditure unless it was some kind of racketeering prosperity-gospel outfit where the leaders drive around in flash cars or - as in some instances - live in expensive houses which they then get people from their congregations to clean and maintain for them on the pretext that they are 'serving the Lord'.
I've left quite a few churches in my life (for various reasons)
I left one hyper-evangelical cult (after the pastor was caught out seducing half the women in the church!) where it was common knowledge that anyone who left was bound for hell, so was totally cut off by anyone who remained. Thankfully most of my closest friends also left, and some of us continued to meet together regularly, even after folk started to join other churches - no one else had the common history and understanding of the hurts involved. But I found it hard to really trust another church, and drifted around several congregations before moving out of the area 3 years later.
I left another church where I had been on the Vestry for 3 years because I was fed up with the political in-fighting and my non-churchgoing husband convinced me it was doing me no good to remain. I did manage to keep on good terms with people there (I suspect they blamed it all on my husband!). I started attending a neighbouring church where a friend was the minister, but took care to sit at the back and not get involved - even avoiding coffee after the service.
Having moved to a new area just before Covid and then being tied up with care commitments, I have just recently started going to a new church in the area. I have rarely been made to feel as welcome, and actually look forward to a friendly chat over coffee after the service, and have yet to detect any negative vibes and political machinations, so am beginning to feel it may be safe to poke my head above the parapet!
I've never encountered the sort of feuding that some describe in churches. I don't know whether I'm oblivious or that the churches I've been involved in have been too small and too poor to fight over anything.
I have just recently started going to a new church in the area. ... and have yet to detect any negative vibes and political machinations, so am beginning to feel it may be safe to poke my head above the parapet!
Yesterday I had coffee with a new friend who has been an elder in the church for decades (nearly 50 years as a member), and she took the opportunity to gently and graciously bring a few areas of potential conflict to my notice... 'I'm so glad you joined us and can see you have a lot to offer.... but before you rush in where angels fear to tread, you maybe need to know a bit of background....' Clearly there are historic conflicts around, and certainly some hurt from newcomers who have tried to shake things up then moved on somewhere else - but, thankfully, nothing too hurtful and damaging on a day-to-day level. So it's heads down, support what's already good in the community, win people's trust, and gently introduce any new ideas in a non-threatening way as and when the opportunity arises... but be prepared for change to come slowly.
Show me a church community where there isn't a degree of internal conflict or scope for that given the right (or wrong) circumstances.
Likewise, show me a voluntary group of any kind - political, cultural or sporting or whatever else - that also doesn't have the potential to internally combust.
Very true - I have a friend who runs a small animal rescue sanctuary who tears his hair out at the petty squabbling and power struggles in the various wildlife/animal charities he works with!
I have just recently started going to a new church in the area. ... and have yet to detect any negative vibes and political machinations, so am beginning to feel it may be safe to poke my head above the parapet!
Yesterday I had coffee with a new friend who has been an elder in the church for decades (nearly 50 years as a member), and she took the opportunity to gently and graciously bring a few areas of potential conflict to my notice... 'I'm so glad you joined us and can see you have a lot to offer.... but before you rush in where angels fear to tread, you maybe need to know a bit of background....' Clearly there are historic conflicts around, and certainly some hurt from newcomers who have tried to shake things up then moved on somewhere else - but, thankfully, nothing too hurtful and damaging on a day-to-day level. So it's heads down, support what's already good in the community, win people's trust, and gently introduce any new ideas in a non-threatening way as and when the opportunity arises... but be prepared for change to come slowly.
(ETA fixed quote code, DT, temp hosting)
Sounds like someone has an ax to grind. Her "background information" is just her opinion. A way of trying to get you on her side. No doubt you can find people with the opposite opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.
I have just recently started going to a new church in the area. ... and have yet to detect any negative vibes and political machinations, so am beginning to feel it may be safe to poke my head above the parapet!
Yesterday I had coffee with a new friend who has been an elder in the church for decades (nearly 50 years as a member), and she took the opportunity to gently and graciously bring a few areas of potential conflict to my notice... 'I'm so glad you joined us and can see you have a lot to offer.... but before you rush in where angels fear to tread, you maybe need to know a bit of background....' Clearly there are historic conflicts around, and certainly some hurt from newcomers who have tried to shake things up then moved on somewhere else - but, thankfully, nothing too hurtful and damaging on a day-to-day level. So it's heads down, support what's already good in the community, win people's trust, and gently introduce any new ideas in a non-threatening way as and when the opportunity arises... but be prepared for change to come slowly.
(ETA fixed quote code, DT, temp hosting)
Sounds like someone has an ax to grind. Her "background information" is just her opinion. A way of trying to get you on her side.
Not necessarily. That might be the case, but it might not. I’d trust @Gallovidian—who actually had the conversation with her and could read her body language and her tone, and who could put the “background” she shared in the broader context of the rest of the conversation and of his experience in the community—to interpret the situation better than others of us a few thousand miles away who have only a few sentences to go by.
I have moved pretty seamlessly from church to church. Though each time I had a group I was involved with that made a somewhat instant community. They have mostly been on the Evo/Charismatic end of things (except my current which is quite traditional. Not really me).
I have really had not trouble keeping two big things together. That would be being an active member of my church and a ballroom dancer both social and high level competition in my twenties.
I have moved pretty seamlessly from church to church. Though each time I had a group I was involved with that made a somewhat instant community. They have mostly been on the Evo/Charismatic end of things (except my current which is quite traditional. Not really me).
I have really had not trouble keeping two big things together. That would be being an active member of my church and a ballroom dancer both social and high level competition in my twenties.
By that do you mean that your community is the ballroom dancing community rather than church, or that you maintain two separate communities?
Sounds like someone has an ax to grind. Her "background information" is just her opinion. A way of trying to get you on her side. No doubt you can find people with the opposite opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.
I agree that this can sometimes be the case, but I actually have a lot of respect for this person as very wise and godly. Her advice was totally free from any sense of partisanship, blaming or warning me off others ,or trying to recruit me to 'her camp', simply sharing her experience of having come into a very rural and 'closed' community 50 years ago and the time it takes to be accepted enough to actually start to bring about change, and to make me aware of some background history to how certain ways of doing things have come about and the emotional baggage that may come with them for some people. I found it very encouraging and affirming, as she acknowledged that she felt I had been brought into the congregation at a time of uncertainty to be a positive influence for change as we face the future. The overall message was 'I've seen others make certain mistakes, and I don't want you to end up being hurt or discouraged by falling into the same traps'.
Having moved into a small, rural community and blindly stomped into church with my size 12s I can appreciate the warning as you took it and as it was no doubt intended!
I think for those of us who have moved around a lot in our lives and are a long way from our formative experiences of church we have to take time and care to understand those whose faith is rooted deeply in the place and community where it was originally nurtured. It is easy to come in from outside and say "these pews are lovely but if we take some of them out we could..." and be absolutely correct in your assessment and yet still deeply upset some lifelong congregants. Ask me how I know .
Been there, done that!
My current approach is to contact the minister or one of the two elders I really like and gently say - 'Don't take this the wrong way, but I noticed x - has anyone ever thought about y?' If addressing the minister it usually gets dressed up with a bit of 'I'm not criticising, and this is just my thoughts as a new arrival, so I won't be offended if you say no'!
I have moved pretty seamlessly from church to church. Though each time I had a group I was involved with that made a somewhat instant community. They have mostly been on the Evo/Charismatic end of things (except my current which is quite traditional. Not really me).
I have really had not trouble keeping two big things together. That would be being an active member of my church and a ballroom dancer both social and high level competition in my twenties.
By that do you mean that your community is the ballroom dancing community rather than church, or that you maintain two separate communities?
Both are communities. They can both demand a lot of your time. Several people told me it was impossible but I did it.
I can't see why it would be 'impossible', @Hugal unless one or the other were making unrealistic demands. Good for you for juggling both.
As you are living in Wales you'll have no doubt heard stories of the Welsh Revival of 1904-05, many of them highly romanticised.
One of the 'shadow-sides' to that was that many promising sports-people (mostly lads at that time of course) were deterred from excelling in their chosen sport lest it interfere with their attendance at prayer meetings and the like.
For all the 'hwyl' and excitement of revivalist fervour the net result longer term - and I'm simplifying things here in order to make a point - was that subsequent generations of young people (the 1904/05 Revival was primarily a young persons' movement), put their energies into Labour Party politics or the Eisteddfodau or Welsh Nationalism or ...
Why? Because revivalist Christianity can narrow the horizons and resent time spent on anything else - whether it be ballroom dancing, sport, the arts, social or political action or ...
Ok, things have moved on and evangelicals these days are involved with the world beyond church or chapel.
I daresay, though, that you'll have come across people who think your interest and skill in ballroom dancing is fine, provided it has some kind of churchy or 'outreach' dimension to it.
It may well have, which is fine, but I'd suggest of course that it would be worth doing for its own sake irrespective of whether there was any churchy or missional element attached.
I can't see why it would be 'impossible', @Hugal unless one or the other were making unrealistic demands. Good for you for juggling both.
As you are living in Wales you'll have no doubt heard stories of the Welsh Revival of 1904-05, many of them highly romanticised.
One of the 'shadow-sides' to that was that many promising sports-people (mostly lads at that time of course) were deterred from excelling in their chosen sport lest it interfere with their attendance at prayer meetings and the like.
For all the 'hwyl' and excitement of revivalist fervour the net result longer term - and I'm simplifying things here in order to make a point - was that subsequent generations of young people (the 1904/05 Revival was primarily a young persons' movement), put their energies into Labour Party politics or the Eisteddfodau or Welsh Nationalism or ...
Why? Because revivalist Christianity can narrow the horizons and resent time spent on anything else - whether it be ballroom dancing, sport, the arts, social or political action or ...
Ok, things have moved on and evangelicals these days are involved with the world beyond church or chapel.
I daresay, though, that you'll have come across people who think your interest and skill in ballroom dancing is fine, provided it has some kind of churchy or 'outreach' dimension to it.
It may well have, which is fine, but I'd suggest of course that it would be worth doing for its own sake irrespective of whether there was any churchy or missional element attached.
I do both when I can. I am a member of and used to lead The Christian Dance Fellowship of Britain. I used to teach ballroom at my local dance school, and using it in a more worshipful way in the fellowship, and just straight ballroom in the fellowship.
I am currently part of a Disney Parks podcast team. Disney can bring about church style devotion in some people.
I can't see why it would be 'impossible', @Hugal unless one or the other were making unrealistic demands. Good for you for juggling both.
As you are living in Wales you'll have no doubt heard stories of the Welsh Revival of 1904-05, many of them highly romanticised.
One of the 'shadow-sides' to that was that many promising sports-people (mostly lads at that time of course) were deterred from excelling in their chosen sport lest it interfere with their attendance at prayer meetings and the like.
For all the 'hwyl' and excitement of revivalist fervour the net result longer term - and I'm simplifying things here in order to make a point - was that subsequent generations of young people (the 1904/05 Revival was primarily a young persons' movement), put their energies into Labour Party politics or the Eisteddfodau or Welsh Nationalism or ...
Why? Because revivalist Christianity can narrow the horizons and resent time spent on anything else - whether it be ballroom dancing, sport, the arts, social or political action or ...
Ok, things have moved on and evangelicals these days are involved with the world beyond church or chapel.
I daresay, though, that you'll have come across people who think your interest and skill in ballroom dancing is fine, provided it has some kind of churchy or 'outreach' dimension to it.
It may well have, which is fine, but I'd suggest of course that it would be worth doing for its own sake irrespective of whether there was any churchy or missional element attached.
Not Wales but in my village we had one of the first Methodist JPs and he was a big Liberal. He was sad because one of his sons became a Liberal political agent in the early 20th century but had little time for religion, and the other became a Methodist lay preacher but was an out and out socialist - as he saw it both his sons had grown away from him in one respect or the other.
His Liberal agent son pointed out he ought in fact to be pleased, because one was doing his Methodism properly, and the other his Liberal politics….
Comments
My parents were pretty nomadic in their shared faith journey, so my siblings and I probably got better than most kids/teens at shoehorning into new communities. As a church musician, I've always enjoyed built-in, enthusiastic sub-communities of choirs, cantors and instrumentalists and their families, so even though my personal faith has waned pretty decidedly over the years, sharing music with those folks persists, even if iI can't ascribe to the music's theology. Currently, this is made all the easier via the fact that I'm a lapsed Episcopalian serving in a RC parish.
@The_Riv mentioned Introversion and think this has something to do with it. We find socialising hard; socialising with people we don't know counts double. It causes massive anxiety. So we can be quietly attending church (or any other regular social event) and hardly know anyone. Perhaps that's why it doesn't feel like anything we might be inclined to call community.
There are demographic challenges as well. Try as I might, as a geeky 50 something male into heavy rock, table-top RPGs, Tolkien, science and comparative linguistics, I find it difficult to find anything to talk about with other church members who are mostly twenty years older and have a completely different set of interests. It's hard to get past a stilted discussion of the weather.
I resemble these remarks
People at church always seem to want to discuss recent sports games in which I have no interest. I just tend to nod politely. Mostly it's Americans wanting to talk about football, but we have one recent immigrant from India who was delighted to hear my accent, because he thought he'd have someone to talk about cricket with. I find cricket a perfectly acceptable backdrop to a decent pint and a chat outside a village pub. I have no interest in actually watching it.
Sometimes I can get the old guys reminiscing about local history, which sometimes contains nuggets of interest, and otherwise I can just nod politely and let it wash over me.
I suppose I have a reasonable working definition of community: Suppose you told me that someone had broken a leg / had a baby / something. Would I offer to go round with a meal? If so, that person is part of my community.
I s'pose the crass answer would be that your 'community/ies' are fellow metal-heads, table-top gamesters, Tolkien-fans, science and comparative linguistic geeks that you encounter whilst pursuing those interests. If they aren't around at church is that any great loss providing you rub-shoulders with like-minded people to the extent you feel comfortable with outside of churchy contexts?
I do see what you mean, of course and am not unsympathetic.
I'm into poetry and run a poetry group. It doesn't bother me whether or not people at church like poetry or not.
But yes, getting past stilted conversations about the weather is certainly an issue. I don't know what to talk to Eastern Europeans about and many of them don't speak a great deal of English. I do discuss Orthodox faith and practice with some of the British people at church but don't get along that often for family reasons.
I can only speak for myself but I find I have several parallel 'communities' running at one and the same time - a poetry one, a political one and a general living in the same place one - as well as friends and relatives in different places.
I certainly no longer expect church to provide all my social needs - and I'm not saying you do either. But yes, I can see your dilemma.
You're right @KarlLB ; "Community" is a vague term. One of the things I hoped would come up in this thread, and it has, is the variety of ways people understand the term, and the different things they expect of whatever it is they call "Community."
Your point about the challenges of being an introvert in social situations is important. I'm an introvert, too, but of the outgoing variety. I enjoy being around (most) people, and the connections I feel with all sorts of people are important to me. But people also exhaust me. And even more than people specifically, demands for my attention and layers of interruption can just do me in. In those situations, if I can, I do as @Leorning Cniht suggested, and let it wash over me.
Generally, unless the discussion is about sports, I'm more inclined to enjoy conversations with men at church. I'm always afraid that this will be seen as inappropriate, or that I'm hunting. But conversations amonh the men don't usually revolve around child-rearing. I love my girls. I also don't want to waste adult conversation opportunities, when they present themselves. At church, I am rarely able to find women who are interested in topics I"m interested in, or in the ways I'm interested in them.
Can anyone, please direct me to the Geek Squad or the Gear Heads?
I sometimes get involved with amateur dramatics (all the drama occurs off-stage) and to do so contact my local amateur theatre group. I don't expect to find such activities at church, although some churches have drama groups of course.
I know it's easier said than done but I suspect @Kendel that you may find the 'Geek Squad and the Gear Heads' in your locality somewhere other than in church.
I'm not dismissing the importance of fellowship or finding like-minded people in whatever kind of church we are involved with but surely if we are to be 'salt and light' we ought to be involved in 'the world' as well as our own particular faith community?
I'm not saying I'm any great example but if I want to knock around with people who share my interest in poetry I attend poetry readings and workshops and so on.
If I was interested in photography I'd join a photography club. I wouldn't necessarily expect to find people at church who shared that interest.
I once heard of an Anglican Bishop who encouraged the clergy in his diocese to have wider interests - time permitting - than churchy things. Very wise I think.
The independent charismatic evangelical church I was involved with for 18 years had all sorts going on. We hardly had time to do anything else. When I was single I was always babysitting for people or helping people move house or decorating or ...
I almost lost touch completely with my non-Christian friends. Everything was church, church, church. It wasn't healthy at all.
Don't get me wrong, there were lots of creative and energetic people and all sorts of initiatives but ultimately it was all so intense. It was like a hot-house. It's hardly surprising people burned themselves out.
There are days when I miss all that but in the cold light of day I no longer want anything that intense.
There's a balance somewhere.
I have no problem with that really, but it does mean that the answer to "church as community" for me is "no, it isn't"
It's not all bad. It does mean that it if I change churches or stop going or whatever it's no great wrench.
(I exagerate. Minimally.)
Snort! Good one!
No question. There is plenty to discuss on this topic that reaches beyond the topic of this thread.
However, the following has not been my problem: Church has always been an important part of my life, but not the focus of it as it is for many people I know. I could not integrate myself so thoroughly into any church community I know without abandoning significant parts of my self. Or developing callouses on my tongue.
I have always worked "out in the world," and probably half or more of my friends and acquaintances are not Christians, much less Christians from my church.
No, this is exactly what I'd like to find:
I'd love not to have to draw sharp lines between my intellectual life and my church life; my Christian friends and acquaintances and the people I can talk with about "issues;" the people with backgrounds in theology, history, philosophy at church and the people I can talk with about those things.
I would love to have a balance somewhere.
So this might be soup, or tutoring, or a listening ear--all the way up to crisis housing and money. Because they are a part of my community (and maybe I have several communities? They certainly don't all look comfortable with each other on the rare occasions we have thrown massive parties and invited people from the different areas of our lives)... because, I say, they are a part of my community, they get quicker and less hesitant access to the help I can give them. A stranger on the street is theoretically entitled to help also just by Christianity, but I'm going to hedge it around with a lot of self-protective vetting that I have mostly done already with my community. For instance, I'm not going to be anywhere near as worried about being lied to or duped or betrayed with people in my community, as opposed to out of it. And so on and so forth.
Why would it? Given that theoretically anyone can be a Christian, why would sharing a faith generate common interests if nothing else does?
In my own context, I share a common faith with the Eastern Europeans at church but due to cultural, educational and language differences I'm hardly likely to engage them in the kind of theological discussions we have here or that I have with some of the clergy and Anglophone converts.
If 'community' is to mean anything then surely it has to involve engaging in some way with people who don't necessarily share the same background, tastes, life experiences and predilection as ourselves?
From what I can see, and I don't mean to flatter her but simply make an observation, @Lamb Chopped is embodying 'community' in a particularly costly way.
In all honesty I sometimes feel that my own Christian faith is something of a 'hobby' by comparison. Not that it's a 'competition'.
I completely understand where @Kendel and @KarlLB are coming from and I'm probably not a million miles from either of them in terms of ethos.
Talk of 'homeschooling' and the kind of Stepford Wives 'down home' US suburban domesticity that seems expected of Midwestern evangelicals is obviously foreign to me as a British bloke though. That said, I can detect milder versions of this with British evangelicalism. I daresay other Shipmates would have more insightful comments on this than me, though.
I could represent my late wife's observations about that side of things but it would be second hand, God rest her soul.
I s'pose I'm in a privileged position in that I can allow myself to attend things like a particular annual ecumenical conference with a fairly high level of theological content. So I have outlets for the things that float my boat outside of a local church context. Not everyone can get access to stuff like that.
But it's not all about us us it? What we get out of it. Surely it must be about what we can contribute that helps and supports others?
"Friends will help you move. Real friends will help you move a body."
My train of thought leapt from the slightly dubious connotations of the phrase to Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, who did indeed help each other move the body of Jesus. From there I began wondering about the metaphor of church as the body of Christ, and how we are all engaged in "moving" the body of Christ. Are our "real friends", our community in the church, those with whom we work to move it?
I love my new place with an unexpected intensity. When I go on holiday I miss it and when I get back I’m happy and grateful - often quite emotional.
The people have been so very kind and welcoming. The building is small and absolutely beautiful.
I think part of my reaction is that the congregation is so tiny (twelve of us when we are all there) and elderly. So I know it won’t last and I’m making the most of it. Another part is that I’ve been a Methodist all my life and the services are so very similar to my last place I just felt immediately at home and ‘grounded’ when everything else in life was changing so much.
Theologically - no change at all. 😊
Part of it is you're an extrovert.
It would take me six months of attending just to feel confident about which name belonged to which person. And to work out who could cope with my weirdness and who was unable to.
6 months?! It was probably 6 years here before I could reliably name the regular attenders.
But if I don't know a name I've already been told, I quietly ask someone else. 😊
Hmmm ... your metaphor about Christ's body makes it sound inert, as if the Resurrection hasn't taken place.
But then, if we are Christ's body on earth, as it were then we don't often show a great deal of 'movement' or vitality - and by that I don't mean that we have to be 'lively' or 'vibrant' in the current parlance to be 'alive'.
Was it St Theresa of Avila who said that Christ has no 'hands' or 'feet' on earth but ours?
But that's only implied because of the general 'getting to know strangers' theme over much of them, whereas in the case of the UK you can have quite small churches where people don't really know each other.
Other than a cultural difference, I think a large part of it is down to property. It's easier to entertain - especially casually - once you have a little more space, and similarly outside the bigger cities many American churches are on decent sized lots.
Well, the faith itself would be a common interest, but given that people approach their faith in very different ways, that's not necessarily a useful common interest. If we share a faith, but think in completely different ways, then you telling me how you approach your faith and how your faith guides your choices probably isn't useful for me, and vice versa.
One of the joys of zoom was that everyone's face appeared with their name conveniently beneath it.
If their kids hadn't been messing with it...
Or they weren't all just called "ipad".
But I do believe that community is integral to our humanity, which poses something of a dilemma for those of us who find that engaging with it doesn't come naturally.
By "our humanity", I was considering "the condition or quality of being human" (and maybe the "quality of being humane" to boot). Gravitationally (figuratively), the earth on which we live has an ongoing effect on all of us, from the vast majority with their feet on the ground to those few orbiting at a distance.
Conversely, how would a human being, who grew, developed and reached maturity in a non-human environment see themselves or understand their humanity?
It's more complicated. Some people have a gregarious period in life, but become more introverted. Jung has the useful word "individuation", when people often need to separate off from family, tribe, etc.
And it seems that individuation occurs in the context of community - eg the NYAAP ("our community of Jungian analysts in the New York metropolitan area"). or The Jungian Center for the Spiritual Sciences
Meanwhile, I see that individuation is one of those words and concepts that appears in several different domains, including media, data privacy and quantum mechanics.
I've visited the Anglican cathedral in Liverpool and think I know what Martin means about its 'sad' beauty. There's a kind of air of melancholy about the place which contrasts with the rather '60s upbeat feel of the city's iconic RC cathedral.
This isn't a 'low church / high church' thing. Back in the day plenty of 'non-conformist' congregations spent large amounts of money on chapels and buildings - often to compete with rival denominations down the road.
From what I've seen of US Christianity plenty of 'low church' churches spend oodles of money on plant and premises.
Many American churches of all stripes have staffing levels and ministerial salaries set at levels way above what would be the norm here.
I once landed on the website of a Baptist church in the US when googling for one with the same name here in the UK and was aghast at the size of its buildings and facilities and the number of staff it had. This was by no means a megachurch either.
There are many circumstances that affect the cost-effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of how churches are organized and staffed.
I'm from a church tradition that is quite frugal. Buildings are modest but comfortable. The staff is always overworked. In these churches there is little opportunity to use the building as a money-making tool. The building exists to serve the worship and spiritual education of the congregation. And maybe the homeschool basketball league. Even weddings are limited to people with a connection to the church.
Our previous church spends a significant chunk of the budget on a director and a part time secretary to run a family care center that provides food, counseling, referral services, minimal legal direction and Bible study help to people from all the surrounding rural counties. They also support a large number of foreign and domestic missionaries.
The church has a senior pastor, assistant pastor, youth pastor and music minister on staff, but the congregation has over 700 members. There are additional regular attenders. There is also a custodian, maintenance person, and two secretaries. The elders and deacons are unpaid, and work hard as well.
Sure, historic cathedrals get tourist revenue but I'd imagine most of that goes on maintenance. Your average Anglican parish church here wouldn't be making money from its buildings, even if they are historic or architectural gems.
I can only speak for the UK but generally speaking, I think most churches of whatever stripe are quite frugal at the grassroots level.
I'd certainly question some Diocesan expenditure if I were Anglican though. I've been involved with churches that hired rather than owned buildings and where most of the expenditure was on salaried, room hire and various forms of outreach. Looking back, though, some of the expenditure was mismanaged and misdirected.
My own parish has received a sizeable anonymous donation but this could easily be swallowed up in keeping the roof over our heads.
Buildings are a pain. They cost money to run. They aren't generally sources of revenue.
On the high/low thing - and I know you've moved away from that @Kendel - I think these things cut both ways. I've known very 'low' church people criticise 'higher' churches for spending money on robes and vestments, say, whilst not batting an eyelid when their own congregation invests in an expensive sound-system or something of that kind.
Generally, I'm not sure it behoves any of us to point the finger at this, that or the other church down the road - but we all do it. 😞
Generally speaking, people and mission should take priority over buildings and paraphernalia but many churches have inherited buildings they need to maintain and don't have much choice in the matter.
I'd generally be wary of criticising any church for its expenditure unless it was some kind of racketeering prosperity-gospel outfit where the leaders drive around in flash cars or - as in some instances - live in expensive houses which they then get people from their congregations to clean and maintain for them on the pretext that they are 'serving the Lord'.
I left one hyper-evangelical cult (after the pastor was caught out seducing half the women in the church!) where it was common knowledge that anyone who left was bound for hell, so was totally cut off by anyone who remained. Thankfully most of my closest friends also left, and some of us continued to meet together regularly, even after folk started to join other churches - no one else had the common history and understanding of the hurts involved. But I found it hard to really trust another church, and drifted around several congregations before moving out of the area 3 years later.
I left another church where I had been on the Vestry for 3 years because I was fed up with the political in-fighting and my non-churchgoing husband convinced me it was doing me no good to remain. I did manage to keep on good terms with people there (I suspect they blamed it all on my husband!). I started attending a neighbouring church where a friend was the minister, but took care to sit at the back and not get involved - even avoiding coffee after the service.
Having moved to a new area just before Covid and then being tied up with care commitments, I have just recently started going to a new church in the area. I have rarely been made to feel as welcome, and actually look forward to a friendly chat over coffee after the service, and have yet to detect any negative vibes and political machinations, so am beginning to feel it may be safe to poke my head above the parapet!
Yesterday I had coffee with a new friend who has been an elder in the church for decades (nearly 50 years as a member), and she took the opportunity to gently and graciously bring a few areas of potential conflict to my notice... 'I'm so glad you joined us and can see you have a lot to offer.... but before you rush in where angels fear to tread, you maybe need to know a bit of background....' Clearly there are historic conflicts around, and certainly some hurt from newcomers who have tried to shake things up then moved on somewhere else - but, thankfully, nothing too hurtful and damaging on a day-to-day level. So it's heads down, support what's already good in the community, win people's trust, and gently introduce any new ideas in a non-threatening way as and when the opportunity arises... but be prepared for change to come slowly.
(ETA fixed quote code, DT, temp hosting)
Likewise, show me a voluntary group of any kind - political, cultural or sporting or whatever else - that also doesn't have the potential to internally combust.
Sounds like someone has an ax to grind. Her "background information" is just her opinion. A way of trying to get you on her side. No doubt you can find people with the opposite opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.
I have really had not trouble keeping two big things together. That would be being an active member of my church and a ballroom dancer both social and high level competition in my twenties.
By that do you mean that your community is the ballroom dancing community rather than church, or that you maintain two separate communities?
I agree that this can sometimes be the case, but I actually have a lot of respect for this person as very wise and godly. Her advice was totally free from any sense of partisanship, blaming or warning me off others ,or trying to recruit me to 'her camp', simply sharing her experience of having come into a very rural and 'closed' community 50 years ago and the time it takes to be accepted enough to actually start to bring about change, and to make me aware of some background history to how certain ways of doing things have come about and the emotional baggage that may come with them for some people. I found it very encouraging and affirming, as she acknowledged that she felt I had been brought into the congregation at a time of uncertainty to be a positive influence for change as we face the future. The overall message was 'I've seen others make certain mistakes, and I don't want you to end up being hurt or discouraged by falling into the same traps'.
Fixed quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
I think for those of us who have moved around a lot in our lives and are a long way from our formative experiences of church we have to take time and care to understand those whose faith is rooted deeply in the place and community where it was originally nurtured. It is easy to come in from outside and say "these pews are lovely but if we take some of them out we could..." and be absolutely correct in your assessment and yet still deeply upset some lifelong congregants. Ask me how I know
My current approach is to contact the minister or one of the two elders I really like and gently say - 'Don't take this the wrong way, but I noticed x - has anyone ever thought about y?' If addressing the minister it usually gets dressed up with a bit of 'I'm not criticising, and this is just my thoughts as a new arrival, so I won't be offended if you say no'!
As you are living in Wales you'll have no doubt heard stories of the Welsh Revival of 1904-05, many of them highly romanticised.
One of the 'shadow-sides' to that was that many promising sports-people (mostly lads at that time of course) were deterred from excelling in their chosen sport lest it interfere with their attendance at prayer meetings and the like.
For all the 'hwyl' and excitement of revivalist fervour the net result longer term - and I'm simplifying things here in order to make a point - was that subsequent generations of young people (the 1904/05 Revival was primarily a young persons' movement), put their energies into Labour Party politics or the Eisteddfodau or Welsh Nationalism or ...
Why? Because revivalist Christianity can narrow the horizons and resent time spent on anything else - whether it be ballroom dancing, sport, the arts, social or political action or ...
Ok, things have moved on and evangelicals these days are involved with the world beyond church or chapel.
I daresay, though, that you'll have come across people who think your interest and skill in ballroom dancing is fine, provided it has some kind of churchy or 'outreach' dimension to it.
It may well have, which is fine, but I'd suggest of course that it would be worth doing for its own sake irrespective of whether there was any churchy or missional element attached.
I do both when I can. I am a member of and used to lead The Christian Dance Fellowship of Britain. I used to teach ballroom at my local dance school, and using it in a more worshipful way in the fellowship, and just straight ballroom in the fellowship.
I am currently part of a Disney Parks podcast team. Disney can bring about church style devotion in some people.
Not Wales but in my village we had one of the first Methodist JPs and he was a big Liberal. He was sad because one of his sons became a Liberal political agent in the early 20th century but had little time for religion, and the other became a Methodist lay preacher but was an out and out socialist - as he saw it both his sons had grown away from him in one respect or the other.
His Liberal agent son pointed out he ought in fact to be pleased, because one was doing his Methodism properly, and the other his Liberal politics….