It seems that choice, rights and all the hallmarks of the consumer world we inhabit shape what church is and how we do it (and select it too!).
We go to a church because we like the way they play music and yet in doing so ignore the quality of the teaching, the theological truths and the essential tenets. We swing from Anglican to Baptist because they have better coffee and by so doing move from paedobaptism to anabaptism. We move from Pentecostal to Anglican because of the teaching and suddenly we're into proper liturgy (should start a fight ;) )!
We make our consumer choices without realising the theological and spiritual statements we make.
We make decisions about what our churches should be - we decide that pews restrict the use and then struggle to move or do anything because of the stacked chairs (we always forget to have a room to store stuff!). We speak of open, fluid spaces, which allow us to do so much and then put the chairs out in the same way the pews were.
People outside dictate how our buildings should be (ask me about Putney some time) and others (within) fight to keep us in the nineteenth century whilst more seek to remove the (vital) organ and strangle the choir so they can have trite, naff, rainbow guitar strapped morons, "Making the church 'contemporary' and 'accessible'!"
Valid church is vital church that belongs to the universal Church. It doesn't exist to support our rights, tickle our ears, or do it the 'right' way. It doesn't look to bring people back but to take Christ out to those who are distant, often for the first time!
So - stop telling me what you want or need and start thinking about how you can use what you have where you are - and remember if you make your choice and leave for another happy home to be generous, after a it will be a blessing for some and a curse for others (and not always the way you might think!! ;) )
Pax
Thursday, 18 August 2011
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
'lucky church'
If anything is destined to light the blue touchpaper with me it us those people who tell me we are a 'lucky' church!
Recently, I was given a lecture from a couple of local church members telling me how 'lucky' we were to have children on our services when they had none. Not only that but we were also 'lucky' to be growing and having new members and were even 'more lucky' to have so many people working and doing stuff in our church. Apparently everything that is happening to others around them is the result of nothing more than 'luck' - which explains it all I guess.
Sadly, the application of facts tends to pull down the 'lucky' label because:
1. When we started out the only children in church were ours!
2. The people who have joined us have done so because of a number of reasons, which include community involvement and contact, a gobby dogcollar and the church building being the focal point for much that happens in our patch.
3. Percentage-wise we have a large number of our members who are active. The services regularly involves a number of people and there are usually at least six voices heard in the services. But of course when you are running with an ASA of forty something, even 100% involvement is always less than fifty!
The church the 'unlucky' observers came from boasts perhaps twice the number of helpers we have (but of course that's a lower percentage). It also has an ageing congregation and a bag of excuses for not growing or attracting the young. It has a greater passing trade in young people and greater potential for much - but it is still a church in decline.
Seems there are some who are ridiculously optimistic when it comes to growth and mission. They expect God to bless and fill where the congregation fails to act.
There are others who see the game as lost and cling in holy huddles to the days when people queued to get in to Evensnog. They sit within their empty mausoleum and reflect on how the 'Spirit has left' and merely wait for God (getting more forlorn and vitriolic as time (and members) pads away.
Then there are those who work to understand their patch, struggle with Mission Action Plans, engage with the community and seek to bless what God is doing rather than wait for people to return to where they've never been.
When I became a Christian I was told that we 'didn't do luck, but did mission, obedience and love', perhaps that's the key?
Pax
ps. For those who know where home is, don't assume you know the church in question - you might just be wrong!
Recently, I was given a lecture from a couple of local church members telling me how 'lucky' we were to have children on our services when they had none. Not only that but we were also 'lucky' to be growing and having new members and were even 'more lucky' to have so many people working and doing stuff in our church. Apparently everything that is happening to others around them is the result of nothing more than 'luck' - which explains it all I guess.
Sadly, the application of facts tends to pull down the 'lucky' label because:
1. When we started out the only children in church were ours!
2. The people who have joined us have done so because of a number of reasons, which include community involvement and contact, a gobby dogcollar and the church building being the focal point for much that happens in our patch.
3. Percentage-wise we have a large number of our members who are active. The services regularly involves a number of people and there are usually at least six voices heard in the services. But of course when you are running with an ASA of forty something, even 100% involvement is always less than fifty!
The church the 'unlucky' observers came from boasts perhaps twice the number of helpers we have (but of course that's a lower percentage). It also has an ageing congregation and a bag of excuses for not growing or attracting the young. It has a greater passing trade in young people and greater potential for much - but it is still a church in decline.
Seems there are some who are ridiculously optimistic when it comes to growth and mission. They expect God to bless and fill where the congregation fails to act.
There are others who see the game as lost and cling in holy huddles to the days when people queued to get in to Evensnog. They sit within their empty mausoleum and reflect on how the 'Spirit has left' and merely wait for God (getting more forlorn and vitriolic as time (and members) pads away.
Then there are those who work to understand their patch, struggle with Mission Action Plans, engage with the community and seek to bless what God is doing rather than wait for people to return to where they've never been.
When I became a Christian I was told that we 'didn't do luck, but did mission, obedience and love', perhaps that's the key?
Pax
ps. For those who know where home is, don't assume you know the church in question - you might just be wrong!
Monday, 15 August 2011
Breastfeeding and Church
Following my previous post on this this topic I have received the following comments (I have decided to use initial only, even though they gave their names):
L: "Preparing to feed our 2 month old I was 'invited' to use the ladies' toilet to save the
Embarrassment of those around me. When I got there it was a room with a loo and a sink! I retreated to the car and fed there before leaving. Our family of four hasn't been back."
J: "When I was feeding our youngest after a service the Vicar came and asked whether we were warm enough. He also made sure someone brought me a cup of tea (and choccie biscuits) and treated it all as if it was an everyday occurence. This was a deciding factor in our remaining in that church. That said, I have experienced people who tutted and made a fuss. Perhaps that was why they were full of old folk who wondered why their church was empty and dying."
I find it sad that some twenty years on Church still appears to be variable on this issue. Personally, I don't have a problem with it and have never found those who do breadtfeed to be anything other than discrete and the whole thing to be rather beautiful and right.
I am not that much in favour of baby or bteastfeeding rooms as they tend to isolate or exclude the very people who need to be included (having had four children I know how isolated young families (especially Mums) can be - and midweek groups are no substitute for Sunday services.
Pax
Thanks to L & J
L: "Preparing to feed our 2 month old I was 'invited' to use the ladies' toilet to save the
Embarrassment of those around me. When I got there it was a room with a loo and a sink! I retreated to the car and fed there before leaving. Our family of four hasn't been back."
J: "When I was feeding our youngest after a service the Vicar came and asked whether we were warm enough. He also made sure someone brought me a cup of tea (and choccie biscuits) and treated it all as if it was an everyday occurence. This was a deciding factor in our remaining in that church. That said, I have experienced people who tutted and made a fuss. Perhaps that was why they were full of old folk who wondered why their church was empty and dying."
I find it sad that some twenty years on Church still appears to be variable on this issue. Personally, I don't have a problem with it and have never found those who do breadtfeed to be anything other than discrete and the whole thing to be rather beautiful and right.
I am not that much in favour of baby or bteastfeeding rooms as they tend to isolate or exclude the very people who need to be included (having had four children I know how isolated young families (especially Mums) can be - and midweek groups are no substitute for Sunday services.
Pax
Thanks to L & J
Sunday, 14 August 2011
Ordinariate - dodgy dealings?
It wasn't that long ago a certain Anglican organisation voted to give a large sum to the Ordinariate causing a fair degree of (rightly placed) criticism. Seems that another dose of inordinate dodginess is to be found within the dealings of a PCC which gave their ordinariate bound dog-collar a £3k 'leaving gift' and then resigned their memberships to follow him!!
I continue to be amazed (and depressed) at the degree of duplicity and dodginess of many who have left for the Elysian fields of Rome. Mind you, perhaps I shouldn't be, seems to be one of their enduring hallmarks :(
Meanwhile, others remain with their integrity and maintain their call ;)
Pax
I continue to be amazed (and depressed) at the degree of duplicity and dodginess of many who have left for the Elysian fields of Rome. Mind you, perhaps I shouldn't be, seems to be one of their enduring hallmarks :(
Meanwhile, others remain with their integrity and maintain their call ;)
Pax
Church and partiality
"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good!"
The words of Samuel Johnson are, and have been for a long time, something that has challenged and shaped my faith life. So often I have come across Church when it is brown-nosing, cowtowing and pusillanimously, Uriah Heap like, snivelling around those whom society assumes are important. We place 'reserved' labels on our pews and push the plebs to the rear of the church building. We preach sermons which tell our dignitaries that not only are they the 'first citizens' but tell them how God will call them 'good and faithful servants' when the final whistle blows!
Whenever I see the Church showing partiality I think of Johnson's words and those of James 2 (1 - 10):
"My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favouritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here's a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?
If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbour as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."
simple stuff - we treat all the same regardless. Isn't that how the grace we claim for ourselves works?
Pax
The words of Samuel Johnson are, and have been for a long time, something that has challenged and shaped my faith life. So often I have come across Church when it is brown-nosing, cowtowing and pusillanimously, Uriah Heap like, snivelling around those whom society assumes are important. We place 'reserved' labels on our pews and push the plebs to the rear of the church building. We preach sermons which tell our dignitaries that not only are they the 'first citizens' but tell them how God will call them 'good and faithful servants' when the final whistle blows!
Whenever I see the Church showing partiality I think of Johnson's words and those of James 2 (1 - 10):
"My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favouritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here's a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?
If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbour as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."
simple stuff - we treat all the same regardless. Isn't that how the grace we claim for ourselves works?
Pax
Friday, 12 August 2011
UK Riots
Listened to an interesting news piece on London riots. French expert explained how the British had such a wide division between rich and poor, unlike egalitarian France, and that this was the root of our problems. The French merely rioted as part of the process of exercising their rights!
The American was scared that the break down of law and order would ruin the Olympics and said that in America things would have been dealt with in a more effective way to prevent such things.
The British voice thought that we should look at parenting and visit punishment on parents and the whole family. They took the line, "If we hurt them all they will police their own!"
The politician pointed to our 'Dunkirk spirit' and applauded the nation for its response with 'tea, sympathy and brooms'
Seems that's it sorted them!!!
Pax
Thursday, 11 August 2011
UK Riots - not bookish sorts
I was quite surprised by one of the BBC's accounts of the looting of shops in that, 'Looters cleared the stock of Currys, Claire's Accessories & Phones4U, nearby Waterstone's was left 'without a scratch'!"
Seems that earrings, mobiles, White goods and electronic consumer goods define those who seek to engage in out of hours shopping (AKA looting). So it seems that the assessments of the experts in that those who are doing the stealing are an educated and marginalised unemployed bunch of the poorest in our nation. So, taking into account the views of others:
• if we remove those who are caught from social housing, remove their housing benefits and take away all and any other benefits they might receive - how fo we address the issues of this underclass?
• if they have nowhere to live and no income, how will they get the money to live other than by theft (for they will become untouchables and uneanted) and do the response fuels the very acts that we condn.
• what lessons will the children of the new underclass learn? Having seen the way other
marginalised groups (taking as a 'for example' the case of Tinker/Traveller families) are received and the way they live within communities, it seems that neither side will see anything that enhances, or remedies, the situation!
This is not about underclasses but about thriving classes and we need some joined up, literate and balanced responses, notify 'flogging, jailing, or whatever'
Pax
postscript
Been thinking and praying things through and wonder how we touch those who engage in rioting and other anti-social acts both on terms of punishment and Christian endeavour?
Seems that earrings, mobiles, White goods and electronic consumer goods define those who seek to engage in out of hours shopping (AKA looting). So it seems that the assessments of the experts in that those who are doing the stealing are an educated and marginalised unemployed bunch of the poorest in our nation. So, taking into account the views of others:
• if we remove those who are caught from social housing, remove their housing benefits and take away all and any other benefits they might receive - how fo we address the issues of this underclass?
• if they have nowhere to live and no income, how will they get the money to live other than by theft (for they will become untouchables and uneanted) and do the response fuels the very acts that we condn.
• what lessons will the children of the new underclass learn? Having seen the way other
marginalised groups (taking as a 'for example' the case of Tinker/Traveller families) are received and the way they live within communities, it seems that neither side will see anything that enhances, or remedies, the situation!
This is not about underclasses but about thriving classes and we need some joined up, literate and balanced responses, notify 'flogging, jailing, or whatever'
Pax
postscript
Been thinking and praying things through and wonder how we touch those who engage in rioting and other anti-social acts both on terms of punishment and Christian endeavour?
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
The 'fog of war'
Whilst touring the English Civil War battlefield site of Naseby last week I was intrigued by the origin of the term 'fog of war' and how it was ascribed to the powder smoke of the many muskets drifting across the field of combat. The smoke obscured much and added greatly to the confusion such that the whole outcome of engagements could be changed.
This seems to be a key factor in the battles we wage within Christian circles too!
Recently I have been engaged in dialogue over a few issues where (other) people have been led into positions of confusion by the smoke that is ad hominem, foggy and clouded thinking and tricks of the light (or should that be 'dark'?).
When we consider issues, we need to do so openly. We need to be honest about the spin we put on things, the straw men we bring to the party and our reasons for thinking as we do (and for trying to sell our position to others too!).
Seems to me that wanting things to be as we would like them to be is neither theologically or even logically sound. That revisiting the issues that challenge our desires with a view to rewriting them in our favour is enough fog to hand the skirmish and, for some, the battle over to the enemy.
Out in the open, clearly seen, not in the shadows or amidst the fog - that is the Christian way.
Pax
This seems to be a key factor in the battles we wage within Christian circles too!
Recently I have been engaged in dialogue over a few issues where (other) people have been led into positions of confusion by the smoke that is ad hominem, foggy and clouded thinking and tricks of the light (or should that be 'dark'?).
When we consider issues, we need to do so openly. We need to be honest about the spin we put on things, the straw men we bring to the party and our reasons for thinking as we do (and for trying to sell our position to others too!).
Seems to me that wanting things to be as we would like them to be is neither theologically or even logically sound. That revisiting the issues that challenge our desires with a view to rewriting them in our favour is enough fog to hand the skirmish and, for some, the battle over to the enemy.
Out in the open, clearly seen, not in the shadows or amidst the fog - that is the Christian way.
Pax
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)