Church with a difference? Do they exist?

antiskeptic

Over the course of perhaps 5 years, our (my wife and I) appetite for regularly attending church has declined to the point where we simply don't bother anymore.

The core problem appears to boil down to lack of depth found in what's on offer.

- the sermons/teaching are typically lightweight, surface scratching and repetitive. Spiritual milk rather than meat and 2 veg.

- there appears to be a large amount of groupthink going on: people of a particular theology stay, people of alternative theologies leave, resulting in a sort of Amish community of inbred belief. God forbid any real examination of the ideas held about God, ideas which appear to be the product of theologies arrived at years ago and which are assumed correct simply because they've become established.

- the ambition of the leaders to support, encourage, challenge people to higher spiritual plains appears absent. There's a comfortable cosiness to church with precious little focus on growth or discomfort. People turn up with their Christian face on, do their Sunday stint and move on. Outside what might occur in closer personal relationships, there is no vulnerability and no examination of the veneer we present (nice, smiling, "isn't God great"). When in fact, people are facing all kinds of personal tragedies, when people are involved in all sorts of sin)


In short, church is as dull and unappetizing as ditchwater. Yes, there is community. Yes, worship can be nourishing. But is this really it? I can't help thinking of church, in the way it's being "done" as 'spat out of the mouth lukewarm' - given the ambition behind the biblical exhortation towards (and promise of) growth.

I'm not talking the big churches here (CoI, Methodist etc). I'm speaking of the (arguably more) cutting edge kind of churches which aren't weighed down by systems arrived at over centuries.

I may be coming across as overly negative, but it's something my wife and I and others have discussed and we conclude there certainly is a high degree of truth in our observation and experience.

Does anyone agree?

Is there hidden (for we have looked) out there a church with a difference? One which is, comparatively speaking, blazing a trail in the Dublin (or so) area. Something spirit-aware (but not Pentecostal) and theologically investigative/curious.

Suggestions by PM if preferred.


Cheers

uck51js9zml2yt

Not sure what you mean by"spirit aware" or "trailblazing" I do know how you feel though.


I've been with the same group for over 30 years. Not sure if we're "trailblazing" but having been around Dublin for over 40 years we've seen most of whats gone on.

Jellybaby1

Yes, I quite understand how you feel. I regularly feel like walking away from it all. My own faith is strong and that's what has kept me in the church, certainly not what is dished up on a Sunday morning.

antiskeptic

Anika Beautiful Somewhere wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by"spirit aware" or "trailblazing" I do know how you feel though.

Our observation has been that churches fall into two broad categories:

- theologically focused. Although reference is made to the action and movement of the spirit (because it's there in black and white) there is no real expectation of such action or focus on how we might partnership with God in his acting thus. You would see, for example, prayer for wisdom for the doctors in dealing with someone in the church whose sick. But not for healing from God.

Very much in the head

- action-of-the-spirit focused (Pentecostal). Theological rigor tends to be left at the door and everything is available through the Spirit.

Very much in the heart

By spirit aware I mean something that involves both sides. Preparedness for action of the Spirit, disciplined and guided by sound, rigorous theology.

With "blazing a trail" I used the word 'comparatively. I've no wish to offend but a formalized CoI service is about as dry as it comes, yet even the evangelical runs out of puff when you want something beyond milk.

To go beyond this (to be challenging, ambitious, balanced (spirit/theology), etc) would, given the dearth of such churches (in my experience), blazing a trail.

I've been with the same group for over 30 years. Not sure if we're "trailblazing" but having been around Dublin for over 40 years we've seen most of whats gone on.

It might be (indeed is more likely to be) something smaller than an established church who is 'blazing a trail'. I've no calling to establish something myself but find it hard to believe that no one has been called to establish something beyond the current.

Or maybe it was never meant that churches be established as they have been established. Perhaps they are, by their very nature, doomed to the pitfalls already noted?

homer911

The life of the church is often not in the Sunday Morning service - its in the prayer meetings, praise services, home groups, fellowship groups, alpha courses, Sunday schools, youth groups.. - don't judge the book by its cover.
Its easy to sit on the outside and pass comments and verdicts but to truly experience a particular church you need to fully engage and see it from the inside, and participate in the organization and admin - give rather than receive


I remember once going to an evening service at All Souls, Langham Place. The church was packed to the rafters, mainly with students, all taking notes on a sermon which was long and detailed. I wonder how many of these students were otherwise involved in the life of the church? I wonder how attractive this kind of service was to casual seekers or unchurched? Of course there is room for all types - the independent evangelical churches are probably the closest to what you are looking for

uck51js9zml2yt

I suppose the difference with us and a lot of the present day churches is that we were born in revival and had good theological teaching with it.

antiskeptic

homer911 wrote: »

The life of the church is often not in the Sunday Morning service - its in the prayer meetings, praise services, home groups, fellowship groups, alpha courses, Sunday schools, youth groups.. - don't judge the book by its cover.

Agreed.

Its easy to sit on the outside and pass comments and verdicts but to truly experience a particular church you need to fully engage and see it from the inside, and participate in the organization and admin - give rather than receive

The thing is that I and my wife have sat on the inside of various churches and have seen that what is true of the overarching vision of the church is replicated in the layers that make up the whole. Sure, you might well get a bible study that pushes beyond what a poor Sunday service preaching obtains to. But it is hard to imagine (and experience says otherwise) that you will get a fullness in the sum of the parts that isn't existing in the overarching vision. Indeed, the overarching vision will arise from the sum of the parts.

Thus, if you walk into a new church, spend a few weeks there, find the overarching to be dull and uninspired, you draw your conclusion (i.e. it is unlikely that if I spend more time here I'm going to find vitality and fullness in the various sub-sets that make up the whole.

I remember once going to an evening service at All Souls, Langham Place. The church was packed to the rafters, mainly with students, all taking notes on a sermon which was long and detailed. I wonder how many of these students were otherwise involved in the life of the church?

I would imagine more chance they were than if faced with a dull sermon.

I wonder how attractive this kind of service was to casual seekers or unchurched?

Given the spirit need be awakened/stirred in order to find any service attractive, I imagine this service more attractive than that which is lightweight. Certainly being in the company of enthusiastic people is more interesting than being in the company of those who asleep

the independent evangelical churches are probably the closest to what you are looking for

They are the ones I'm talking of. Classic CoI and the like (the various I've visited) are simply not at the races. Indeed, you can see church closures/amalgamations coming up in those churches in the next 10-15 years, judging by the age profile of the congregation.

homer911

Where are you located antiskeptic? - maybe we can make some recommendations. I grew up in the CoI and left it for the same reasons you list. In my ignorance I thought that all CoI churches were like what I was used to, but I now know there are some excellent exceptions. I was in a small independent evangelical church for about 8 years before moving to a very evangelical Presbyterian church. Since then we have had a variety of ministers, all with different gifts - you will be challenged to find one good at everything - sometimes if you get the great teaching, they will be poor at pastoral work, outreach, community, music etc, so you will never find the perfect church, and as someone once said, if they joined the perfect church, it would no longer be perfect!

uck51js9zml2yt

homer911 wrote: »

Where are you located antiskeptic? - maybe we can make some recommendations. I grew up in the CoI and left it for the same reasons you list. In my ignorance I thought that all CoI churches were like what I was used to, but I now know there are some excellent exceptions. I was in a small independent evangelical church for about 8 years before moving to a very evangelical Presbyterian church. Since then we have had a variety of ministers, all with different gifts - you will be challenged to find one good at everything - sometimes if you get the great teaching, they will be poor at pastoral work, outreach, community, music etc, so you will never find the perfect church, and as someone once said, if they joined the perfect church, it would no longer be perfect!

It was never intended for the "leadership team" or pastor or whoever to do everything that's why the Spirit gives gifts to all.
Of course if you don't believe in the Spiritual Gifts being for now then theres a problem and the church doesn't function as it should.

I had an interesting conversation with someone from one of the big "megachurches" in Dublin. They said they only had a core group of about 50 who did everything and participated.

antiskeptic

homer911 wrote: »

Where are you located antiskeptic? - maybe we can make some recommendations.

South Dublin/Wicklow would be great but we've travelled into town and would again.

I grew up in the CoI and left it for the same reasons you list. In my ignorance I thought that all CoI churches were like what I was used to, but I now know there are some excellent exceptions. I was in a small independent evangelical church for about 8 years before moving to a very evangelical Presbyterian church. Since then we have had a variety of ministers, all with different gifts - you will be challenged to find one good at everything - sometimes if you get the great teaching, they will be poor at pastoral work, outreach, community, music etc, so you will never find the perfect church, and as someone once said, if they joined the perfect church, it would no longer be perfect!

I would have been hoping for great leadership - that which would identify and bring forth the gifts that the many have. I was in a church once, and the teaching was shared amongst a good number of teachers - each who had plenty of time to assemble a message. These were topped up by occasional visits by outside preachers, picked on the basis of their ability to deliver a top drawer encouraging, challenging or informative message. This chopping and changing kept things interesting and alive, compared to the scenario where the same preacher is there every week, with perhaps limited time to delve in preparation. That was, I think, an example of wise leadership.

I suppose you've seen Fergus Ryan at work at some point. He's about the only person I've witnessed who is able to 'deliver' week after week. But it's that kind of calibre that ought (I would have thought) be aimed for - with, perhaps, the notion of multiple+visiting teachers a way to go.

homer911

Anika Beautiful Somewhere wrote: »

It was never intended for the "leadership team" or pastor or whoever to do everything that's why the Spirit gives gifts to all.
Of course if you don't believe in the Spiritual Gifts being for now then theres a problem and the church doesn't function as it should.

Fair point - unfortunately different people have different expectations of a minister. In the Presbyterian Church most of the pastoral work is carried out by the Elders so that wasn't a great example

uck51js9zml2yt

homer911 wrote: »

Fair point - unfortunately different people have different expectations of a minister. In the Presbyterian Church most of the pastoral work is carried out by the Elders so that wasn't a great example

Then they need to return to a biblical model !

keano_afc

antiskeptic wrote: »

South Dublin/Wicklow would be great but we've travelled into town and would again.



I would have been hoping for great leadership - that which would identify and bring forth the gifts that the many have. I was in a church once, and the teaching was shared amongst a good number of teachers - each who had plenty of time to assemble a message. These were topped up by occasional visits by outside preachers, picked on the basis of their ability to deliver a top drawer encouraging, challenging or informative message. This chopping and changing kept things interesting and alive, compared to the scenario where the same preacher is there every week, with perhaps limited time to delve in preparation. That was, I think, an example of wise leadership.

I suppose you've seen Fergus Ryan at work at some point. He's about the only person I've witnessed who is able to 'deliver' week after week. But it's that kind of calibre that ought (I would have thought) be aimed for - with, perhaps, the notion of multiple+visiting teachers a way to go.

We're located in Shankill and we're a bible believing Christian church based on new testament principles. We break bread every Sunday at 10am and have our teaching time for the adults/Sunday school for the kids at 11:30, after a short coffee break.

The teaching is shared amongst the men - one of our elders is also our full time worker and he would teach maybe twice a month. We have visiting speakers every few weeks - we actually have Mickey Walker coming to speak on Sunday.

Happy to give any more info if needed.

Juggler101

An aside, which churches in Dublin do you consider megachurches?

Anika Beautiful Somewhere wrote: »

I had an interesting conversation with someone from one of the big "megachurches" in Dublin. They said they only had a core group of about 50 who did everything and participated.

uck51js9zml2yt

Juggler101 wrote: »

An aside, which churches in Dublin do you consider megachurches?

Which churches in Dublin say they have circa 400+ congregations?

Juggler101

Anika Beautiful Somewhere wrote: »

Which churches in Dublin say they have circa 400+ congregations?[/QUOTE

I know very little about Dublin churches, hence the question I do like to look at their websites, listen to their services etc. If they are big churches, I'm assuming they have that kind of thing online, and could be of use to me. Any info is helpful!

uck51js9zml2yt

Juggler101 wrote: »

Anika Beautiful Somewhere wrote: »

Which churches in Dublin say they have circa 400+ congregations?[/QUOTE

I know very little about Dublin churches, hence the question I do like to look at their websites, listen to their services etc. If they are big churches, I'm assuming they have that kind of thing online, and could be of use to me. Any info is helpful!

St marks or trinity are probably ones to try but as I said, some of these big churches only have a handful of core members which makes me wonder what the rest are doing there!

Jellybaby1

Anika Beautiful Somewhere wrote: »

St marks or trinity are probably ones to try but as I said, some of these big churches only have a handful of core members which makes me wonder what the rest are doing there!

Very harsh comment. I've heard the old saying 'too many chiefs and not enough indians'. If everyone is a leader, who are you leading?

uck51js9zml2yt

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Very harsh comment. I've heard the old saying 'too many chiefs and not enough indians'. If everyone is a leader, who are you leading?

"How is it when you come together that everyone has..."

Berserker

Anika Beautiful Somewhere wrote: »

Which churches in Dublin say they have circa 400+ congregations?

What non-RC churches in Dublin city centre have congregations of more than 400 people on a Sunday, if you don't mind me asking? St Marks doesn't have that many.

Juggler101 wrote: »

some of these big churches only have a handful of core members which makes me wonder what the rest are doing there!

And those core members can be very protective of their "turf". My OH was always very active in her church in Vancouver, prior to her move here and she has been taken aback by the closed nature of some of the churches here. Latvian friends of hers said the exact same of thing. We used to attend a church in Dublin 8, which was very open but that has changed over the past year or so.

uck51js9zml2yt

Berserker wrote: »

What non-RC churches in Dublin city centre have congregations of more than 400 people on a Sunday, if you don't mind me asking? St Marks doesn't have that many.

Looks like things have changed for them!



Edit: I was thinking about this earlier and remembered that they have a lot of satellite churches around the country.

It would certainly put them over the 400 mark based on the size of some of the satellites.

But as I said things have changed for them. They had large numbers in the 80'swhich necessitated the move to their current location. They then grew in pearse st but dont seem to be as big as they were from what people here are saying.

Jellybaby1

Its a long time since I was in St. Mark's but not sure if it would even hold that many but I could be wrong. It could be one of the RCCG (Nigerian) churches though. Also, there was one independent church that had huge numbers attending but since closed down due to the court case.

Nick Park

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Its a long time since I was in St. Mark's but not sure if it would even hold that many but I could be wrong. It could be one of the RCCG (Nigerian) churches though. Also, there was one independent church that had huge numbers attending but since closed down due to the court case.

St. Mark's does have three services on a Sunday - 10am, 11.45am and 1.30pm - so I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers of different people attending each Sunday add up to more than 400.

There are 2 Romanian churches that regularly run more than 400. Last time I visited the Betel Pentecostal Church, which meets in Abbey Presbyterian, on a Sunday evening there were over 700 adults in attendance and over 200 children in a downstairs hall. Also the Betania Pentecostal Church in Damastown regularly packs in between 600 and 700 on a Sunday evening.

However, given the language barrier, these are probably not what the OP is looking for.

Jellybaby1

Yes, probably not good if there is a language difference! You've reminded me of Abbey Presbyterian basement hall - I have a really happy memory of that place from when I was a very young child.

antiskeptic

I made this point in another thread, in response to JC's assertion that atheists frequently know more about Christianity than Christians.

If my own experience (detailed in the "Church with a difference?" thread) is anything to go by, then hardly surprising.

I've taken to listening to online sermons for prospective new churches to save time actually heading into the church on a Sunday. It truly beggars belief how un-challenging and stale the teaching is.

Heck, I ventured out last Sunday and had already switched off the sermon when I heard an analogy being delivered, which I must have first heard during a seekers Alpha Course 15 years ago.

You know the one in which the Judge must convict the guilty person of the crime, but then steps down from the dock, takes out his wallet and pays the fine himself.

What on earth a Christian congregation is doing listening to this on a Sunday is simply beyond me.

An atheist anyway engaged in defending his "faith" will quickly find himself having dug deeper into Christianity than this.

I was pondering Paul's "being content in every situation" in light of my not being, in light of a Christian friend going through a really tough time not at all being. Paul was writing from a jail cell in Rome: seat of the Colosseum, seat of Christians being burnt alive, seat of his own death.

Warfare theology sees God involved in a war with evil and Christians enlisted men. Christ, coming down to earth is analogous to the D-Day landings: him landing alone on the beach and forming a beachhead for the troops that would land after him. Those first troops were the early Christians and just with the D-Day landings, the casualty rate could be expected to be and was, high.

But the D-Day landings were just the beginning of the battle, the ultimate goal being the final defeat of the enemy. More troops were to land, more battles were to be fought. Armour of God .. and all that.

This is but one context for my criticism of Church today. There seems to me to be a huge disconnect between the nature of the task (an ongoing war) and the nature of the Christian activity.

Would you see Christian activity (the stuff around you) as involving all that could be expected of troops active at the front line (or people behind the lines actively engaged in supporting the war effort)? Or would you see Christian activity as being far removed from such focus and effort: sitting far from the front line sipping martini's by the pool whilst others battle and die on the field of battle?

Ii'm not suggesting that we all head off on missions. The battle can, of course, as much take place within as without.

In that regard, the Church, as a place where the troops can rest and recuperate, share tactics, plan offensive/defensive strategy, have wounds attended to, be promoted (and demoted)

.. simply isn't at the races.

Nick Park

antiskeptic wrote: »

I made this point in another thread, in response to JC's assertion that atheists frequently know more about Christianity than Christians.





I was pondering Paul's "being content in every situation" in light of my not being, in light of a Christian friend going through a really tough time not at all being. Paul was writing from a jail cell in Rome: seat of the Colosseum, seat of Christians being burnt alive, seat of his own death.

Warfare theology sees God involved in a war with evil and Christians enlisted men. Christ, coming down to earth is analogous to the D-Day landings: him landing alone on the beach and forming a beachhead for the troops that would land after him. Those first troops were the early Christians and just with the D-Day landings, the casualty rate could be expected to be and was, high.

But the D-Day landings were just the beginning of the battle, the ultimate goal being the final defeat of the enemy. More troops were to land, more battles were to be fought. Armour of God .. and all that.

This is but one context for my criticism of Church today. There seems to me to be a huge disconnect between the nature of the task (an ongoing war) and the nature of the Christian activity.

Would you see Christian activity (the stuff around you) as involving all that could be expected of troops active at the front line (or people behind the lines actively engaged in supporting the war effort)? Or would you see Christian activity as being far removed from such focus and effort: sitting far from the front line sipping martini's by the pool whilst others battle and die on the field of battle?

Ii'm not suggesting that we all head off on missions. The battle can, of course, as much take place within as without.

In that regard, the Church, as a place where the troops can rest and recuperate, share tactics, plan offensive/defensive strategy, have wounds attended to, be promoted (and demoted)

.. simply isn't at the races.

I think it depends how Sunday morning services fit into this warfare theology.

It sounds like you are wanting the Sunday morning service to be primarily for Christians - teaching, equipping and encouraging them. This was certainly the common perception when I first became a Christian (our Sunday morning services back then were called 'The Holiness Meeting' with Sunday nights being 'The Salvation Meeting' when unbelievers were more likely to attend and hear a presentation of the Gospel.)

Today, however, more and more churches have discovered that the most likely time when a visitor will come to a church activity is on a Sunday morning. So increasingly Sunday morning services are designed with such visitors in mind. If we keep your warfare analogy then such services are serving as the Army Recruitment Office!

This is no excuse for preaching in such services to be shallow, but it does mean that fairly basic Christian concepts cannot just be assumed to be understood, but need explaining to an increasingly biblically illiterate population. As a preacher, I am very aware that almost every Sunday morning I am speaking to first-time visitors and to people with a very limited grasp of what Christianity is all about. My goal is often to present Christ to them, and to encourage more established Christians to dig deeper into the Word in their own time.

The real preparation of Christians for the battles they face is probably better done through interaction in small groups, where there is a shared commitment to one another, rather than on a Sunday morning. And that may be much more akin to New Testament Christianity than our traditional models.

antiskeptic

Nick Park wrote: »

As a preacher, I am very aware that almost every Sunday morning I am speaking to first-time visitors and to people with a very limited grasp of what Christianity is all about. My goal is often to present Christ to them, and to encourage more established Christians to dig deeper into the Word in their own time.

The question then is how the established Christians are to become established? They are not going to become very established listening to how the Judge gets out of his chair to pay the fine of the convicted. Or how the gospel is one of grace and not works.

-

Continuing the war analogy, it seems there is a requirement for the troops to gain expertise, have talent identified, take up leadership roles (whether N.C.O's or commissioned officers) in order to enable succession (there being casualties in war). And that takes leadership. Leadership to build the necessary structure, to provide guidance, encouragement ... and perhaps, to issue a kick up the arse at times.

Leaving-to-own-devices won't achieve that. Sure, an individual might make progress, but the progress (and benefits of the progress) remain largely theirs. You're not getting the benefit of combined, focused effort. Not getting the benefit of having a goal towards which there is a team effort.

Leaving largely to own devices lies on a par with individual soldiers being given a general direction ("there's the enemy, there's the front") and being left to it. Attracting new recruits is important of course. But surely not acceptable to pull them in a the recruitment office, then, without training, weapons, support and direction, send them off to war.


Having done something of the rounds, the lack of progress, the lack of ambition, the lack of growth, the bewilderment and disillusionment when things turn difficult - that which you would expect to see if people were being left un-led, being left to own devices - is precisely what is observed.

The real preparation of Christians for the battles they face is probably better done through interaction in small groups, where there is a shared commitment to one another, rather than on a Sunday morning. And that may be much more akin to New Testament Christianity than our traditional models.

Agreed in principle. But in practice, small groups tend to be made up of people living in the same locality rather than being made up of people fit to occupy the various roles that might be required. Only slightly less problematic than every man for his individual self. One group might have a sense of ambitious mission because a few individuals within that group have that vision. The next 3 or 4 groups might have no such ambition and loll along.

Without an overarching vision / strategy / enabling structure, the objectives achieved must fall short of the potential, by reason of scattered assets.

Now we know that Christ's church will prevail and we know that Christs church is made up of imperfect people. But there is praise and criticism given to each church from the Head. Which supposes there are better and worse ways of advancing the church.


-

When I consider the magnitude of Christs mission, then consider the war-footing of the present day church I see a huge disparity. Could the church be said to be storming the beaches. Or is it sitting back at home, far from the front, sipping martini's by the pool?

Nick Park

Berserker wrote: »

What non-RC churches in Dublin city centre have congregations of more than 400 people on a Sunday, if you don't mind me asking? St Marks doesn't have that many.

St Mark's certainly does have that many.

I preached in all 3 services at St Mark's yesterday and, remembering this thread, I did a head count in each service. (This was a pretty normal Sunday - my reputation certainly won't swell the numbers).

10am - 220
11.45am - 320
1.30pm - 100

Allowing for the fact that a team of volunteers & workers were present for all 3 services, I would still estimate that 600 different people worshipped in St Mark's yesterday.

Now, these figures are just for adults. The children no longer come in for the first part of the service and then leave for Sunday School classes. They are dropped off at another building. So, given normal ratios I see in other churches, 600 adults in attendance must mean another 100-150 kids.

So I would state, with a fair degree of confidence, that in total St Mark's is probably attracting over 700 on a Sunday.

Jellybaby1

I've chatted to some people over the year who have left their Protestant churches and headed straight for churches such as St. Mark's and similar simply because they feel disappointed, frustrated, with their own churches. I can't say for sure what the underlying reason for leaving is but it must take a lot to leave the church/religion you grew up in to join a different style of church. I've also met a couple of people who left the community churches to rejoin the CoI. On the other side of the coin, I'm meeting more and more people who have left the RC church and joined the CoI. There seems to be a continuous flow of people in and out of just about everywhere.

Berserker

Nick Park wrote: »

St Mark's certainly does have that many.

I preached in all 3 services at St Mark's yesterday and, remembering this thread, I did a head count in each service. (This was a pretty normal Sunday - my reputation certainly won't swell the numbers).

10am - 220
11.45am - 320
1.30pm - 100

Are you sure it's not because you were preaching? Aside from that, many thanks for the information. Didn't think that there were that many people attending that church. That's a healthy congregation.

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

I'm meeting more and more people who have left the RC church and joined the CoI.

We used to go to St Catherine's in D8 and we were always bumping into people in this category. Wonder what the CoI numbers were like in the latest census.

Mancomb Seepgood

Berserker wrote: »

We used to go to St Catherine's in D8 and we were always bumping into people in this category. Wonder what the CoI numbers were like in the latest census.

Down slightly to the best of my recollection.This is just a guess but as churches such as St Catherine's are a little out of the mainstream for the Church of Ireland and not a traditional parish,a lot of attendees may not identify as CoI and may well write in "Christian",""Evangelical" or "other Christian" on the census.

Peregrinus

Berserker wrote: »

We used to go to St Catherine's in D8 and we were always bumping into people in this category. Wonder what the CoI numbers were like in the latest census.

Up in absolute terms (from 124,445 in 2011 to 126,414 in 2016) but down in relative terms (from 2.75% to 2.61%).

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

I've chatted to some people over the year who have left their Protestant churches and headed straight for churches such as St. Mark's and similar simply because they feel disappointed, frustrated, with their own churches. I can't say for sure what the underlying reason for leaving is but it must take a lot to leave the church/religion you grew up in to join a different style of church. I've also met a couple of people who left the community churches to rejoin the CoI. On the other side of the coin, I'm meeting more and more people who have left the RC church and joined the CoI. There seems to be a continuous flow of people in and out of just about everywhere.

"Churn", they call it in the marketing world. We don't have hard figures on this but, yes, it's definitely up. A generation or two ago church membership came with a whole community, and a place in that community, and (even leaving aside matters of faith) to change churches was a big wrench, and people didn't do it lightly. Nowadays this is much less the case; socially, emotionally and practically, moving from one church to another is not nearly such a big deal and, as you'd expect, people are more ready to do it.

There's also a Catholic/Protestant thing going on here. For the Catholic tradition, Christianity has to be lived communally, and your communion with your fellow-Christians is central. That communion is expressed through the institutional church, and therefore to leave the institutional church, even to go to another church, is a huge wrench. Whereas a more Protestant perspective is that the church is constituted by shared baptism, and moving from one denomination to another is no big deal.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Continuing the war analogy, it seems there is a requirement for the troops to gain expertise, have talent identified, take up leadership roles (whether N.C.O's or commissioned officers) in order to enable succession (there being casualties in war). And that takes leadership. Leadership to build the necessary structure, to provide guidance, encouragement ... and perhaps, to issue a kick up the arse at times.

With respect, given all that's going on in the world with ISIS and other deeply unpleasant military conflict, I'd suggest that war is a truly awful analogy and mindset for what is non-violent discourse. Placing those who share your faith in the role of soldiers and paints everyone else as the enemy, is this really your intent?

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

With respect, given all that's going on in the world with ISIS and other deeply unpleasant military conflict, I'd suggest that war is a truly awful analogy and mindset for what is non-violent discourse. Placing those who share your faith in the role of soldiers and paints everyone else as the enemy, is this really your intent?

So no more talk of 'combatting' poverty, 'fighting' homelessness etc?

Or is this political correctness by the speech police only to apply to Christians?

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

So no more talk of 'combatting' poverty, 'fighting' homelessness etc?

You don't see many references to military theology, the D-day landings and arming the troops so much when talking about combatting poverty or fighting homelessness now do you? It smacks more of Bush's war on terror and grinding down the 'axis of evil'.

Or is this political correctness by the speech police only to apply to Christians?

Nope, it is simply a concern that such analogies seem intent of polarising opinion into opposing groups with the aim of causing conflict. I wouldn't consider that in any way typical of the mindset of those Christians that I know. Would you?

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Nope, it is simply a concern that such analogies seem intent of polarising opinion into opposing groups with the aim of causing conflict. I wouldn't consider that in any way typical of the mindset of those Christians that I know. Would you?

I don't think they show any such intent at all to any fair-minded person of even average intelligence.

The New Testament uses military analogies, even though the church at the time the New Testament was being written were strongly pacifists (to the extent that members were excommunicated if they joined the military or even took a post as a civil magistrate where they might be called upon to sanction violence).

Christians use military metaphors just like sportspeople, those in the retail sector or a hundred other walks of life. I've yet to meet anyone who honestly thought that this meant they viewed other people as 'the enemy'. We need to give people credit for having at least a slight amount of cop-on.

The enemy, as far as Christians are concerned, is the devil and all the sin and misery he brings to humanity.

It's sad Christians can't have a discussion among themselves in the Christianity forum, using biblical imagery and metaphors, without being subjected to this kind of half-witted nonsense from the usual suspects.

Nick Park

Peregrinus wrote: »

Whereas a more Protestant perspective is that the church is constituted by shared baptism, and moving from one denomination to another is no big deal.

Probably more about a shared faith, rather than a shared baptism. Which is why most of us quite happily acknowledge Quakers and the Salvation Army as fellow-Christians.

smacl

I don't think they show any such intent at all to any fair-minded person of even average intelligence.

Nick Park wrote: »

It's sad Christians can't have a discussion among themselves in the Christianity forum, using biblical imagery and metaphors, without being subjected to this kind of half-witted nonsense from the usual suspects.

Seriously Nick, that's your best response to concerns raised that excessive military analogy leads to polarised positions? You do realise that this is an open forum that welcomes both Christian and non-Christian opinion, as you seem to meet every contrary opinion with anger?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

With respect, given all that's going on in the world with ISIS and other deeply unpleasant military conflict, I'd suggest that war is a truly awful analogy and mindset for what is non-violent discourse. Placing those who share your faith in the role of soldiers and paints everyone else as the enemy, is this really your intent?

You'd have to find where it was I referred to everyone else as the enemy. The warfare analogy is a fitting one..


…11Put on the full armor of God, so that you can make your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this world's darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.



Not that one ought see non-Christians as utterly neutral or benign parties. The "whole world lies under the sway and rule of the wicked one", afterall. This doesn't mean we ought be against people. But it helps to know under whose rule they ultimately fall.

This either is the case or it isn't: the world being divided into two quite distinct camps. The Christian perspective says it is and utilises that information in it's understanding of why the world is as it is and how to engage with that world

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You'd have to find where it was I referred to everyone else as the enemy. The warfare analogy is a fitting one..

From the section below

Leaving largely to own devices lies on a par with individual soldiers being given a general direction ("there's the enemy, there's the front") and being left to it. Attracting new recruits is important of course. But surely not acceptable to pull them in a the recruitment office, then, without training, weapons, support and direction, send them off to war

And my reading of the following section is that it clearly advocates polarisation.

This either is the case or it isn't: the world being divided into two quite distinct camps. The Christian perspective says it is and utilises that information in it's understanding of why the world is as it is and how to engage with that world

My opinion is that the position of the Christian being analogous to a soldier in a war to better establish the faith is not one that is prevalent in this country. Most of the Christians that I know would be more of the live and let live variety.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Seriously Nick, that's your best response to concerns raised that excessive military analogy leads to polarised positions? You do realise that this is an open forum that welcomes both Christian and non-Christian opinion, as you seem to meet every contrary opinion with anger?

Not anger. Just fed up with having to wade through trolls and faux outrage in order to discuss common Christian themes with other Christians in a Christian forum.

What next. People complaining that by mentioning Christ's parables about sowing seeds that we are offending farmers, or undermining the EU's common agricultural policy?

Neither antiskeptic nor myself had any notion at all about military analogies meaning that we should treat anyone as enemies.

And I don't for one moment believe that you are stupid enough to think that we did.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

Not anger. Just fed up with having to wade through trolls and faux outrage in order to discuss common Christian themes with other Christians in a Christian forum.

Nobodies forcing you to discuss anything with anyone, Nick, and for the record the post in question wasn't even directed at you. If you don't want to read or reply to my opinion, maybe just add me to your ignore list. Given the charter as it stands it is not for you to say that I can't engage in discussion here and express my opinions. If you think I'm trolling, please feel free to report my posts. I stand by my opinion that excessive use of military analogy in this context is unfortunate at best and potentially damaging. Your opinion clearly differs, so be it.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

From the section below

The only people referenced there are Christians. No people are referenced when it comes to the enemy. I've also added biblical support for my position about it NOT being people who are the enemy.

Nick is on the right track: either it's faux outrage or sloppy argumentation at work here.

And my reading of the following section is that it clearly advocates polarisation.

There is no advocating of anything here. It's a statement of the biblical position; that there is a clear delineation between believers and non.

Would you call my stating there being a distinct difference between Irish citizenship and Lativian citizenship as advocating polarization?

My opinion is that the position of the Christian being analogous to a soldier in a war to better establish the faith is not one that is prevalent in this country. Most of the Christians that I know would be more of the live and let live variety.

I've no problem with living at letting live. That said: I see no issue with my working to have society shaped in the way I see best - given I don't see the issue with anyone else attempting to do the same according to their own world view. May the best man win!

The warfare analogy had more to do with personal development in dealing with the actual enemy (the one stated in scripture rather than the one supposed by yourself) than 'spreading da faith'. The latter is, of course, included, but that wasn't my focus in my beef with the present day church.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

The warfare analogy had more to do with personal development in dealing with the actual enemy (the one stated in scripture rather than the one supposed by yourself) than 'spreading da faith'. The latter is, of course, included, but that wasn't my focus in my beef with the present day church.

But in using a warfare analogy, and declaring "the wicked one" as the enemy, you also say "Not that one ought see non-Christians as utterly neutral or benign parties". You seem to be placing every Christian in the role of soldier ("the troops") in a war against "the wicked one" where non-Christians are potential allies of said wicked one. To me, that comes across as extreme and not a particularly commonly held viewpoint, even if it can be textually supported by the bible.

I get that this stems from your beef with the present day church which you find frustrating. Is it a frustration you see shared by most of those that attend though?

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Nobodies forcing you to discuss anything with anyone, Nick, and for the record the post in question wasn't even directed at you. If you don't want to read or reply to my opinion, maybe just add me to your ignore list. Given the charter as it stands it is not for you to say that I can't engage in discussion here and express my opinions. If you think I'm trolling, please feel free to report my posts. I stand by my opinion that excessive use of military analogy in this context is unfortunate at best and potentially damaging. Your opinion clearly differs, so be it.

Given the charter as it stands, it is not for you to say that I can't point out what you're doing every time you try to derail a discussion among Christians with irrelevancies.

If you have a problem with me doing so, and think that you should be able to derail at will without anyone objecting, then please feel free to report my posts.

Christians should, in a Christianity forum, be able to discuss biblical metaphors together. Your opinion clearly differs. So be it.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

But in using a warfare analogy, and declaring "the wicked one" as the enemy, you also say "Not that one ought see non-Christians as utterly neutral or benign parties". You seem to be placing every Christian in the role of soldier ("the troops") in a war against "the wicked one" where non-Christians are potential allies of said wicked one. To me, that comes across as extreme and not a particularly commonly held viewpoint, even if it can be textually supported by the bible.

I don't know the cohort of Christians your referring to so as to arrive at this 'common' view. If these common Christians are one's who take their guidance from the Bible and have a nodding acquaintance with the idea of a rounded biblical theology, then the view ought be extremely common. If not, I'd be interested in how they park the clear thrust of scripture in this regard. It goes a bit deeper than mere textual support - it a central tenet: the idea of lost/found, on the side of the kingdom of God, under the sway and rule of the evil one.

The weapons of this warfare are different to those employed in worldly warfare however. Love your enemy (who expects you to hate him) rather than hate him as the world would hate him.

This doesn't mean you should forget about who it is who is pulling the strings of the lost. The lost are allied to the evil one by default. They do not fully understand what they doing and certainly don't understand to whom they are aligned.

Take this RTE producer nabbed by a vigilante group a day or two ago. I can understand how he sunk to the depth he did (given that all depths tend to be sunk to in stepwise fashion and we all go down steps to a degree - him just deeper). I also understand something of the enemy's tactics in this regard and the mechanism of the descent (think The Screwtape Letters dealing with how to bring about a man's downfall). This doesn't mean I condone RTEman's actions or would suggest leaving a child anywhere near him.

But I am guided by a different view than the view held and expressed by the vigilante group who simply hate his hateable actions. For all intents and purposes in the world, this man's life is over and there is no recovery for him ever. It is frequently here that a man encounters rebirth, utter forgiveness and restoration. In order to gain his life, a man must lose his old one, one way or the other.

That is the war to be waged: personally and alongside that, for the kingdom of God, to aid the bringing of new life to where there is now only death.

I get that this stems from your beef with the present day church which you find frustrating. Is it a frustration you see shared by most of those that attend though?

My beef with the present day church stands aghast at the disconnect between the clear view of scripture and how church is done. There are certainly many Christians who privately share my view on the lethargy and lack of ambition in the Church.

There are many who have simply drifted away for the same reasons I don't go but perhaps haven't thought about why they've drifted away. They've simply gotten bored with it.

I think too that people get the warfare theology but it's an abstract / head thing: it makes perfect sense and to a degree they apply it in their lives. But they are not aghast at the church lying seemingly asleep at the wheel (in comparison to the ought to rouse / ought to stir pitch of scripture in this regard).

I include myself in this. In my head I'm aghast. But I don't get up off my arse to change things / challenge things either.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't know the cohort of Christians your referring to so as to arrive at this 'common' view. If these common Christians are one's who take their guidance from the Bible and have a nodding acquaintance with the idea of a rounded biblical theology, then the view ought be extremely common. If not, I'd be interested in how they park the clear thrust of scripture in this regard. It goes a bit deeper than mere textual support - it a central tenet: the idea of lost/found, on the side of the kingdom of God, under the sway and rule of the evil one.

Probably a rather narrow cohort to be fair, friends, extended family and the like. More habitual mass goers than people with any deeper analytical interest in theology such as yourself, and at a guess those with the type of attitude that lead to the frustration you talk about with your own church.

The weapons of this warfare are different to those employed in worldly warfare. Love your enemy (who expects you to hate him) rather than hate him as the world would hate him.

This doesn't mean you should forget about who it is who is pulling the strings of the lost.

Take this RTE producer nabbed by a vigilante group. I can understand how he sunk to the depth he did (given that depths tend to be sunk stepwise and we all go down steps to a degree - him just deeper). I also understand something of the enemy's tactics in this regard and the mechanism of the descent (think The Screwtape Letters dealing with how to bring about a man's downfall). This doesn't mean I condone his actions or would suggest leaving a child anywhere near him. But I am guided by a different view than the view held and expressed by the vigilante group who simply hate his hateable actions.

Interesting take on things. My opinion would be that these types of malevolent behaviour have been going on since time in memorial but where they used to be easy to cover up for those with means and power, this is gradually ceasing to be the case. There seems to be a cull of sorts going on among those committing such actions, and while I'm no fan of vigilantism, I think it is healthy to see the space where such people can operate start to evaporate. In this case, I'd be of the opinion that I wouldn't allow the person planning abuse anywhere near a child rather than the reverse.

My beef with the present day church stands aghast at the disconnect between the clear view of scripture and how church is done. There are certainly many Christians who privately share my view on the lethargy and lack of ambition in the Church.

There are many who have simply drifted away for the same reasons I don't go but perhaps haven't thought about why they've drifted away. They've simply gotten bored with it.

I think too that people get the warfare theology but it's an abstract / head thing: it makes perfect sense and to a degree they apply it in their lives. But they are not aghast at the church lying seemingly asleep at the wheel (in comparison to the ought to rouse / ought to stir pitch of scripture in this regard).

I include myself in this. In my head I'm aghast. But I don't get up off my arse to change things / challenge things either.

I think that in the past many attended church more by duty than desire. Modern life has many more distractions and seemingly fewer obligations. I suspect in this country any of the younger generation would be more likely swayed by liberal theology more so than warfare theology, as warfare of any kind isn't considered positive. Best of luck in your search either way, I'm getting the distinct feeling I've outstayed my welcome in this particular thread.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Probably a rather narrow cohort to be fair, friends, extended family and the like. More habitual mass goers than people with any deeper analytical interest in theology such as yourself, and at a guess those with the type of attitude that lead to the frustration you talk about with your own church.

That would have been my suspicion. A mass goer doth not a Christian make. And a blind person (religious or no) is simply unable to see the pictures scripture paints.

Interesting take on things. My opinion would be that these types of malevolent behaviour have been going on since time in memorial

Doubtlessly. One of these ancient, irrelevant texts concluded that there really isn't anything new under the sun. The same old motivations and drives come re-packaged again and again. But man's heart hasn't changed an iota

but where they used to be easy to cover up for those with means and power, this is gradually ceasing to be the case.

In so far as you can look at history and see that there really isn't anything new under the sun and that these things have always happened, you will conclude, as I do, that for every action (to reveal) there will be an equivalent action which attempts to conceal. They will keep on happening as new ways are discovered to enable the activity.

You won't rid man of his nature, or the desire to express it. Whether good or ill.

There seems to be a cull of sorts going on among those committing such actions, and while I'm no fan of vigilantism, I think it is healthy to see the space where such people can operate start to evaporate. In this case, I'd be of the opinion that I wouldn't allow the person planning abuse anywhere near a child rather than the reverse.

Agreed. I thought the treatment of this fella bordered on torture - and society must always beware becoming as bad as the ill it attempts to curtail. Nevertheless, more effective than the hamstrung-by-law/interest/lack of resources powers that be, this sort of thing.

I think that in the past many attended church more by duty than desire. Modern life has many more distractions and seemingly fewer obligations. I suspect in this country any of the younger generation would be more likely swayed by liberal theology more so than warfare theology, as warfare of any kind isn't considered positive. Best of luck in your search either way, I'm getting the distinct feeling I've outstayed my welcome in this particular thread.

As I say, there really is nothing new under the sun. The younger generation are beset by a whole raft of problems unknown to their elders: lack of prospects, worse off than their parents, depression/anxiety/rampant suicide. Hopelessness in the future as job prospects diminish and as the earth goes down the tubes at a rate unimaginable and in a direction seemingly unstoppable.

As ever the case, it is pain which ultimately gets our attention and drives us to the only alternative that will salve it at depth. It was the case for Abraham. It was the case for the thief on the cross, the man at the pool, Mary Mag and the whole host of characters who, pain and desperation filled, turned to God. And found he was indeed there.

The world won't see God nor the theology of warfare go out of fashion anytime ever. For the truth never changes

solodeogloria

Good evening!

I do wonder if our desire to be pushed and to be challenged as a Christian is a desire that can be met through helping others understand more of the gospel. I'm enjoying thoroughly being involved in ministry amongst teenagers and the challenge that is to me. Last summer I felt challenged as I served at an evangelical summer camp in the Irish Midlands. God has granted me a great opportunity to read the Bible with an enquirer who has decided to put his lot in with Jesus.

Colossians talks a lot about our desire to want to make progress. It is a genuine desire. Some verses I find hugely challenging from chapter 2:

Colossians 2:6-7 wrote:

Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving

Don't get me wrong. I'm thankful for my church and for the preaching and for home group and they are hugely challenging. I've been a Christian a number of years and I think I've got a pretty good grip on the Bible. I'm thankful for a few good friends at church who are much older than me who can share the wisdom of life about Christianity as lived rather than Christianity as thought.

I do wonder though is this feeling that we need more really a desire that is best filled through serving others and helping others with good accountability partners and challenging Christian friends. Do we have an unfair expectation on our ministers to be something they cannot be alone?

Christianity is best lived in community and that requires give rather than take.

I don't know if this post is helpful but I'd love some thoughts on my 2 cents.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

Down slightly to the best of my recollection.This is just a guess but as churches such as St Catherine's are a little out of the mainstream for the Church of Ireland and not a traditional parish,a lot of attendees may not identify as CoI and may well write in "Christian",""Evangelical" or "other Christian" on the census.

This is only because Ireland doesn't have a full representation of Anglican traditions.

There are broadly three.
1) Anglo-Catholic - only a handful exist in Ireland. Lots exist in England. High church and a high view of sacraments and sometimes Mary.
2) Broad church / liberal - the overwhelming majority in Ireland. Vestments but willing to be flexible on place of the Bible and how that works out in modern life.
3) Evangelical / Reformed. There's really a and b here too.
a) Conservative Evangelicalism - Bible centric. Cross centric. Tend to be a bit sceptical of the charismatic revival. Hold to the view that the Bible is the inspired infallible Word of God. In Ireland there's more of this in Northern Ireland. Pockets in the Republic - Crinken and Immanuel Church Dublin (Irish Church Missions)
b) Charismatic evangelicals - hold the Bible highly but believe that God reveals Himself in different ways through the Holy Spirit. This is where St Catherine's fit in. The New Wine movement falls in here too.

It is only because the Church of Ireland is more dominated by broad church thinking that we think that evangelicals are odd. The Reformation was essentially evangelical and evangelicals in a more modern form have existed in Anglicanism longer than Anglo-Catholics.

The Church of England and Anglicanism as a whole is a wide tent. Some people love this and some people hate this but it it is what it is.

I go to a conservative evangelical Church of England church in outer London. It doesn't feel like we don't fit in to Anglican structure. We have some disagreements with others and others with us. But that's the mixed nature of Anglicanism.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

It’s not quite right, perhaps, to say that Ireland doesn’t have a full representation of the various strands of Anglican tradition. I think you’ll find all of the strands you identify represented in the Irish church. It’s just that the broad and (in Ulster) conservative evangelical strands are so dominant - they probably account for 95%+ of Irish parishes.

And I think this is partly because the Irish church, unlike the English church, is a small minority church, and probably has a sense that too much diversity presents a threat of internal division/disagreement that it can’t really afford. I think we’ve seen this in the past with Anglican controversies over the ordination of women, or attitudes to homosexuality. There were disagreements about this things in the Irish church, as there were in Anglican churches elsewhere, but both sides were united by a determination that these disagreements would not tear them apart, and attempts to organise dissenting movements, whether on the “progressive” side of these questions or the “traditional”, have largely foundered. However concerned they are about these issues, Irish Anglicans simply will not split over them.

And I think the same is true of the theological/liturgical strands that you identify. There’s a strong element of “we should stand together” that leads people to identify themselves with mainstream traditions, particularly the broad church tradition, and keeps the others in a fairly marginal position within the church. It’s not that there’s any hostility towards them; it’s just that they don’t find much traction with most Irish Anglicans, who have a strong instinct to hew fairly closely to most other Irish Anglicans.