"Imagine what would happen if Christians really did care enough to get those outside their churches inside (not just for a week or two once a year but all the time), what would their chances of success be?
Look at the average church, the building, the way the people dress, the way people behave, the way things happen (should I stand or sit?), the language used, the songs sung – one might think the whole thing had been deliberately designed to keep ordinary people out. Even if you could get them to come along once the likelihood of a return visit would be slim indeed.
And then think about the service itself, — to those who have attended all their lives it might be described as beautiful, carefully designed to teach, refresh and encourage those who have developed an appetite for the acquired taste of such heavenly food, yet this same service is probably completely indigestible to non church goers. Outsiders might enjoy the music yet not have the confidence to join in, they might listen to the prayers, but again not join in — maybe not even realise the prayers were being prayed on their behalf. As for the sermon (assuming they could understand it) — because it had been written with believers in mind it would probably fall on deaf ears. The whole experience, despite the kindness shown by the genuine warm welcome and many handshakes, would suggest to the newcomer that this kind of thing was probably for others but not for them.
Let me put a question to those who have organised special evangelical services and outreach programmes where they have invited preachers to come along who are killed in preaching salvation – even if you have succeeded in bringing people in – how many have come back?
The truth is that most ordinary people cannot be encouraged to attend ordinary church services and ordinary places of worship, no matter how sincerely they are invited to do so. This fact is proven by the constant stream of conferences and seminars held throughout the church to address this very situation."
Love and prayers
A
3 comments:
Any chance you can e-mail me the original of this quote as I'd love to see the language Railton wrote it in?!
By the way, I'd buy the book if this is a sample of what it would be like! I also wish someone would do the same with Brengle because I find it so hard to read his writings!
God bless,
Graeme
Andrew
Thanks for this. It really strikes a cord with me. I blogged here about our Sunday night meeting. http://heathersplace99.blogspot.com/2007/11/messy-church.html
It was fun and noisy. It took a fair deal of prep in terms of putting together pictures and film clips etc and cost a quite bit of money to do free supper and fireworks. Uniform was optional - all bar two opted out and couple of us wore jeans and informal logo stuff.
This was the second year we’d done fireworks and like last year there were lots of people there who wouldn’t normally come to an Army meeting.
Over the past few years we’ve become a Corps that can do special events like this (both Sunday meetings or Sat/Friday nights) quite well. We generally provide free or reasonably priced refreshments, good live music (Band, Songsters or informal groups) and a friendly welcome, sometimes with designated hosts.
Our informal mission statement could be “Any excuse for a party”.
But after the special events are over we go back to the (hopefully) beautiful but probably inaccessible services you describe, fully (well almost fully) kitted out in our uniforms.
I’ve a feeling that as a corps we’re on a journey towards a more relevant meetings for both new and old and non members of our corps. This has been going on for several years but I sense the pace is quickening. We’re certainly in a period of transition and uncertainty.
I’m hoping we can work out how we provide regular “church” for Dads who don’t know they’re expected to take their hats off and Mums who don’t know their expected to keep their toddlers quiet. But we also need to provide the in-depth teaching and space for reflection, decision making and public commitment (at the mercy seat?) for our existing folk.
And for me this raises loads of questions about what that is, and how we get there.
I wonder if, as a corps, we are willing to give up what we like for the sake of those who are currently excluded from Church in the way you describe? But I’m also concerned about those corps members (not just the older ones), who grieve the loss of the traditional Army meeting (whatever that is).
I’ve long been a fan of all-inclusive worship - difficult but not impossible to do. But some of our recent events have left me wondering about its limitations. So I’ve been thinking about the ideas behind Holiness and Salvation meetings - different meetings for different purposes and different people. I’m drawn to the idea of regular meetings aimed at and designed for people who don’t usually come to Church - not for the committed members of the corps but planned and delivered by them. With meetings for the committed members of the corps, allowing them to worship and be discipled in a way that makes sense to them.
But this raises more issues. The tastes and needs of everyone within a group won’t be the same - and either group could be segmented into further sub-groups. Even within the people who already regularly our corps there is range of preferences. So do we need to provide a whole range of meetings?
But to return to the point you make, maybe our priority needs to be the “ordinary people” first.
Thanks for helping my thinking.
Are you working on this for publication? Put me down for a copy.
:)
Colin M
Post a Comment