A bit of a whinge. I keep coming across examples of people "church planting". Yesterday I had a Christmas note from a friend whose son and daughter-in-law were off to a northern cathedral city, to "plant" a church as if the city hasn't got enough already, in fact it has so many some have been converted into wine bars.
Here in the West Midlands established churches are frequently approached by prospective church "planters" often from overseas denominations or from the south, wanting to hire premises. Presumably once the church is "planted" they will be looking for premises of their own.
For the host church such an arrangement can be an attractive money spinner, provided they price the arrangement carefully. But this will be at the expense of creating an alternative, possibly competitive congregation, not on the doorstep, but actually inside the door.
Personally I see no problem where there are clear linguistic issues. I can understand that migrant communities would want to worship in their own vernacular. There have been examples of this in the West Midlands where such churches have worked hard at their relationship with the host church.
If the "planted" church have issues about style of worship possibly the host church may feel it is a different way of proclaiming God's word that should be encouraged.
But when the church "plant" speaks the same language, has a similar basis of faith to the prospective host church, what on earth are doing shipping people round the country to "plant" churches?
Conversely, prospective host churches need to ask ourselves where we are failing? It is quite clear that many young people just don't see established denominations as being the place they should be. However they are attracted to the new micro-denominations. What do they do right that we apparently do wrong?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
There are plants and plants. St. Germain's was reinvigorated about twenty years ago by a score of people coming from St. John's, Harborne, after one person visited and realised that there was space, and scope. Otherwise one of Birmingham's possibly more important C of E churches, architecturally, may well have closed. The bishop speaks highly of what the present vicar, Hugh Scriven, is doing.
Thanks Ken, I think you are making my point very well. St Gs has been a powerful example of a church arising from its past and focussing on the future. Why set up the West Birmingham Apostolic Community Fellowship or whatever when there are already near empty Anglican, Methodist and Baptist along the same stretch of road?
Some of us belive in staying within the historic congregations. Others want to dtart afresh. Who is listening to God?
Why set up the West Birmingham Apostolic Community Fellowship or whatever when there are already near empty Anglican, Methodist and Baptist along the same stretch of road?
Because you believe that the Anglican, Methodist and Baptist denominations are apostate and not truly born again? (I suspect that this is often the motivation.)
Who *is* listening to God? There *are* historic congregations who, I believe, are so far from being agents of the Gospel that they should be closed. When much of congregational life has turned into maintaining the building so that your private club of friends will "see you out".
Post a Comment