I get the line of thought, and I recognise the problem, but I don't agree with the narrative. There is an assumption that being dependent on the laity is a weakness that leads to laxity, but I don't think this is true. Fundamentally, the laity IS the church. We are all kings and priests, according to the scriptures. And in my experience, in churches as in businesses as in all types of organisation, being alive to the needs of the 'frontline staff' is the very thing that makes you resilient and innovative. Whereas being excessively top down is all too apt to make you flabby and ineffective, as you pursue trendy ideas without considering whether they are actually effective or welcome. Feminisation, I believe, is not something that happens because you pay too much attention to the women and too little to the men. It happens because leaders get lazy and compromised and disconnected from reality. Women don't want feminised churches any more than men do, in my estimation. Fundamentally, they want churches THAT WORK and that means men and women alike being actively engaged in the mission with which they were entrusted. I'm not against patronage, I may add, but being alive to the real needs and desires of the congregation is as good a method as any of preventing cultural rot. This democratic impulse is one of the great gifts of Christianity to the world, I believe, and I do think we should be careful to respect what it has given us, before we go running to the arms of the nearest wealthy donor. PS: notwithstanding recent challenges, the church in the States seems to be doing quite a lot better than just about anywhere else. I think that is something worth reflecting on, even as we also contend with the (very) peculiar challenges of the age.
This was tremendous. Also shone light on the origins of Mormanism, Mega Churches, song and dance revival tents, gospel choirs and the blindspots of the founding fathers. Not to mention why so few fathers now attend. If the father stops the kids will, too.
I get the line of thought, and I recognise the problem, but I don't agree with the narrative. There is an assumption that being dependent on the laity is a weakness that leads to laxity, but I don't think this is true. Fundamentally, the laity IS the church. We are all kings and priests, according to the scriptures. And in my experience, in churches as in businesses as in all types of organisation, being alive to the needs of the 'frontline staff' is the very thing that makes you resilient and innovative. Whereas being excessively top down is all too apt to make you flabby and ineffective, as you pursue trendy ideas without considering whether they are actually effective or welcome. Feminisation, I believe, is not something that happens because you pay too much attention to the women and too little to the men. It happens because leaders get lazy and compromised and disconnected from reality. Women don't want feminised churches any more than men do, in my estimation. Fundamentally, they want churches THAT WORK and that means men and women alike being actively engaged in the mission with which they were entrusted. I'm not against patronage, I may add, but being alive to the real needs and desires of the congregation is as good a method as any of preventing cultural rot. This democratic impulse is one of the great gifts of Christianity to the world, I believe, and I do think we should be careful to respect what it has given us, before we go running to the arms of the nearest wealthy donor. PS: notwithstanding recent challenges, the church in the States seems to be doing quite a lot better than just about anywhere else. I think that is something worth reflecting on, even as we also contend with the (very) peculiar challenges of the age.
This was tremendous. Also shone light on the origins of Mormanism, Mega Churches, song and dance revival tents, gospel choirs and the blindspots of the founding fathers. Not to mention why so few fathers now attend. If the father stops the kids will, too.