Contemporary Progressive Churches?

[BeachOfEden]

Perhaps, many of you, like me, have thought to yourselves, "Well, maybe it's like this where I live cause it's not a big enough city like Hollywood.-" But here's the thing though...I HAVE personally written to the most sucessful Progressive Christian churches IN hollywood..and even THEY told me that at most their Progressive contemporary service only draws 30 or 50 at the most..and these are cities bigger and what we think of as more young and cool than ours.

 

So you figure whther Hollywood or where you or I live...each of these cities are likely only to have 3 Progressive churches and each of these '3' will only draw 15 to 50 people at the most....So if we times this by 3 that means at the most..you'd have about 150 people if you combine three different Progressive churches..like let's say UMC and Presbyterian,ect..and maybe 50 to 80 and the least. Since this, even in a combined effort of UMC and Presbyterian,ect....Here's what I suggest...

 

 

what if....in every city the few contemporary Progressive individuals coming from Catholic, UMC, Presbyterian, whatever..all gettogether and have a contemporary Progressive coffee shop, where blues and folk music could be played and different Progressive christian speakers could stand up and share positive thoughts? So if not a church then how about a Progressive alternative cafe or coffee shop? Where Progressive contemporary Christians from all backgrounds could meet?

[tpirob]

Perhaps, many of you, like me, have thought to yourselves, "Well, maybe it's like this where I live cause it's not a big enough city like Hollywood.-" But here's the thing though...I HAVE personally written to the most sucessful Progressive Christian churches IN hollywood..and even THEY told me that at most their Progressive contemporary service only draws 30 or 50 at the most..and these are cities bigger and what we think of as more young and cool than ours.

 

So you figure whther Hollywood or where you or I live...each of these cities are likely only to have 3 Progressive churches and each of these '3' will only draw 15 to 50 people at the most....So if we times this by 3 that means at the most..you'd have about 150 people if you combine three different Progressive churches..like let's say UMC and Presbyterian,ect..and maybe 50 to 80 and the least.  Since this, even in a combined effort of UMC and Presbyterian,ect....Here's what I suggest...

 

 

what if....in every city the few contemporary Progressive individuals coming from Catholic, UMC, Presbyterian, whatever..all gettogether and have a contemporary Progressive coffee shop, where blues and folk music could be played and different Progressive christian speakers could stand up and share positive thoughts?  So if not a church then how about a Progressive alternative cafe or coffee shop?  Where Progressive contemporary Christians from all backgrounds could meet?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Now THAT sounds like a cool idea!

[BeachOfEden]

Yeah, I think so..I mean even if we combined all the Liberal Catholics, Progressive UMCs, Prog Presbterians, XLDS, XJWs, XCS in each of our cities...it still would not be enough to equal one Evangelical contemporary service number..and as we have discussed the older Progressive Christians 60 and older...ovbiously are not interested in helping us with our contemporary Progressive ideas...so I say then let us get all the Lib Catholics, and Progressive UMCs, Presbterians, and so on and create contemporary Progressive non-denominational Christian coffee shops. Have folk rock artists, blues, Jazz, Reggae,ect play there and let Progressive or Liberal Catholics, Protestants, Progressive XJWS and XSC,ect give Progressive sermons and people could announce and post upcoming festivals and events. Question, how do we all go about gathering interest in starting these in each city?

 

Any ideas? i heard that the Trinity Episcopalin church in Santa Barbara has one of these. Maybe we could ask them about it?

[des]

I wonder if this forum has ever met in real life? It would be out of the question for me this year, but another year maybe. I have been on several fora that had real life events. One of them has a conference (held at a summer camp) that meets every single year. At others I have met various members in real life.

 

However, it seems to me this is the sort of forum that would lend itself particularly well to a real life type event held annually. The hardest thing is finding the logistics to get a space. (perhaps in this case a camp run by a certain more progressive church, say or even a church basement or common room?) You can get speakers within the ranks (i think we have some obvious talent here), perhaps artistic events, and some fun things as well. (At the above we have a tin whistle "group"). Meeting in person is quite a lot of fun, and most often I end up liking people better, though there have been some exceptions. I think a real life event would be a nice way of developing skills, ideas, etc. to come up with alternative "churches".

 

You'd have to be careful on Christian coffee houses to avoid getting a gaggle of fundamentalists who are only to happy to set you straight. :-)

 

 

--des

[PantaRhea]

A true church with pastor, buiding, etc takes $$$$.

I'm not saying it can't be done but....

 

What does a "pastor", building, etc., have to do with a "true church"?

 

The objections to "church" that I see mentioned are mostly systemic. Pastors who want to see reform are just as trapped by the system as the people sitting in the pews.

 

How many are familiar with the history of the clergy sysyem? The origin of "sermons"? The connection between the traditional "Order of Service" and Martin Luther?

 

Are these things divinely ordained?

[BeachOfEden]

I was just thinking that!

 

Here's my idea. What about a conference held at either Hollywood or Santa Barbara? Both of these cities are very liberal. It could be a gathering of all Progressive Christians both Protestant, Catholic, XSC,XLDS, XJWs...as long as your Christianity is progressive you are welcomed...but no Fundamentalists nor fundamental Lites..strictly Progressive. Themes or topics could include:

 

1. contemporary Progressive Christians (Protestants and Catholics and all) That feel they are an indangered species/ a rare minority within their churches/congergations... or come from faith group backgrounds that have no Progressive contemporary alternatives....Progressive Contemporary Christians without a church home.

 

2. How to create, build and expand Progressive contemporary and culturally relavent communites in a fundamental and anti-contemporary city or community. Ideas: festivals, gatherings, forums, fundamental-FREE Christian coffee houses...and how to make sure they stay that way..withOUT far rightisms slipping in.

 

3. How do Progressive contemporary Christian communities compete with the the far right's contemporary "seeker-senstive" outreach programs?

 

4. effective education campains to educate the public in dealing with the extreme religious far right fundamentalists and the far left anti-theists. Clearifying MIsconceptions about what Progressive christianity actaualy IS and is NOT.

 

5. How Progressive Christianity can spread it's message without being invasive like the extreme right not completely apthelic like many well-to-do modertae mainstream churches...Between Apathy & Agressive.

 

6. Innerfaith meetings/gatherings with other Progressive religions...Progressive Buddhists, Hindus, Bahia,ect...where all religious Progressive can share,voice their challenges with dealing with experincing flack from their own religious communities.

[FredP]

Here's my idea. What about a conference held at either Hollywood or Santa Barbara?

Sorry, but my stomach just churned at the thought of Hollywood as the geographical symbol of my spiritual path!

 

Somehow Boulder or San Francisco seem more appropriate... Not that I wouldn't attend a conference in Siberia if it sounded like it had potential.

Edited April 12, 2005 by FredP

[soma]

I think a conference would be great. I also think inviting guest speakers to the church would spark interest. The people who post here are so articulate I am sure some are authors or public speakers.

[des]

>What does a "pastor", building, etc., have to do with a "true church"?

 

I think that was the wrong word. I maybe meant "conventionally thought of as 'church'. And it was how I interpreted the question. (It's hard to be so careful with wording in an online forum.) IOW, let's start a "church", pastors, buildings, etc that are compatible with our way of thinking. What I was suggesting is that this might not be the way to proceed.

 

>The objections to "church" that I see mentioned are mostly systemic. Pastors who want to see reform are just as trapped by the system as the people sitting in the pews.

 

This is very true. You could get quite a progressive pastor who is as tied into the system as anybody.

 

>How many are familiar with the history of the clergy sysyem? The origin of "sermons"? The connection between the traditional "Order of Service" and Martin Luther?

Are these things divinely ordained?

 

I am a bit familar. During lent we had a little educational group that met on the hx of protestantism. It is rather interesting how similar our order of service is to the earliest ones (which were quite early indeed). Perhaps the least similar was UCC (of those we looked at-- very ancient, Calvins', etc, and some others like UMC, etc. , but it was similar enough). In fact the thing that struck me was just how little we had changed. The biggest differences are some elements fo informality, greeting, and "passing the peace" which seems a newish thing.

 

They certainly aren't divinely ordained. And I didn't mean to imply that at all!!

What I was suggesting is that I don't think we can at all follow the pattern of fundamentalist evangelicals who split off from more moderate churches. First of all, some of the biggest split off issues, prob. the biggest was due to racial segregation. I know they won't admit it, but historically it's right there. (I mean that racial segregation was the reason for the Southern Baptists to split off from other Baptists. It is now one of the biggest single demonations. Obviously it was the cause of great emotion, but it would certainly never be our model.)

 

Not saying any regular churches would never become more liberal. I think it has happened. I just think it is not likely to happen. If you look at the Roman Catholic church, while there are the Liberal Catholics, I think the highest no. of split offs (and aren't actually split offs in the guardedly true sense of word-- yikes gotta watch your wording here!!!) are in organizations like Dignity.

 

So I think you would do better to think in terms of things like "coffee houses", small groups, use of this organization in other ways (or other organizations), use of groups within regualr mainline churches, cell groups of different sorts, and alternative ways of worshipping.

The big problem is keeping these things going. Institution is kind of has a bad connotation, but the sense of it is really that the idea can carry on. You don't need some specific person to do it. People do burn out, or whatever they do.

 

--des

[Clipon2525]

Hi

 

Im new here.

 

I am interested in the conversation on Progressive House Churches. Has anyone tried this yet? I am very curious about the structure. Could it be like a traditional church or contemporary church, but in a house and progressive? Could it take the form of a book discussion group/learning group/bible study? Would you have room for liturgy?

 

For me there are a few considerations. Im a seminary student and when i get frustrated with the mainline church i often think of doing a House Church. I have so many things that would have to be held in tension to pull it off.

 

1) Contemporary - i admit i grew up in these churches. i have a soft spot in my heart for them.

 

2) Liturgical - i also love the poetry of liturgy and the rhythems of the church year. Its all great.

 

3) Progressive - but what does it mean? For some it means just being open and affirming. For others its a total reconstruction of the Christian expierence. Can a 'Christian Unitarian' church be started?

 

4) Grace - i am Lutherean after all.

 

5) Justice Oriented

 

6) Transformative.

 

7) Challenging.

 

Would a progressive house church be run like a new religious order? i am scared of a random progressive house church out on its own. Too much chance for something cult-y to happen.

 

What about a network of progressive house churches. For instance, a neo-denomination, house churches across the world that share resources and provide accountability to each other.

 

here is some research i have had into house churches. I provide the links not to endorse theology but structure (house churches, simple, relationship/ministry based, networks).

 

http://www.matthewshouse.com/

http://www.apexchurch.org/

http://www.dcfi.org/ - actually tends to act like a denomination, has its own publishing arm

http://www.dcfi.org/House2House/index.htm

 

If others are interested in starting house churches that would be part of a network of like minded churches i would be interested in participating.

 

Jason

[WindDancer]

Hi Jason,

 

Have you tried googling on "emergent" rathan than "progressive" "house churches?"

 

I think some of the "emergent" Christians groups are into that.

 

Might find more support/info/resources that way.

 

For example, here's a place I found by googling on the topic.

 

http://sojourner.typepad.com/

 

Just a thought. Maybe you've been there, done that already.

[Clipon2525]

Hi Jason,

 

Have you tried googling on "emergent" rathan than "progressive" "house churches?"

 

I think some of the "emergent" Christians groups are into that.

 

Might find more support/info/resources that way.

 

For example, here's a place I found by googling on the topic.

 

http://sojourner.typepad.com/

 

Just a thought.  Maybe you've been there, done that already.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I havent tried that, though i am interested in the emergent thing (on the days i get it). Ill take a look.

 

Also alot of the conversation is about Contemporary Progressive House Churches. Can i suggest people use www.meetup.com to start groups of like minded people.

 

I would suggest people from the TCPC site could come up with a common name and a bunch of progressive house churches could spring up. Could someone come up with a website to provide links to common resources/become a repository for liturgical resources, prayers etc?

 

Sorry, this is sort of random.

 

Jason

[des]

Thought it was interesting what came up in the Sarah Circle book club we are doing at our church (UCC). This is an all women's book club (wouldn't have to be but we'd have to change the name otherwise). Anyway, we have been talking a LOT about alternative worship. During the discussion, someone brought up the woman who is ordained (I guess) and gave a guest sermon. Well most everyone was very strong with, oh yes we want her to come to the discussion but we are not talkign about having clergy do this worship service.

I'll let you all know if something comes out of this. Might be an interesting way of starting alternative churches/worship. It's from the inside, grassroots, etc. Also a lot of discussion on the knocked out feminine aspects of the Bible, what's still left, etc.

 

--des

[Theo-Maniac]

I attend a United Methodist Church near my house that sounds exactly like what you're looking for. Most churches these days have a "traditional" service, which is the funeral like one (although in my experience, this is not the case with the UMC), and a contemporary service similar to the non-denom churches. Unfortunately for me, I can rarely go to the contemporary service, as its early in the morning. I especially like the UMC, as it emphasises applying the Bible to your daily life, and really doesn't mention the afterlife much, if at all, and is still a "Bible teaching church". It is just my experience, but not all non-denom contemporary churches are hellfire and Brim-stone. I've seen a couple such services on TV, and while some are hellfire and brimstone, there are a surprising number that are similar to what I have just described about the UMC.

[des]

Well Theo-Manic, there are UMCs and UMCs and UCCs and UCCs (etc.). I actually think it is the congregation that gives the service life and vitality (or NOT). If the congregation is the "Frozen Chosen", then the service is going to come out that way. This is esp. true of traditional services, even though I would appreciate aspects of more contemporary practices. But then I am in my 50s and not 20s.

 

--des

[FredP]

Well Theo-Manic, there are UMCs and UMCs and UCCs and UCCs (etc.). I actually think it is the congregation that gives the service life and vitality (or NOT). If the congregation is the "Frozen Chosen", then the service is going to come out that way. This is esp. true of traditional services, even though I would appreciate aspects of more contemporary practices. But then I am in my 50s and not 20s.

Personally -- and I stress this is my preference -- I really dislike "contemporary" services. Perhaps this is in large part because my wife and I are both classically trained musicians, but I think the new wave of contemporary church music is (with a few exceptions) musically and lyrically more shallow, and generally makes for a more "touchy-feely" service. Granted, a "traditional" service can be completely lifeless, but I have a difficult time experiencing reverence and awe in the divine presence when I'm surrounded by the same sounds I hear on the radio all day.

[cunninglily]

Personally -- and I stress this is my preference -- I really dislike "contemporary" services. .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dislike anything that evolves from a conscious and deliberate effort to "bring people in"...especially young people. I keep waiting for a "buddy jesus" like that used in the movie "Dogma" to pop up at one of these "contemporary" services.

 

For one thing, I think people tend to underestimate the spiritual needs "of the young" and to discount the sophistication of todays youth. Most of the young religious minded people I encounter are looking for substance, not a "rock-n-roll" Jesus. Besides, I think this movement toward making church parallel with contemporary culture is a serious mistake that will backfire. Someone here pointed out that it is not the "contemporary" churches that are thriving, but the traditional, orthodox, and even literalist ones that thrive today. Why? Because I think people are hungering for meaning and purpose and an identity that precisely separates them from the morass of contemporary culture.

 

...but this from one who isn't attending a local church at all.

 

lily

[des]

Amen Brother Fred and Sister Lily! :-)

Actually Bauer talks about that in "Saving Jesus". He calls this the vertical vs horizontal. The horizontal is sort of like much of daily life-- more shallow. The vertical is exploring depths. One thing about traditional services, if done well, is that they get you out of the here and now, superficial, day to day experience (I say do well, as they can often be flat and "frozen" as well.) You have "modern contemporary sanctuaries" that look like high school auditorums. There isn't anythign there to draw you in.

 

What I really love is the kinds of contemporary practices that get you more out of the here and now than the typical ways of performing them. Take communion, where you come up in a line or passed out in the pews vs ideas like gathering around a table, etc. Actually in some ways that is of course the OLDER practice. I also find some of the contemporary music shallow and well its on the radio too isn't it? However, the church I was in in Chicago had a musician who wrote some of her own pieces and these were very good. Some of the singable old hymns well the music is by Bach and so forth, you can't really beat that!

 

I really think there are things that should be tossed adn things that should be done to increase meaning, but not necessarily to make them contemporary. I think they should make them deeper and more mystical, contemplative and so on. That wouldn't always be by "updating" them but by really examing the various practices, why do we do this? Should we do this? How should we do this? I think that's what I'd like to see in my own church. I can see some of that has been done, but they need to do more of it. Actually I'd like to see that with just about everything.

 

 

 

--des