Comments on: HELP! CRISIS! now what.

By: Gordon

Gordon — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:09:11 +0000

I needed to read this right now like you would never believe. Thanks for writing it!

By: Patapon

Patapon — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:15:54 +0000

In one Anglican parish I used to belong to, the vicar’s wife complained (privately) if his sermon went much over ten minutes. I question how effective a sermon of 30 minutes or more can actually be… even people blessed with better concentration than I have will have trouble retaining it all and keeping track of the entire argument. It seems to me a lengthy exposition is better put into print or delivered in another forum.

By: Paula Wiseman

Paula Wiseman — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:58:56 +0000

You are so right. Crisis is opportunity. The models of ‘doing church’ have shifted dramatically since the 50’s or the 70’s when they were developed. We have the message people need, and must constantly ensure we have the credibility to be heard.

By: Louise

Louise — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:52:16 +0000

Was there any greater ‘crisis’ for the church than taking a man who people believed was god incarnate, whipping him to within an inch of his life, dragging him through the streets before hammering his body to a tree and letting him hang there to die? Seriously is there? That was about 2000 years ago and the ‘church’ was in crisis way before then (check out Obadiah, Micah, Hosea). The same man overturned tables in the synagogue because the whole ‘system’ was in crisis. Paul chastised the Corinthian church because it was in crisis. People were persecuted, martyred, tortured, bought corrupt indulgences, went on crusades all in the name of “the church” which was and is and always will be in crisis. Nowadays, the current ‘crisis’ centres around this time and generation and whether church is relevant today. You have to stop at some point and think that if the church really is the body of Christ, and it has weathered these historical crises, then won’t it continue anyway? I don’t say this in order to sit back and do nothing or to recommend being grateful for what remnant of church is left but I get so cheesed at hearing “is church relevant? Should we move the timeslot? Should we change the format? Should we get beanbags instead of pews? Drums instead of an organ?” etc etc etc. This is a very shallow and cosmetic view of “relevance”. The question of relevance today strikes much deeper in the hearts of everyday people. It is not about whether church is relevant. The deeper question is whether “faith” is relevant. Nowadays many people feel faith and church are mutually exclusive. If we fail to recognise this as the fundamental question, we’ll just keep pumping out the same old message in swanky new venues with whiz bang technology and still be wondering why the congregation is shrinking.

By: Bosco Peters

Bosco Peters — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:14:47 +0000

I remember when you wrote on this blog to try and keep sermons under 40 minutes. It appears to me you are moving in the direction from a sermon-focused service towards liturgy. Liturgy is defined as the work of the people. It is a community’s action accompanied by some words. Most do think of sermon-focused services and hence we have liturgy degenerated to merely saying lots more words - this time out of a book! As I recently highlighted, the basic law of liturgy is, “Do not say what you are doing; do what you are saying.”

Blessings