reconnected.
yes, indeed, this is the matt from manchester. that guy who you had a beer in a giant square fish bowl in the middle of manchester talking about emergent issues, boiler rooms and 24-7.
i hope you are well. we should catch up sometime, probably easier over email rather than a beer this time.
 

Hey Matt, this is claudy, Stephen's sister and I live in Manchester too! You probably know that though. Where was the fishbowl you took Stephen to in Manchester, Steph could not remember when I asked him at the time.
I'll keep an eye on your blog too - we may cross paths one of these days.
Claudy
 

Claudy, he might get the message faster if you post to his blog...
 

my ears were burning!
 

The conversation's moved on, but, nope, I don't mind them being listed separately. However I reckon that sometimes emerging churches have more resources than conventional churches - especially since the emerging church seems to be a bit of a "city" phenomenon...

I grew up in the country - one minister to four congregations at three different churches because they were in the one parish. I can remember Sunday mornings when he'd dash off mid-way thru the 9.30 service as soon as he'd given the sermon - having already given the sermon at the 8am service - in order to get out to a service 20 minutes away and already underway, in order to give the sermon there...now THAT'S what I call stretched!!! And imagine what the income is like in a rural area during drought or low commodity prices or...

Sheesh...listen to the country gal whinge about how easy city people have it!!!
 

Hi Stephen,
I'm here by way of LivingRoom. I'm part of a small church plant in Seattle, and we have been going for about two and a half years.

I agree that faithsharing (nice term) is at the top of the list of challenges to face head-on. One insight I had recently is that, while the pastor-as-authority-figure model is in decline, people still take spiritual advice/guidance only from people whose opionions they respect.

That respect can come either through a relationship in which the Christian is perceived to be farther along on life's journey (including, of course, faith), or from a sense of "expertness" that's derived from a pastoral title.

Here's the challenge: We're bivocational (actually, none of us are paid for our church work at all) and younger than most people in our workplaces. We have not taken on titles, since it seems a little strange for 20somethings coming out of traditional churches.

So how do we gain that respectability and sense that we're worth talking to? I guess we need to talk to more people, and especially talk to people that would not feel bad about themselves to receive guidance from us. For example, I really can't see a 35-year-old colleague asking 24-yr-old me about Jesus - it would be a bit humiliating.

I blogged about this here:
http://www.radicalcongruency.com/20050417-age-evangelism-and-the-journey-of-finding-faith
I'll be interested to hear what other people add in response to your post.
 

just about to start as Pioneer Leader of a currently non-existent Missional Community after 3 years of doing "church" with unchurched teens in school... What seems to be missing (if I am wrong sorry) from the list of issues is anything to do with listening/understanding/language i.e. how do we hear the spiritual stories (the unknown god moments)- how do we nurture a community that enables all to share their stories that is affirming and yet allows for community testing and learning?
 

Hey Stephen.

My perspective is from a traditional church peering over the fence into the EC backyard (or maybe frontyard). This is part of me questioning how much trad churches support the planting of emerging churches/congregations and naming them and supporting them as such. I’ve been thinking about these ideas a bit recently and am thinking – how about we call services “gatherings” or “congregations” (which are almost synonymous as verbs)?

Traditional churches have “services” (which serve whom?) and in my experience the Sunday morning leans more towards the families and the evening towards the “youth”. Basically 2 very similar congregations.

If we take a step back and look at perhaps the various congregations that meet in a geographic area, we might find a quite diverse bunch of congregations – ones meeting on many nights throughout the week, over the weekend (with the rise of the Fri/Sat service); some with contemporary music, some with liturgy, some without; some aimed at mothers, some at youth, some at older folk; you get my point…

The interesting question for me is: can a church can plant/grow/raise a number of diverse congregations? Without hurt? Why is it that so many churches only diversify from 1 to 2 services that are essentially the same thing, but with a slight change in mood/music/style etc?

And if this is the case, why is any other shift beyond this not considered just an issue of style, but some other more serious underlying issue that may be objected to??

I think it comes from our thinking of things like a cake: the people “out there” are a cake and we have a slice of that coming to our service(s). Those attending are viewed as another cake and if we start another congregation that cake will split over the 2 – at best half in each.

If we start thinking congregations, we move beyond some of these things:

* I’d like to suggest that God is adding ingredients into the cake mix quicker than you can imagine – think baking rather than slicing cakes
* Diversity becomes good – many more people can gather with us due to times, locations, etc
* We are on the “same team” and can celebrate another’s growth
* The diversity will bring growth if both are healthy
* It would point more to the unity across churches
* Accessability is increased through communication, referrals
* Consumer church may be a problem, but this allows seasons in different places without “leaving the church”
* It frees us to see what God is doing over the whole city – eg Melbourne has some amazing, diverse congregations
 

Hey guys...

Mark - No,your stuff isnot listening, it is strongly implied. If we follow a missiological paradigm, it just has to be implied but good to underscore it.

Justin - Great observations!

Rohan - Maybe we can expand on some of your thoughts when we look at relating to the conventional church?