The Evangelical Universalist Forum

"Pub Churches"

Steve, I think you make a good point. The slippery slope IS everywhere. It CERTAINLY exists in the institutional church which (even it its more intimate incarnations) too easily becomes a cult of personality, and as Stef pointed out, is vulnerable to seeking funds (rather than seeking Jesus) simply in order to continue its existence. I don’t see meeting in a cafe or in a pub or in a city park, or any other reasonable place to be any more dangerous at all (and possibly less) than meeting in a building that most churches these days have a hard time maintaining and paying the mortgage on. Please no one misunderstand. I respect the IC and am well aware that such churches contribute greatly to ministry work. That said, I don’t think IC is superior to other forms of the church. It’s just one more way for the body of Christ to meet.

In the case of house churches, there’s a sort of enforced size limit. Most living rooms don’t hold more than a dozen or so people comfortably, and of course there are always the children to manage (who tend to significantly outnumber the adults). I’m guessing the pub church is also going to be limited in size and will need to split up if it gets above a couple dozen people. Plus, you limit yourself to people who can leave the kiddos with Grandma, or who haven’t got any yet, or empty-nesters (like me). I do agree there’s a danger (as there is in other settings) of the pub church becoming a cult of personality. It that were to happen, splitting into smaller groups would be more difficult because the driving force is the pastor/leader rather than the community dynamic under Christ as leader. I think the leader would need to begin immediately training a successor or two and giving them leadership responsibilities to avoid this sort of thing.

I want to do this! Only I don’t think I’m actually up to it. :frowning: I guess you just take the waves as they come, as in Perelandria. Who knows what’s over the next wave? :smiley:

Very good advice, Cindy! :smiley: I think you’ll know when the right time is to start something like this. My suspicion is that it will be a ‘compulsion’ you can’t resist. :wink: I am also very excited about the idea of a ‘Pub’ or ‘Cafe’ church for the reasons I mentioned and the idea will keep percolating there in my mind until the situation is right to act on it.

In this thread I’ve read several refences to “institutional churches” where people sit in rows a spectators, sing a few hymns, and listen to a sermon.The early church was much different from this. “When you come together,” wrote Paul to the Corinthians, “Each one has a hymn, a song, a teaching, a tongue…”, in other words, each person has something to contribute. (this is not a direct quote; it just sprung up in my memory). Yes, there were overseers (or elders) in a local church, and deacons (servers) as well. But the overseers didn’t do all the teaching. Others also exercised their gift of teaching. Every member of the body of Christ is a minister and a priest (but not all are overseers or deacons).

I have been in fellowship with several such expressions of the church of Christ. All of them are non-denominational and require no formal church membership (every member of the Body of Christ is recognized).

But maybe a discussion of church practice in general, belongs to a different thread.

Hmm, yes – maybe it should have its own thread, Paidion. I do think it’s relevant to this thread, though. For me, the main thing is (as I’ve said) the fellowship and the ministry of every member in his/her gifts/functions. I’m thinking that pub/cafe/under-the-bridge churches will vary from an institutional church that takes place in a different setting to a bunch of guys and/or gals sitting around talking about life with a Christian twist to the conversation. I guess I’d like to find something in the middle.

Hi Paidion,
You said:

This is exactly what my (admittedly idealized) vision of a ‘Pub’ or ‘Cafe’ church would be. As Cindy, mentioned, leaders would be necessary, but as Andrew say,'it’s more of a conversation". :smiley:

My best church experience has been within house churches (as opposed to cell groups). They are undoubtedly the first NT churches which were reproduced, and they have such a family orientated and personal touch that make all others seem very ritualistic and out of place. That was my experience anyway.

…greet the church that is in their house…
Romans 16:5

To Philemon our beloved brother and fellow worker, and to Apphia our sister, and to Archippus our fellow soldier,
and to the church in your house
…”
Philemon 1:2

I like that idea of the house church. I’m going to look around for one in this area.

Cindy, as an independent and quite unique congregation it would be difficult to know what another church of a similar approach might look like. But yes, it would depend on the congregation. I think conservatives could probably manage, as could liberals. We are “progressive”, neither conservative nor liberal (to my mind, the modern “progressives” are fairly close to classical liberal theology (as in classical American Unitarianism, minus the actual unitarianism — we’re moderately trinitarian in our liturgy, strongly trinitarian in theology). But we do have parishioners who are more evangelical too.

We usually have dinner at the table and our service in a room. I don’t think we call it a service though — we avoid most churchy words. Occasionally, if the room is booked, we have an altered service at the table — it’s usually too loud to have a proper conversation across the whole group in that area though. It probably looks like a bunch of friends to most people — we’re not there to evangelise. We spend about an hour in another room after dinner. Usually (via a portable projector) there is a Bible reading or song that’s mashed together with relevant paintings. And from then, someone (usually Alister) speaks on a particular topic. Discussion questions are frequent, and coffees, teas and hot chocolates are standard accompaniments. I think we have the Eucharist once a month. We often close the service with a short prayer.

Kate, Cindy is absolutely right — it’s nowhere near hipster enough! We’re actually moving our residence next year to Fitzroy, the epicentre of Melbourne hipsterdom. Haha… Meeting at McDonalds wouldn’t be very suitable in central Melbourne — the very idea makes me prickle! We’re pretty serious about good coffee here. And I’m not sure the McDonalds environment would be conducive to particularly good conversation. But organic congregations should suit the needs of their congregants, so it can be done.

Steve (alecforbes), I think you’ve summed up CafeChurch well. I still find the beer appealing — I love a good dark ale — but I’m there because I need authentic conversation with friends about life, suffering and God, without the crust. Of course, I’m not saying one doesn’t get that in an Institutional Church (is that the term we’re using?) — I attend both. CafeChurch even has a high feel to a couple aspects (we’re a tad catholic) and we are heavily rooted and engaged with many historic Christian traditions, whereas my Institutional Church is a very low church that skirts tradition.

I’m quite anxious, can be a bit moody and am introverted (though am not particularly shy) and I find CafeChurch a lovely fit (the vast majority of us are introverts — we all did a test on it once).

I’m not sure a Pub Church is particularly cheaper. Your congregation is necessarily limited in size (and thus dosh), and you might still have to pay a minister for a couple of days (if you offer pastoral care and want someone to prepare each service). Our church struggles financially. And though I don’t think CafeChurch could ever afford to buy a place, or would ever want to, I think it would radically detract from its purpose if we tried.

I first came to CafeChurch, amongst other reasons, because they didn’t impose a Statement of Faith. I can no longer assent to most (I am unitarian), and would have to leave if CafeChurch started to impose one (we’re trinitarian). I’m worried about this possibility (given a recent development), but knowing the entrenched spirit of our congregation, I can’t imagine that idea realistically being entertained.

If you are interested, a good book to further understand the NT roots of the home church is by Robert Banks, The Church Comes Home.

http://static.booko.com.au/800/9781565631793.jpg

koorong.com/search/product/view.jhtml?code=0801045533

Just what I was looking for! Thanks Steve.

You might also want to check out some of Felicity and Tony Dale’s work, Dave. They might even be reasonably near you. I don’t remember where exactly they are, but you could easily find out – just google them. Felicity has a blog and she’ll respond to you. She is conditionalist – she and I had a long conversation about that – but she doesn’t seem to think I’m a heretic. :laughing: I told her that conditionalism just wasn’t good enough for Father. Maybe I planted a seed or two. You can no doubt find their books at Amazon.

Hi Andrew,
Thanks again for your input. I forgot to ask in my last post, but was wondering about the gender ratio of those attending CafeChurch especially in light of the apparent female predominance in the ‘IC’?

That was very helpful, Andrew! Thanks. :smiley:

And I could see a cafe church in one of those MacDonalds restaurants with the big play rooms. :laughing: Only there’s usually not very good seating in the playroom and it’s loud. Maybe the parents could take turns with the kiddies. You can’t be too picky when you have kids – they want what they want even if you are a hipster!

I like the idea of a guided conversation. That seems about right for me. Just letting things go wherever they will guarantees rabbit trails, especially amongst the men, and too many weeks of nothing but preaching is deadening imo. You can do that occasionally when someone has something important to share, but even then it might be good to allow for discussion during or after. One nice thing about the pub/cafe church would be that you could just order your meal. No one has to cook, so you have more time to prepare spiritually. Very good information, Andrew. Thanks again!

Yeah, I have decided to re-visit the home-church also. There is none at all here in my city (that I have found); but I might be able to facilitate getting like minded people together.

Have a great day everyone. May God look over everyone in this blessed yet turbulent commemoration.

Stefcui

Did I hear someone mention ‘flirty fishing’ and the Children of God. Och that takes me back – I remember them very well :confused: . They were actually a very authoritarian sect obsessed with biblical end times prophecy and were highly regarded by some for a while for their absolute commitment and biblical purity. But they were always authoritarian and this was always plain to see. Their leader at some point decided that women members should get male converts by sleeping with them and that sex and love were the same thing.

One of the best things about pub churches is that they have to be informal – everything happens in the open. This guards against authoritarianism (or at least it should do). Pub churches have often been a refugee for people coming out of cult like controlling churches. That was my experience of pub churches anyway – diffuse leadership and openness. Of course pub churches may become dysfunctional – but I think they are low risk regarding abuses of power because of their public and informal nature. :slight_smile:

Steve, the gender ratio is probably very similar to ICs. I don’t think that problem (if one considers it a problem) being addressed by an emerging church. Ages vary fairly widely, extending from mid-twenties (I think I’m still the youngest), to middle-aged parishioners. We recently had a man in his 70s attend for quite some time. The mean is probably somewhere in the thirties, I suspect.

Very interesting, Andrew, and a bit surprising as would have thought there might be either a male predominance or a fairly equal gender split.

Thanks again,
Steve

I don’t have vast experience in alt church, Steve, but in my limited experience I think you begin to see the percentages of males in the group go up as the meeting becomes more participatory. The men do tend to dominate the meetings (again, just in my experience) but not so much because they’re trying to (well, most of them) as because the ladies tend to be quieter. . . . excepting yours truly, but I’m sure that will come as no surprise. :laughing:

:laughing:

Funny Cindy!!!

:laughing: Yeah, well you know. I can’t help myself.