I definitely agree that no one place is going to be right for everyone. Ironically, one of my problems with the American Left is that in trying to be "inclusive" of "everyone" it becomes so meaningless (plus it's a lie, because of course there are things they *don't* want to affirm or even accept).
Near the beginning of the Just Worship workshop, Marla talked about how the changes to liturgy that have happened at CWM aren't imposed but reflect who the congregation is/has become, which I think is very important.
I definitely don't mean my concern for attention to those who are not present but might be as a "how can we grow our numbers?" ploy, though now that you say it I can definitely see how that would be a concern.
I thought I remembered reading a post on Jeremy's blog (http://blog.hackingchristianity.net/) about how churches trying to do church growth so often focus on marketing strategies instead of focusing on BEING the church ... but I can't find such a post now that I look.
When I talk about being inclusive of and accessible to people who aren't visibly present but might be, I'm thinking more about literal accessibility (e.g., can newcomers follow what's happening in the service? can people with food issues take part in the fellowship meal?), and also about being the church that we say we are. Who do we want to be a part of our worship community (or at least who are we open to being a part of our worship community, even if we might not be actively seeking them out), and does our liturgy reflect that? What are our theological concerns and does our worship embody that?
I worry that I'm talking around your concerns, that I'm not addressing them directly enough. I really do respect your concerns -- and you're articulating them such that I at least don't feel like you have anything to apologize for.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-09-10 05:54 pm (UTC)Near the beginning of the Just Worship workshop, Marla talked about how the changes to liturgy that have happened at CWM aren't imposed but reflect who the congregation is/has become, which I think is very important.
I definitely don't mean my concern for attention to those who are not present but might be as a "how can we grow our numbers?" ploy, though now that you say it I can definitely see how that would be a concern.
I thought I remembered reading a post on Jeremy's blog (http://blog.hackingchristianity.net/) about how churches trying to do church growth so often focus on marketing strategies instead of focusing on BEING the church ... but I can't find such a post now that I look.
When I talk about being inclusive of and accessible to people who aren't visibly present but might be, I'm thinking more about literal accessibility (e.g., can newcomers follow what's happening in the service? can people with food issues take part in the fellowship meal?), and also about being the church that we say we are. Who do we want to be a part of our worship community (or at least who are we open to being a part of our worship community, even if we might not be actively seeking them out), and does our liturgy reflect that? What are our theological concerns and does our worship embody that?
I worry that I'm talking around your concerns, that I'm not addressing them directly enough. I really do respect your concerns -- and you're articulating them such that I at least don't feel like you have anything to apologize for.