Share

" 'Belonging before believing' can often be a recipe for people behaving as if their church is a club. I'm really uneasy about making church the object of evangelism rather than the Gospel".


Yes, but needing people to subscribe to a given set of well-defined theological positions has not always been a success either :-)

Also, most of the time all of us flirt with a process of evangelism that is at least as much about the church as the gospel. In fact, it 'might' be possible to argue that a process that steers people from believing to belonging places the church above the Gospel...?

As I have said before, I'm increasingly of the conclusions that the 3 b's are non-linear, interrelated, and possibly only 1/2 the story anyway.

Thanks for your comments Pam.

I agree about context, (see my comments in reply to Chris above), and therefore I find myself wondering about the wondering about the wisdom of using the 'Big Six' as criteria for somehow measuring the success of our conversations with people - see also John's comments about this. I am indeed questioning the veracity of the 'Big Six' for the very reasons you mention - closed conversations, with Clergy - just the smallest possibility of skewed results??


Yes, you are right to question if we are REALLY not having discussions about the Big Six too - although I'll stick to my conclusions in the opening blog. We have some, but not many, and not - I believe - a significant amount that are really exploring those specific areas. We also record what we have called 'significant' conversations. The ever-evolving categories that are common include spirituality, politics, relationships and work/economics. There are over a dozen more.

Of course, we can squeeze some of these into the Bog Six, but I feel that often to do so is to miss the point that the original researchers were arguing for. I just think that - in my experience, in my context - their conclusions do not stand up.

And yes, you are also quite right to query our recording systems. They are far from perfect, open to a degree of subjectivity, and no doubt miss a fair bit. I would not want to argue that they are statistically viable - but then neither would I want to argue the same about the Big Six themselves.

I am also aware that people can speak about the 'small things', and approach the 'real issue' towards the end of a conversation. And am likewise aware that our context means we rely entirely on those who come to us to steer the conversation. But, again this is my perception, most of the significant conversations have taken place with people who are either visiting the stall for the 1st time, or those who have come a significant number of times.

So, the former are those who can use the fact that we don't know them to be an opportunity to speak about something 'deeper', or those who feel that they know us enough to trust us.

Maybe not just personality, but life circumstances. When I feel an inner emptiness then "belief" is what I'm after. When I'm lonely then "belong" is what I'm after. When I feel unhappy with my lifestyle/life decisions, then "behave" is what I'm after. The challenge for us is to be sensitive to other's story, so that we can present something attractive and relevant to that person. Our good news is big enough for all these!

Thanks Chris.

Of course context is important, and you are right to mention it. I have to say (you'll be shocked, I know) that I'm not for taking or keeping the conversations about spirituality in the churches, for a couple of reasons:
1) These conversations are happening everywhere anyway, whether or not Christians are around to participate in them.
2) If we restrict our conversations to churches, we are also restricting our conversations to a (very, and increasingly so) limited pool of people. I've actually had a range of conversations with people who have quite explicitly stated that church is the last place they would expect to be able to muse over the things that they consider to be important, and often the last place they would want to be anyway.

The research into the so-called 'big 6' took place in Coventry - a Cathedral town - and I wonder if this had any effect.

Also, and I think that this is important, the conversations I am talking about are low- or no-pressure. We rarely, if ever, ask people for their reflections on issues of faith, etc. Rather, we run a refreshment stall, and have conversations in the context of serving people drinks. If we have 'deeper level' conversations, it is because those we speak to have steered them in that direction.

Thanks for the comments. Paul, these reflections are partly a response to our own feelings of slight guilt that we weren't having 'the right conversations' with people.

I do wonder about the belong-believe-behave process (in whichever order we pitch it). It has been quite formative in my own ministry over the years, but I wonder if sometimes it can be a distraction.

The 3 categories are useful for us within the church community if we want to 'measure' in some way where people appear to be - but increasingly I find myself thinking that it simply is never a linear process. Some of the folk we mix with at the stall believe some pretty orthodox stuff, but have no desire (for a wide variety of reasons) to belong to any given community (or indeed are happy to belong to multiple communities). Others belong, but don't particularly believe. Plenty lead lives that - externally at least - are shaped by moral and ethical values that seem quite compatible with Kingdom values...

To that end, I'm not sure I really care where people start, or end, on this artificial production line. What seems to matter is how we help them move closer to God in some way from where they are. For some this might be simply letting them know that they don't need to know everything. For other it might mean challenging behaviour. For others still, we might need to draw them into a community where they can grapple with these issues in safety.

The 'big 6' seem to me to be classic modernist apologetics, and as such are not to be discarded as tools in the box, but are unlikely to be the ones we use most often.

This is really interesting - and incredibly freeing - I think many feel like failures because they're not having these "deep" conversations with people they meet.

I had a similar thought to John about the rearrangement of believe-belong-behave - but I would go with "belong-behave-believe" - being part of some kind of community, whether it be drop in cafe or life-management class, where the behaviour will be seen/learnt. Jesus was quite happy to have the people hang-out with him before/whilst their behaviour was being sorted out!

It says something to us about our behaviour. If it is to demonstrate and lead others to our beliefs, then it must be extravagant and provocative. In one of John's books (sorry - can't remember which off the top of my head, and hope I haven't got this mixed up with another book!) he talks about the paucity of some of the symbols in the church - the sprinkle of water in Christening, and sip of wine and dry wafer in the Eucharist, and how this totally misrepresents the lavishness and richness of God's love for us. So also in our behaviour - not something to be defined by rules (although it should be limited by them) but to demonstrate our belief in an extravagantly loving God.

But there is also something challenging about this observation I think. Is it saying that the mindset (of the non-Christian) is that what you believe really doesn't matter. It may help you to behave better, so that is good, but in itself it has no value. I think this is the challenge to us. We must ensure our beliefs are much more than our behaviour/morality (although it is what they rely on). Our beliefs and behaviour should be so entwined, that our behaviour provokes others to start asking the "bigger" questions "naturally and spontaneously" as John says.