| ||
| A vain attempt at decrazification. |
Pack Genius
| ||
|
The Church of England is attempting to arrest this trend by offering non-traditional services such as house blessings. According to this article in the Daily Telegraph: Clergy behind the scheme want to tap into the explosion of interest in New Age practices such as feng shui as a way of tempting people back to church. “The current trend in New Age spirituality is aimed at self-fulfillment, people wanting to be happy and achieve things. We are trying to focus on Christianity and show people that God has an interest in our lives." The current trend in New Age spirituality is aimed at self-fulfillment? Wrong, it’s aimed at ignorant morons; as is, apparently, this new service. What does this service actually entail? As the vicars go from room to room, they will lay hands on everything from the bed, praying for a healthy sex life, to the lavatory, asking for "good health and to give thanks for sanitation". In the kitchen they will say: "O Lord, to all who shall work in this room that, in serving others, they may serve you and share in your perfect service and that in the noise and clutter of the kitchen they may possess you in tranquility; through Jesus Christ our Lord." In other words, some twit in funny clothes wanders about your house, mumbling meaningless bullshit. I wonder if they pray for a healthy sex life if, horror of horrors, the couple in question is not actually married? And you don't get to claim credit for sanitation; that was science. "We will pray for people who are anxious about dry rot that they will be given guidance about how to tackle it.” Hahahahaha; God concerns himself with dry rot now? Does this ‘guidance’ referred to come from God, or can they call a handyman? There will be those who are worried about security and we will ask God to watch over the house.” However, "divine protection" was not a guarantee against burglary. No, of course it’s not a guarantee; we wouldn’t want to be held accountable for this crap actually doing anything, would we? What a pathetic, desperate, and embarrassing service to offer; blasphemous even. | ||
| Post Comment |
In a pathetic show of desperation, the Church of England is going into partnership with estate agents to offer blessing services for people moving home. I imagine such desperation is a response to
| |||
| Great post mate :)
beepbeep | |||
| Posted by Anonymous | |||
| |||
| It's all a matter of marketing really.
The problem with a falling number in the congregation is the corresponding fall in revenue in the collection plate. So all this has nothing whatsoever at all to do with people's sprituality, but everything to do with their hip pocket. When was the last time you heard a "religion" (of whatever ilk) say "there's no need to make a donation. We do this simply because we have concern..." Yep, that's what I thought...:) Some excelent post BTW. Particularly enjoyed the ID stuff. | |||
| Posted by plonka | |||
| |||
| Thanks Beepbeep!
Hi Plonka, Thanks for your comments. You're right; it's all about marketing. The trusty old method of fear doesn't seem to be working too well at the moment, so they're adjusting their marketing strategy for the changing environment. Such a policy exposes their desperation and how much it's hurting them financially; religions usually have an aversion to making adjustments for changing realities. I wondered about the financial ramifications myself; how much do they charge for this 'service?' Or, do they merely ask for a donation, as you say? Or, is it simply a ruse to get into people's homes so they can lay a guilt trip on them to get them into church on Sunday? Unfortunately, I couldn't find any information on this. Glad you enjoyed my posts. I hope you continue to comment here. Cheers. | |||
| Posted by Adam | |||
| |||
| It was the Church of Scotland, not England wasn't it?
In any event, they must be hard up for cash. This is where the megachurches and American churches (i.e. Mormons, Witnesses, etc) have it all over the traditionalists - they encourage tithing. Giving money in the traditionalist churches was always a voluntary proposition - and thus not really commercially viable. Sounds like there's been a Marketing Makeover. | |||
| Posted by dikkii | |||
| |||
| Dikkii,
As hard as it is to admit, when I was a god botherer in the AOG (Assemblies Of God... Ha!) your tithe was meant to be the full biblical 10% of gross. Most did it too. The church did pretty well out of it too, despite being a provincial church in small country Victorian town. The hypocracy is amazing to watch. It's sold on the Jewish idea that you should support the temple so the temple can support you. It worked well in Jesus time because if you were disposessed, you could even go so far as to live in the temple until something sould be sorted out. You try doing that today and see where it get's you... | |||
| Posted by plonka | |||
| |||
| Plonka,
Your response on tithing had me scratching my head. Funnily enough, I don't come from a churchy background, even though my grandfather was a Methodist/Uniting Church minister his whole life. My parents were three parts agnostic and one part "let the kids make their own decision." I think my Dad had too much shoved down his throat as a kid, although I don't ever recall Grandad ever pushing this stuff on us. Its the big traditionalist churches (Uniting/Anglican/Catholic etc) which have the biggest declining congregation problem. They also seem to have the slackest attitude towards the collection plate. Correlation, perhaps? Are parishioners more likely to stick around if made to contribute? I don't think Grandad would have stood for tithing - he had a socially progressive bend and would have deemed this to be facsist. | |||
| Posted by dikkii | |||
| |||
| Hi Dikkii and Plonka,
According to the article I quoted, it was the CofE, specifically in Manchester. Perhaps the idea is spreading. This tithing concept is a nice little scam, isn't it? It wouldn't be so bad if the money was used exclusively for charity, rather than the expansion of their little empires. Another reason why tax exemption status for religions is utterly insane. "Support the temple that supports you." Yeah, right. You give us your money and we'll give you some meaningless, feel-good prattle. Deal? Cool, now get the hell out; the next batch of suckers await. "...if you were dispossessed...live in the temple..." Maybe if they weren't forced to give 10% of their shit away, they wouldn't have been in that position in the first place. | |||
| Posted by Adam | |||
| |||
| Adam & Dikkii,
<br> <br>Ok, it\'s been a while since I dusted off the ol\' bible, and even longer since I believed any of it, other than the purely historical. But I know it pretty well, so I\'ve broken out the study bible (big guns) so I can put this tithing stuff into perspective. <br> <br>Leviticus 27:30 \"A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the lord...\" <br> <br>27:32 \"The entire tithe of the herd and flock - every tenth animal that passes under the shepard\'s rod...\" <br> <br>There you go. 10% of gross goes to the lord, beast, grain or fruit. But, and sorry Adam, you probably give away about 30% (or more) to the tax man. Bear in mind, that when that was written (Moses is responsible. That put\'s it around 3500 years ago but Leviticus lived before Moses, so it\'s possibly a tad outdated), the temple was the law and there were no other taxes until Rome came along about 1500 years later. You\'d probably be quite happy only having to pay 10% these days. I know I would... <br> <br>As for the disposession thing, you only need to look at Job to see how it\'s supposed to work. During all of his trials, because he\'d been a good lad and worshipped regularly and payed his tithe to the lord, the temple fed, clothed and housed him. I\'ve no doubt though that they hit him up for back tithes and then some once he got it all back, because in Lev 27:31 it says \"If a man redeems any of his tithe, he must add a fifth of the value to it.\" <br> <br>So there you go. They get you coming and going. Those lads don\'t muck about do they? But then, the \"temple\" as I speak of it, was a very different beast to the churches of today. <br> <br>The problem today is that the church still wants it\'s whack, but people have to pay taxes. Governments perform all the same welfare type roles that the churches perform, so why do I need a church? Do they do a better job? No, as Adam says it\'s really the fear factor that keeps you paying. Catholic priests for instance, have been known to charge for absolution. <br> <br>So the real problem they have is tithe plus tax. They don\'t want you to know that the tax thing wasn\'t an issue back when tithing was all the rage, they just want their money. The sad thing is that they see it as theirs. Not yours to give, but theirs to have. <br> <br>It works too. Remember Costello visiting Hillside? The Hillside franchise, and yes, it is a franchise and if you are a qualified pastor, you can buy a church, used to be the branch of the AOG that my old church belonged to. We met in a class room at the local school. That was about 15 years ago now and when I look at Hillside, Southland, etc. now, I am constantly amazed that the congregation can\'t see what their money is actually being spent on. Especially when the pastor, who has no other job or means of income, drives up in a Porsche. Ridiculous! | |||
| Posted by plonka | |||
| |||
| Plonka,
You've proved my point. Would Hillsong have grown as fast as it had if it discouraged tithing? I don't reckon. | |||
| Posted by dikkii | |||
| |||
| Thanks for correcting me on Hillsong. I don't know why I was calling it Hillside.
Personally I think they still would have gotten there. It may have taken a little more time, but we haven't talked about the numbers game they play yet. The AOG also know how to evangelise effectively. It's not so much having a large congreation, that helps but you need to be able to replace those that leave, whether by natural attrition or a loss of faith. Bums on seats is what keeps the money flowing and coincidently, is also the problem the Anglican (CofE) church is facing at the moment. The older generation is dying and the young aren't coming through like they once did. The Anglican church is not as progressive as most and as a result will suffer as social attitudes change. | |||
| Posted by plonka | |||
| Entry 13 of 42 |
| Last Page | Next Page |