Gerardo Marti: Welcome to Pub Church
I arrived at the restaurant just after 7. To the left was the dining area and to the right was “the lounge.” I veered right. The email said to look for a guy with glasses and a beard at a table in the back. With a few business people and small clusters of friends talking quietly on this Tuesday night, it wasn’t crowded, so I didn’t have trouble finding my contact. Lawrence was wearing a black “RAMONES” T-shirt and sitting with two other men at a small table.
“Hey, man,” he said and stood up to shake my hand. He smiled at me. “Is it Hur-ar-doe?”
“Actually, it’s Jer-rahr-doe, thanks. Nice meeting you.”
After being introduced to the others, I took a seat as a waitress set down three beers. She asked if I wanted a drink and I said I’d start with water. The guys continued their conversation, talking about their jobs, pressures with classes, travel plans, and family issues. They seemed to have known each other for awhile. Soon two more people came, a guy and a girl, greeted warmly, and then another girl who was a “guest” like me. Lawrence eventually looked at his watch.
“Well, I guess we should get started.”
Lawrence brought out a book from his messenger bag. It turned out that one of Lawrence’s friends seated at the table was an author I didn’t recognize. He had written a new book, and Lawrence was glad to have him come to discuss it. For the next hour we launched into a broad ranging discussion on personal relationships, the church, world history, a few Bible references, and a smattering of other topics in a haphazard, round robin fashion. Everyone contributed. Stories were told, and personal experiences shared. Even the new girl, Sarah, got to talking about how she was “in transition” with her faith, moved to the area six months ago, bounced from church to church, and was trying to find people with whom to connect. She appreciated the conversation, and said so several times.
This was my first experience of the Pub Church, broadly defined as spiritual discussions held in “open spaces” like bars, pubs, coffeehouses, and restaurants. It is a way of doing “church” that is non-churchlike. Some gatherings are an extension of an existing church ministry, but often Pub Churches are non-sponsored assemblies. They are largely untracked by survey researchers or denominational consultants. Pub Churches are not obvious, as there are no hymns or liturgy, and no tithing takes place. There is no push for giving, volunteering, or even responding. Instead, beer loosens the tongue in an effort to promote conversation about matters of life and faith.
Some may see Pub Church as just another gimmick. But those who promote these gatherings see the pub as a better setting than institutional church services or programmed Bible Studies for asking the most important questions about life, death, god, and what it means to be human.
The practice of Pub Church carries a “buzz” in emerging church movement circles, which promote it as a viable organizational form in both the U.K. and U.S.A. Organizers of Pub Churches intend to shake mainstream Christianity out of its so-ordinary, so-familiar, and oh-so-relevant orientation to create a fresh and distinctly unformulaic response to the Spirit. Those who participate in Pub Churches see them as an escape from churchy atmospherics and a refuge for open discussion centered in an unpretentious, egalitarian, and spiritually neutral space. The leader is a facilitator, and everyone has the opportunity to share without the obligation. Spontaneity is valued; not the spontaneity of Spirit manifestations in prophecies or supernatural ecstatic actions but rather an unforced, free response of individuals toward each other, toward God, and toward one’s own self. What Pub Church organizers most reject is an authoritarian, dictatorial stance toward leadership. They seek to minimize exploitation, maximize authentic relationship, and achieve humane fulfillment of religious values without violence or victimization.
Although the long-term sustainability of Pub Churches is uncertain, the variety of such gatherings creates an experimental, entrepreneurial dynamic. They have no overhead, they require no official ordination for leadership, and can be initiated by almost anyone. As long as there are committed Christians who side-step existing Church structures while valuing ecclesially-tinged social gatherings, the viability of the Pub Church format will remain with us for some time.
Gerardo Marti is L. Richardson King Associate Professor of Sociology at Davidson College in Davidson, North Carolina, and is author of "Hollywood Faith: Holiness, Prosperity, and Ambition in a Los Angeles Church" and "A Mosaic of Believers: Diversity and Innovation in a Multiethnic Church."
Church, or Class Meeting?
Gerardo,
Within a Methodist frame, I wouldn't describe either a traditional congregation nor what you document here as "being" church-- but each is an expression or a format of Christian community.
Congregations have focused historically on the public worship of God, teaching basic Christian doctrine, developing some system of caring for each other, and being a reliable institutional player in their local community (and/or beyond). Providing a regular venue for the sort of more intimate conversation among relative peers you described at "pub church" isn't on that list.
But it was on the list for early Methodists, those who participated BOTH in congregations AND in weekly gatherings in homes called "class meetings" as well as another weekly gathering of members (on Sunday nights) called Society meetings. And some participated in even more intimate groups, the bands, where they could "confess their sins to one another that they may be healed."
Pub church isn't church. It's just one format of Christian community. Congregations alone aren't church. They're another format of Christian community that does different things than congregations.
Church is the network of all these formats of Christian community through which the fullness of the work of the body of Christ can be exercised and expressed.
At least from a Wesleyan perspective...
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Director of Worship Resources
Host: emergingumc blog
The General Board of Discipleship
pomomusings.com
Thanks for your article...
Taylor - I'd say that some really would describe these communities as 'church' for them, though it may not fit into any one specific denominational understanding of what "church" is.
For those interested, you can read about the Theology Pub I started in Livermore, as a ministry out of the UMC church I work in, here in this article:
http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2429609...
thanks for your thoughtful response
Dear Taylor,
Thank you for your wonderfully thoughtful response. I am eager for more conversation on "Pub Church" (or maybe "Starbucks Spirituality," "Restaurant Religion," or "Coffeehouse Christianity") as I am hearing a great deal of talk that this is where "church" is really happening.
I greatly admire the early Methodist accountability groups as a key organizational innovation instituted by Wesley. With Pub Church some groups do meet in addition to "traditional" services, yet I am finding more leaders embracing this as a core gathering time and calling it not just "church" but "true church" or "where church really happens." This direction toward defining Pub Church as the site of true community and true theological formation is what attracts my attention.
I lack the training to fully explore Pub Church as a non-liturgical ecclesiology (which I'm sure is possible). At least from a historical perspective, these groups seem to operate differently than Methodist groups did, partly because of the often intentional incorporation of alcohol as a locus of "communion" and partly because of a strong norm against being "judgmental" on all issues of faith/non-faith and practice.
Certainly these groups would not be considered "church" by many. Still, my question to you all is whether Pub Church can be considered as a form of changing ecclesiology -- at least in some segment of Christianity. Held in an open, secular space, can Pub church be considered a public form of worship? Can the discussion of Christian doctrine be accepted as a form of teaching? And are discussions and friendships coming through these groups a form of relational care among participants?
Thanks for the dialogue.
accountability and ecclesiology
Gerardo and Adam, I think you are right in hearing/understanding Pub Church to be a 'church', even 'true church', by many of its advocates. I think it certainly serves as a corrective to some decades of a stilted quasi-community in traditional churches and a loss of effectiveness (and perhaps integrity) in some of the core functions Taylor described.
But the flip-side is highlighted for me in your comment, Gerardo, about leadership and the lack of violence:
"What Pub Church organizers most reject is an authoritarian, dictatorial stance toward leadership. They seek to minimize exploitation, maximize authentic relationship, and achieve humane fulfillment of religious values without violence or victimization. "
While that is extraordinarily commendable, it is hard enough to do in the institutional church. Atomised gatherings with no accountability for leadership and no connection to other structures or networks will run into severe problems over time.
There is also an ecclesiological issue here--or perhaps two related ones. One is related to the notion of 'catholicity'--in what ways is the Pub Church in this place intentionally related to other aspects of the church in the same and other places. I'm not suggesting it must be a traditional and formal relationship. But I would suggest it should be intentional--networks of communities, connections through membership of some with institutional churches, networks of leaders, etc.
The other issue (one not faced well by the institutional church, either) is that of homogeneity. Perhaps this is the other side of catholicity and it grows out of the neither Jew nor Greek ethic of Paul and others in the early church. How do we stay in community with those with different views to our own? Hopefully, the depth of community in a Pub Church will keep those who find themselves with very different viewpoints coming back week after week. But is it expecting too much of a Pub Church to be actually able to achieve this?
Like Taylor, I think Pub Churches and similar phenomena are vital, but that the institutional church and other forms of church need to be given the same attention and the connections between them encouraged.
Doug Morrison-Cleary
Anglican priest amongst other things :-)
hamiltonmj1983.wordpress.com
As to the question, "Is a PubChurch Church," I would answer, "no." I would, however say that, just like the sunday morning service at a local church building, it is a place where the church meets - meaning that, as the cliche goes, the church is the people, not the institution.
I feel that it is no different than any other small group or bible study that deals with people, everyday life, the bible, and a variety of other topics of great importance.
Thanks for this article, and
Thanks for this article, and for encouraging a bigger conversation and a bigger look at how church might break out of a building to operate in the world.
My experience with what you call Pub Church is that providing a place in a public space allows the opportunity to broaden the scope of the conversation. In a church building with church people, we all feel like we have to remain within the bounds of (or at least not stray too far from) orthodoxy. In a coffeehouse or pub, there's no assumption of any one belief system. For those who are secure with their beliefs, and for those with an open mind, a public space where conversation is encouraged (and no one is ostracized because of belief) leads in my experience to deeper and more meaningful conversation.
In fact, these conversations seem to take place whether or not there is a facilitator, and whether or not "Pub Church" is on the official calender of the establishment. At least 50% of the time, when I'm in coffeehouse, I overhear (and sometimes participate in) spontaneous conversations about faith and belief. I wonder if that's because, when there's no agenda, we tend to talk about the non-essentials which are closest to the heart of our identity.
$0.02
What's the big deal?
I'm the pastor of a pub based church in Wolverhampton, UK. Maybe it's a sign that I am a child of my generation, but we started meeting in a pub simply because it seemed like a good place to meet.
I was surprised to find that this was a growing trend and just as surprised that it's not. For our community meeting in pubs, bars and coffee shops was a natural progression. Yes, there was a deliberate choice to not have a building, and maybe the ability to question and push and pull our faith by like-minded people or others (we have buddhists, atheists, Sikhs, pagans etc) all come to be regular companions with us through a night's journey). Maybe it's the new pluralism- or the acceptane that other views can refine ours rather than challenge them. I'd be interested in exploring this more (especially as someone who studies contextual theology, but hadn't thought to join the dots of my own context)
Semantics
I’d like to post a comment here as a student of Christian theology and also a seeker of spiritual connection with the Creative Source. I am a somewhat regular church goer, one who believes in social justice and who adheres to the Golden Rule, but not much other Christian doctrine.
For me church is mainly about community, togetherness, and (to a degree) a theological education. Although we have the Eucharist every week, and all are welcome, and we have moments of prayer and silence, most of my “spiritual life” remains at home, in private.
So if I’m going to a Pub to commune with others who believe in The Creator and want to talk about “human stuff”, well, I do that in church, so that would be like church for me. If we end up having moments of silence and prayer, and we break bread and drink wine together, well, I also do that in church.
I guess church means something different to different people. We Westerners seem to get so caught up in semantics. Why is that?
Post new comment