Thread: Non-conformism Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023138
Posted by drnick (# 16065) on
:
I've been reading a couple of books lately (one tracing the history of the traditions which became the United Reformed Church, the other about religion in 19th century Welsh literature) which have made me think particularly about what is means to be non-conformist. I've also heard more than one sermon this year on the Great Ejectment of 1662.
I would tend to think of the term 'non-conformist' as a positive thing. It has connotations of challenging power and ways of thinking, of taking individual conscience seriously and refusing to accept authority when it contradicts this. I quite like the idea of being slightly outside the mainstream.
But what do you think? Does the term for you have any positive or negative connotations?
Does it have any meaning outside the UK, and particularly in countries without an established church? Do you think it is still a useful idea, or has its time been and gone? Would you describe yourself or your tradition as non-conformist?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by drnick:
Would you describe yourself or your tradition as non-conformist?
Sure would. We do "stroppy" as a matter of principle, are suspicious of all human authorities and are generally awkward. But we're lovely, if you like that sort of thing. Sort of stroppily kind, at least in my neck of the woods. Can't speak for the others you know. They'd have my guts for garters if I tried.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
You appear to be confusing Nonconformity (refusal to conform to an established church) with the more general concept of nonconformity.
It was and is possible to be a traditional, conservative, legalistic and authoritarian Nonconformist.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It was and is possible to be a traditional, conservative, legalistic and authoritarian Nonconformist.
Sure, But they aren't much fun, generally. Whereas my lot....
I could tell you some stories ...
[ 07. June 2012, 20:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Actually, drnick, Kaplan Corday's post does prompt me to get more serious.
There are undoubtedly Nonconformists of the "traditional, conservative, legalistic and authoritarian" form. Another nonconformist of my acquaintance has described them as being "about as open as Fort Knox". Such folks can gravitate to nonconformist church communities and help produce a toxic environment within which (to quote another nonconformist friend) "everything is forbidden, unless it is compulsory".
Personally, I think they are folks who have lost their way. The essence of nonconformism is Dissent on grounds of conscience. Once you have embraced that principle, taken it into yourself as a freedom value, it seems very silly to me to seek to control the consciences and faith of others in accordance with the light of your own understanding. But this happens.
Nonconformism is not, however, a licence for unbridled nonsense. We're seeking "not to be conformed to this world", rather to be "transformed by the renewal of our minds" and "conformed to the likeness of Christ".
At its best, nonconformism produces a genuinely open environment for growth in Christ-likeness as a result of personal conviction, worked out in community. At its worst, it can produce a scary, totalitarian spiritual prison, ruled by control-freaks.
I've seen both types.
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
Didn't we have a shipmate whose screen name was "Never Conforming"? I quite liked that. (If she's still around but changed her name, someone please let me know!)
In the context of the Ship, I will say that I twitch whenever I see the phrase, because of the particular way it is used by English shipmates. In my (big) country, we're all "non-conformist" (bozos) on this bus, because we don't have a state-sponsored religion (thanks be to God).
So, to your question, no, it doesn't really mean anything in a place that doesn't have an established religion. It figures as part of our national origin story, of course, but increasingly not with those words.
There are a lot of times when a question/topic could be opened upside outside Little England by a slightly different choice of words ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
.
(Somewhat tangential story time. The last time we elected a Bishop hereabouts, one of the candidates' faith journeys had taken him through the Reformed Church in America fka the Dutch Reformed (summary: very, very Calvinist). A friend, who had been raised Roman Catholic but who knew that I had been in the RCA for a while myself, called me up because he was curious about that after meeting the candidate at the dog-and-pony shows, erm, "meet and greet the candidate" forums. But I couldn't hear the capital letter in his question.
Him: "Well, he comes from your tradition."
Me: "Which one?"
Him: "The Reformed tradition."
Me: (non-plussed) "But they're *all* reformed.")
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
At its best, nonconformism produces a genuinely open environment for growth in Christ-likeness as a result of personal conviction, worked out in community.
But how long will it stay like this, before it degenerates into...
quote:
At its worst, it can produce a scary, totalitarian spiritual prison, ruled by control-freaks.
I've seen both types.
That's why I'm not non-conformist - but I would say that, wouldn't I?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I am a non-conformist to the soles of my boots. If the crowd go one way I say "why?".
It's not an easy way to be, and I didn't choose it. I think it's part of the ADHD.
By denomination I'm a Methodist - and there is nothing they do/believe that I conform to!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
At its worst, it can produce a scary, totalitarian spiritual prison, ruled by control-freaks.
I've seen both types.
That's why I'm not non-conformist - but I would say that, wouldn't I?
Though, of course, that's a potential problem with other traditions as well. I don't think an episcopal aristocracy is any more immune to totalitarian control freaks than a Church Meeting. The particular nature of the spiritual prison and control freakery demonstrated might be different, but neither episcopal nor congregational (or any other forms of church government) are perfect.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Does it have any meaning outside the UK, and particularly in countries without an established church?
I'm Canadian, and I think I first encountered the phrase "Non-conformism", as a religious term, in a Victorian literature class, around 1988 or so. Other than that, and possibly similar academic contexts, I don't know that I've ever heard it used in Canada.
The professor of that class was of Mennonite stock, from Pennsylvania, and at one point told us that she was proud of her "Non-conformist" background. As I recall, I took some issue with her applying the phrase to Mennonites in the USA, but she was quite adamant about claiming the term. I suppose that Mennonites in the UK, such as they are, would be categorized as Non-conformist.
A few years ago, I met a British guy in Korea who had been involved with an evangelical church back home. When I tried out the phrase "Non-conformist" on him, he expressed total unfamiliarity with it. (No slight against him, since I'm ignorant of about 80% of the theolocial terms that get used on the Ship, and likely wouldn't have much grasp of "Non-conformism" if I hadn't taken that university class.)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I usually don't rate my beliefs or opinions on a conformist / non-conformist axis. I have them, and if many people agree with them then swell, and if they don't I can live with that.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
Wikipedia article on Non-conformism
Check it out - I was curious to know if I actually was, by definition, "non-conformist" - but it turns out that the term seems to only apply to non-anglican protestantism.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
In the context of the Ship, I will say that I twitch whenever I see the phrase, because of the particular way it is used by English shipmates. In my (big) country, we're all "non-conformist" (bozos) on this bus, because we don't have a state-sponsored religion (thanks be to God).
So, to your question, no, it doesn't really mean anything in a place that doesn't have an established religion. It figures as part of our national origin story, of course, but increasingly not with those words.
There are a lot of times when a question/topic could be opened upside outside Little England by a slightly different choice of words .
Yes, you're a real nonconformist. As the italicised bit (mine that) makes clear. You even make critical observations about the validity of the questions.
The Pilgrim Fathers were, of course, Puritan English Dissenters, one of the reasons, but not the only one, for the strong Independence traditions in the US, as famously articulated here.
There is no irony in the historical fact that the descendants of English nonconformist settlers and others of similar ilk turned round to face the government of the English and, in effect, said "up yours, sunshine".
There is, however, to my eyes, considerable irony to be found in the conformity of the Religious Right in the US to a privatised understanding of faith. There is an awful lot of agenda-parroting going on there, which seems to me to go against the grain of independence of heart and mind which took the Pilgrim Fathers out of the UK in the first place.
Which I guess gives some sort of an answer to Mark Betts' observation. Nonconformism operates primarily in a local church setting. The checks against control-freak leadership work fine if congregational members remember their roots. Church leaders who turn out to be control freaks get confronted by the independent-minded members of the local congo who remind them that Jesus said "not so among you. No lording over us, thank you very much. Kindly get off your high horse. Submitted in Love". There is scope for ongoing declarations of independence. We row and argue our way to unity.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Our church (founded 1686) is "old dissent" and this truly Nonconformist. However it has undergone the "routinisation" predicted of all organisations over time and is now nothing like as nonconformist (in the more general sense of the word) as it should be.
Many British Nonconformist denominations deliberately made themselves "respectable" in the late 1800s, in hot competition with the Anglicans who were generally higher up the social scale.
I think that Jesus would wish all Christians to be "nonconformist" in the sense that we are continually questioning cultural values rather than accepting them blindly. Many years ago I went to a Bible study hosted by US Fundamentalists, the theme was "total separation from the world" and everyone present agreed that they had done that since they did not smoke, drink or have extra-marital sex and did their best to live in an exclusively Christian ghetto (not easy, as this was in Portugal). However they held deep assumptions about (say) politics and economics which they had never even considered thinking about.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
...I think that Jesus would wish all Christians to be "nonconformist" in the sense that we are continually questioning cultural values rather than accepting them blindly...
Indeed. And, looking back to kaplan corday's post further up the thread , it is as possible to be nonconformist in this sense within the CofE as it is to be rigid, authoritarian etc in the 'Nonconformist' denominations.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
One could argue that Jesus only had one non-conformist among his disciples.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Yeah, that'll be Peter - who denied the Lord but was at least with him to the end, unlike all those other 'conformist' disciples who ran away.
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by drnick:
I would tend to think of the term 'non-conformist' as a positive thing. It has connotations of challenging power and ways of thinking, of taking individual conscience seriously and refusing to accept authority when it contradicts this. I quite like the idea of being slightly outside the mainstream.
But what do you think? Does the term for you have any positive or negative connotations?
It clearly has negative connotations for some.
Being Orthodox, I do not belong to any of the churches descended from those historically labelled "Non-Conformist". However, from time to time, an Anglican friend of mine jokingly teases me about being non-conformist, which, technically, I suppose I am, not belonging to the established church either.
I mentioned this in passing on one occasion during a lighthearted conversation with an Orthodox friend, who very quickly shot me down by stating very firmly, 'I don't want to discuss politics'.
I didn't understand the reaction then and I don't now. The awkward silence that followed meant that I asked no questions, deciding instead to change to subject.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
One could argue that Jesus only had one non-conformist among his disciples.
Go on then ...
Tubbs
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I've just slapped a fiver on Judas with Betfred.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
One could argue that Jesus only had one non-conformist among his disciples.
How many Nonconformists did he have?
We're in danger of debating the meaning of a word, which is awkward when that word has a number of meanings, varying, as ever, by the context in which it is used.
Non-conformism means different things in society as a whole, within a workplace and within a faith, denomination or congregation. Capitalisation and, I suspect, the hyphen make a difference too! I don't conform to the 'norm' of my church, which makes me a non-conformist but I'm a member of the CofE so I'm not a Nonconformist. Further to all this I was baptised in the RCC, so in becoming a member of the CofE I don't conform to that either, although whether that can be taken to be Nonconformism I doubt.
With the best will in the world debating the meaning of terms doesn't often help. OK, examine them, but don't worry them and yourself down a blind alley when there are matters of greater importance to deal with.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I've just slapped a fiver on Judas with Betfred.
Anyone betting on Judas in those days would have had inside information. My money's on Thomas.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
[Thomas is the one I'd have chosen. I thought Mark was more likely to choose Judas.]
Sioni Sais
I think you're right if all one is trying to do is define the meaning of the word. I think nonconformism within the churches is more a cultural thing - a kind of faith-flavour.
Perhaps our abiding characteristic as people within the church is the way we struggle with obedience?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[Thomas is the one I'd have chosen. I thought Mark was more likely to choose Judas.]
No, I'm sitting this one out!
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Such a broad term. What springs to mind for me is that non-conformists first sprang up, in a powerful way, with Cromwell's bunch - the strict Puritans, who wished to dispense with Bishops among other established Church things. And ended up cutting off a king's head.
Non-conformism also went through it's more liberal phase - I think - in the 1700's? Denominations splitting off to accommodate less traditional credal interpretations of scripture eg, Unitarianism, Quakerism, Shakers, certain forms of anabaptism - the fertile applcation of applying individual conscience to religion.
Then 'enthusiasm' or a more fundamental evangelicalism came in, in the 1800's. Scriptural literalism, also, comes into its own. Holiness movements, post-Weslyan Methodism, strict Presbyterianism. Many of these non-conformisms had in common a certain uniformity: rejection of Anglican liberal theology, a return - as they perceived it - to scriptural primacy over church tradition, and certain features of iconaclasm, and rejection of priestly caste as expressed by the orthodox Churches - mediation by the saints and Mary, relics, prayer for the dead etc.
Currently, non-conformism seems much more complex. The terms seem hugely blurred. I don't think eg, that, in religious terms, it really means people who are simply contrarians, as in, the minister says this and I disagree; the minister says that and I disagree. To me, that would seem to go against the movement and authenticity of real non-conformism! Because, presumably, the ministers of non-conformist churches ought to be 'non-conformist' themselves. Non-conformism surely defines a specific and formulaic approach to religion, not merely the ability to say 'I don't agree'!
Non-conformism is not contrarianism.
Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
Didn't we have a shipmate whose screen name was "Never Conforming"? I quite liked that. (If she's still around but changed her name, someone please let me know!)
Sadly, Never Conforming hasn't posted for many years.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
We're in danger of debating the meaning of a word, which is awkward when that word has a number of meanings, varying, as ever, by the context in which it is used.
Yes, I think it's kind of sketchy to draw linkages between Non-conformism, meaning a particular British religious classification, and non-conformism, meaning unadapted to social strictures.
It's a little like discussing the Catholicism of the RCC, and then trying to segue that into a discussion about the catholicism of a guy who likes to read books about anthropology, gardening, and Tanzanian politics.
That said, the Unitarian Universalists have long taken some pretty liberal license with the meaning of "Unitarian", adding neo-definitions that go well beyond the original meaning of the unity of the godhead, eg. unity of man, "you are the U in Unitarian" etc. But that's a little less awkward, I guess, since they're basically the only people maintaining "ownership" of the word, and are therefore free to poeticize it if they so choose.
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
In the context of the Ship, I will say that I twitch whenever I see the phrase, because of the particular way it is used by English shipmates. In my (big) country, we're all "non-conformist" (bozos) on this bus, because we don't have a state-sponsored religion (thanks be to God).
So, to your question, no, it doesn't really mean anything in a place that doesn't have an established religion. It figures as part of our national origin story, of course, but increasingly not with those words.
There are a lot of times when a question/topic could be opened upside outside Little England by a slightly different choice of words .
Yes, you're a real nonconformist. As the italicised bit (mine that) makes clear. You even make critical observations about the validity of the questions.
The Pilgrim Fathers were, of course, Puritan English Dissenters, one of the reasons, but not the only one, for the strong Independence traditions in the US, as famously articulated here.
There is no irony in the historical fact that the descendants of English nonconformist settlers and others of similar ilk turned round to face the government of the English and, in effect, said "up yours, sunshine".
Mother England wasn't being kind to most of the Anglicans in the American colonies, nor was the church hierarchy especially (the first we get taught in history class, the second in confirmation class ).
Re the latter, I really wish that the C of E as a whole would recognize that TEC is a non-established, tiny minority church in the US and has its own very different system of governance. The general way we do things is really not much different from my mother's Presbyterian church although we have different names for the differing governing bodies. This is entirely due to 1776/1789 And All That.
quote:
There is, however, to my eyes, considerable irony to be found in the conformity of the Religious Right in the US to a privatised understanding of faith. There is an awful lot of agenda-parroting going on there, which seems to me to go against the grain of independence of heart and mind which took the Pilgrim Fathers out of the UK in the first place.
Oh, don't get me started about the new American "civic religion". I quite agree with you that a number of people seem to not have read and understood their history books. quote:
Which I guess gives some sort of an answer to Mark Betts' observation. Nonconformism operates primarily in a local church setting. The checks against control-freak leadership work fine if congregational members remember their roots. Church leaders who turn out to be control freaks get confronted by the independent-minded members of the local congo who remind them that Jesus said "not so among you. No lording over us, thank you very much. Kindly get off your high horse. Submitted in Love". There is scope for ongoing declarations of independence. We row and argue our way to unity.
In the US that kind of situation often results in a church split of some kind. I presume you've heard the joke about the guy with two shacks on the desert island?
I will note that if the control freak is in some sort of central office but is not in a position to randomly replace your clergy, your local congregation can probably keep carrying on as usual.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
In the US that kind of situation often results in a church split of some kind. I presume you've heard the joke about the guy with two shacks on the desert island?
Yes indeed. We're good at doing the splits. We get so much practice. The uncompromising don't do compromise very well. Paul and Barnabas, anyone?
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
I will note that if the control freak is in some sort of central office but is not in a position to randomly replace your clergy, your local congregation can probably keep carrying on as usual.
Yes. And if they split, then they have no-one to blame but themselves. Which is a sort of comfort.
Actually, both points do hint at something which may be embedded in nonconformist culture. Sometimes strengths are weaknesses too.
The refusal to back down is often very praiseworthy. I'm thinking of the marvelous John Proctor in Miller's "The Crucible".
"I will not sign"
[short version of further pleading]"Why not?"
"BECAUSE IT IS MY NAME"
At its best, the nonconformist culture recognises the link between personal integrity and personal conscience. Where there are differences of outlook and vision, it is indeed better to agree to differ and continue in fellowship, nevertheless. But that is a hard thing to sustain if the rubbing edges keep rubbing.
Given the general nonconformist belief in local congregations, and the general "extended family" model for church governance, particularly in the independent churches, splits may be a better solution. I've seen them done relatively amicably. They don't have to destroy goodwill.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
The term'non-conformist' is used in a particular religious context to refer to those who refused for various reasons to adhere to the Established Church of England.The UK includes also Scotland where the Established Church of England is certainly not the church 'established by law'.
Members of the 'National Church of Scotland' would in no way consider themselves to be 'non-conformist'.There are of course many different denominations,sects,splinter groups amongst Presbyterians including the 'non-conformist' Scottish episcopal church,but the term 'non-conformist' would not be used and would only be understood by those who are au fait with the religious history of the English part of the United Kingdom.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Non-Conformist originates with those who were ejected from the Church of England for refusing to comply with the act of Uniformity in 1662.
Any Anglican who today does not use the Book of Common Prayer would be outside the terms of the act.
Jengie
[ 09. June 2012, 12:04: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Non-Conformist originates with those who were ejected from the Church of England for refusing to comply with the act of Uniformity in 1662.
Any Anglican who today does not use the Book of Common Prayer would be outside the terms of the act.
Jengie
On that basis many Anglicans must be Non-Conformists, at least some of the time, unless the law was amended when the ASB was introduced.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
I presume you've heard the joke about the guy with two shacks on the desert island?
There's a similar one about two guys with five shacks on their island, but I can't remember the exact and intricate details.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Non-Conformist originates with those who were ejected from the Church of England for refusing to comply with the act of Uniformity in 1662.
Any Anglican who today does not use the Book of Common Prayer would be outside the terms of the act.
Jengie
On that basis many Anglicans must be Non-Conformists, at least some of the time, unless the law was amended when the ASB was introduced.
I am not quite sure what the status is, some of it was turned off in 1680, but there are still complexities around what is legal in the CofE worship.
It is also useful to remind Anglicans that if the law came into force today that forced out Nonconformists most of them would have to leave as well.
Jengie
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by drnick:
But what do you think? Does the term for you have any positive or negative connotations?
In a church context, entirely positive connotations. its a pity that so many of those groups have declined so much. The world might be a better place with more Methodists in it.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
That's why I'm not non-conformist - but I would say that, wouldn't I?
Except you are exactly that in English church terms because you are a member of a church other than your Anglican parish church. You have chosen not to be conformed to the established religion and to select your own church.
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
I presume you've heard the joke about the guy with two shacks on the desert island?
There's a similar one about two guys with five shacks on their island, but I can't remember the exact and intricate details.
As in Joke One, each one builds a church to go to and a church not to go to - but then they decide to co-operate and build a church not to go to together.
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
Re the latter, I really wish that the C of E as a whole would recognize that TEC is a non-established, tiny minority church in the US and has its own very different system of governance. The general way we do things is really not much different from my mother's Presbyterian church although we have different names for the differing governing bodies.
Yet your bishops have more control over parish churches than our CofE ones do. Ours are in many ways self-governing in practice, if not always on paper. Most don't pay much attention to bishops at all other than as an excuse to have a party every few years when they visit.
Establishment doesn't really affect what goes on inside CofE churches at all. its more a sort of shell round them, that people outside them see. Most of the members of the churches have no contact with it. That's maybe one reason why being an archbishop is such an impossible job. They more or less permanently inhabit that shell and have all sorts of contradictory demands made on them from both inside it and outside it that whatever they so or say most people will object to it.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by drnick:
But what do you think? Does the term for you have any positive or negative connotations?
In a church context, entirely positive connotations. its a pity that so many of those groups have declined so much. The world might be a better place with more Methodists in it.
...
No might about it. In fact, Anglican as I am, I've often thought that if I had to plan a world where you could only have one kind of everything, all religion would be Methodist. (And all the shops would be the Co-op, and all politicians would be Shirley Williams- and yes, I do know she's an RC!)
[ 09. June 2012, 15:26: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
I presume you've heard the joke about the guy with two shacks on the desert island?
There's a similar one about two guys with five shacks on their island, but I can't remember the exact and intricate details.
Reminds me of the (almost certainly apocryphal)
comment attributed to Stalin: "Two Trots, three factions".
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Only three? Just not trying ...
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I think eleven of the disciples were non-conformists, though in different ways.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
I've often thought that if I had to plan a world where you could only have one kind of everything, all religion would be Methodist
I'm one; it's hell and doesn't work, yet somehow holds a romantic attraction based perhaps on what it could be, or once (really, or in imagination) was.
quote:
Methodists are electrical, or so I've been informed,
John Wesley got plugged into a circuit - he was strangely warmed.
But things are cooling down now, I think it's plain to see -
why when God so loved the world, he never sent a co-mit-tee -
Cos that's all...they ever seem to do...
If you aint got Jesus, there's just the de-nomination blues.
[ 09. June 2012, 22:01: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The term 'Nonconformity' (more commonplace than 'Nonconformism') is almost always used in historical contexts. I'm a lifelong British Methodist, and have been involved in ecumenical meetings with the URC, Baptists, etc., but I've never heard it used to describe those churches as they are now. What I've read is that in the late Victorian/Edwardian eras, 'Nonconformity' was replaced by the term 'Free Churches'. But we don't really hear that term now either.
The Nonconformist churches, as historical institutions, have now largely achieved equality with the CofE in many areas of life, and have made common cause with the CofE on many issues, theological and social. Therefore, the concept of 'Nonconformity' doesn't really have much currency today.
Nonconformity might have some currency if these smaller historical churches were still fighting for the disestablishment of the CofE, as they once did, but they've long since given up on that fight; I've never come across any fellow Methodists talking about disestablishment, neither clergy, lay preachers, theologicans nor people in the pews. I'm sure there are some who have opinions about it, but not the extent that they really want to rock the boat. So that's not very 'nonconformist', is it?
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
Re the latter, I really wish that the C of E as a whole would recognize that TEC is a non-established, tiny minority church in the US and has its own very different system of governance. The general way we do things is really not much different from my mother's Presbyterian church although we have different names for the differing governing bodies.
Yet your bishops have more control over parish churches than our CofE ones do. Ours are in many ways self-governing in practice, if not always on paper. Most don't pay much attention to bishops at all other than as an excuse to have a party every few years when they visit.
Interesting. In which ways?
My impression is that a financially self-sufficient parish in TEC is very self-governing in practice. If there is some sort of basic difference between it and the bishop, getting confirmations and vocations through could be tough (a former rector of mine has a story along those lines), but that's a special case. quote:
Establishment doesn't really affect what goes on inside CofE churches at all.
Not even "hatch, match, dispatch"? quote:
its more a sort of shell round them, that people outside them see. Most of the members of the churches have no contact with it. That's maybe one reason why being an archbishop is such an impossible job. They more or less permanently inhabit that shell and have all sorts of contradictory demands made on them from both inside it and outside it that whatever they so or say most people will object to it.
Fully agreed, there!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:
I've often thought that if I had to plan a world where you could only have one kind of everything, all religion would be Methodist
I'm one; it's hell and doesn't work, yet somehow holds a romantic attraction based perhaps on what it could be, or once (really, or in imagination) was.
Yes, some non-Methodists are quite romantic about the Methodist Church, aren't they? It's quite charming, but I must say, things were better for the Methodist Church when the Anglican establishment wasn't quite so approving! A cynic might say that Methodism is only admired nowadays because it's no longer (perceived to be) a threat to anyone or anything.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is, however, to my eyes, considerable irony to be found in the conformity of the Religious Right in the US to a privatised understanding of faith. There is an awful lot of agenda-parroting going on there, which seems to me to go against the grain of independence of heart and mind which took the Pilgrim Fathers out of the UK in the first place.
It is important to remember that the Separatist/Congregationalist Pilgrim Fathers might have wanted independence from the established Church of England, but had little or no concept of pluralism or religious liberty.
They set up a de facto theocracy in New England which flogged Baptists and hanged Quakers.
The real reason for the development of religious liberty in America was the unlimited unoccupied space (if you ignored the poor old Native Americans)which made it always possible for genuine pioneers of religious tolerance, such as Roger Williams, to go off and start a new settlement elsewhere
[ 10. June 2012, 09:52: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
They sure did, KC. The danger for nonconformists calling the shots is they also overlook "not so among you".
Piercing the self-righteous camouflage, brings you a truth pithily declared by my father to me, in a verse parody from "the red Flag".
"The working class can kiss my ass
I've got the foreman's job at last".
As Jesus saw and warned, the temptation to "lord" it is very dangerous, particularly when associated with a pernicious "we know better" self-righteousness. It's the meek who inherit the earth. Not much meekness on display when you flog and hang - or burn.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
The designation 'free church' is an interesting one. It seems to be used in several different ways - some URC churches are formally 'Free' churches, some baptists describe themselves as 'free' baptist/evangelical and there is (or was, I'm not sure) a Free Church moderator - who was sometimes seen in public as a 'church leader'.
I'm not entirely clear if the 'free church' is the same as non-conformist, but seems to include all protestant non-Anglicans. Which always seemed odd to me, given the vast variety of opinion within this group, which rarely agree on very much and are very likely to be formed from splits of each other!
As far as I know, there are still appointed 'Free church' chaplains to universities and hospitals.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Interestingly, according to the Free Church Group of Churches together in England and Wales, the Free Church of England is a Free Church. But there must also be a wide spectrum of non-conformist churches which are not represented, given the tendency of some Evangelicals to consider ecumenicalism as a form of treason.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace
My impression is that a financially self-sufficient parish in TEC is very self-governing in practice.
Under certain circumstances, the bishop can take charge of a parish. There was a parish in New Hampshire where the rector and vestry were at loggerheads, and the vestry was violating the canons. The bishop demoted the parish to mission status; this meant that he became the rector, and the priest who had been rector became vicar. The vicar of a mission church has far more power vis-a-vis the vestry than the rector of an ordinary church. Most members of the recalcitrant vestry resigned.
Moo
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:
I've often thought that if I had to plan a world where you could only have one kind of everything, all religion would be Methodist
I'm one; it's hell and doesn't work, yet somehow holds a romantic attraction based perhaps on what it could be, or once (really, or in imagination) was.
Yes, some non-Methodists are quite romantic about the Methodist Church, aren't they? It's quite charming, but I must say, things were better for the Methodist Church when the Anglican establishment wasn't quite so approving! A cynic might say that Methodism is only admired nowadays because it's no longer (perceived to be) a threat to anyone or anything.
Well, my main experience of Methodism- two or three years as a regular worshipper at West London Mission, including quite a lot of involvement on committees overseeing the Mission's rather extensive social work programme- is perhaps not typical of the Connexion as a whole. It did show me some downsides of Methodist behaviour- certain tendencies to 'wibbling' (that sort of rather general expression of concern that some people do, whirring away in the background of meetings like, and about as effectively as, a faulty air conditioner), to damp handshakes and to an idea that Christianity was essentially about being 'nice'. But I question whether these are unique to Methodism and my overwhelming impression was of a certain basic decency and down to earth intelligence. I think that these qualities are actually and quite rightly, in their own rather undemonstrative way, a threat to quite a lot, both in our churches and in our wider society.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Albertus
I can see that being part of a nice, decent, sensible Methodist or other church is a positive thing, but I'm not sure how it might be seen as a threat to other churches or to society in general.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
to damp handshakes and to an idea that Christianity was essentially about being 'nice'.
Give me damp handshakes any day - I have arthritis in my hand and firm handshakes hurt!
Define 'nice'.
I would define it as having love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
There is nothing unChristian about being nice!
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Albertus and SvitlanaV2 -
I should have been more clear in my post that the (silly?) romantic attraction to Methodism is mine - I wasn't accusing anyone else of an unrealistic view of things, as much as me.
I think A has nailed it. *Could be* down-to-earth and effective, powered by something spiritually alive/vital (perhaps like my outsiders view of the Salvation Army) - and perhaps sometimes is. But often *Is* damp, liberal, 'Jesus wants us to be kind'.
And ageing, closing, retreating. Often, but not always.
And Boogie (ETA) - if those things are 'the fruits of the *spirit*' (Gal 5?) then they're dynamic! If they're not, they're dead. At least, they are in me.
[ 11. June 2012, 10:34: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace in response to ken:
Establishment doesn't really affect what goes on inside CofE churches at all.
quote:
Not even "hatch, match, dispatch"?
Not even hatch, match and dispatch. The only residual bit of establishment there is that the C of E clergyperson is ex officio the state's registrar at weddings: but in practice other denominations have a similar arrangement. Maybe the majority of outsiders turn to the C of E rather than any other church for these events because it is seen as the 'default' church. Which might be a relic of establishment, or just the fact that Anglican churches tend to be more visible. But the actual legal status is irrelevant in most cases.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Albertus and SvitlanaV2 -
I should have been more clear in my post that the (silly?) romantic attraction to Methodism is mine - I wasn't accusing anyone else of an unrealistic view of things, as much as me.
I think A has nailed it. *Could be* down-to-earth and effective, powered by something spiritually alive/vital (perhaps like my outsiders view of the Salvation Army) - and perhaps sometimes is. But often *Is* damp, liberal, 'Jesus wants us to be kind'.
And ageing, closing, retreating. Often, but not always.
And Boogie (ETA) - if those things are 'the fruits of the *spirit*' (Gal 5?) then they're dynamic! If they're not, they're dead. At least, they are in me.
I know there are dynamic Methodist churches, and we should be thankful for them. Unfortunately, though, the statistics for Methodism in general are not terribly good.
Other than statistics, of course, we all have our own personal experiences to colour our thoughts on the matter.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And the point of my post was to join in lamenting the decline of Methodism. That decline is, perhaps, in itself a sign that the basic decency and down to earth intelligence that I mentioned are subversive: not that these values aren't lived out by millions of people, but ISTM that they are radically opposed to the mores of an age which seems to exalt self-publicity, consumerism, and a retreat in religion and belief to the easy certainties of fixed dogmatic positions.
As to defining 'nice', as boogie asked: well, of course it's better to be nice than not, and if you identify 'niceness' with the gifts of the Spirit, as Boogie does, then it's a powerful thing. But I suppose I meant something rather blander: though when push comes to shove, you could do a lot worse even than that.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
ISTM that one needs to distinguish between Non-conformist with a capital "N" from non-conformist in the lower case. Traditional "Non-conformity" would seem to apply to denominations which rejected the conformity of the established Church of England. It certainly did not necessarily imply tolerance or free-thinking, though some dissenters were just that and contributed to the rise of liberalism and pluralism. Lower case "non-conformity" ISTM is far less specific and can include Non-conformists in conflict with their own sects and denominations, dissentient adherents of established churches, and to contexts outside the religious.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Lower case "non-conformity" ISTM is far less specific and can include Non-conformists in conflict with their own sects and denominations, dissentient adherents of established churches, and to contexts outside the religious.
I've never heard the term used this way in religious contexts. The CofE is a broad church anyway, so what would it mean to be a non-conformist there?
It's often said that these days denominational divisions are less meaningful than they were, and that it's commonplace to disagree with someone from your own denomination while agreeing with someone from another, even on supposely quite basic Christian beliefs. That may be true. But considering that our institutional theologians and our clergy often disagree with each other, it seems hard to maintain a very coherent understanding of what it might mean to be a non-conformist within one's own church body.
This sort of usage would only seem meaningful if you're talking about a firmly theologically liberal person in a firmly conservative denomination. In such a case, the differences would be more clearly defined. But the very possibility of such a person being able and willing to remain in such a denomination suggests that plurality of belief is making headway there too, and it becoming acceptable.
Post-modernity suggests that no religious organisation can claim to be pure and united in its doctrinal positions. Either we're all non-conformists or none of us are!
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
The point I'm trying to make is that "non-conformist" is unspecific as to context and can be used as a synonym for dissident, dissentient, free-thinker, oddball and so on. In a religious context "Non-conformist" is specific, and relates to Protestant sects and denominations which reject(ed)conformity with the Church of England.
drnick in my opinion confuses the two, when he writes I would tend to think of the term 'non-conformist' as a positive thing. It has connotations of challenging power and ways of thinking, of taking individual conscience seriously and refusing to accept authority when it contradicts this. I quite like the idea of being slightly outside the mainstream. Not a few of the Non-conformist denominations and sects (were) are, indeed, sectarian, narrow-minded and authoritarian, far more that the Church of England they despised. In other words while they were (are) Non-conformist they were (are) certainly not non-conformist in the way presented by drnick's quotation. Milton's Areopagitica would not impress them!
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Lower case "non-conformity" ISTM is far less specific and can include Non-conformists in conflict with their own sects and denominations, dissentient adherents of established churches, and to contexts outside the religious.
I've never heard the term used this way in religious contexts. The CofE is a broad church anyway, so what would it mean to be a non-conformist there?
Well "Non-conformist" certainly used to mean, in England only, not conforming to the CofE. It's a shorthand way of referring to people in England who aren't regular attenders at CofE services, but who worship at other places. In actual usage, it ceased to refer to Roman Catholics sometime in the early 20th century. It may (or may not) have ceased to be used at all in its historic context -- it was still sometimes used in the old way (primarily with respect to Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians) when I lived in England some 40 years ago.
John
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by drnick:
I would tend to think of the term 'non-conformist' as a positive thing. It has connotations of challenging power and ways of thinking, of taking individual conscience seriously and refusing to accept authority when it contradicts this. I quite like the idea of being slightly outside the mainstream.
Two groups which spring to mind when I read these words are Lefebvrist Catholics and, here in Australia, conservative Christians who oppose gay marriage in the face of the majority of Australians and majority of Australian Christians who support it.
Is that what you had in mind?
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
OK then broad sxale since Orthdox,Anglican Lutheran & all reform churches left the RCC we are all non conformists.
In UK its any church not linked to CofE
In North America ? who knows When I was part SBC church I would have considered myself non conformists .But really ?!!!!
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
OK then broad sxale since Orthdox...churches left the RCC
I hope for your sake that certain Orthodox shipmates aren't reading this thread. If they are, you're on your own, mate!
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Isn't the issue that 'non-conformists' were in the mid-distant past just a bunch of Christians who refused to co-operate with the law of the land.. who have today become so accepted and moderated that the term is a total contradiction..?
Hard to put a piece of paper between anyone considered to be 'conformist' on one side and the 'non-conformists' on the other. A totally redundant term.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
I presume you've heard the joke about the guy with two shacks on the desert island?
There's a similar one about two guys with five shacks on their island, but I can't remember the exact and intricate details.
Reminds me of the (almost certainly apocryphal)
comment attributed to Stalin: "Two Trots, three factions".
William Morris describing a socialist meeting in the wonderful News From Nowhere:
quote:
For the rest, there were six persons present, and consequently six sections of the party were represented, four of which had strong but divergent Anarchist opinions. One of the sections, says our friend, a man whom he knows very well indeed, sat almost silent at the beginning of the discussion, but at last got drawn into it and finished by roaring out very loud, and damning all the rest for fools; after which befell a period of noise, and then a lull, during which the aforesaid section, having said good-night very amicably, took his way home by himself to a western suburb, using the means of travelling which civilisation has forced upon us like a habit.
Not a lot's changed in 120 years.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
As a non-conformist, Free-Church Salvationist, I would say that a free church is one that is not tied down to liturgy, lectionary, litany or liberalism.
It preaches the Gospel of conversion and holiness - i.e. 'you must be born again' and 'be filled with the Spirit.
Free churches reject sacramentalism and preach the priesthood of all believers.
They have a high view of Scripture and its authority and would frown on anything that would lessen that authority or pretend to have equal authority.
They have a high view of Christ and would reject anything or anyone that would detract from his unique nature and upon his saving action on the cross - so no saints, no Mary.
I wish to God there were more of us - the world needs robust Christianity that stands up for Jesus and preaches the gospel of repentance and everlasting life through faith in him alone.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
That is an interesting point of view, Mudfrog.
So what is the difference between that definition and evangelical?
I have to admit to having a little snigger at the idea that the SA doesn't have liturgy or lectionary or liturgy and the Priesthood of All Believers though. Which just goes to show something.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
That is an interesting point of view, Mudfrog.
So what is the difference between that definition and evangelical?
I have to admit to having a little snigger at the idea that the SA doesn't have liturgy or lectionary or liturgy and the Priesthood of All Believers though. Which just goes to show something.
I don't think there is a difference. The Feree Churches are usually the evangelical ones.
I don't understand your comment about the liturgy, etc.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
So what is the difference between that definition and evangelical?
Lots of evangelicals are in teh CofE or other traditional denominations that no-one woudl ever call "Free Church"
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
OK, so @Mudfrog is saying the Free and Non conformist churches are a subset of evangelicals.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
I only recently joined an Anglican church (18 months ago), having been a member of a Baptist church for 16 years previously and having participated in the governance and work of that church for a long, long time.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
OK, so @Mudfrog is saying the Free and Non conformist churches are a subset of evangelicals.
But of course that isn't the case. I know non-conformists - my friend the URC minister f'rinstance - who are very firmly not evangelical. In the venn diagram of churches, the intersection between non-conformists and evangelicals is, yes, a big one, but the circles do not map wholly, and you'd have to be very uninformed to think otherwise.
WRT to what Boogie said earlier in the thread: I firmly believe that one of the Devil's greatest deceptions cast upon the modern evangelical church is the belief that "nice" and "holy" are in some way distinct, or, worse, even opposed.
Nice is, pace what some misguided people think, an important and useful thing, particularly for Christians, and we are never quite nice enough.
Having said that, many, many evangelicals and non-conformists are nice people, and I don't think that you can necessarily write them off as humourless and strict.
Non-conformity isn't defined by that.
[ 12. June 2012, 15:14: Message edited by: Wood ]
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
I'm not really convinced there is a whole lot of overlap between non-conformists (or Free (and I'm not really persuaded that is the same thing anyway)) and evangelicals.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I'm not really convinced there is a whole lot of overlap between non-conformists (or Free (and I'm not really persuaded that is the same thing anyway)) and evangelicals.
My gut tells me that roughly the same proportion of non-conformists are evangelical as Anglicans. But that's my gut. It's not very good with statistics. It's better with cheesecake.
Mmm, cheesecake.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
OK, so @Mudfrog is saying the Free and Non conformist churches are a subset of evangelicals.
No, I would say that the Free Churches are by identity evangelical denominations.
That there are evangelicals in the CofE is due, perhaps, to the 'free-thinking' opinions of some of those who wish to remain in the anglican communion.
It's a bit like charismatic catholics. Still Catholics, not Pentecostals, though they utilise the chandeliers like the best of the Penties ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
OK, so @Mudfrog is saying the Free and Non conformist churches are a subset of evangelicals.
But of course that isn't the case. I know non-conformists - my friend the URC minister f'rinstance - who are very firmly not evangelical. In the venn diagram of churches, the intersection between non-conformists and evangelicals is, yes, a big one, but the circles do not map wholly, and you'd have to be very uninformed to think otherwise.
That is because, like many Methodists, your URC friend has moved away from the evangelical roots and identity of his denomination.
I know of a URC minister who was summarily sacked by her congregation - almost overnight - because she told the world she didn't believe in the resurrection. The congregation evidently wanted to retain its identity and integrity.
I cannot understand who a minister would want to work as a liberal in an evangelical church.
[ 12. June 2012, 15:42: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
sorry to post again.
Nice = innoffensive (to a sinful world), 'more tea Vicar?', grey and pliable.
Christians are called to be above all loving, kind, compassionate and Christlike. They are also supposed to be radical and unyielding when it comes to the truth of the Gospel message.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Really. Hmm, that is interesting. I wouldn't say so at all. And a very large number of evangelicals wouldn't describe themselves as free church (they might say they were non-conformist, but I've never heard the term used around non-Anglican evangelicals or anyone else). But then these things are largely about perception and self description as far as I can see.
I suppose the next question is why anyone would want to describe themselves (or their church) as non-conformist or free rather than Evangelical or Reformed or whatever else these denominations self-define as.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
There used to be what was called the Free Church Federal Council which was the official body of those churches that were not Anglican or catholic. They met as a separate 'ecumenical' group because amongst other things, they didn't want to accept catholic doctrine or practice and join in worship with them.
That situation has thankfully gone, but the Free Church group still exists. if you look on the CTE website you'll see who they all are.
Historically, they are the evangelicals.
BTW you still haven't explained your comment about TSA and liturgy, etc.
[ 12. June 2012, 15:50: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Really. Hmm, that is interesting. I wouldn't say so at all. And a very large number of evangelicals wouldn't describe themselves as free church (they might say they were non-conformist, but I've never heard the term used around non-Anglican evangelicals or anyone else). But then these things are largely about perception and self description as far as I can see.
I suppose the next question is why anyone would want to describe themselves (or their church) as non-conformist or free rather than Evangelical or Reformed or whatever else these denominations self-define as.
Free of the control or influence of Anglicanism and/or Catholicism. free to practice the evangelical faith without conforming to the established legal church and canon law and practice.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
I was just looking at the list from CtEW and I wouldn't even say that these are all evangelicals. Moreover, there are a large number of evangelicals outside of the Anglican church which is not represented.
Of course, evangelical is an elastic term, but I don't really see the sense in calling a denomination evangelical when they wouldn't call themselves evangelical.
In my experience the SA has the most liturgical services I've ever been to, the most rigid form of ordained leadership (even if you don't call it priesthood) and some of the most inflexible and formal services that I've ever been to.
Fair enough, they're not the same kinds of liturgy and formality as other churches, but the idea that they don't exist is - to me at least - laughable.
[ 12. June 2012, 15:56: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
In my experience the SA has the most liturgical services I've ever been to, the most rigid form of ordained leadership (even if you don't call it priesthood) and some of the most inflexible and formal services that I've ever been to.
Fair enough, they're not the same kinds of liturgy and formality as other churches, but the idea that they don't exist is - to me at least - laughable.
Really? Where on earth did you go to? What prayer books did they use?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Liturgy is not only related to prayer books, it is related to oft repeated forms of worship. Many of the most 'non-liturgical' churches are in fact very liturgical with the same people saying the same things in the same order every meeting.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Liturgy is not only related to prayer books, it is related to oft repeated forms of worship. Many of the most 'non-liturgical' churches are in fact very liturgical with the same people saying the same things in the same order every meeting.
There is a danger of course of this but it shouldn't be like that! If there is a sameness each week that's entirely down to the lack of imagination of the leader of the meeting, not the stated policy of the denomination.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
I firmly believe that one of the Devil's greatest deceptions cast upon the modern evangelical church is the belief that "nice" and "holy" are in some way distinct, or, worse, even opposed.
I agree...but...I'm a bit of a sad, neurotic (in the sense of an over-appreciation of my responsibility for things / everything) and generally inoffensive individual a lot of the time. Sometimes I feel buoy-ed up - even, rarely, driven - by something of the love of God, and this makes me something better than 'nice' for a bit.
I guess it's one of those things where a different message speaks to different people. Strong, driven (personally ambitious?, prideful?) people might well be called to be a bit nicer. On the other side of the personality-disorder-spectrum, I don't think the Spirit acts in the neurotic by further honing their capacity to subjugate themselves to those around them...whatever the message from the 'Kind Jesus' pulpit might be.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I was just looking at the list from CtEW and I wouldn't even say that these are all evangelicals. Moreover, there are a large number of evangelicals outside of the Anglican church which is not represented.
There is no parallelism between Nonconformity and Evangelicalism. Grantged, Pentecostals and Brethren (for instance) are evangelical, as are most Baptists. But there are many in the Methodist and United Reformed Churches who would distance themselves from evangelicalism.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I was just looking at the list from CtEW and I wouldn't even say that these are all evangelicals. Moreover, there are a large number of evangelicals outside of the Anglican church which is not represented.
There is no parallelism between Nonconformity and Evangelicalism. Grantged, Pentecostals and Brethren (for instance) are evangelical, as are most Baptists. But there are many in the Methodist and United Reformed Churches who would distance themselves from evangelicalism.
Nowadays they might. There was a time when these denominations were squarely evangelical. It's a great shame that the great Methodist preachers of the last century and the 2 centuries before, would probably not recognise the Methodism of today. I wonder what Sangster would make of it all.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Mudfrog, where would you place his contempories, Leslie Weatherhead and Donald Sooper, who were certainly non-conformist and, I would argue, firmly in the best traditions of Non-conformity?
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
.........sorry, Soper!
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That there are evangelicals in the CofE is due, perhaps, to the 'free-thinking' opinions of some of those who wish to remain in the anglican communion.
I like you. You're funny.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
.........sorry, Soper!
Well, Soper (who was of course rather Sooper or super) did IIRC say that he'd be happy to think of Methodism as a preaching order of the CofE, in the interests of reunion.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
The trouble with the word nonconformist (small n) is that as in the case of terms such as "normal", it can be used both descriptively and prescriptively.
Because it has positive connotations of being brave and principled, we use it to describe people of whom we approve.
If, for example, a person adopted a full-blown Nazi ideology, the whole Hitlerian worldview lock stock and barrel, we would be very unlikely to describe them as nonconformist, but in the strict objective and statistical sense of the word they would be thoroughly nonconformist, because more than ninety-nine percent of the community would reject them as mad, bad or both.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
I cannot understand who a minister would want to work as a liberal in an evangelical church. [/QB]
Probably the minister has not been a liberal since the beginning of his ministry. It must be very hard to quit your job after youīre already established in life and doesnīt know how to do anything else, and you have a family to feed.
Belief in the ressurection, virgin birth, repentance and salvation by faith are not exclusively evangelical beliefs. They are christian beliefs, period. The Apostleīs Creed, the 39 articles of faith, the augsburg confession, etc, all state these beliefs.
I donīt understand why people act like evangelicals are a sect with their own particular beliefs inside of a broader mainline church. Most likely, they believe what their church has always believed.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There is no parallelism between Nonconformity and Evangelicalism. Grantged, Pentecostals and Brethren (for instance) are evangelical, as are most Baptists. But there are many in the Methodist and United Reformed Churches who would distance themselves from evangelicalism.
Nowadays they might. There was a time when these denominations were squarely evangelical. It's a great shame that the great Methodist preachers of the last century and the 2 centuries before, would probably not recognise the Methodism of today. I wonder what Sangster would make of it all.
But the same aplies to mainline denominations. Do you think Martin Luther would recognise the ELCA or the Church Of Sweden of today???
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
[QUOTE]
I donīt understand why people act like evangelicals are a sect with their own particular beliefs inside of a broader mainline church. Most likely, they believe what their church has always believed.
That is a sweeping statement which isn't really true, it depends on the church and the theology with which it was set up. Some were always evangelical, some tend in that direction, some are not.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Not as sweeping as you think:
The Max Weber definitions of church and sect depend on initiation rites:
Church : a religious group you usually belong to by virtue of birth, family or such.
Sect : a religious group you usually join by personal individual choice.
Jengie
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The Max Weber definitions of church and sect ....
have no connection with the way those words are used in church history and are irrelevant to this discussion.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
[QUOTE]
I donīt understand why people act like evangelicals are a sect with their own particular beliefs inside of a broader mainline church. Most likely, they believe what their church has always believed.
That is a sweeping statement which isn't really true, it depends on the church and the theology with which it was set up. Some were always evangelical, some tend in that direction, some are not.
Evangelicalism is usually defined by this four beliefs:
- need for personal conversion;
- biblical authority;
- saving death and resurrection of Jesus;
- the need to preach the gospel;
Which of the historic creeds or protestant confessions do not affirm these 4 points? Was there any of the reformers that did not believe in that stuff or did not write hundreads of pages about it?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Evangelicalism is usually defined by this four beliefs:
- need for personal conversion;
- biblical authority;
- saving death and resurrection of Jesus;
- the need to preach the gospel;
Which of the historic creeds or protestant confessions do not affirm these 4 points? Was there any of the reformers that did not believe in that stuff or did not write hundreads of pages about it?
Don't be daft, there are as many versions and understandings of the term evangelical as there are evangelical churches and evangelical Christians. Some say that evangelicals are only those who hold to the Westminster Confession of 16something. Others use other descriptions, some of which are mutually incompatible. It might surprise you to learn that some evangelicals do not even regard other evangelicals as true Christians (for various reasons).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
That list of four points (though usually with the fourth being "activism" - evangelical faith demands an active response in service to others, including evangelism) is a very common borad description of evangelical distinctiveness. It doesn't stop individual evangelical groups having narrower self-descriptions (for example the various doctrinal bases and statements of belief).
Yes, they're things that all Christians share (more or less). But, we tend to hold them in a different position to other Christians. We accept the authority of Scripture, and hold that to be primary. Whereas others would invest authority to reason, experience, tradition, Pope, Bishop, pastor etc ... that matches, or at least approaches, the authority held by Scripture. Likewise, we'd put an emphasis on the Cross that might be thought to be out of balance by others who would also want to stress Incarnation or Resurrection (which we tend to put in the position of mere pre-requisites for the Crucifixion and evidence of the power of the Cross).
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That list of four points (though usually with the fourth being "activism" - evangelical faith demands an active response in service to others, including evangelism) is a very common borad description of evangelical distinctiveness. It doesn't stop individual evangelical groups having narrower self-descriptions (for example the various doctrinal bases and statements of belief).
Wow. this takes me back. I remember, even as I was on my way out of evangelicalism a good ten years ago trying to argue on this very forum for activism rather than evangelism, mainly - looking back - because I still wanted to identify myself as one when I in fact couldn't.
Anyway, yes, it's not that the Four Things are unique to evangelicalism, it's just that they are the Four Things, capital F, capital T, that matter above and beyond; and this brings me to something that came to me as I was reading some of Mudfrog's nonsense a day or two ago, that is that the reformers wouldn't necessarily recognise post-1900 (or even post-WWII) evangelicalism as being quite the same as their own expressions of it.
Which fact renders the argument that non-conformists are by definition evangelical moot, inasmuch as yes, they were all evangelical when they started, but their understanding of the word "evangelical" and the practice of evangelicalsm was, notwithstanding similar language, a bit different to the understanding of your UCCFs and Evangelical Alliances of today.
Evangelicalism was different then. Trying to say it wasn't because the words are similar is every bit as disingenuous as me trying to change the rules of evangelicalism to fit me all those years ago.
[ 14. June 2012, 10:52: Message edited by: Wood ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I remember, even as I was on my way out of evangelicalism a good ten years ago trying to argue on this very forum for activism rather than evangelism, mainly - looking back - because I still wanted to identify myself as one when I in fact couldn't.
This wrestling match I understand.
[And lovely to see you on board again, Wood. You, Father Gregory, and Lev. And Melon recently started posting again. Great stuff! Unrest levels look to continue to be very healthy!]
I'm still more comfortable in a nonconformist setting. Pretty good at maintaining healthy unrest levels there too. In a nice sort of way. I try to avoid undermining when questioning.
But sometimes, it's not so nice. I do wonder whether "inside the tent pissing out" continues to be appropriate. And at my age (70 this year) you get tired. There's a certain amount of "hanging on" going on.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Evangelicalism is usually defined by this four beliefs:
- need for personal conversion;
- biblical authority;
- saving death and resurrection of Jesus;
- the need to preach the gospel;
Which of the historic creeds or protestant confessions do not affirm these 4 points? Was there any of the reformers that did not believe in that stuff or did not write hundreads of pages about it?
Don't be daft, there are as many versions and understandings of the term evangelical as there are evangelical churches and evangelical Christians. Some say that evangelicals are only those who hold to the Westminster Confession of 16something. Others use other descriptions, some of which are mutually incompatible. It might surprise you to learn that some evangelicals do not even regard other evangelicals as true Christians (for various reasons).
The four points listed by gorpo are usually known these days as the Bebbington Quadrilateral (Evangelicalism In Modern Britain, 1989), and while not dogma set in stone, the BQ forms a useful jumping-off point for further discussion, examples of which can be found in a collection of essays on Bebbington's book, The Emergence Of Evangelicalism; Exploring Historical Continuities (2008).
I don't recall that any of the contributors attempted to refute Bebbington by the attractively simple expedient of describing him as "daft".
Đ Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0