|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: class and clergy
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Sort of related to the laity/clergy divide thread, and also a conversation on Facebook about young people being put off university due to the cost. I can only speak from my experience of Anglican clergy in England, but it seems to me like a disproportionate amount of clergy in those circles got interested in ordination via university (often through the chaplaincy). Most clergy I know did first degrees before training. Is having such a narrow pool of middle-class clergy a problem, and if it is, how can the church adapt?
I would be interested in the experiences of those in other denominations where clergy undergo formal training and ordination/establishment as clergy. Not that I'm not interested in the experiences of those in denominations without that! But in my experience, class doesn't seem to be such an issue in such churches (though there are of course other issues regarding clergy being a narrow group of people, but those are mostly Dead Horses IME).
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
Anglicanism is essentially middle class. This would be a problem if people had to go to the established church, if it was part of the infrastructure of public life. But it isn't really, is it? Most people don't go to church full stop, let alone the established one. It's - as I've said before - a buyer's market, so changing what's distinctive about Anglicanism to make it more like the other failing denominations doesn't seem to me as though it would be beneficial.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I think the education most churches require of clergy pretty much guarantees that most clergy are going to be middle-class -- in the US for Protestant mainline churches it's typically a university degree (four-six years) plus seminary (three more years). Also, the church I work for and the one I attend both pay pretty well, with the total package of salary and benefits for the most senior clergy on staff being around $100,000 at both places -- safely middle class, not the at-risk lower reaches of the middle-class for whom the bottom might fall out at any moment.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Many Anglicans, though, are not middle-class at all. My point is more about middle-class clergy ministering to non-middle-class congregations, sorry for any confusion.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Yes, and I think it's an excellent point! The congregation I work for is probably mostly middle-class, but I would say a lot of them struggle more financially than their clergy ever will -- they're not nearly as safe in their financial status as the clergy folks are. The congregation where I attend probably has a greater diversity of financial status, in part because the Spanish-language service attracts new immigrants who don't make very much money, though there are also people attending the English-language services who are barely getting by.
So in both these churches, the clergy are to one degree or another ministering to folks with very different backgrounds who are dealing with financial challenges the clergy don't have to face.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think the education most churches require of clergy pretty much guarantees that most clergy are going to be middle-class -- in the US for Protestant mainline churches it's typically a university degree (four-six years) plus seminary (three more years). Also, the church I work for and the one I attend both pay pretty well, with the total package of salary and benefits for the most senior clergy on staff being around $100,000 at both places -- safely middle class, not the at-risk lower reaches of the middle-class for whom the bottom might fall out at any moment.
In England (and I guess Wales too), Anglican priests are not particularly well-paid - if they have a parish, they get accommdation, but not all clergy have parishes! Plus, many if not most Anglican churches here have the priest as the only paid staff, everyone else is a volunteer. Also, a first degree is not necessary for getting recommended for training - while I'm guessing most clergy have first degrees, it is more than possible to only do two years at theological college once approved for training, and no other academic qualifications (I think!). In the UK social class isn't really about money, though.
In US Mainline Protestant churches, is the clergy at the same level of class as the congregation?
Edit - sorry Ruth, didn't see that you'd answered me on the last point!
[ 17. August 2013, 00:52: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The newest batch of priests are either third career late middle-agers that could be supported by a spouse and some life-savings through seminary, or young(er) people with $100,000 student loan debt. The latter sort will know financial hardship quite intimately, I imagine.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
Yes, many Anglicans are not middle class. At the first church I attended, the congregation was mostly older working class/lower middle class people. I don't think they were Anglicans by accident, and I wouldn't be surprised if, as I've known 'chapel' Protestants to suggest, their wanting to be Anglicans was, on some level, partly because they wanted to be involved with an Establishment-identified institution.
My point is, this is 2013. Anyone who still turns up basically wants some version of what you're giving them. You're not ministering to the general public, you're dealing with a self-selecting minority, who probably rather like it that way.
[ 17. August 2013, 01:00: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Anglican clergy generally come across as 'posher' than their British counterparts in other denominations. But this isn't news, is it? 'Twas ever thus.
IME many Methodist clergy don't enter the profession straight from university. The men have often come in from some kind of engineering background. Teaching is also popular, I think. One reason for this is that in order to become a Methodist minister you need to have been a local preacher first, and I imagine it's unlikely for young Methodist students to spend their free time training to be preachers, although I do know of someone who did.
According to research carried out by the Sutton Trust, national religious figures are more likely to have studied Oxford or Cambridge than professional leaders as a whole, although less likely to have attended private schools:
http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2012/churchgoers-and-the-recession-and-other-news/
A 'national religious figure' in the UK is going to be from the CofE, or perhaps the RCC, rather than any other denomination. I have no idea how many Methodist superintendents or Presidents of Conference are Oxbridge folk. I've met a few Oxbridge-educated Methodists, but it doesn't feel like a denomination dominated by Oxbridge intellects or attitudes, however one might define those things.
BTW, the average Anglican ordinand is now someone in early middle age, so it's not quite true to say that the call is routinely heard by young people at university:
http://davidkeen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/leading-of-5000-redesigning-cofe.html
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Svitlana, thanks for the (terrifying) links. It's a good kind of terrifying though, I think, it spurs one on.
FWIW, the Student Christian Movement of which I am a member seems to be dominated by Methodists, and all the Methodist members I know go to or did attend 'red brick' universities but not Oxbridge. The other Anglicans all seem to attend Welsh or Scottish universities! I'm the only SCM member I've met who attends a new/former polytechnic university. Don't think I know of any current or former Oxbridge students in SCM. UCCF seems to be much more active in universities at all levels.
In your experience, do many Methodist ministers have parents or other relatives who are or were Methodist ministers? I seem to know an awful lot of Methodist ministers' children through SCM!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
gog
Shipmate
# 15615
|
Posted
Thinking back a couple of years to ministerial college, I'd say there was a mix of class and background for the group trainings (Anglican, Methodist, URC and a few others). Most where older, with most of us being in our 30's, 40's and 50's.
I'd also say on the training thing, there is a difference between how denominations sort training, Anglicans generally choose where they go, where others tend to be sent to places.
As to university chaplaincy and candidating for ministry, this is often the first time people are away from home and come to explore things.
Posts: 103 | From: somewhere over the border | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Many Anglicans, though, are not middle-class at all. My point is more about middle-class clergy ministering to non-middle-class congregations, sorry for any confusion.
Makes it sound a bit like the Labour Party.
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Life in the Italian Mission to the Irish, West Africans, Filipini and South Asians is, as ever, different.
Fewer than 1/3 of our priests in this diocese - South Coast of England, largely affluent - have secular (i.e. not awarded by a Pontifical University in connection with their Seminary or post-ordination formation) degrees and many of those obtained them after ordination. Of the priests ordained in my diocese in the last ten years six had secular degrees (one from Oxford, and in two cases post-graduate and professional qualifications) before studying for the priesthood and eight had no tertiary education pre-seminary. Our current crop of seminarians is split pretty much the same. Seminary training, board, lodging and an allowance is provided by the diocese.
The social background of our priests identifies them as predominantly from the skilled-working class or lower middle class. Fewer than 10% were privately educated and only one (out of 140 or so) went to a major-public school. Nine are pre-seminary Oxbridge educated - five of them converts from the CofE.
On the national religious leaders front: only one active diocesan and one auxiliary bishop (out of 22 and 9 respectively) were Oxbridge educated. One retired Bishop was educated at Stonyhurst and Balliol, but then his Father was a Tory MP and one Grandfather an Anglican Bishop, the other an Archdeacon. Of the remaining diocesan bishops only four had a degree before commencing Seminary.
[ 17. August 2013, 07:58: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Many Anglicans, though, are not middle-class at all. My point is more about middle-class clergy ministering to non-middle-class congregations, sorry for any confusion.
Makes it sound a bit like the Labour Party.
Just what I was going to say! This is an increasing problem for British society, in that fewer and fewer professions are open to non-graduates and at the same time it is becoming more difficult for working-class students to envisage going to university. It's maybe not as much a problem for some professions, but MPs and clergy both need to be able to empathise and identify with the people they serve.
When I was a (non-churchgoing) teenager I formed a - possibly inaccurate - impression that the typical Anglican clergyman spoke with a 'far back' (extreme RP) accent, was educated at public school then Oxford or Cambridge, and came either from a long line of clerics or the minor aristocracy. Soon after that there was a large influx of ordinands from working class backgrounds.
I don't think the clock has been put back quite as far as the 1950s yet (except for the Labour Party, which has turned into the 1950s Tory Party). What we are seeing now is a marked class (and age and gender) division between 'career' clergy and late vocations, largely NSM.
Some of the best priests in working class parishes, now and historically, have been middle, or even upper, class. I don't think it is necessary that a working class parish should have a working class priest, any more than a black-majority parish should have a black priest. But there is something wrong if across the whole body of clergy these groups are an unrepresentative minority.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
I suppose we're terribly middle class. We have a vicar, a curate, and a NSM, plus several other priests who help out. By my count, 10 in total. Of these, I don't know the background of one, but of the nine about whom I do know, eight have Oxbridge undergraduate degrees. The remaining priest went to St Andrew's. Furthermore, five have or are working on doctorates.
I think that's not atypical of the area, though, except probably in the number of doctorates. Priests in London seem to come from a more diverse set of backgrounds than those in other parts of the country (or perhaps it's an urban vs rural/suburban divide).
Mind you, it's not just the church. I'm involved in a local history society. Not a very grand one, you understand, just one of those groups that English people like to form to keep themselves occupied in the the evenings (a substantial number of our members are OAPs). Of the 20 officers of this society, all but one attended university. Of the 19 who attended university, all but two attended Oxford or Cambridge. 14 have postgraduate qualifications, ranging from advanced degrees in engineering or applied sciences, to a bachelor of veterinary medicine, to a PhD in Medieval Latin.
I guess I do live in a very middle class bit of the London commuter belt. The church seems to reflect that, more than anything else.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
At the first church I attended, the congregation was mostly older working class/lower middle class people. I don't think they were Anglicans by accident, and I wouldn't be surprised if, as I've known 'chapel' Protestants to suggest, their wanting to be Anglicans was, on some level, partly because they wanted to be involved with an Establishment-identified institution.
There's an old saying: 'The carriage never stops at the chapel gate for three generations.' What it means is that by the third generation a Nonconformist family has left to join the CofE. There may be some truth in it. It's not just that they want to be identified with a higher-status church, but that the strictures applied by the smaller denominations feel more onerous to later generations than they did to their ancestors who deliberately chose to live by them. The CofE offers them a less severe form of church.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
In your experience, do many Methodist ministers have parents or other relatives who are or were Methodist ministers? I seem to know an awful lot of Methodist ministers' children through SCM!
My guess is that those who enter the profession fairly young are quite likely to be ministers' children. The one young minister I know is a 'son of the manse'. It may be relevant that Methodist clergy aren't as visible as Anglican clergy; most Methodist sermons are preached by local preachers, not by ministers. Only the children of ministers get to see the lifestyle and the work close up. Other young people don't even see the minister once a week.
I don't know anything about SCM, but if it's the mainstream alternative to the CU then it's probably not surprising that it has lots of Methodist students. Methodists are less likely to be evangelical than other denominations, and few of them are likely to be in the CU.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Gallica officinalis
Shipmate
# 3886
|
Posted
The high rate of Oxbridge degrees among the C of E clergy may simply be due to the fact that 5 of the CofE theological colleges offer ordinands the opportunity to study for Oxbridge degrees.
--------------------
Come for tea, come for tea, my people.
Posts: 874 | From: The Hemlock Hideout | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
This may be a slight aside, but I wonder whether strongly political people worry more about class than the rest of us do these days. I can't remember the last time I thought about what social class someone was, it seems like a very old fashioned way of looking at things.
Of course some people are friends so I know something about their life history, but with most of my colleagues who I know less well, I have no idea whether they have degrees or what sort of upbringing they had.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
The standard for most U.S. and Canadian denominations --- the mainline ones, at least --- is four years of college/university and three years of graduate training at a seminary, culminating in a Master of Divinity degree. There are exceptions, however: most of these churches will consider ordaining folk who are of a "riper age" and have had long experience as lay leaders, though they will be required to have some kind of training. In addition, the Association of Theological Schools in the U.S. and Canada makes provision for allowing seminaries to grant the M.Div. degree to those over the age of 50 who do not hold the baccalaureate degree.
The difficulty with the pursuit of an M.Div. is that it's expensive. Unless one has been blessed with student grants and/or scholarships, s/he will rack up at least a good $50,000 in debt. That, of course, requires the graduate to seek a pastorate where s/he will receive a salary sufficient to work off the debt. That, in turn, automatically eliminates most small and rural parishes, which thirty years ago could afford full-time pastors but can no longer do so. The situation is creating a crisis for North America's small churches, especially rural ones, many of which are struggling anyway. Denominations are scrambling trying to find ways to secure a future for these congregations, many of which, unfortunately, will eventually close.
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
What is "middle-class"?
Or maybe we should ask what is working-class?
As for clergy being middle-class, by virtue of living in tied accommodation they fall into the working class; by virtue of their being graduates they come into upper or middle class; and with the sort of half-baked 1970s socialist twaddle that some of them spout about class they could be described as champagne (or perhaps cava) socialist-worker class - so take your pick.
Selecting people for ordination training should have nothing at all to do with their perceived class - which is, in any case, going to tell you more about their selection board than them - but should be all about whether or not they have the strong faith, committment and potential to become responsible, reliable pastors to a parish.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I wonder whether strongly political people worry more about class than the rest of us do these days. I can't remember the last time I thought about what social class someone was, it seems like a very old fashioned way of looking at things.
Of course some people are friends so I know something about their life history, but with most of my colleagues who I know less well, I have no idea whether they have degrees or what sort of upbringing they had.
But the point is that some people are gaining advantages and leadership positions because of the background they come from. They then set the tone.
People from lower down the social scale have become increasingly reluctant to have anything to do with church life, and I think we should be concerned with that. We should be concerned if our church leaders almost all come from the same kinds of backgrounds, because how will they then be able to generate or relate to the diversity that they say they want to see in the pews?
The lack of clerical diversity probably explains the 'half-baked 1970s socialist twaddle' that L'organist talks about - I think it's a kind of defense mechanism for clergy who know they're not very representative but don't want to be criticised for it. In fact, maybe there's no real desire to actually do anything about it, because the maintenance of CofE culture relies upon drawing in men and women who naturally value and are able to master the language of that culture. Working class and ethnic minority clergy are made to fit the mould too, so they don't disturb things too much whenever they make their way in.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Don't think I know of any current or former Oxbridge students in SCM. UCCF seems to be much more active in universities at all levels.
That's surely because the sort of people who would be involved in SCM (liberal and sacramental Christians) are instead involved in their college chapels, whereas UCCF fills an entirely different niche.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
In the Baptist Union, there are (as with other denominations) a number of routes into ministry. These vary from weekend courses for lay pastors to full time degrees for full time pastrors, church planters, youth workers. Many choose a part time course with (say) 3 days in college and 3 days in placement.
The average age when I entered college in the 1990's was 37: I was 39. Our backgrounds ranged from piano tuners to youth workers, to teachers, to an ex youth offender. A pretty broad mix - some of us were in middle class/professional jobs (I had been a Senior Executive in a national financial organisation as well as a Business Consultant) but had come from working class homes - I'd had jobs as a labourer and was born on a council estate.
I also happen to have a Cambridge degree (not theology, as well as several professional qualifications in Finance, Banking, Accounting and Management). Some people on the course had left school at 16, including 2 single mothers. A pretty mixed bunch. That would be mirrored by BUGB congregations and churches across the UK - in my last church a significant % of the attendees were on benefit or minimum wage: in my current one most people are probably on the national average wage or higher.
Taking it all into account BUGB churches are probably more conservative than the average but pretty representative as local churches of their local areas. It seems to help being self supporting and having no hierarchy to speak of.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
This may be a slight aside, but I wonder whether strongly political people worry more about class than the rest of us do these days. I can't remember the last time I thought about what social class someone was, it seems like a very old fashioned way of looking at things.
It might be a generational thing. Paul O'Grady's recent BBC1 documentary (Working Britain) suggests as much. The toughness of a typical working-class upbringing up to the 1950s influenced many people of his (and my) generation. Greater material prosperity since has made it easier to pretend that 'we are all middle class now.'
We're not, however, 'all in it together' as David Cameron tried to pretend. Class divisions are as sharp as ever, even if the working class wear suits and sit at desks in call centres. Zero-hours contracts and targeting benefit claimants as scroungers on the one hand; bankers bonuses on the other. The Church needs more clergy who can speak from experience of being on the vulnerable side of this line.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Don't think I know of any current or former Oxbridge students in SCM. UCCF seems to be much more active in universities at all levels.
That's surely because the sort of people who would be involved in SCM (liberal and sacramental Christians) are instead involved in their college chapels, whereas UCCF fills an entirely different niche.
That's probably true.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There's an old saying: 'The carriage never stops at the chapel gate for three generations.' What it means is that by the third generation a Nonconformist family has left to join the CofE. There may be some truth in it. It's not just that they want to be identified with a higher-status church, but that the strictures applied by the smaller denominations feel more onerous to later generations than they did to their ancestors who deliberately chose to live by them. The CofE offers them a less severe form of church.
Oh absolutely, the status thing is only (potentially) a part of it, I just wanted to note that one person's 'bug' might be another person's 'feature'.
[ 17. August 2013, 21:18: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Yes, many Anglicans are not middle class. At the first church I attended, the congregation was mostly older working class/lower middle class people. I don't think they were Anglicans by accident, and I wouldn't be surprised if, as I've known 'chapel' Protestants to suggest, their wanting to be Anglicans was, on some level, partly because they wanted to be involved with an Establishment-identified institution.
My point is, this is 2013. Anyone who still turns up basically wants some version of what you're giving them. You're not ministering to the general public, you're dealing with a self-selecting minority, who probably rather like it that way.
Anglican priests still have a cure of souls for the entire parish, whether most of that parish attends the church or not. It's still a priest's duty to care for those who don't want what the church is giving them.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What is "middle-class"?
Or maybe we should ask what is working-class?
As for clergy being middle-class, by virtue of living in tied accommodation they fall into the working class; by virtue of their being graduates they come into upper or middle class; and with the sort of half-baked 1970s socialist twaddle that some of them spout about class they could be described as champagne (or perhaps cava) socialist-worker class - so take your pick.
Selecting people for ordination training should have nothing at all to do with their perceived class - which is, in any case, going to tell you more about their selection board than them - but should be all about whether or not they have the strong faith, committment and potential to become responsible, reliable pastors to a parish.
Priests should be representative of the people they serve. I don't see anything wrong with balancing things out and recruiting more working-class and other minority priests.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I don't think anybody is suggesting that predominantly working-class parishes should necessarily be served by working class clergy, any more than majority black parishes should always be served by black clergy. That way would mean ghettoisation. Equally though there is no reason why a middle class parish shouldn't have a working class priest, and a black priest serve a mainly white parish.
There would be something seriously wrong if the whole body of clergy was white and middle class (and male, for that matter, but that's a Dead Horse). We are too near that situation for complacency.
[ 17. August 2013, 21:48: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Yes, many Anglicans are not middle class. At the first church I attended, the congregation was mostly older working class/lower middle class people. I don't think they were Anglicans by accident, and I wouldn't be surprised if, as I've known 'chapel' Protestants to suggest, their wanting to be Anglicans was, on some level, partly because they wanted to be involved with an Establishment-identified institution.
My point is, this is 2013. Anyone who still turns up basically wants some version of what you're giving them. You're not ministering to the general public, you're dealing with a self-selecting minority, who probably rather like it that way.
Anglican priests still have a cure of souls for the entire parish, whether most of that parish attends the church or not. It's still a priest's duty to care for those who don't want what the church is giving them.
By that logic, if what the parish wants is irrelevant, then, again, there's no problem. You think middle class people are incapable of caring for the souls of people unlike them?
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Anglicanism is essentially middle class.
TEC maybe; the C of E, at least theoretically, has a mission to all British people. Whence the parish system.
The thing that bothers me is the people who seem to think they ought to be Anglicans /because/ they are middle class; the number of people who wilfully ignore the Anglican contract on things like the liturgy or baptism of infants because denominations like the Baptists, or Unitarians or Roman Catholics are associated with the working class and ethnic minorities.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Svitlana, thanks for the (terrifying) links. It's a good kind of terrifying though, I think, it spurs one on.
FWIW, the Student Christian Movement of which I am a member seems to be dominated by Methodists, and all the Methodist members I know go to or did attend 'red brick' universities but not Oxbridge. The other Anglicans all seem to attend Welsh or Scottish universities! I'm the only SCM member I've met who attends a new/former polytechnic university. Don't think I know of any current or former Oxbridge students in SCM. UCCF seems to be much more active in universities at all levels.
In your experience, do many Methodist ministers have parents or other relatives who are or were Methodist ministers? I seem to know an awful lot of Methodist ministers' children through SCM!
Hmm, at Oxford we did have problems with exactly the "blind spot" you describe. Many, but not all colleges have their own chapel. Most of these are liberal-ish and Anglican but purposefully welcoming of all denominations. (Exceptions for denominational theological colleges, monasteries, and Harris Manchester, which is URC, RPC which is still hypothetically a Baptist theological college but rapidly secularizing, and Somerville which is purposefully non-denominational.) At most of these the worship is -
1. Non-Eucharistic, apparently because this is more welcoming to people who aren't sure what religion they are
2. Fairly stolid and unemotional; choral evensong is common even at non-conformist chapels
3. Relatively "academic" sermons - church history or more nebulous theology
The congregations were typically more post-graduate than under-graduate, liberal and in a liminal state between religion and secularism.
There were also the CUs, of which there is already a thread that is open - they tended to be *very* conservative under the hood. Some churches (Ebbe's, Aldate's, Mary Mag's) had specific students' activities. The oratory attracted lots of students, but never really seemed to have much community to it the way the chaplaincy did, although the chaplaincy is a very drab building.
And in this the liberal non-conformists tended to fall by the wayside a bit. One in our chapel choir took a long while to feel comfortable in chapel. And ecumenicalism didn't really work either - catholics and protestants were very separate, although one Bulgarian Orthodox lady felt quite at home in the college chapel, interestingly.
Of course, there were exceptions everywhere - Keble chapel did a wonderful job in nurturing faith, almost like a conventional parish church. Hertford chapel managed to be far more outspoken on LGBTQ and social justice issues than you could ever get away with in a parish church. Magdalen chapel took a stand against the assumed Thatcherism there, and RPC CU against the assumed sports machismo there, and SPC CU managed to encompass almost all the Christian community there (although tending to average on "open evangelical"). Then there was the Jellicoe community - a wonderful cross-community expression of faith?
So no, we have no SCM because we have no interfaith chaplaincy in the traditional sense, and unfortunately even within the C. of E. liberals, anglo-catholics and evangelicals are unfortunately more divided than elsewhere. I fear the problem is self-perpetuating.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't think the clock has been put back quite as far as the 1950s yet (except for the Labour Party, which has turned into the 1950s Tory Party). [/QB]
Not that there is anything wrong with that! Perhaps rather more worrisome is the... thing... the Conservative party has become?
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Many Anglicans, though, are not middle-class at all. My point is more about middle-class clergy ministering to non-middle-class congregations, sorry for any confusion.
Makes it sound a bit like the Labour Party.
Just what I was going to say! This is an increasing problem for British society, in that fewer and fewer professions are open to non-graduates and at the same time it is becoming more difficult for working-class students to envisage going to university.
The former is certainly true; I am not sure so much about the latter. In my parents' generation it was pretty much a given that even with three As at A-level - something much rarer, then - you were just not expected to consider Oxbridge coming from a school with no tradition of it. Nowadays teachers actively suggest it to those who they think worthwhile.
Selecting people for ordination training should have nothing at all to do with their perceived class - which is, in any case, going to tell you more about their selection board than them - but should be all about whether or not they have the strong faith, committment and potential to become responsible, reliable pastors to a parish. [/qb][/QUOTE]Priests should be representative of the people they serve. I don't see anything wrong with balancing things out and recruiting more working-class and other minority priests. [/QB][/QUOTE]
There was especially a theological college "Kelham" for those without degrees e.g. the working-class.
--------------------
SPK: I also plan to create ... a Calvinist Ordinariate
ken: I thought it was called Taize?
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I certainly was not suggesting, Angloid, that I am unaware that some people in society are much better off than others. I was thinking of the statement made by Jade Constable that in the UK social class is not primarily about money. The idea of being concerned with what school people went to or whether they have degrees, or what sort of jobs their family had, is something I remember from my childhood, but quite alien to my life in adult years.
The people I work with earn much the same as me, and of course I am aware that it is less than bankers and more than shop assistants earn, but that's about where we are now, not where we have come from. So in saying that I don't think about people in terms of social class does not at all mean that I suppose everyone is well off.
I certainly think it is useful to have clergy who have not found life easy or had everything go their way, though I would by no means limit that to material prosperity. I think it's useful to have priests who have suffered illness or bereavement in the family, who have struggled to conceive, or whose kids haven't turned out the way they hoped, or who didn't manage to find a spouse at all. That's just examples not an exhaustive list obviously.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Priests should be representative of the people they serve. I don't see anything wrong with balancing things out and recruiting more working-class and other minority priests.
Within the Church of England, priests are representative of the subset of people who still come to church who want to be Church of England priests. It's a minority within a minority. You have within the wider Anglican population, working class/lower middle class people who are obviously fine with the situation or they wouldn't turn up. You seem to be suggesting that the church actively appeal to a tribalism that doesn't really exist - the people it would be done for have never been Anglicans, and the Anglicans who'd actually 'benefit' from it don't think like that.
If I have the choice between hearing a middle class socialist preach, or hearing George Carey preach, which one do you think is going to have more real insight into the predicament of the working poor?
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Anglicanism is essentially middle class.
TEC maybe; the C of E, at least theoretically, has a mission to all British people. Whence the parish system.
They aren't coming back. You can do anything you like. The masses aren't coming back because they don't have to, and because they don't believe it. It doesn't matter what accent the priest speaks with.
What the Church of England really, urgently needs is to accept the consensual nature of religious observance in this century, and to stop scheming like a gambling addict to come up with some system that will make it magically 1945 again. They've gone. Love those you still have, or lose them.
[ 17. August 2013, 22:24: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Yes, many Anglicans are not middle class. At the first church I attended, the congregation was mostly older working class/lower middle class people. I don't think they were Anglicans by accident, and I wouldn't be surprised if, as I've known 'chapel' Protestants to suggest, their wanting to be Anglicans was, on some level, partly because they wanted to be involved with an Establishment-identified institution.
My point is, this is 2013. Anyone who still turns up basically wants some version of what you're giving them. You're not ministering to the general public, you're dealing with a self-selecting minority, who probably rather like it that way.
Anglican priests still have a cure of souls for the entire parish, whether most of that parish attends the church or not. It's still a priest's duty to care for those who don't want what the church is giving them.
By that logic, if what the parish wants is irrelevant, then, again, there's no problem. You think middle class people are incapable of caring for the souls of people unlike them?
Not at all - but the parish should be able to recognise themselves in the clergy. Like Angloid says, having a nearly-entirely white and middle-class clergy is a problem. The clergy being seen as on the same level as the local squire and pre-NHS doctor was what led to rapid secularisation in the 19th century - people felt that because the clergy were not like them, the clergy could not understand their lives. That's something we should be avoiding.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Priests should be representative of the people they serve. I don't see anything wrong with balancing things out and recruiting more working-class and other minority priests.
Within the Church of England, priests are representative of the subset of people who still come to church who want to be Church of England priests. It's a minority within a minority. You have within the wider Anglican population, working class/lower middle class people who are obviously fine with the situation or they wouldn't turn up. You seem to be suggesting that the church actively appeal to a tribalism that doesn't really exist - the people it would be done for have never been Anglicans, and the Anglicans who'd actually 'benefit' from it don't think like that.
If I have the choice between hearing a middle class socialist preach, or hearing George Carey preach, which one do you think is going to have more real insight into the predicament of the working poor?
Neither. That's a false dichotomy - many socialists are working-class, myself included.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Anglicanism is essentially middle class.
TEC maybe; the C of E, at least theoretically, has a mission to all British people. Whence the parish system.
They aren't coming back. You can do anything you like. The masses aren't coming back because they don't have to, and because they don't believe it. It doesn't matter what accent the priest speaks with.
What the Church of England really, urgently needs is to accept the consensual nature of religious observance in this century, and to stop scheming like a gambling addict to come up with some system that will make it magically 1945 again. They've gone. Love those you still have, or lose them.
But the church exists for people outside the church - that's the whole point of the Gospel. It is those who have already gone that need the Gospel, not those still in the church (who are mostly elderly and are therefore going anyway). Anyway, those we still have who are resisting change are part of the problem, and are the people who drove others away in the first place. I don't want to make it 1945 again, I really don't - institutional racism and sexism isn't exactly a good thing. I want it to be 2013, but also for the church to recognise what people need and fill those needs with the Gospel - which is the only thing which will fill those needs.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Not at all - but the parish should be able to recognise themselves in the clergy. Like Angloid says, having a nearly-entirely white and middle-class clergy is a problem. The clergy being seen as on the same level as the local squire and pre-NHS doctor was what led to rapid secularisation in the 19th century - people felt that because the clergy were not like them, the clergy could not understand their lives. That's something we should be avoiding.
The parish, defined geographically, don't recognise themselves in Christians. Those of us who go to church recognise the priest as one of us because we, like the priest, decided to be there. I'm working class myself. My entrance into the faith was among other working class Anglicans. None of us ever raised these objections. We were, like all congregations in this country for many, many years now, SELF-SELECTING. You are not going to bring back people who aren't there to witness what you've changed, and are not in the market for church anyway.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But the church exists for people outside the church ....
That is true, but one should always build on one's strengths rather than one's weaknesses. We also have to assume, as an article of faith, that the people we've already got are the ones God has chosen to be there - even if we wouldn't have chosen them, and even if we believe there are others he has chosen who aren't listening.
So, however vital it may be to reach out, there's no point in having a vicar who can't or doesn't want to, as his or her first priority, relate to the congregation he or she has been given.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Neither. That's a false dichotomy - many socialists are working-class, myself included.
As am I.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But the church exists for people outside the church - that's the whole point of the Gospel. It is those who have already gone that need the Gospel, not those still in the church (who are mostly elderly and are therefore going anyway). Anyway, those we still have who are resisting change are part of the problem, and are the people who drove others away in the first place. I don't want to make it 1945 again, I really don't - institutional racism and sexism isn't exactly a good thing. I want it to be 2013, but also for the church to recognise what people need and fill those needs with the Gospel - which is the only thing which will fill those needs.
But the church may as well not exist for the people you want to coax back. Those old people who attend church don't matter because you can take them for granted, eh? You wouldn't be going for ordination by any chance? So people who actually come to church are part of the problem because they 'drove others away'? Sorry, no. People left the church because secular society overtook the Church's moral standards, because they could no longer be coerced into attending, and because they no longer believed what the Church says about the world. Unless they've actively decided to, nobody ever comes to church now. This is as it should be. You may not want it to be 1945, but the numbers you seem to want to restore are not unrestorable because the church is doing something wrong, but because they require, and always required, a degree of peer pressure and social coersion. You are saying you understand those people's needs better than they do, before you've even heard what they are. Don't you see that no accent, no matter how local, can make that attitude anything but repellent to most self-respecting, thinking people? It's that paternalism, a constant undercurrent whenever the Church tries to imagine what normal people are like, which keeps them away. They don't stay away because they don't understand, they stay away because they understand perfectly.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But the church exists for people outside the church ....
That is true, but one should always build on one's strengths rather than one's weaknesses. We also have to assume, as an article of faith, that the people we've already got are the ones God has chosen to be there - even if we wouldn't have chosen them, and even if we believe there are others he has chosen who aren't listening.
So, however vital it may be to reach out, there's no point in having a vicar who can't or doesn't want to, as his or her first priority, relate to the congregation he or she has been given.
Wish I could have put it this gently and this well. Thank you, Enoch.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE] Anglican priests still have a cure of souls for the entire parish, whether most of that parish attends the church or not. It's still a priest's duty to care for those who don't want what the church is giving them.
That's exactly the kind of implicit arrogance that has caused the church to self destruct.
What about the work done by other denominations or perhaps we're just unwelcome interlopers in a nation carved up by and for the Church of England? This was, unfortunately, emphasised at a recent installation in this area - a bit of a joke really as the local parish church does blank in the community and other denominations do far far more. Guess which is dying and which is growing?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Also, the church I work for and the one I attend both pay pretty well, with the total package of salary and benefits for the most senior clergy on staff being around $100,000 at both places -- safely middle class, not the at-risk lower reaches of the middle-class for whom the bottom might fall out at any moment.
tangent to point out that this common way of reporting clergy compensation in the US leads to much misunderstanding, since (as duly noted above) it lumps together salary, health insurance, and pension benefits-- essentially the "cost to the church" rather than anything remotely resembling take-home pay. Pretty much no other profession does that when comparing salaries, people receiving employer-paid health insurance/ pension plans rarely know what that's actually costing the employer. So it tends to greatly inflate common understandings of actual clergy compensation.
end tangent.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
What the Church of England really, urgently needs is to accept the consensual nature of religious observance in this century, and to stop scheming like a gambling addict to come up with some system that will make it magically 1945 again. They've gone. Love those you still have, or lose them.
not just C of #
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
[1] Anglican emphasis on being there for all people, churchgoers or not, isn't an exclusive thing. We see it as important that the church isn't just a club for those who like that sort of thing, but a focus for the hopes and needs (some very 'spiritual', many very practical and down to earth, like the vicar on the doorstep to hand out sandwiches) of all people. I agree that sometimes that has come with a patronising tone, and a putting down of other Christian communities. But if other churches take the same sort of line, good for them, and lets work together.
[2] The church 'having a mission to the whole parish' does not equate, IMHO, with getting their bums on our pews. We are delighted when people join us; we love to see a congregation that reflects the variety of people and cultures in a parish, but the 'church' as in the worshipping community, is only the nucleus and focus of the whole parish.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Also, the church I work for and the one I attend both pay pretty well, with the total package of salary and benefits for the most senior clergy on staff being around $100,000 at both places -- safely middle class, not the at-risk lower reaches of the middle-class for whom the bottom might fall out at any moment.
tangent to point out that this common way of reporting clergy compensation in the US leads to much misunderstanding, since (as duly noted above) it lumps together salary, health insurance, and pension benefits-- essentially the "cost to the church" rather than anything remotely resembling take-home pay. Pretty much no other profession does that when comparing salaries, people receiving employer-paid health insurance/ pension plans rarely know what that's actually costing the employer. So it tends to greatly inflate common understandings of actual clergy compensation.
Professionals' compensation is commonly reported in terms of the total package they receive. It thus becomes difficult to compare what professionals make to what others make because others frequently don't get the same benefits. And those benefits make a real difference -- having your employer pay health insurance and pension benefits means those are things that don't have to come out of your pay or you do without them.
I save for retirement out of my much smaller wage on my own, but clergy get pensions. Where I work the clergy on are a different health plan, and all of their out-of-pocket health expenses are reimbursed by the church, whereas I buy my own glasses. If I calculate my compensation the same way I've calculated theirs, adding the cost of my employer-paid health insurance premium to my pay, the senior clergy at my job and at my own church both make more than twice what I do.
But even without the benefits, just the take-home pay makes the clergy with whom I am most familiar very solidly middle-class.
[ 18. August 2013, 08:55: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I think there is a bit of a pond difference here, Ruth. Though undoubtedly in the UK there is much more security for clergy than for many other professions these days, and housing is provided (not always an unmixed blessing), the clergy generally are underpaid compared to most other professions and many traditionally working class occupations. However they are still perceived as 'middle class', and the point of this thread is surely that they are disproportionately recruited from the middle class.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
The Brethren assembly which I joined as a teenager back in the sixties had five elders, all of whom had left school at fourteen, and none of whom had any formal theological training.
They consisted of a gardener, a labourer, a clerk, a storeman and a machinist, reminiscent of Celsus's famous second-century characterisation of Christians (according to Origen) as "wool-workers, cobblers and laundry-workers".
The elders in more up-market assemblies tended to be businessmen.
Today, elders tend to be professionals, ranging from teachers and IT specialists, to doctors and lawyers.
Full-time pastors are usually required to have some sort of theological training, which varies enormously - one of our elders holds a doctorate, but that is unusual.
And so proceeds the gentrification of the evangelical world at even the grassroots level, as Wesley predicted.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE] Anglican priests still have a cure of souls for the entire parish, whether most of that parish attends the church or not. It's still a priest's duty to care for those who don't want what the church is giving them.
That's exactly the kind of implicit arrogance that has caused the church to self destruct.
What about the work done by other denominations or perhaps we're just unwelcome interlopers in a nation carved up by and for the Church of England? This was, unfortunately, emphasised at a recent installation in this area - a bit of a joke really as the local parish church does blank in the community and other denominations do far far more. Guess which is dying and which is growing?
What Angloid said, but also that other denominations also have a cure of souls of the parish. I meant that Anglican priests have a responsibility to care for the community, whether the community is Anglican or not. Nothing to do with other denominations being left out - they are very welcome to join in caring for the community too.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Neither. That's a false dichotomy - many socialists are working-class, myself included.
As am I.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But the church exists for people outside the church - that's the whole point of the Gospel. It is those who have already gone that need the Gospel, not those still in the church (who are mostly elderly and are therefore going anyway). Anyway, those we still have who are resisting change are part of the problem, and are the people who drove others away in the first place. I don't want to make it 1945 again, I really don't - institutional racism and sexism isn't exactly a good thing. I want it to be 2013, but also for the church to recognise what people need and fill those needs with the Gospel - which is the only thing which will fill those needs.
But the church may as well not exist for the people you want to coax back. Those old people who attend church don't matter because you can take them for granted, eh? You wouldn't be going for ordination by any chance? So people who actually come to church are part of the problem because they 'drove others away'? Sorry, no. People left the church because secular society overtook the Church's moral standards, because they could no longer be coerced into attending, and because they no longer believed what the Church says about the world. Unless they've actively decided to, nobody ever comes to church now. This is as it should be. You may not want it to be 1945, but the numbers you seem to want to restore are not unrestorable because the church is doing something wrong, but because they require, and always required, a degree of peer pressure and social coersion. You are saying you understand those people's needs better than they do, before you've even heard what they are. Don't you see that no accent, no matter how local, can make that attitude anything but repellent to most self-respecting, thinking people? It's that paternalism, a constant undercurrent whenever the Church tries to imagine what normal people are like, which keeps them away. They don't stay away because they don't understand, they stay away because they understand perfectly.
So what's the solution? Obviously the current membership matters, but surely local mission isn't an unreasonable thing for the church to do? Even if the church just looks after the congregations it has, it will still die out given the average age of the congregations. Mission has a practical aim behind it as much as a spiritual one.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
