Thread: class and clergy 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=026012
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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).
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
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.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
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.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
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.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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!
Posted by gog (# 15615) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on
:
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.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
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.
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on
:
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.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
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.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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?
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on
:
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.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
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.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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?
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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)
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
[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.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
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.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
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.
Is any church likely to get anywhere in mission if it regards it as that's just what the vicar's there to do - if it isn't collectively involved in and committed to it? What prospect is there of a vicar doing anything worthwhile in mission if he or she regards it as a solo role, done in parallel to but quite separate from their parish?
It's a very 1960s view of ministry for the clergy-person to regard their flock as one of the main impediments to the flourishing of their ministry, and mission as something he or she does in spite of the congregation.
It is a very important part of the vicar's job to encourage the congregation to look outwards, but it's also important that he or she should love the people God has given them, and want the best for them.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Like other mainline Protestant denominations, the ELCA's educational requirements for the pastorate can I think create a financial barrier for students who can't afford college/graduate school...even though financial aid exists, what often happens here is that working-class people stop considering the possibility that they can go to a four-year college, let alone grad school. And, of course, then you have graduates saddled with tons of loan debt.
One of our seminaries (PLTS in Berkeley) has been working on some experimental alt. ed programs for "non-traditonal" students. One program hearkens back to the early 19th cenutry, before there was a system of Lutheran higher education in this country, when aspiring Lutheran pastors who couldn't afford to travel to Europe for a seminary education "read" for the pastorate under the tutelage/supervision of an experienced pastor, sort of like Abe Lincoln reading the law. They mix in a couple of highly intensive three-week seminars at the seminary (which is still cost-prohibitive, sadly) with self-study and mentorship. It's a several-year commitment. I've heard of at least one graduate of this progam, an older man who'd left school after high school to work the line in the auto industry, retired with a pension (when that meant something), felt a call to "do something" for the church but felt ill-equipped because of his lack of education. This person wound up being ordained and serving his own under-served rural congregation. Actually, I think that's a prerequisite for that particular pilot program -- that graduates serve their own underserved congregations. I learned about this several years ago, so I don't know if it's still a going project. I would think that one would need to be truly exceptional and self-disciplined in order to take part in this, although again it was kind of par for the course during the early years of this country.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
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.
Several years ago we had a visitor to the church I was then serving, a friend of a member. Afterwards she remarked that I sounded "too posh to be a Baptist".
And I think I know what she meant: my father was a Consultant Doctor, I was educated at a Public School (on a "free place"!) and I speak in Received Pronunciation rather than with a typical London Baptist timbre (yes, it exists - or it used to).
Well, none of us can control the backgrounds from which we sprung. But I do find I have to fight myself all the time to avoid being snobbish - hopefully I succeed some of the time.
[ 18. August 2013, 14:40: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
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.
Oh, join in with your little club you mean?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But if other churches take the same sort of line, good for them, and lets work together.
It would be great if we could - really it would. Perhaps someone could've told that to the new local incumbent, the Bishop and the Archdeacon at the recent installation. Invite other churches to the service, ask me to participate on the behalf of other churches, only to push the parish idea down our throats - mmmm not sure that's good manners. Not the first time I've come across this I'm afraid: ISTM the more it is talked about, the less grace is applied in practice.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
The solution is for the church (CofE or others) to be classless, rather than banging on about whether or not the vicar is the same class (!) as the whole or the majority of his parish.
Only in the UK would this be seen as such an issue.
Only in the UK is it possible to speak RP English - that is, understood by everyone - and be instantly (and usually perjoratively) labelled as middle or upper-middle class.
IME the only people who waste valuable time worrying about this sort of tripe are those with a chip on their shoulder - frequently of the Prescott 'I failed my 11 plus' variety - or those who come from middle-class and tory backgrounds who are desperate to be seen as a member of the working class.
The BCP speaks of 'all sorts and conditions of men' and that is who the churches should aim at, regardless of the prejudices of either their ministers or their attending flock.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
EM- I think you're just reading far too much into my comments. All I meant was that Anglican churches have a responsibility to care for all of the local parish, even if the parish is mostly not Anglican. How is that excluding other denominations?
L'Organist - churches cannot be classless. They're made of people who belong to social classes, which makes it inevitable that class will be an issue in the church. Better to tackle the issue head-on than to pretend it doesn't exist. Why shouldn't congregations have clergy that are representative of them? Obviously making sure clergy are well-suited to the job is important, but there are plenty of people who are suited to the role outside of white, male, middle-aged and middle-class people. So why not choose a range of people?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
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.
Is any church likely to get anywhere in mission if it regards it as that's just what the vicar's there to do - if it isn't collectively involved in and committed to it? What prospect is there of a vicar doing anything worthwhile in mission if he or she regards it as a solo role, done in parallel to but quite separate from their parish?
It's a very 1960s view of ministry for the clergy-person to regard their flock as one of the main impediments to the flourishing of their ministry, and mission as something he or she does in spite of the congregation.
It is a very important part of the vicar's job to encourage the congregation to look outwards, but it's also important that he or she should love the people God has given them, and want the best for them.
I get that. Thank you for this. *ponders it in her heart*
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Jade: how do you arrive at the definition of social class and who is assigning people to them?
Where would you put me: currently semi-unemployed, ex-public school (but only because of a full academic + scholarship), clergy child with father a graduate (had to be), mother didn't complete secondary education (the War!!!), grandparents: post-master, shipping office clerk, seamstress & ex-Deb turned blackmarketeer (I kid you not); 2 siblings published writers, another usually unemployed (something to do with only 1 O level?). What convenient pigeon-hole would you find to fit that lot ? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
EM- I think you're just reading far too much into my comments. All I meant was that Anglican churches have a responsibility to care for all of the local parish, even if the parish is mostly not Anglican. How is that excluding other denominations?
I'm afraid that all too often Anglican clergy (and it's probably done quite subconsciously) get into an "it's our patch" mentality, allied often to saying "I suppose we can let you help us a bit" to other denominations. I've been on the receiving end of this and can vouch for what EM is saying.
Underlying it is a belief - stated or otherwise - that "we are the (proper) Church of England and you're all a bit below the salt, ecclesiastically speaking". Of course not all Anglicans are like that, but I'm afraid some are.
Whether there are underlying (and outdated) concepts of social class to this, I don't know - there could well be, but the issues are also ecclesiological.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But if other churches take the same sort of line, good for them, and lets work together.
It would be great if we could - really it would. Perhaps someone could've told that to the new local incumbent, the Bishop and the Archdeacon at the recent installation. Invite other churches to the service, ask me to participate on the behalf of other churches, only to push the parish idea down our throats - mmmm not sure that's good manners. Not the first time I've come across this I'm afraid: ISTM the more it is talked about, the less grace is applied in practice.
This sadly doesn't surprise me, EM. And as the spirit of ecumenical
optimism fades, and churches are retrenching and looking to their own internal business, this is going to get worse. There is an awful lot of Anglican pomposity and arrogance around, and I think a lot of it derives from the middle-class superiority complex that 'we' know the right way to behave and those oiks out there are either [a] trying their best, poor things, or [b] are totally deluded but then you can't expect anything else from them can you.
As Baptist Trainfan puts it so well: quote:
Underlying it is a belief - stated or otherwise - that "we are the (proper) Church of England and you're all a bit below the salt, ecclesiastically speaking". Of course not all Anglicans are like that, but I'm afraid some are.
I'm not sure that working-class archbishop George Carey ever understood this. Middle-class intellectual Rowan might have, but was unable to tackle the problem. Maybe Eton-educated Justin will be able to shift perspectives a bit.
For the record, I am an Anglican despite many reasons not to be.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by Angloid
I'm not sure that working-class archbishop George Carey ever understood this. Middle-class intellectual Rowan might have, but was unable to tackle the problem. Maybe Eton-educated Justin will be able to shift perspectives a bit.
Spot on about George C - but then he encountered a lot of snobbery himself...
Maybe with Rowan, but then for many he personified the other beef some have with the CofE which is that it ties itself into intellectual knots - call it sitting on the fence if you like or wanting to be all things to all men.
As for your hopes about Justin: well, as a rigorously educated OE he should get it but then we may find that we swap one prejudice for another - perhaps that all who don't fall down in amazement at the works of HTB, Alpha, Gumbel et al are to be viewed with suspicion...
The jury is out.
(edited to correct a typo..)
[ 18. August 2013, 18:31: Message edited by: L'organist ]
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
EM- I think you're just reading far too much into my comments. All I meant was that Anglican churches have a responsibility to care for all of the local parish, even if the parish is mostly not Anglican.
Doesn't this require the CoE (I think you mean that rather than Anglican, no?) to represent civic religion?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for your hopes about Justin: well, as a rigorously educated OE he should get it but then we may find that we swap one prejudice for another - perhaps that all who don't fall down in amazement at the works of HTB, Alpha, Gumbel et al are to be viewed with suspicion...
The jury is out.
(edited to correct a typo..)
I certainly don't see any justification for that fear.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
EM- I think you're just reading far too much into my comments. All I meant was that Anglican churches have a responsibility to care for all of the local parish, even if the parish is mostly not Anglican.
Doesn't this require the CoE (I think you mean that rather than Anglican, no?) to represent civic religion?
What is 'civic religion'? If you mean, things like the annual service for the Lord Mayor or whoever, then that depends on the secular authorities. If they wish to perpetuate such a religious link then it is up to them, surely? Often the civic leaders are of another faith or Christian denomination: I know of no-one in the C of E who would insist that nevertheless they must attend the parish church. In my 40 years as an Anglican priest I have never (except marginally, in my last job) had to deal with 'civic religion'.
I have practically no experience of Anglicanism outside the C of E, but I would have thought that a concern for the wider community was embedded in Anglican DNA and didn't depend on such anachronisms as 'establishment'.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
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.
Several years ago we had a visitor to the church I was then serving, a friend of a member. Afterwards she remarked that I sounded "too posh to be a Baptist".And I think I know what she meant: my father was a Consultant Doctor, I was educated at a Public School (on a "free place"!) and I speak in Received Pronunciation rather than with a typical London Baptist timbre (yes, it exists - or it used to).
Well, none of us can control the backgrounds from which we sprung. But I do find I have to fight myself all the time to avoid being snobbish - hopefully I succeed some of the time.
That's interesting. The Baptist minister I know was educated at a public school as well. He was sent there from the Middle East. I don't know which university he went to.
Historically, the Baptists were often a bit higher up the social scale than the Methodists (which is the tradition I'm most familiar with). From what I've read there are still more 'professionals' among the Baptists than among the Methodists. The Baptist minister I mentioned above says his church's work is largely bankrolled by a number of medical doctors in the congregation. The Methodist church (now closed) had no doctors, and I doubt that the other local churches have any either.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
EM- I think you're just reading far too much into my comments. All I meant was that Anglican churches have a responsibility to care for all of the local parish, even if the parish is mostly not Anglican. How is that excluding other denominations?
I'm afraid that all too often Anglican clergy (and it's probably done quite subconsciously) get into an "it's our patch" mentality, allied often to saying "I suppose we can let you help us a bit" to other denominations. I've been on the receiving end of this and can vouch for what EM is saying.
Underlying it is a belief - stated or otherwise - that "we are the (proper) Church of England and you're all a bit below the salt, ecclesiastically speaking". Of course not all Anglicans are like that, but I'm afraid some are.
Whether there are underlying (and outdated) concepts of social class to this, I don't know - there could well be, but the issues are also ecclesiological.
That's obviously wrong - but I've experienced it more the other way around in areas with big Nonconformist presence, that the Anglicans aren't Real Christians. But obviously, either situation is wrong and I definitely would never encourage Anglicanism being seen as 'default' or 'better'.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Jade: how do you arrive at the definition of social class and who is assigning people to them?
Where would you put me: currently semi-unemployed, ex-public school (but only because of a full academic + scholarship), clergy child with father a graduate (had to be), mother didn't complete secondary education (the War!!!), grandparents: post-master, shipping office clerk, seamstress & ex-Deb turned blackmarketeer (I kid you not); 2 siblings published writers, another usually unemployed (something to do with only 1 O level?). What convenient pigeon-hole would you find to fit that lot ?
It's my understanding that social class is to do with what one's parents did/do - and career isn't necessarily the best way of working this out. Without knowing you better, I'd say lower middle class. And it's not about 'convenient pigeon-holes', it's about widely-observed sociological distinctions between people, similar to how race and gender work. Class is a construct just like race and gender, but that doesn't mean it's unimportant or that it doesn't have an effect.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What is 'civic religion'? If you mean, things like the annual service for the Lord Mayor or whoever, then that depends on the secular authorities.
That strikes me as being the ultimate capitulation to Caesar...
I was thinking more in terms of, if you think your ministry extends to everyone within a geographical area regardless of whether or not they sign up to your faith, then you're essentially saying that they have to offer their pinch of incense to the Emperor.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
EM- I think you're just reading far too much into my comments. All I meant was that Anglican churches have a responsibility to care for all of the local parish, even if the parish is mostly not Anglican. How is that excluding other denominations?
Thanks JC - that's all true so long as it is treated as a responsibility amongst and alongside all Christians. In practice, it doesn't happen IME (in a number of contexts - rural, urban, east and south west, central - neither size of town/village nor geography nor diocese seems to make much difference). There are exceptions - one Baptist church I was part of has planted into an Anglican church (which remains Anglican) with wonderful results.
As for non Anglican churches, dissing Anglicans as "No Christian" - well it did happen but I've haven't heard it for more than 20 years. It's far more likely to hear one expression of Anglicanism dissing another.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE]Several years ago we had a visitor to the church I was then serving, a friend of a member. Afterwards she remarked that I sounded "too posh to be a Baptist".
And I think I know what she meant: my father was a Consultant Doctor, I was educated at a Public School (on a "free place"!) and I speak in Received Pronunciation rather than with a typical London Baptist timbre (yes, it exists - or it used to).
Well, none of us can control the backgrounds from which we sprung. But I do find I have to fight myself all the time to avoid being snobbish - hopefully I succeed some of the time.
Wow, I'd never suspected it - you're a posh chap! Is there a London Baptist timbre?
9 generations of Farm Labourers, including me, and a Cambridge University education haven't changed my natural way of speaking. I have, though, to be bilingual for church purposes, reverting to my second language (English) as there aren't many native East Anglian speakers left.
I do get called in as a translator from time to time, esp when my father and his friends have to deal with officialdom. They can't be understood in their native fenland tongue, dialect and local words.
[ 18. August 2013, 19:57: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
L'Organist - churches cannot be classless. They're made of people who belong to social classes, which makes it inevitable that class will be an issue in the church. Better to tackle the issue head-on than to pretend it doesn't exist. Why shouldn't congregations have clergy that are representative of them?
In my previous life in the UK (because "class" doesn't quite work the same way in the US), I worked fairly closely with a group of people from a range of backgrounds. One will in the fullness of time inherit his father's peerage, several are the public-school educated children of barristers, Harley Street doctors and the like, several more come from a fairly non-descript middle-class background, and several more come from a working-class background and are often the first member of their families to get a degree. Plus a few foreigners, who generally fall outside the scheme.
It was, of course, fairly easy to tell where in the social strata each person came from - there are enough clues in accent, choice of vocabulary, mannerisms and dress, so it would be absurd to claim that people weren't aware of social class, but it was never a relevant issue (well, almost never - when the young'ns were circling each other doing mating dances, they tended to stratify by social class somewhat.)
Church isn't the same relationship, but I'm not sure that class need be such a big deal.
(As it happens, none of my parish priests have come from a background much like mine. I can't say that I've noticed a particular problem with that.)
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What is 'civic religion'? If you mean, things like the annual service for the Lord Mayor or whoever, then that depends on the secular authorities.
That strikes me as being the ultimate capitulation to Caesar...
You misunderstand. There is a custom in many places of the Mayor (or equivalent) attending the local parish church once a year to mark his/her significance in the community (and to ask God's blessing on their term of office, no doubt taken more seriously by some than others.) They will either attend the normal worship of that church, in which case there is certainly nothing about capitulating to Caesar involved, or it will be a purpose-designed service which the church has the primary responsibility of planning. It would only be 'capitulation to Caesar' if the Mayor insisted that s/he should be the focus of attention and planned the whole service to reflect that.
quote:
I was thinking more in terms of, if you think your ministry extends to everyone within a geographical area regardless of whether or not they sign up to your faith, then you're essentially saying that they have to offer their pinch of incense to the Emperor.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
'Ministry to' is not the same thing as 'capitulating to.' John the Baptist, I'm sure, saw himself as having a ministry to Herod.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Is there a London Baptist timbre?
Think of Steve Chalke, perhaps? Not quite what I was thinking (his pitch is not sufficiently monotonous), but not far off. Of course, the "London accent" has changed hugely in the last 20 years, especially among young people.
quote:
There aren't many native East Anglian speakers left.
Oh, I don't know, I know one or two real Suffolk speakers ... and there's quite a number of real North Norfolk folk, at least.
Have a look at this for your interest ...
[ 19. August 2013, 08:08: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by gog (# 15615) on
:
A quick way to calculate class:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by Jade Constable
It's my understanding that social class is to do with what one's parents did/do - and career isn't necessarily the best way of working this out. Without knowing you better, I'd say lower middle class. And it's not about 'convenient pigeon-holes', it's about widely-observed sociological distinctions between people, similar to how race and gender work. Class is a construct just like race and gender, but that doesn't mean it's unimportant or that it doesn't have an effect.
Proved my point. Since you only had censored information you made assumptions.
I'll think of you when next at the opera - wearing my clogs, of course.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
posted by Jade Constable
It's my understanding that social class is to do with what one's parents did/do - and career isn't necessarily the best way of working this out. Without knowing you better, I'd say lower middle class. And it's not about 'convenient pigeon-holes', it's about widely-observed sociological distinctions between people, similar to how race and gender work. Class is a construct just like race and gender, but that doesn't mean it's unimportant or that it doesn't have an effect.
Proved my point. Since you only had censored information you made assumptions.
I'll think of you when next at the opera - wearing my clogs, of course.
I'm sorry but how did I prove your point? I worked from the information you gave me, without being psychic how am I supposed to get a more accurate picture? That doesn't mean that if I had more information, I couldn't have a more accurate picture. Just because class is difficult to pin down doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or doesn't matter. And I really don't see why you have to be so rude about it.
Also, lower middle-class people can go to the opera so I'm not sure what your point there is?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[qb]
1.Is there a London Baptist timbre. Think of Steve Chalke, perhaps?
2. Oh, I don't know, I know one or two real Suffolk speakers ... and there's quite a number of real North Norfolk folk, at least.
3. Have a look at this for your interest ...
1.Thank you. I'd rather not if it's all the same.
2. Ah well, you see, that's not where the real East Angles are. Too close to the coast - you have to be an inlander, a slodger to qualify.
3. Hmmm looks like a chap who's putting it on - good try but not quite the thing. Doesn't sing song enough or run his words together: his vowels are just too crisp and not elongated enough. Nice try, though. My dad works on the basis that no one can understand him when he uses the natice tongue - it's jolly useful for cross chat in an important meeting, I have to tell you!
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Perhaps a slight tangent, but looking at some CofE clergy who'd appear to be much closer in their ways of doing things - and their view of the church- to some non-Anglicans (usually but not always some kinds of evangelical) I've often wondered whether the (perceived) higher social status of the CofE clrgy is one of the things that prevents them from going to another denomination. Any thoughts on this? (No doubt the pension and house are also factors.)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
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.
Its getting more important these days and has been for a while. Certainly the school thing. Though schools and accents and jobs and so on are symptoms rather than causes.
The heart of the thing is property rather than money, just as it always has been.
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
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.
Mostly they don't.
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.
1945? That world was gone by 1845! Both evangelical Anglicanism and Anglo-Catholicism were, in part, a response to its disappearance.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Where would you put me [...]? What convenient pigeon-hole would you find to fit that lot ?
Cl;early a Tory ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
L'Organist - churches cannot be classless. They're made of people who belong to social classes, which makes it inevitable that class will be an issue in the church. Better to tackle the issue head-on than to pretend it doesn't exist. Why shouldn't congregations have clergy that are representative of them?
In my previous life in the UK (because "class" doesn't quite work the same way in the US), I worked fairly closely with a group of people from a range of backgrounds. One will in the fullness of time inherit his father's peerage, several are the public-school educated children of barristers, Harley Street doctors and the like, several more come from a fairly non-descript middle-class background, and several more come from a working-class background and are often the first member of their families to get a degree. Plus a few foreigners, who generally fall outside the scheme.
It was, of course, fairly easy to tell where in the social strata each person came from - there are enough clues in accent, choice of vocabulary, mannerisms and dress, so it would be absurd to claim that people weren't aware of social class, but it was never a relevant issue (well, almost never - when the young'ns were circling each other doing mating dances, they tended to stratify by social class somewhat.)
Church isn't the same relationship, but I'm not sure that class need be such a big deal.
(As it happens, none of my parish priests have come from a background much like mine. I can't say that I've noticed a particular problem with that.)
However much we might not like it, class does exist in the UK.
However I don’t think the issue is really the class of individual clergy, no matter which strata in society a person comes from they can still minister to those from a different one.
The issue is really about the masses – if a group is dominated by a particular class then it will take on the values and language of that class.
This has been an issue in the past – and for all I know still might be. The CofE has been dominated by white, middle class, well educated men whose culture and vocabulary is vastly different to that of working class and minority cultures areas. I have been trying, but unfortunately failed to find the reference to something I read about 10 years ago, which said that working class culture, used shorter sentences, with a smaller vocabulary than middle class culture did. However it uses that vocabulary, in a more varied and imaginative way, also these cultures tend to be less book and paper using.
This dominant culture is the one that has developed the policy and liturgy of the CofE – and that is where class becomes an issue. It is not representative of huge chunks of the congregations
[ 19. August 2013, 18:30: Message edited by: Zacchaeus ]
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I wouldn't want to go to church and feel that the clergy were not educated in Theology, no matter how pastorally aware they were. The faith needs to be backed up by something and people who don't understand the Theological background to beliefs are more likely to allow the church to go astray into all sorts of heresies.
The young lad training for ordination who grew up in my church is not a natural academic. But he has still gone through the Theology College route to gain his degree - he's just had to work very hard at it, as well as honing his undoubted pastoral and practical skills. He's middle class but only, I think, because his parents worked equally hard and made something of themselves, rather than being born with silver spoons in their mouths. I guess those who really want to succeed in ministry, as with other walks of life, will be prepared to put in what is necessary in order to achieve their goals.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I wouldn't want to go to church and feel that the clergy were not educated in Theology, no matter how pastorally aware they were. The faith needs to be backed up by something and people who don't understand the Theological background to beliefs are more likely to allow the church to go astray into all sorts of heresies.
Agreed. But just as history is written by the victors, theology too has often been formulated by those in power, and ignored the insights of the poor. That's what Liberation Theology set out to redress.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I agree that others should contribute their insights. I'm not sure if my experience is common, but I've come across far more Readers who are working class - they have a very useful contribution to make (and their sermons provide very different insights to those of the full-time clergy....).
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So what's the solution?
What's the problem?
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why shouldn't congregations have clergy that are representative of them?
They do. Like I said, a CofE congregation is itself already an unrepresentative body of people. What they have in common with the priest outweighs their differences.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So why not choose a range of people?
Because they can only choose from the people who want to do it in the first place.
[ 20. August 2013, 11:04: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
Exactly--clergy are self-selecting.
Also, as you yourself have said, Jade, in the UK class isn't about money. And I don't know that it's so much about what your father does or did, either, which i think you did say is what it's about.
People can be born working class and, due to education, aspirations, chosen profession, often transition into the middle class, surely?
As fas as I can see, class in the UK is more about attitude and aspirations. As soon as someone becomes educated to degree level, for example, seems to me they are moving out of "working class."
For example, Jade, you say of yourself upthread that you are "socialist" and "working-class." Perhaps I am revealing some terrible snobbism in myself here and some misconceptions, but I am not sure what saying you are working-class means, as you are a student at college, are extremely articulate and eloquent and very well- and widely-read as your posts reveal...none of this means "working-class" to me, unless you mean you come from a working-class background. Which is slightly different, isn't it, from being working-class today?
Please forgive me if this sounds snobby--of course I know that working-class people can be intelligent and articulate, I'm not saying otherwise; how could I, as many in my own family have been all those things. It's more a question of aspirations, interests, depth and width of education, ambitions perhaps.....aren't you already educated well beyond the level of many working-class people?
Yes, background and upbringing shape who one is, of course. But aren't class boundaries much more fluid now than in the past?
As someone has said above, one wants --or at least I do--a member of the clergy to be well-educated about matters theological and historical; if they are leading the flock in faith, one wants them to have the necessary understanding of it on all levels.
(Note, I am not suggesting this makes them better Christians, or more spiritual, or better spiritual leaders...that would be a matter of other, equally desirable--indeed even more so- gifts).
So I can't see that it matters if a clergy person is "middle class" whether through background or achievement. I think it's sort of inevitable. I can see that if the clergy person has no idea of what it's like to be working class, that could make it hard for some members of the congregation to feel understood....but I wonder how much it really matters, if the clergy person cultivates the gifts of compassion and human empathy and listening?
No conclusions really--just thinking aloud.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Lots of working-class people go to university. I went to a comprehensive in Coventry (distinctly not middle-class), both parents left school at 16 with pretty near to no qualifications and went straight into work (dad in a carpet shop and then Peugeot, mum as a shop assistant). By the time I left school in 2005, most secondary schools were putting students through A Levels and into university, regardless of class - working-class people might not have gone to university in previous decades but they definitely do now. Being well-read is just due to being interested in things and reading about them. When I was a child all my books were from car boot sales because it's all we could afford, or library books or from school, but working-class people aren't somehow unable to read. I was homeless at 17 and did my A Levels while on Income Support.
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
Well, first off, Jade, I now admire you even more than I did before!
Because university is now more open to people of all classes--as theoretically it has been since admissions started being based on academic merit, so bright working-class grammar school child should have equal chance, but I guess it hasn't in practice--the differences between classes are, it seems to me, eroding....Someone from a working-class background will transition into middle class more easily than ever before....and perhaps you are or will be an example of this....?
Anyway, I hope I haven't offended by this personal approach.....
if you are saying that you, as a person from a working-class background, would prefer to have a clergy person from a similar background, I can't argue with that, obviously.
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Lots of working-class people go to university. I went to a comprehensive in Coventry (distinctly not middle-class), both parents left school at 16 with pretty near to no qualifications and went straight into work (dad in a carpet shop and then Peugeot, mum as a shop assistant). By the time I left school in 2005, most secondary schools were putting students through A Levels and into university, regardless of class - working-class people might not have gone to university in previous decades but they definitely do now. Being well-read is just due to being interested in things and reading about them. When I was a child all my books were from car boot sales because it's all we could afford, or library books or from school, but working-class people aren't somehow unable to read.
Well, quite. And I suspect that there are plenty of Anglican priests who fall into that category. In fact, I know for a fact that this true. It's just that they are often assumed to be 'posh' because they have multiple degrees, especially if they have had the talent, luck, and sheer audaciousness to receive one or more or their degrees at Oxford or Cambridge (which many of them will have, given that five of the Church of England's theological colleges award degrees from one university or the other). You yourself have used 'Oxbridge-educated' in a way that would seem to mean 'haute bourgeois' more than once on this very thread. In fact, the thread started with you worrying that so many priests came to their adult religious understanding whilst at university, and must therefore be middle class. The reality, as you acknowledge in your last post, is more complicated than that.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Lots of working-class people go to university. I went to a comprehensive in Coventry (distinctly not middle-class), both parents left school at 16 with pretty near to no qualifications and went straight into work (dad in a carpet shop and then Peugeot, mum as a shop assistant). By the time I left school in 2005, most secondary schools were putting students through A Levels and into university, regardless of class - working-class people might not have gone to university in previous decades but they definitely do now. Being well-read is just due to being interested in things and reading about them. When I was a child all my books were from car boot sales because it's all we could afford, or library books or from school, but working-class people aren't somehow unable to read.
Well, quite. And I suspect that there are plenty of Anglican priests who fall into that category. In fact, I know for a fact that this true. It's just that they are often assumed to be 'posh' because they have multiple degrees, especially if they have had the talent, luck, and sheer audaciousness to receive one or more or their degrees at Oxford or Cambridge (which many of them will have, given that five of the Church of England's theological colleges award degrees from one university or the other). You yourself have used 'Oxbridge-educated' in a way that would seem to mean 'haute bourgeois' more than once on this very thread. In fact, the thread started with you worrying that so many priests came to their adult religious understanding whilst at university, and must therefore be middle class. The reality, as you acknowledge in your last post, is more complicated than that.
I was talking about ordinands with first degrees from Oxbridge, not their theological training. You don't *need* a degree to get recommended for training! Now, obviously working-class people can and do study at Oxbridge but the two universities accept a disproportionate number of students from high-income households to do secular degrees, as do Russell Group universities to a smaller extent. They're also universities with very active chaplaincies - my initial post specifically mentioned people finding out about CoE vocations via university chaplaincies, not just universities in general. Someone who attends a university with no chapel and religious societies dominated by the CU might not have contacts with clergy who can guide them through discernment etc. And of course, not everyone goes to university - what about people who did vocational training or went straight into work? Why shouldn't they consider ordination if they have a calling?
In any case, I certainly don't prefer a working-class priest or think that middle-class priests are not as capable - not at all! I just think that the pool from which ordinands are selected should be widened, both to equip the clergy as a whole with a broader range of life experiences and to reach out to people outside the church more effectively.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
To respond to both Cara and S. Bacchus - I'm unsure as to whether all people who experience social mobility actually change class. I think while that happens in the US, I don't think it happens in Britain or happens to the same extent. Look at Alan Sugar for example - he's a Lord, but I would say he's definitely working-class. Surely you can be working-class and have a degree of social status?
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
Originally posted by JadeConstable:
quote:
I just think that the pool from which ordinands are selected should be widened
But as others have pointed out, selection for training can only arise for those who put themselves forward. How is the pool to be widened from its current state? Surely not a return to forced ordinations a la First Century?! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Originally posted by JadeConstable:
quote:
I just think that the pool from which ordinands are selected should be widened
But as others have pointed out, selection for training can only arise for those who put themselves forward. How is the pool to be widened from its current state? Surely not a return to forced ordinations a la First Century?!
Oh definitely not. Widening the pool would require widening the pool of people who make up the CoE in the first place, of course - difficult but that doesn't mean that's something the church shouldn't aim for.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm unsure as to whether all people who experience social mobility actually change class. I think while that happens in the US, I don't think it happens in Britain or happens to the same extent. Look at Alan Sugar for example - he's a Lord, but I would say he's definitely working-class. Surely you can be working-class and have a degree of social status?
There's the phrase that 'we're all middle class now'. It doesn't mean that we all go to the theatre or pronounce our vowels in a certain way, or whatever. IMO it's about aspiration. This is why many working class people now appear middle class, and middle class people upper middle class. 'Working class' is a much more controversial notion these days; it almost appears to be a nostalgic label.
The working class boy turned multi-millionaire has always been a bit of a challenge to the class system, but he usually ensures that his children or grandchildren have the airs, graces and expensive education to enter the middle class 'proper'. It would be ridiculous for Lord Sugar's descendants to claim to be 'working class'.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm unsure as to whether all people who experience social mobility actually change class. I think while that happens in the US, I don't think it happens in Britain or happens to the same extent. Look at Alan Sugar for example - he's a Lord, but I would say he's definitely working-class. Surely you can be working-class and have a degree of social status?
There's the phrase that 'we're all middle class now'. It doesn't mean that we all go to the theatre or pronounce our vowels in a certain way, or whatever. IMO it's about aspiration. This is why many working class people now appear middle class, and middle class people upper middle class. 'Working class' is a much more controversial notion these days; it almost appears to be a nostalgic label.
The working class boy turned multi-millionaire has always been a bit of a challenge to the class system, but he usually ensures that his children or grandchildren have the airs, graces and expensive education to enter the middle class 'proper'. It would be ridiculous for Lord Sugar's descendants to claim to be 'working class'.
Oh, Alan Sugar's children would certainly not be working-class (if they were born after he made his money) - but what about Sugar himself?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Well, his accent isn't middle class. But we don't know what his tastes are. A man who's probably mixed with quite a few very posh people will have absorbed some of their influences. I can see him enjoying the theatre and classical music, so long as these aren't too experimental.
It may be relevant that Alan Sugar is Jewish. Ethnic and religious minorities fit a bit awkwardly into the traditional class divisions, although it's easier to include them if we see class in terms of aspiration.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, his accent isn't middle class. But we don't know what his tastes are. A man who's probably mixed with quite a few very posh people will have absorbed some of their influences. I can see him enjoying the theatre and classical music, so long as these aren't too experimental.
It may be relevant that Alan Sugar is Jewish. Ethnic and religious minorities fit a bit awkwardly into the traditional class divisions, although it's easier to include them if we see class in terms of aspiration.
I can't. How much taste and discretion do you have to have to make a fortune selling cheap and nasty tat?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It may be relevant that Alan Sugar is Jewish. Ethnic and religious minorities fit a bit awkwardly into the traditional class divisions, although it's easier to include them if we see class in terms of aspiration.
To some extent. But I suspect that if Lord Sugar' werer a Waley-Cohen or Sebag-Montefiore or Rothschild, we'd find it a good deal easier to fit him into traditional British class divisions.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Albertus
But what that says is that money trumps everything, which isn't quite what the English class system is supposed to be about. It's proof that extreme wealth makes class irrelevant, not more relevant.
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Albertus
But what that says is that money trumps everything, which isn't quite what the English class system is supposed to be about. It's proof that extreme wealth makes class irrelevant, not more relevant.
It's not the money itself, but what it buys. Take one of the families Albertus mentioned, the Sebag Montefiores. The most prominent living member is Simon Sebag Montefiore, who is journalist and popular historian. Now, in some senses, his prominence is meritocratic: he is quite good at what he does. He was also educated at Cambridge, Harrow, and Ludgrove School (the same prep school as Princes William and Harry).
So Simon Sebag Montefiore is firmly a member of the British establishment, not only as an intellectual, but as someone with a very similar social background as the aristocracy and other members of the elite. Money makes that possible, but money by itself isn't the issue. Social and cultural capital are more relevant. The fact that Simon Sebag Montefiore is Jewish would barely register on most people's radars, although it would have been much more significant even fifty years ago, when Britain was a much more anti-Semitic place. Certain other ethnic minorities still find it hard(er) to be assimilated into the British upper and upper middle classes. Of the 10 odd richest people in the UK, only one (the Duke of Westminster) fits reasonably comfortably into the British upper class. The rest, would all be seen as 'foreign' (they are, by the way, three people from the former Soviet Union, both apparently ethnic Russians; two Indians; two Iraqi Jews; one Cypriot; one Swiss; and one Dutch-American heiress).
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Interesting that you mention Iraqi Jews. There's another posh- less posh than Sebag Montefiores etc- Jewish family- the Sassoons (or some of them): Iraqi Jews via Bombay, now utterly assimilated. I imagine that in time we might well get some rather grand British Indian or Pakistani families.
[ 22. August 2013, 08:43: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by Albertus
...I imagine that in time we might well get some rather grand British Indian or Pakistani families.
We already have them - you may be unaware because they don't advertise themselves but there are many high caste Indians in the UK and some of the Pakistani elite still send their children to school here.
@ Ken
NOT a Tory (or a tory) ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
To respond to both Cara and S. Bacchus - I'm unsure as to whether all people who experience social mobility actually change class. I think while that happens in the US, I don't think it happens in Britain or happens to the same extent. Look at Alan Sugar for example - he's a Lord, but I would say he's definitely working-class. Surely you can be working-class and have a degree of social status?
Anecdote here but I have changed social class, from working to middle. I was brought up as one of 8 kids on the roughest council estate in Luton, my dad was a floor manager in a dairy factory and my mum worked nights as a cook at a service station. I left school to go on a YTS scheme as my parents did not believe in further education for the likes of us. University was completely unknown among my peers.
I now am a university lecturer (the OU is a wonderful thing) married to a scientist with a phd in quantum physics. I live in Cambridge, shop at Waitrose and my tastes have definitely changed over the years. I do still struggle in articulate debate (the biggest sign of social class divide IMO and one reason I don't visit purgatory often) but I consider myself firmly middle class. I do, however, generally find it easy to mix with working or middle class people and will adapt my vocabulary/accent unconsciously.
I can't recall ever having been bothered by the social class of anyone, perhaps being a nurse makes that easier as you have to be accepting of all people, whether princess or prostitute (I've nursed both). Certainly the class of a minister would not be an issue, what he/she says is important not their background. As mentioned above, the church can only recruit from what is on offer.
In answer to your original post, my husband's old Baptist church had a lovely working class minister, he was a Scot who had worked on a council estate in Glasgow. The congregation was a fairly poor one on a south London council estate but I got the impression his Scottish accent was considered more of a talking point than the fact he was a different class to the previous minister. He was as working class as they were but they managed to find something different about him.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0