Ship of Fools: How politically diverse is your church?

Thread: How politically diverse is your church? 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=026084

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

I heard recently that, at one point, Enoch Powell and Michael Ramsey worshiped in the same church. I can't imagine they had much in common in other respects (although both supported the decriminalisation of homosexual acts in 1967)! My own church seems to have a majority on the 'soft' of centre left, but with a minority who are really just astonishingly right-wing (I was shocked to hear a group of them discussing General Franco in tones of hushed reverence).

My experience seems to suggest that this type of political diversity within a church is common in the UK, and in Anglican churches outside the UK, but less common in certain other regions. Certainly, in many areas of Bavaria, to be Roman Catholic is to vote for the CSU. In America, it seems that churches are growing more rather than less politically polarized, particularly when it comes to the non-denominational types. Maybe I'm wrong, though. What's your experience?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

My current parish is about 50% Democrat and 50% Republican. None of them are on the extreme. One guy flirts with the far right. Another guy whose related to the parish but only comes a few times a year is definitely on the far left. I have a small parish.

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

No idea. I have rarely heard politics discussed, and there seems (wisely) a reluctance to push any particular point of view, other than on matters where general agreement is likely. I suspect there is a variety of privately held views, and possibly an over-representation of Lib Dems; but I don't know for sure.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I heard recently that, at one point, Enoch Powell and Michael Ramsey worshiped in the same church. I can't imagine they had much in common in other respects (although both supported the decriminalisation of homosexual acts in 1967)! My own church seems to have a majority on the 'soft' of centre left, but with a minority who are really just astonishingly right-wing (I was shocked to hear a group of them discussing General Franco in tones of hushed reverence).

My experience seems to suggest that this type of political diversity within a church is common in the UK, and in Anglican churches outside the UK, but less common in certain other regions. Certainly, in many areas of Bavaria, to be Roman Catholic is to vote for the CSU. In America, it seems that churches are growing more rather than less politically polarized, particularly when it comes to the non-denominational types. Maybe I'm wrong, though. What's your experience?

My church in suburban Orlando, FL has a liberal pair of pastors, but in the parking lot you see all kinds of political stickers. It's ELCA Lutheran, so it is on the theologically liberal end of the spectrum, so maybe the Romney voters know what they're in for.

Despite the Republican lean of the congregation, no one has stormed out when one of the pastors gently suggests that maybe gun control wouldn't be the worst thing, and there a few lesbian couples, one with an adopted daughter. So pretty diverse.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Anglican here, so it doesn't count according to the OP definition [Biased]

but I'd say that we are fairly diverse, but not as diverse as what is present in society. We have no anarchists of supporters of BNP that I am aware of.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

My guess is that our congregation mostly share the voting habits and political opinions of their non-Christian neighbours of the same general background.

Which round here would mostly mean voting Labour with a smattering of Greens.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Although the British Methodists are usually remembered today for having contributed more to the Labour Party than Marxism did, the Methodist and general Non-Conformist vote once leaned heavily in favour of the Liberal Party. In fact, some say that the decline of the Liberals is partly due to the decline of Nonconformism.

I've been a Methodist for most of my life and I think there's still a general left of centre emphasis in the Methodist Church. You can never be sure how other people vote, of course, but in my last church I once remember hearing someone pray during a service that the Labour Party would win the upcoming election! Mrs Thatcher's Methodist origins are practically never referred to by Methodists themselves, but I read somewhere that Methodists still thought of David Blunkett (Labour) as one of their own, which may or may not be justified.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

When you have to be worried is when the church is so out of touch politically with the area in which it is set that it is irrelevant.

A middle class Tory supporting congregation on a council housing estate would be as useless as a socialist leaning congregation in the stockbroker belt.

But that the church allows people of different classes and backgrounds to mix is a good thing. After all Jesus' disciples were not a bunch of the same political group now, were they?

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
My guess is that our congregation mostly share the voting habits and political opinions of their non-Christian neighbours of the same general background.

Which round here would mostly mean voting Labour with a smattering of Greens.

I assume this is true of the CofI congregation I worship in, although Irish politics is generally quite hard to fathom as ones party has rather little to do with one's political beliefs. I assume a general centre-right economic outlook and centre-left social outlook would describe the majority of people... But I don't know this for certain and it would certainly never occur to me to ask!

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Two of our (Anglican) congregation stood against each other in the last parliamentary election: one for the Christian Party, the other for the Greens.

Other than that, if you go by the actual constituency result, pretty much everyone would have voted Labour, if they voted at all.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

We are an Episcopal conjugation in downtown Atlanta, fairly large by Episcopal standards, but certainly far from being a megachurch. Liturgically, pretty standard MOR. Ethnically, predominantly European-American (probably mostly Southern but a lot of Northerners too) with a fair-sized African-American and Caribbean minority, and a sprinkling of other ethnicities. We also have a real nice age range from young to old.

Using U.S. political terminology, the congregation mean would be at the moderately liberal end of the spectrum, but a diversity from more conservative to more liberal, as far as I can tell (I don't know how far that is). I personally have never ever heard an overtly political sermon in the 6 years I've been there.

The parish has made a conscious decision to remain a downtown church as a key part of its identity, and many parishioners come a fair distance from the suburbs to worship here. We do social ministries such as having a very effective program of services for homeless people, sponsoring a class of youth from an economically deprived youth from elementary school through high school graduation and starting college, service missions to post-Katrina New Orleans (to rehabilitate flood-damaged houses) and to Appalachia. The annual Gay Pride parade passes our church and we make it a point to have a free refreshment stand as a sign of welcome. We had our first same-sex wedding recently with over 300 attending.

As far as a political-party split I couldn't say except that Georgia Republicans seem so extreme that I can't see too many members in that camp, although as far as voting for Romney or Obama that split could be closer. The only political split in the EfM group I was, of which I was aware, in was in 2008 between Obama and Clinton.

[ 22. September 2013, 20:31: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Like blackbeard, I have no idea - politics are rarely discussed. Our MP is a Lib Dem, as is our local councillor, our constituency MSP is S.N.P. and I'd guess our congregation is in line with the wider community.

I'd be astonished if we had many Labour voters, as I'd assume most of the left-of-centre would be S.N.P. rather than Labour.

I know we've got some Tory voters, but they'd describe themselves as "old" Tory, i.e. pre-Thatcher Tories.

There's lots of support for e.g. the local food bank, but I'm not sure if that influences how people vote or not.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
My guess is that our congregation mostly share the voting habits and political opinions of their non-Christian neighbours of the same general background.

Which round here would mostly mean voting Labour with a smattering of Greens.

I dread to ask. I think Ken is right, which probably means in our context that the more middle-class members would tend to soft left/Green, with fairly liberal social attitudes, while the more working class ones would be either Old Labour/socially conservative or (which is why I would dread asking) Daily Mail/UKIP. No Sun readers in Liverpool thank God.

On the DH issues I think Christians are more likely to be influenced by their faith, or hearing sermons, than the prevailing view among their neighbours. So in a 'liberal' church in a conservative neighbourhood it will be one way; a conservative church in a left-leaning neighbourhood it will be the other. But that's just my hunch.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

I should probably say that our parish is located in a constituency that tends to swing from Conservative to Lib. Dem. All the surrounding constituencies are safe Conservative seats, though. The County Council has a Conservative plurality, with about equal numbers of Lib Dem. and UKIP councilors (I myself find the UKIP presence really worrying) and only a small handful of Labour councilors. The combined number of Labour and Lib. Dem councilors wouldn't equal the number of Conservatives. 'We' returned four Conservative MEPs, with one each from Labour, UKIP and the Lib. Dems.

Given that, I think we probably have fewer Conservatives than the local area, and considerably fewer UKIP voters. In fact, I don't think know any UKIP members in or outside of church, although I know a fair few Conservatives who cast wistful looks in their direction.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
My guess is that our congregation mostly share the voting habits and political opinions of their non-Christian neighbours of the same general background.

Which round here would mostly mean voting Labour with a smattering of Greens.

And most of our congregation are probably on the centre-right politically, but liberal on social issues. As an inclusive church, glbt people are welcome, and when the Anglican rector of an eastern suburbs parish attacked a now retired High Court judge who is openly gay, there was strong dissent, even from retired bank managers, widows of graziers and the like. Madame and I are on the left, and there's one lol in her mid-eighties, twinset and pearls type, who is rather further left than we are.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

My Bible study bunch are from a Non-D church where it's assumed all Christians are Republicans - voting guides passed out with the sermon etc, illegal to outright recommend a political party, but somehow on all the "important" issues (outlawing abortion for all reasons, eliminating welfare and other public support programs, opposing making medical care affordably available to all, etc) who is "on the correct side" is always the Republican candidates.

Local Methodist church, heavily Republican, Democrats get teased.

TEC, I'll guess 50/50 but don't know.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
In America, it seems that churches are growing more rather than less politically polarized, particularly when it comes to the non-denominational types. Maybe I'm wrong, though. What's your experience?

Hard to say. Folks try to stay away from talking about it.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Our parish is extremely diverse politically. I think that's fairly typical for Orthodox churches in the US. There are enough Protestants that folks can sort themselves both theologically and politically. But if you're Orthodox, there's likely to be only one Orthodox church in driving distance -- and if there's more than one, we tend to sort by language rather than by politics.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

Our TEC shack is reasonably diverse. We're a fairly wealthy suburb which tends to swing a couple of points Republicanwards in elections, and our congregation reflects that. We have people on both sides of the abortion issue, both sides of the gun issue, and almost every side in the Middle East.

We have gay couples, and we have couples who recommended to us a book on how to raise your boy right, so he doesn't turn in to "one of those".

We have had a woman priest, so no longer have any anti-ordination of women types.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

I have absolutely no idea, although I can make a guess for some people, of course. It is something never discussed (I suppose the nearest was talk of some people going to the march against the Iraq war however many years ago it was, but that seemed pretty non party political to me).

Belle Ringer's casual:

quote:
voting guides passed out with the sermon etc,

I find absolutely shocking, even if, as she carries on to say, it is illegal recommend how one votes.

M.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

Cambridge has a left wing Lib Dem MP, it historically has Liberal or Labour MPs, whilst surrounded by a sea of Blues. My NFI church in Cambridge is socially and racially very mixed and I would expect most of the congregation to be Liberal or Labour (probably a lot of Labour tactically voting Liberal) with a handful of Conservatives.
The parish church in my village was definitely a Conservative stronghold, demonstrating the great divide between the old village where it sits and the council estate where I live which votes Lib Dem.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
Cambridge has a left wing Lib Dem MP, it historically has Liberal or Labour MPs, ....

Really? Wikipedia suggests that in the period since 1900, Cambridge has had a Tory MP for 76 years. Labour took it in 1992, and the Lib Dems in 2005, but I remember Shirley Williams, who you'd have thought would have been a natural kind of person to be MP for Cambridge, failing to get the seat, despite a very hard fought campaign, in 1987.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

It will often depend on where the church is. One church I was at for a number of years was in what is described as "blue ribbon on a pig" country, yet the church (pentecostal) was far more liberal than might be expected if it were representative of the local electorate.

As with just about any church, there were one or two families of right-wing nutters, who thought that being a christian meant ranting against evolution and homosexuality.

There were a few very rich families, who were right-wing in the more economic sense, determined to advocate low taxes under the pretence that if they kept more of the excess of their pay over and above the cost of living, then they had more to give.

Yet the heart of the church was really split between Lib Dem and Labour. It was this group that started up the local foodbank and a homeless shelter.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

One thing that has often struck me in the UK is that a theological liberal might well be a political conservative, whereas theological conservatives may very well be political Liberals or socialists. This doesn't seem to happen so much in the US - or perhaps that just shows my ignorance?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
When you have to be worried is when the church is so out of touch politically with the area in which it is set that it is irrelevant.

A middle class Tory supporting congregation on a council housing estate would be as useless as a socialist leaning congregation in the stockbroker belt.

But that the church allows people of different classes and backgrounds to mix is a good thing. After all Jesus' disciples were not a bunch of the same political group now, were they?

Congregations are often socially different from the surrounding community. This might be down to age, gender ratios, ethnicity, level of education, income, or whether the congregation is mostly local or comes in from another area.

To some extent this is a good thing - after all, it might add some diversity to an otherwise quite homogeneous area. And unless we're talking about political extremes I'm not sure why the political tendencies of a congregation need to prevent them from making a positive contribution to their local environment. No political party has a monopoly on caring, and no Christian is excused from the command to love their neighbour.

Posted by David (# 3) on :

I go to the church that was started at my children's school. It is nominally Sydney Anglican. By nominal I mean that they are part of the Sydney dioscese but don't understand that this makes them idiots.

Anyway.

Me, my family, the assistant pastor and his family, and one other family who are friends of ours, are very left wing.

Everyone else is a right-wing nutjob.

You get that.

[ 23. September 2013, 11:50: Message edited by: David ]

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

What I find quite puzzling is that whilst I am towards the right (but not madly so), the majority of the Christians I know tend to be on the left - but Left-wing politics seems so antithetical to Christianity I would find it very hard to be an easy bedfellow.

Of course, that's not to say that the Tory party is the party of Church and Queen, but both LibDem and Labour seem to have a contempt for Christianity, and it leaves me rather uneasy.

x

AV

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
One thing that has often struck me in the UK is that a theological liberal might well be a political conservative, whereas theological conservatives may very well be political Liberals or socialists.

That makes perfect sense to me. I know one church which goes on about being inclusive, which means not criticising the local Tory/Masonic mafia - because we must accept everyone.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

But there is nothing necessarily antithetical to Christianity in left-wing politics (I would maintain - though I am probably centre-right myself). Wasn't it always said that the Labour party owed "more to Methodism than to Marx"?

You could certainly argue that Christians should be more sympathetic to the state than to the market. After all, "give to Caesar what is Caesar's", but "you cannot serve God and Mammon"...

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
What I find quite puzzling is that whilst I am towards the right (but not madly so), the majority of the Christians I know tend to be on the left - but Left-wing politics seems so antithetical to Christianity I would find it very hard to be an easy bedfellow.

Really? Can you give examples? I've always been struck by the congruence between left-wing ideas and Christian concepts of equality, fraternity, community and concern for others.

[ 23. September 2013, 12:08: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
What I find quite puzzling is that whilst I am towards the right (but not madly so), the majority of the Christians I know tend to be on the left - but Left-wing politics seems so antithetical to Christianity I would find it very hard to be an easy bedfellow.

Of course, that's not to say that the Tory party is the party of Church and Queen, but both LibDem and Labour seem to have a contempt for Christianity, and it leaves me rather uneasy.

x

AV

My view (from the left) is that there are aspects of every party's policies that are in tune with Christianity and some that are not. We have a dispiriting number of literalists in our church who are on the right of centre unless some part of the public service they depend on is in the firing line.

I have been a member of a few churches over the years and they are rarely as diverse (or inclusive) as they like to think they are.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But there is nothing necessarily antithetical to Christianity in left-wing politics (I would maintain - though I am probably centre-right myself). Wasn't it always said that the Labour party owed "more to Methodism than to Marx"?

You could certainly argue that Christians should be more sympathetic to the state than to the market. After all, "give to Caesar what is Caesar's", but "you cannot serve God and Mammon"...

I always get worried when I hear people state that christianity
is left-wing or is right-wing.

Rather, I think christian belief stands on its own two feet, entailing some socio-political & economic consequences. Only then do you see who else happens to be standing near you. For my part, I find myself on the left.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
Cambridge has a left wing Lib Dem MP, it historically has Liberal or Labour MPs, ....
Really? Wikipedia suggests that in the period since 1900, Cambridge has had a Tory MP for 76 years. Labour took it in 1992, and the Lib Dems in 2005, but I remember Shirley Williams, who you'd have thought would have been a natural kind of person to be MP for Cambridge, failing to get the seat, despite a very hard fought campaign, in 1987.

My apologies for not being clearer, it has not been Tory for over 20 years, despite being surrounded by Tory areas (my village is on the borders and we used to have Andrew Lansley as our MP until recent boundary changes). Lib Dems have solidified support in recent years, though the backlash against them has started to change voting patterns in local elections (my area went Tory last year).

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
What I find quite puzzling is that whilst I am towards the right (but not madly so), the majority of the Christians I know tend to be on the left - but Left-wing politics seems so antithetical to Christianity I would find it very hard to be an easy bedfellow.

Christianity doesn't fit into the dichomotous right/left politics we have in the West. I am always wary of those who claim otherwise.

Jesus wasn't a politician.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:

Of course, that's not to say that the Tory party is the party of Church and Queen, but both LibDem and Labour seem to have a contempt for Christianity, and it leaves me rather uneasy.

Considering the huge amount of input the Methodist church had during the establishment of the Labour party, I find your viewpoint rather odd.

Like Karl, I find fitting socialist politics into a Christian life eminently achievable.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

IIRC the British Social Attitudes Survey 2012 had some questions about religious belief/ practice which they cross-referenced to political beliefs. Lib Dem supporters were least likely to believe in/ practice a religion: but then, the old Nonconformist/Liberal connection notwithstanding, there's much less of a tradition of deriving Liberalism from Christianity than there is of deriving Conservatism or Socialism from Christanity. Indeed, liberalism (which is present within all three main parties, in different forms) is well suited to being the political creed of the rational, autonomous individual.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

My church has everything from people who are fans of Alan Jones (right-wing talkback radio host) to people who vote Green.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Our church includes a provincial Tory cabinet minister and myself, a member of the NDP who is in the left-wing of the party. Of course, we have every shade of politics in between.

[ 23. September 2013, 13:23: Message edited by: Caissa ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:

Of course, that's not to say that the Tory party is the party of Church and Queen, but both LibDem and Labour seem to have a contempt for Christianity, and it leaves me rather uneasy.
Considering the huge amount of input the Methodist church had during the establishment of the Labour party, I find your viewpoint rather odd.

Like Karl, I find fitting socialist politics into a Christian life eminently achievable.

I'd agree and I'd say appropriate rather than achievable. And since the Roman Catholic Church supports pacifism, unilateral nuclear disarmament and the abolition of the death penalty, they're pretty well a bunch of pinkos as well.

[ 23. September 2013, 13:28: Message edited by: venbede ]

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
My church has everything from people who are fans of Alan Jones (right-wing talkback radio host) to people who vote Green.

Anyone mis-read that as Aled Jones?
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :

We have everything from very outspoken Scottish Nationalist (vote yes) to would-be landed aristocracy, who are very conservative (vote no). Voting here just now being all about the independence referendum. The two extremes are those who mainly engage with each other - why I don't know, unless they both want a real challenge. As a church we are hosting a community even to help people think about the issues behind the sound bites, so they can ask intelligent questions should a canvasser ever appear on the doorstep.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
My church has everything from people who are fans of Alan Jones (right-wing talkback radio host) to people who vote Green.
Anyone mis-read that as Aled Jones?

Before I saw MSHB's location, I thought he had meant to write Alex Jones, the right-wing libertarian conspiracy theorist based in Texas. Not sure what sort of church he'd have a following in.

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:

Of course, that's not to say that the Tory party is the party of Church and Queen, but both LibDem and Labour seem to have a contempt for Christianity, and it leaves me rather uneasy.
Considering the huge amount of input the Methodist church had during the establishment of the Labour party, I find your viewpoint rather odd.
Like Karl, I find fitting socialist politics into a Christian life eminently achievable.

I'm vaguely aware of the Methodist roots of the Labour Party, the trouble is that virtually all the countries of the Eastern Block and China/Far East that became self-styled 'socialist republics' did (in one or two cases still do) more killing and persecuting of Christians than just about anyone else in history.

And here in the UK I remember the student politics of the 1980s. Now my anti-abortion views have softened somewhat, but I stll can't get out of my head the memory of the Labour/left wing students shouting in (almost) unison "Free abortion on demand, a woman's right to choocse!" On this and other issues those of the left seem to always line up against 'traditional Christian' moral stances.

Not to say that there aren't problems with 'the Right' either..."the love of money is the root of all evil" springs to mind.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
I'm vaguely aware of the Methodist roots of the Labour Party, the trouble is that virtually all the countries of the Eastern Block and China/Far East that became self-styled 'socialist republics' did (in one or two cases still do) more killing and persecuting of Christians than just about anyone else in history.

Well, according to that logic, Buddhists, Muslims, and old-style Confucians shouldn't support left-wing parties either. Because Mao killed members of those groups(or at least the devout ones) in record numbers as well.

For that matter, gays and pro-choicers shouldn't support the Labour Party. Because, post-Lenin, the USSR outlawed abortion and re-criminalized homosexuality(the last policy remaining unreversed under Khruschev), and their satellite states mostly followed suit. Cuba was actually locking up gays until a few years ago.

[ 23. September 2013, 14:58: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

While there were loads of Methodists involved in the early days of the Labour Party I think they got their name into the "More Methodism than Marxism" line because of the alliteration. The most prominent denominations in the early days were probably Presbyterians and Congregationalists.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
Of course, that's not to say that the Tory party is the party of Church and Queen,

If only it were. That is a sort of Conservatism I could easily subscribe to. Instead we get Callmedave trying to be a peculiarly inept combination of Green and Brown.

But back on topic, churchgoing seems to be such a minority pursuit here that it encompasses devotees of both St Maggie and St Nye.

[ 23. September 2013, 19:29: Message edited by: pererin ]

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

I think, though, that there is a very real and very marked anti-religious bias in leftwing groups in the UK today (regardless of any past unity of Methodism and the Labour Party, although note E.P. Thompson's intense antipathy toward Methodism). The Liberal Democrats seem to have tried to move away from that sort of thing on an institutional level, with varying success. Of course, Brown and Blair are both very religious, in rather different ways, and I think that the Labour Party on a whole is not anti-religion (although I believe Ed Miliband is an atheist, as of course is Nick Clegg), but many groups to the left of it definitely are.

Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to give religion at least lip service at least much of the time.

I personally find it very hard to associate too much with people on the left because I'm a monarchist and a supporter of the House of Lords. Now, neither the Labour nor the Lib. Dem. parties are officially republican, but their grassroots movements seem to be very much so. I find that I have the most in common with the old fashioned 'wet' type of Tory (more Disraeli than Thatcher), and with a certain type of culturally conservative Lib. Dem.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Is lip service better than nothing? If I want strong Christians, I'd much rather have people who are aware (and honest) how Christian they are. The people who tell themselves that Christianity is important to them, but then don't let it affect their decisions are very hard to get through to.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I would say my congregation has a wide tent when it comes to politics. My son used to say I was so liberal I make Karl Marx look like a tea partier--which I cannot deny. Yet, in my congregation we have the chairperson of the county Republican party. I sit in study with a very conservative young man who identifies himself as libertarian. One of the young men I have mentored these past couple of years is strongly pro gun rights (I have even gone shooting with him). Yes we have our disagreements, but there is still respect and brotherly love between us.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
I think they got their name into the "More Methodism than Marxism" line because of the alliteration. The most prominent denominations in the early days were probably Presbyterians and Congregationalists.

"More Presbterian than progressive"? "More Congregationalist than Communist"?

And, tangent, but since Sober Preacher's Kid doesn't seem to be around on this thread, I'll step up to the plate and report that, in Canada, the big names associated with the Social Gospel tendency in the CCF/NDP have been...

J.S. Woodsworth(Methodist)

William Irivne(Methodist)

Tommy Douglas(Baptist, and probably the most ifluential socialist in Canada)

Stanley Knowles(United, Methodist roots)

Though more recently, there seem to have been a few Anglican clerics associated with the NDP, and at least one Catholic priest who served as an MP in the 80s. One thing I'll note is that, unlike the British Labour Party, the NDP has strong roots in rural Canada. The people I listed above all come from the prairie provinces, though a few represented urban ridings.

An unfortunate fact about these guys is that many of them had some flirtation with the eugenics movement, though, with the possible exception of Irvine, none of them ever worked toward its actual implementation.

[ 23. September 2013, 20:15: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Is lip service better than nothing? If I want strong Christians, I'd much rather have people who are aware (and honest) how Christian they are. The people who tell themselves that Christianity is important to them, but then don't let it affect their decisions are very hard to get through to.

Well, I think it depends. I find Thatcher's curious brand of Protestant Christianity very off-putting. Ann Widdecombe, as much as I disagree with her on almost every issue, is clearly a woman of sincere Christian views (I would argue that she is generally misguided, but she's clearly sincere).

If, though, somebody isn't religious through conviction, I'd much rather that he or she still be a friend of the church. You know what I mean, surely: somebody who's probably an agnostic but not quite an atheist, but who goes maybe twice a year to the parish church and supports it for reasons as much to do with family connections and an appreciation of local history and culture as for any religious reason.

And I would especially prefer that my elected representatives were friends of the Church, because it would give some indication that they stood for what I believe in. This isn't a matter of being economically left or right or of being socially liberal or conservative. What I suppose really bothers me about a lot of people on the left is what I see is as a metropolitan sneering at people who perhaps go to church, or who buy royal commemorative mugs, or who in other ways don't live according to the prejudices currently fashionable amongst the sort of people who live in Islington and work in Westminster. The Guardian and Indie can be really prime examples of this sort of thing (as, on the more economically liberal side, can the Economist, although it tends to have a more humane touch), and the London Review of Books, although more self aware, is even worse. The fact that this invariably means middle class people sneering at people who are often much less financially secure and socially well-connected makes it even more indefensible from the left.

I don't think I'm that much of a rustic. In fact, in background, I'm not wildly different from a typical Guardian journalist (I just grew up in a more rural area), and I was even at university with a man who now writes for the Guardian. But when I read any of the left-leaning papers, I feel that I'm being either criticized or ridiculed in a way that I don't when reading, say, the Telegraph or the Spectator. I don't think this has very much to do with politics, as I'm probably closer politically to the typical Guardian reader than to the typical Telegraph reader.

[ 23. September 2013, 20:24: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

S. Bacchus wrote:

quote:
The fact that this invariably means middle class people sneering at people who are often much less financially secure and socially well-connected makes it even more indefensible from the left.

Yes. I've heard left-wing people making fun of rural and blue-collar habits, accents, and mannerisms far more often than I've heard them making fun of upper-class habits etc. Even though it's presumably the upper-classes who are really the ones causing all the trouble.

And what's really pathetic is that they seem to think that they're being outrageously daring with this routine, though, as far as North America goes, they're really just doing an amatuer night rip-off of H.L. Mencken. Who at least had some talent, and was quite up-front about his contempt for the poor and all efforts to help them.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
I think they got their name into the "More Methodism than Marxism" line because of the alliteration. The most prominent denominations in the early days were probably Presbyterians and Congregationalists.

"More Presbterian than progressive"? "More Congregationalist than Communist"?

And, tangent, but since Sober Preacher's Kid doesn't seem to be around on this thread, I'll step up to the plate and report that, in Canada, the big names associated with the Social Gospel tendency in the CCF/NDP have been...

J.S. Woodsworth(Methodist)

William Irivne(Methodist)

Tommy Douglas(Baptist, and probably the most ifluential socialist in Canada)

Stanley Knowles(United, Methodist roots)

Though more recently, there seem to have been a few Anglican clerics associated with the NDP, and at least one Catholic priest who served as an MP in the 80s. One thing I'll note is that, unlike the British Labour Party, the NDP has strong roots in rural Canada. The people I listed above all come from the prairie provinces, though a few represented urban ridings.

An unfortunate fact about these guys is that many of them had some flirtation with the eugenics movement, though, with the possible exception of Irvine, none of them ever worked toward its actual implementation.

And who said the link is passé? [Smile]

There's Rev. Cheri DiNovo, MPP for Parkdale - High Park (Toronto), Rev. Lorne Calvert, NDP Premier of Saskatchewan 2001-2007, Bill's daughter Rebecca, the Party President and a federal candidate in Winnipeg in 2011 (only lost by 500 votes), and of course, me. [Big Grin]

Rev. Blaikie got up to speak on the Sunday of Federal Convention and it struck me that he sounded like a Holy Roller. Wait a minute, he IS a Holy Roller. [Angel]

The United Church of Canada has two affiliated foundations. The Mission & Service Fund is our official and only charity, and the NDP is our political arm. [Snigger]

What's the difference the NDP Federal Convention and the United Church's General Council? 6 months and location. We can't hold them at the same time because that would cause too many scheduling conflicts.

Yeah, the Ship has shown me that the NDP is a little different than either the British Labour Party or the Oz Labor Party (we shall not speak of those reprobate Kiwis). The NDP has strong rural roots and but for bad vote splits would have won a few SK ridings last time. We will take a few SK ridings next time. It's awfully hard when squatters like Tories take over your home!

I'll close with a big [Overused]

to Stetson, I didn't post in this thread because I didn't know what to say. Thanks for solving that problem.

Finally, when I called an NDP friend in SK, a rooster crowed in the background. Yeah, he lived on a farm.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
In fact, in background, I'm not wildly different from a typical Guardian journalist (I just grew up in a more rural area), and I was even at university with a man who now writes for the Guardian. But when I read any of the left-leaning papers, I feel that I'm being either criticized or ridiculed in a way that I don't when reading, say, the Telegraph or the Spectator.

Maybe I'm just selective in which articles I read, but I don't feel that way when I read the Guardian. I used to get sheer ignorant prejudice directed at religion more often in the Independent when I read that. But maybe I'm an urban educated middle-class leftie and don't notice when Guardian writers share my prejudices. But most of the rants I can call to mind are aimed at the class of which Cameron and Osboure are representative.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

SPK wrote:

quote:
The United Church of Canada has two affiliated foundations. The Mission & Service Fund is our official and only charity, and the NDP is our political arm.

The nickname I heard, back in my wayward TUXIS days, was "The United Church: The New Democratic Party at prayer".

quote:
(we shall not speak of those reprobate Kiwis).

Oof, yeah. My province(the one somewhere between BC and Saskatchewan) is often portrayed as a darkened side-door for evil right-wing ideas sneaking into Canada from south of the border.

Whereas, in actuality, the Klein Revolution took its immediate inspiration from the SI-certified Labour government of David Lange(Methodist minister, I believe) and his hatchet man Sir Roger Douglas.

In fairness, Lange and company were pretty solid on the foreign-policy front, with their anti-nuclear stance. And they looked pretty good compared to the nuke-happy French Socialists who were blowing up ships and killing people in Auckland Harbour.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

I'm a practising Catholic - which means that my worship style is very conservative. I fit in quite anonymously on a Sunday morning.

However, I know that my parish ranges from Green to High Tory and beyond. I know that there are a few, like me, who make the NDP (now a centrist party) look like Conservative Party supporters. They often behave like them.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

For those who long for the "Church of the NDP".

I can only say "Good Riddance". I went to Montreal and voted to kill it. If losing elections is your cup of tea, there's the Socialist Caucus for you.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
[QUOTE]My apologies for not being clearer, it has not been Tory for over 20 years, despite being surrounded by Tory areas (my village is on the borders and we used to have Andrew Lansley as our MP until recent boundary changes). Lib Dems have solidified support in recent years, though the backlash against them has started to change voting patterns in local elections (my area went Tory last year).

The political background of Cambridge is interesting. Until relatively recently (within the last 35 years) there were areas of Cambridge of extreme poverty which voted Labour - Romsey Town was known as Little Russia for its politics; the London overspill of the original Kings Hedges and the council estate of the Arbury (taking the people out of the narrow Victorian Terraces of the centre - East Road, Mill Road and around Newmarket Road).

Immediately post WW2 even the county was labour - Stubbs held the seat.

In the 1970's the wholesale redevelopment of Cambridge Town Centre was taking place (Lion Yard, New Square, Laurie and McConnell's, East Road, Grosvenor Street, Burleigh Street)as a result of deliberate policy by the Town Council. It was allowed, indeed encouraged to "decay" and the what was called the Kite Area (from its shape) was redeveloped in the early 1980's onwards. It was a deliberate policy to move the old working class Cambridge inhabitants out - and gentrify the area. Perhaps some saw them as an embarrassment to the posh chaps at the colleges - certainly the area and the houses was all college owned land. The effect was not just one of movement of people but a change in politics. Being rented houses many were moved to council property on or beyond the borders of the town. Their labour vote (that's what the ward produced) was diluted or removed beyond the city boundary (Kings Hedges).

Lion Yard had been demolished and was re opened as a shopping Centre in 1973 - I was there at the opening (we boys from the old Boys' High School aka Hills Road VIth Form College) were invited to attend.

The Kite redevelopment produced probably the first green politics in Cambridge but it all came to naught - it was students and trendies really, playing at being radical.

Of course in the intervening period the town has grown with the rise of the electronic revolution. It's attracted vast hordes of specialist workers and made the town itself one of the most expensive housing areas in the UK. My own house bought in 1980 for £17500 was sold for £250000 in 1995.

Andrew Lansley? Poor you. The bloke is an idiotic time server and singularly unhelpful. My dad is one of his constituents and had a serious complaint about Addenbrookes and how it dealt with my mother's death: Lansley wouldn't even listen when the hospital closed ranks. Shows how much he thought of people from working class backgrounds doesn't it? I spoke to him once and he's a very very smug git.

[ 24. September 2013, 05:26: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

The 3 local councillors to the Church are Labour (Old Labour). We currently have 2 local Tory MP's having changed from labour at the last election.

The church has a range but we do have several who are way left of centre and one or two Thatcher Tories.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
[QUOTE]My apologies for not being clearer, it has not been Tory for over 20 years, despite being surrounded by Tory areas (my village is on the borders and we used to have Andrew Lansley as our MP until recent boundary changes). Lib Dems have solidified support in recent years, though the backlash against them has started to change voting patterns in local elections (my area went Tory last year).
The political background of Cambridge is interesting. Until relatively recently (within the last 35 years) there were areas of Cambridge of extreme poverty which voted Labour - Romsey Town was known as Little Russia for its politics; the London overspill of the original Kings Hedges and the council estate of the Arbury (taking the people out of the narrow Victorian Terraces of the centre - East Road, Mill Road and around Newmarket Road).

Immediately post WW2 even the county was labour - Stubbs held the seat.

In the 1970's the wholesale redevelopment of Cambridge Town Centre was taking place (Lion Yard, New Square, Laurie and McConnell's, East Road, Grosvenor Street, Burleigh Street)as a result of deliberate policy by the Town Council. It was allowed, indeed encouraged to "decay" and the what was called the Kite Area (from its shape) was redeveloped in the early 1980's onwards. It was a deliberate policy to move the old working class Cambridge inhabitants out - and gentrify the area. Perhaps some saw them as an embarrassment to the posh chaps at the colleges - certainly the area and the houses was all college owned land. The effect was not just one of movement of people but a change in politics. Being rented houses many were moved to council property on or beyond the borders of the town. Their labour vote (that's what the ward produced) was diluted or removed beyond the city boundary (Kings Hedges).

Lion Yard had been demolished and was re opened as a shopping Centre in 1973 - I was there at the opening (we boys from the old Boys' High School aka Hills Road VIth Form College) were invited to attend.

The Kite redevelopment produced probably the first green politics in Cambridge but it all came to naught - it was students and trendies really, playing at being radical.

Of course in the intervening period the town has grown with the rise of the electronic revolution. It's attracted vast hordes of specialist workers and made the town itself one of the most expensive housing areas in the UK. My own house bought in 1980 for £17500 was sold for £250000 in 1995.

Andrew Lansley? Poor you. The bloke is an idiotic time server and singularly unhelpful. My dad is one of his constituents and had a serious complaint about Addenbrookes and how it dealt with my mother's death: Lansley wouldn't even listen when the hospital closed ranks. Shows how much he thought of people from working class backgrounds doesn't it? I spoke to him once and he's a very very smug git.

That is interesting [Smile]

Mill Road area has very much changed with the gentrification of the bigger Victorian terraces. My own estate is 1950s built, Lady Pemberton gave some Trumpington land to the council to house the working classes, our deeds actually state that the house should be used for this purpose (to the amusement of our lawyer).
Agree about Lansley...

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
[QUOTE]That is interesting Mill Road area has very much changed with the gentrification of the bigger Victorian terraces. My own estate is 1950s built, Lady Pemberton gave some Trumpington land to the council to house the working classes, our deeds actually state that the house should be used for this purpose (to the amusement of our lawyer).
Agree about Lansley...

I looked at a house off Mill road in 1981 (warren Street) I think. A 3 bed terrace for £11000 but it had no bathroom or inside loo. It must go for upwards of £300K now.

How lovely of Lady Pemberton .... but how condescending. True blue Cambridge Toryism at its best sad to say - the Pembertons made their money as lawyers their firm is now (was?) known as Francis and Co and was in Corn Exchange Street.

The Pembertons had their sticky hands a good few years ago though - in the village where my dad lives (Bassingbourn). Fortunately they sold up but that's an interesting place for politics too, not least the church/chapel divide ....

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The church I went to in the 1970s was in an urban priority area and red light district. I have arrived as a young conservative and go to know the problems and issues of its members and it converted me to christian Socialism. I reckon 80% of that congregation would be (old) Labour and the 20% who weren't came for the incense etc. After I moved away, it had a vicar who stayed for 28 years, for many of which he was a LibDedm councillor.

In the 1980s, I went to a church that was a tory stronghold. It took me a long time to get used to this - I was often told 'you are not one of us' so I eventually left it.

My present church has a mission statement that stressed the necessity to make connections between our beliefs and social justice issues. Merely walk into the building and you are confronted with posters for Amnesty International, Christian Aid and Fairtrade. I reckon the congregation is split between Labour and LibDem and that the very few Tories feel uncomfortable by the preaching and the notices but come for the music.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

How politically "diverse" are we? I haven't the faintest idea and I don't think it would be polite or relevant to ask fellow churchgoers their voting intentions before general or local elections.

What concerns us far more is the people who supposedly represent us on diocesan and, particularly, general synod where the way our diocesan representatives vote bears absolutely no relation to the feelings and beliefs in our parish.

As for any one (or two?) political parties being more "christian" - cobblers.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
For those who long for the "Church of the NDP".

I can only say "Good Riddance". I went to Montreal and voted to kill it. If losing elections is your cup of tea, there's the Socialist Caucus for you.

Are you talking about the proposed Faith Caucus that was being bandied about a while back? If so, I don't think that's what Climenhaga is writing about. He seems to be using "Church Of The NDP" as a metaphor for political dogmatism.

That said, if you DID vote against a Faith Caucus, I concur with your vote. Much as I appreciate the contribution of emienent clerics to the NDP, I don't think religion should have any formal place in the party.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
While there were loads of Methodists involved in the early days of the Labour Party I think they got their name into the "More Methodism than Marxism" line because of the alliteration. The most prominent denominations in the early days were probably Presbyterians and Congregationalists.

Moreover, I think the 'more Methodist than Marxist' thing really refers to the Primitive Methodists, not to the Wesleyan Methodists. The latter made up the largest Methodist church and were less left wing than other Methodists and other Nonconformists.

An article on Mrs Thatcher's religious background says this:

quote:
Methodism is often assumed to be on the Left; Harold Wilson declared that the Labour Party “owed more to Methodism than to Marxism”. The story is a little more complex.

The collapse of the Liberal Party in the Twenties triggered a split in Methodist voting. Primitives turned to Labour while Wesleyans joined the Conservatives. [Mrs Thatcher's father,] Alf Roberts, a Wesleyan, was typical in this respect.

Thatcherism should be seen as a legacy of this realignment of party politics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9992424/Margaret-Thatcher-her-unswerving-faith-shaped-by-her-fathe r.html

Maybe the vaguely left-wing image is Primitive Methodism's legacy to the now re-united Methodist Church.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

As Ken will no doubt remind us, there is a strong link in the UK between the more radical forms of Protestantism and the rise of socialism. Roman Catholicism, because of its largely Irish and working-class nature, has a similar left-wing association (albeit, like the archetypal Old Labour, encompassing many practising Catholics, often socially conservative). The socialist tendency in Anglo-catholicism is likewise well known.

But all of these had their right-wing factions too. Evangelical focus on individual salvation often played into the hands of those who wished to preserve the status quo. The old aristocratic Catholics, and many middle-class converts, were often frighteningly right-wing (supporting Franco for example). And there were as many or more Tories as socialists among the ranks of the Tractarians and Anglo-catholics.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
For those who long for the "Church of the NDP".

I can only say "Good Riddance". I went to Montreal and voted to kill it. If losing elections is your cup of tea, there's the Socialist Caucus for you.
Are you talking about the proposed Faith Caucus that was being bandied about a while back? If so, I don't think that's what Climenhaga is writing about. He seems to be using "Church Of The NDP" as a metaphor for political dogmatism.

That said, if you DID vote against a Faith Caucus, I concur with your vote. Much as I appreciate the contribution of emienent clerics to the NDP, I don't think religion should have any formal place in the party.

No, I mean "Church of the NDP" as an expression for the dominance of members whose only concern is political dogma, who only exist to throw rocks at other parties (and our own) and to be holier than thou. My riding had such a candidate in the early 2000's; we got 5% of the vote. Now we're up to 20%.

These people can sure stand against something but have a much harder time standing for something, especially implementing that something in government, in all its messiness.

The NDP's vote for Mulcair, its entertainment of that choice with 90% approval and its open and frank desire to be the next Government of Canada have all closed down the dogmatically pure "Conscience of Parliament" Church of the NDP.

Bill Shorten, Oz Minister and Labor Party MP spoke extensively about that, "Only the innocent are pure". He had the absolute best speech of the whole Convention.

The Faith Caucus actually exists; I didn't go to it though. I prefer to be inspired and guided by faith in politics, not controlled by it.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
[QUOTE]That is interesting Mill Road area has very much changed with the gentrification of the bigger Victorian terraces. My own estate is 1950s built, Lady Pemberton gave some Trumpington land to the council to house the working classes, our deeds actually state that the house should be used for this purpose (to the amusement of our lawyer).
Agree about Lansley...
I looked at a house off Mill road in 1981 (warren Street) I think. A 3 bed terrace for £11000 but it had no bathroom or inside loo. It must go for upwards of £300K now.

How lovely of Lady Pemberton .... but how condescending.....

Perhaps. But of course a similar clause enabled the Duke of Westminster* to stop Westminster City Council selling off the Page St estate in the 1990s. The Council argued that the working class no longer existed: the Duke, and the courts, disagreed.

*Who also ironically owned, or at least the Grosvenor estate did, a lot of the land in the Kite, didn't he?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I find Thatcher's curious brand of Protestant Christianity very off-putting.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

An article on Mrs Thatcher's religious background says this:

[QUOTE] [b]Methodism is often assumed to be on the Left; Harold Wilson declared that the Labour Party “owed more to Methodism than to Marxism”. The story is a little more complex.

The collapse of the Liberal Party in the Twenties triggered a split in Methodist voting. Primitives turned to Labour while Wesleyans joined the Conservatives. [Mrs Thatcher's father,] Alf Roberts, a Wesleyan, was typical in this respect.[...]

Maybe the vaguely left-wing image is Primitive Methodism's legacy to the now re-united Methodist Church.

I have heard (he says vaguely) that Margaret Thatcher chose to worship in Anglo-Catholic churches when she was Prime Minister. Brought up Methodist and low-church but didn't stay there.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
[QUOTE]Perhaps. But of course a similar clause enabled the Duke of Westminster* to stop Westminster City Council selling off the Page St estate in the 1990s. The Council argued that the working class no longer existed: the Duke, and the courts, disagreed.

*Who also ironically owned, or at least the Grosvenor estate did, a lot of the land in the Kite, didn't he?

Yes you're right and Gerry Grosvenor isn't a nice man either

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
[QUOTE]Perhaps. But of course a similar clause enabled the Duke of Westminster* to stop Westminster City Council selling off the Page St estate in the 1990s. The Council argued that the working class no longer existed: the Duke, and the courts, disagreed.

*Who also ironically owned, or at least the Grosvenor estate did, a lot of the land in the Kite, didn't he?
Yes you're right and Gerry Grosvenor isn't a nice man either

Really? I know several of His Grace's tenants in the Sloane Square area and they have all described him as an ideal landlord.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I have heard (he says vaguely) that Margaret Thatcher chose to worship in Anglo-Catholic churches when she was Prime Minister. Brought up Methodist and low-church but didn't stay there.

The article I quoted from mentions that she switched to the CofE, although it says she preferred the low church type.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Certain central London anglo-catholic churches (which would be her nearest neighbours) would I guess be more congenial to her political stance and personal style than most of the evangelical and liberal ones. She might have preferred a stiff-upper-lip Mattins church but there aren't many of them. And the overtly left-wing a-c places are more likely to be in the inner suburbs.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Certain central London anglo-catholic churches (which would be her nearest neighbours) would I guess be more congenial to her political stance and personal style than most of the evangelical and liberal ones.

I wouldn't have thought that central London Anglo-Catholicism constituted a particularly enthusiastic audience for Section 28....

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I have heard (he says vaguely) that Margaret Thatcher chose to worship in Anglo-Catholic churches when she was Prime Minister. Brought up Methodist and low-church but didn't stay there.
The article I quoted from mentions that she switched to the CofE, although it says she preferred the low church type.

If I'm not mistaken, Thatcher's only appointment as Archbishop Of Canterbury was George Carey, and he was decidedly low-church, I believe. Which would probably be a good indication of where her sympathies lay, I think?

(Question mark not rhetorical, because I don't have a perfect handle on how these things work.)

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Margaret Thatcher appointed 2 Archbishops of Canterbury: Robert Runcie and George Carey.

The first infuriated her: first with all the guff about "fairytales" at the royal wedding in 1982 and then again with his lacklustre sermon at the Falklands Service, although the main architect of the last was Alan Webster, then Dean of St Paul's.

George Carey she appointed as one of the 2 names sent to her: whether or not she approved of his stance on all issues we'll never know, but it is widely known that part of his Carey's appeal was that he was pro women in the church and (this she liked a lot) seemed to Mrs T the antithesis of Runcie's vacillating, tortured soul.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

She was impressed by Carey's seeming success in his Durham church where he increased attendance figures.

Possibly also by his rise from Dagenham, though evening classes, to PhD (The latter impresses me too).

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Margaret Thatcher appointed 2 Archbishops of Canterbury: Robert Runcie and George Carey.

The first infuriated her: first with all the guff about "fairytales" at the royal wedding in 1982 and then again with his lacklustre sermon at the Falklands Service, ...

Hardly 'lacklustre': you might disapprove of the sermon, but a merely lacklustre sermon would not have produced such a strong reaction.
Why did Runcie preach that sermon? Well, (i) he was after all a Christian and Christians are not supposed to think that war is ever anything more than the least bad of all options (ii) he actually knew what war was like. It'd be interesting to know whether people like Willie Whitelaw, Francis Pym and Lord Carrington- all, like Runcie, decorated former Guards officers- took quite the same view of the sermon that Mrs Thatcher did.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

(Pedantic correction: having bothered to look it up, I see that Pym was actually in the 9th Lancers. But the point holds.)

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The point wasn't that I thought the sermon but that Mrs T did - perhaps having appointed a holder of the MC as Archbishop she thought she was going to get the church militant in the pulpit...

(Willie Whitelaw was Scots Guards; Peter Carrington Grenadier Guards and he won an MC too)

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
George Carey she appointed as one of the 2 names sent to her: whether or not she approved of his stance on all issues we'll never know, but it is widely known that part of his Carey's appeal was that he was pro women in the church and (this she liked a lot) seemed to Mrs T the antithesis of Runcie's vacillating, tortured soul.

But the main reason she appointed Carey was that he wasn't David Sheppard - the other name sent to her. I suspect she would have appointed the Marquis de Sade rather than Sheppard, who was extremely popular and (alongside Derek Worlock) had been a constant vocal opponent of her policies as they had created havoc in his beloved Liverpool.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0