|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Folk-religion
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
It's often said that the majority of those who identify themselves as Christians go to church, if at all, for Christmas, Christenings, Weddings and Funerals; and perhaps think (not altogether seriously) that they should give something up for Lent. Is this kind of 'folk-religion' (fake- religion?) better than no religion at all, or is it self-deception? Apologies if this has been discussed on another thread.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We should be extremely grateful to have such waters to swim in. My village church was packed - again - today for two christenings. There was NOTHING fake about it. As for self-deception, I know everyone has it because I do.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
I don't think 'folk-religion' = 'fake-religion'. Children can be deeply religious without knowing anything about theology or church practice.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
If one believes that sacraments have no value outside a self-congratulatory pat on the back for the faithful, then surely there's no value in people attending baptisms and weddings. If, on the other hand, one believes in the intrinsic value of hearing God's word read and preached and seeing the grace of God's love made visible in the sacraments, then there's incredible value in it.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And neither, and therefore inclusive and above, of both of those extremes of dichotomy.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think folk-religion is generally used to mean that people don't really understand what they are doing, but they feel it is a good thing anyway.
It would therefore apply to pretty much everyone.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Right this needs a lot of unpacking. The jump from not going to church to folk religion is a huge one. Let me try and tell the story.
In the 1990s the story was all the decline in church attendance, and the increasing secularization of Western European Society. You can read people like Steve Bruce, and Callum Brown. Lets be clear they are not run when you are dealing with the Church attendance figures in the UK (wider there are problems).
Then along came Grace Davie and noted that while church attendance figures were declining the statistics which endorse levels of personal belief held up, not just in the UK but in all European datasets. She therefore created two religious axises "belonging" which referred to actual participation in a faith community and "believing" which meant holding to some form of belief. It might be useful to realise this dimension would include "Do you pray?", "Do you believe in God?" as well as if an individual used the title "Christian". She left both believing and belonging under defined. This was in the late 1990s and before the 2001 census which was the first to ask about religion.
Then the 2001 census happened and the numbers for Christians were far higher than anyone expected. So there are two puzzles. The first is the bi-dimensionality of faith adherence and the second is the high response in the Census. It is commonly assumed that the answer to one will provide the answer the other. I am not so sure.
Into this has come a huge number of theorists aiming to explain who these people are who do not actively belong to a faith community. In the absence and it is still the absence of good studies the theorists are having a field day from both the pro and anti Christian lobbies.
The work by Abby Day "Believing in Belonging" is the first work I have seen that really tries to get behind the difference in the census. In the interviews she conducted it looks as if those who ticked the Christian box in the census were giving voice to a cultural identity. They were English and therefore they were Christian. Indeed to some extent this has been tested as Abby Day advised on the 2011 survey on how to alter the question to get a reasonable answer. The numbers dropped, exactly what she intended the changes to do. She actually called these people's belief systems as "anthropcentric" rather than "theocentric". That is they believe in their relationships with others rather than in the tenets of any faith.
However this only really works for the unchurched, those who have never had a commitment to a congregation and also who do not take up the tenet part of personal faith. There are still people who have been part of a congregation but now are not and those who would hold to broad Christian tenets who have never been part of the community and I suspect from Grace Davie's work that this second group exists (lets call them the vicarious as that is Grace's word).
So now you have
- Cultural Christians (identify but neither believe nor belong)
- Dechurched (who may or may not believe, but have belonged)
- Vicarious Christians (who believe but never belonged)
There is also another troubling group and that is those who choose to belong yet would not claim to believe. They do exist. I have not even got onto dogmatic Atheists who pray.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Delighted to see folk-religion. I know of quite a few clergy who much prefer the congregations at weddings. funerals and "Christenings" to those who attend weekly.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think folk-religion is generally used to mean that people don't really understand what they are doing, but they feel it is a good thing anyway.
It would therefore apply to pretty much everyone.
Yes, there are plenty of people who may not understand, in the sense of being able to explain, what they were doing in a religious rite but they nonetheless understand at a deeper and non-word level that the rite involves God and is significant.
[ 09. March 2014, 14:25: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Jengie Jon
That's a useful summary of what's happening, but it doesn't establish who participates in 'folk religion'. Is your point that the term is now outdated and doesn't adequately cover the huge range of religious experience and belief either inside or outside churchgoing groups?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Folk religion itself I think tends to be of the more intense forms of faith. At least as I have always thought of folk religion as being the faith of the people formulated without the direction direction or propagation of the church; or even having beliefs not officially sanctioned or defined by the church.
This thread sounds like cultural Christianity.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
This thread sounds like cultural Christianity.
Yes. I think "folk religion" means something else, tied up with superstition.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
My argument is that "folk religion" is just another hypothesized answer to the problems that I have outlined. There are many.
What is more it is dubious I would say. For instance the decline in the participation in Baptisms, Weddings and Funerals has followed the belonging decline rather than the believing. The participation in a faith community at any level is dropping. In fact intriguingly we can remove "faith" and suggest that commitment that involves attendance is dropping for all voluntary organizations.
There is a demotic form (or forms) of religion. That would be the way people talk and experience the "numinous"* in general life. However there is nothing clear about whether participation in them leads a person to identify as Christian.
Cultural is not the same as "folk" these may include hatch, match and dispatchers but not all are. Many never go to church at all and can be quite antagonist towards it. Rather it is seen as being by virtue of who they are or to be blunt they are Christian because they are White British.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Sorry
The "*" by numinous was to say that "numinous" was in quotes because I could not think of a better term but alternatives include "God" "gods" "spirits" "supernatural" "fate" .
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
Most of the people whose paths cross mine during the week are Giving Up ...something... For Lent.
Very few are Sunday Church Attending Christians.
While Christians of my acquaintance are very often Not giving up anything at all for Lent.
One year we mused over coffee after church about this. I was hoping for a nuanced discussion and instead got a lecture on superstition and folk religion.......
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Actually what are termed "Folk religion" in the OP I think I would tend to label as vicarious Christians.
Most of the rest is guess work though there is some basis to it.
I suspect that actually they are fairly orthodox in their belief, at least as orthodox as the weird and woolly end of most congregations. They often accept God exists, they probably know some Bible stories about Jesus and they tend to think that the golden rule is important, or that would be my guess.
There are perhaps two distinct groups of people who come into this category. There are those whodo not come to church because "people like them do not". "People like them" implies working class rather than middle class. That working classes have for a very long time followed this sort of religious practice is fairly well documented.
Then there are those whose parents were church goers but they are not. They form a sub group of the dechurched and quite often are partly doing it to keep their parents happy. These I have nothing more than anecdotal and personal experience of.
The argument for Vicarious Christians is that the middle classes are adopting the patterns of faith that the working classes have traditional held. I suspect that is not the case and that there is a decline in both working class adoption of the vicarious believing alongside that of the decline of formal belonging among the middle classes.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Ethne Alba
In my years of close involvement in Methodist church life I've never seen much interest in giving things up for Lent. It's never been a topic for sermons. Cakes and sweets have always been served at church. At one point there was a small campaign to get Christians to change some aspect of their lives rather than just giving up certain foods, but it wasn't heavily promoted.
Maybe non-churchgoers have an ancestral memory of giving things up for Lent, whereas churchgoers today are more influenced by current church practice than by what their (great-)grandmothers did....
Like others, I think this thread might have more to say about 'cultural Christianity' than 'folk-religion'. The sense of the numinous that many people have seems much too private and too vague to warrant the term 'religion'. And as you imply, the term 'folk religion' has something slightly pejorative and non-PC about it.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm stealing from somebody, probably Lewis, but whoever it was pointed out that you can be in a certain spiritual place because you are either on the way in to Christianity, or on the way out. And outsiders can't always tell which direction it is.
I usually think of our community as being like the solar system. There are the faithful believing worship attenders--these are like planets with regular orbits, they come around a lot, and they are usually pretty reliable--you know what to expect from them. There are the folk who sort of swim into our ken once every couple years and then disappear for a while--but come back again. These are the comets (not you, Comet!) and they have orbits too, but they tend to be a lot more irregular and longer. Still, they keep coming back. And then there are the big rocky thing on the outskirts of the solar system which neither attend nor believe--but any day, something could disturb their positions and change them into comets, or even planets...
So when it comes to folk religion, I tend to think "is this person a planet or a comet or what?" and "how is this [ceremony or rite they have requested of us] likely to affect their orbit?" If it seems apt to push them further away, we'll say no. Otherwise we're mostly okay with it.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
There was NOTHING fake about it. As for self-deception, I know everyone has it because I do.
Depends on people's reason for being there in relation to the function assumed by the church. If we assume that the church is functioning to perform a Christian rite, the fake bit comes when the people coming there are there simply because its stage 1 of the party or whatever. They may be there but they aren't engaged - and arguably won't (or even can't) be engaged by something they don't embrace. The church bit is an irrelevance to the day to many and so is fake.
I don't know what % of christenings/baptisms are carried out for families who are regular churchgoers but perhaps they might be described as being the only non fake ones in terms of the confluence of hat the church is doing and what the parents believe and practice openly.
As for self deception I'd be careful on ascribing something to others that is true to you - brownie points for admitting it though.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I suspect that actually they are fairly orthodox in their belief, at least as orthodox as the weird and woolly end of most congregations. They often accept God exists, they probably know some Bible stories about Jesus and they tend to think that the golden rule is important, or that would be my guess.
Those who "believe" in this way probably understand God in terms of the Creator. It's the matter of God as Redeemer and Christ as Saviour they don't really take on board. In that case folk religion is just that: it isn't Christianity in some understandings of the same.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
andras
Shipmate
# 2065
|
Posted
Yesterday evening I turned on the television and hit the end of Songs of Praise, with a large congregation lustily singing Thine be the Glory.
On the first Sunday in Lent? Mrs. Andras went ballistic when she heard it!
There's a certain type of religion that seems to be well-described in the faith of the people on the 'Chalk' (downlands) on Discworld, where the folks don't mind the odd priest coming by provided they get to sing some nice songs with good tunes, and don't get asked to be serious about anything.
Think about how many hymn requests for funerals (and weddings!) are hideously inappropriate? Still, as long as it's got a good tune and everyone knows it...
--------------------
God's on holiday.
(Why borrow a cat?)
Adrian Plass
Posts: 544 | From: Tregaron | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I didn't think they were singing it that lustily - indeed, my wife and I thought it somewhat dirge-like and turned it off before the end!
I don't quite see what this has to do with folk religion, except for the selectors of SofP having chosen a hymn which, in your opinion, was unsuitable for the first Sunday in Lent.
Our church would have had no problem singing it - and, even though we are Nonconformists, we do make a point of observing Lent (although that does not extend to having no flowers in church).
(Actually I thought that the selection of hymns in general was a bit bizarre in yesterday's programme, they did not fit together well but seemed somewhat random ... but that's a different topic entirely!)
[ 10. March 2014, 08:38: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I would think( from long experience) that most people in any given church are there for many different reasons - very often to do with faith,hope and charity - faith or belief that there may be some good reason for being there,hope that something good may come of their attendance and charity or feeling that they are part of a community which in some way supports one another.
Certainly in a Catholic church one should not look for ,nor expect to find that everyone in the church would be able to explain,or identify,except in the vaguest of ways, with every jot and tittle of the teachings of the Church.I believe that this would be the same in
the Church of Scotland.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I suspect that actually they are fairly orthodox in their belief, at least as orthodox as the weird and woolly end of most congregations. They often accept God exists, they probably know some Bible stories about Jesus and they tend to think that the golden rule is important, or that would be my guess.
Those who "believe" in this way probably understand God in terms of the Creator. It's the matter of God as Redeemer and Christ as Saviour they don't really take on board. In that case folk religion is just that: it isn't Christianity in some understandings of the same.
I am not prepared to judge that. Traditionally a lot of these got their ideas from a mix of afternoon Sunday School and RE so I imagine Jesus might just has figured in there somewhere.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Another term Implicit Religion with a long study history.
There is however a high rate of unorthodox belief among church goers.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I didn't think they were singing it that lustily - indeed, my wife and I thought it somewhat dirge-like and turned it off before the end!
I don't quite see what this has to do with folk religion, except for the selectors of SofP having chosen a hymn which, in your opinion, was unsuitable for the first Sunday in Lent.
Our church would have had no problem singing it - and, even though we are Nonconformists, we do make a point of observing Lent (although that does not extend to having no flowers in church).
(Actually I thought that the selection of hymns in general was a bit bizarre in yesterday's programme, they did not fit together well but seemed somewhat random ... but that's a different topic entirely!)
It was probably recorded months ago - I think i saw a Christmas tree at the west end of one of the churches.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I've heard individual congregations, and perhaps even denominations described in terms of a medieval cathedral town. You have the clergy, religious and devout believers in the inner circle of cathedral life; then you have a ring of middle-of-the-road faithful -- they may not be the best-catechized and/or extraordinary in their piety, but they're the people who show up; who help the church get things done; who do integrate their faith into their daily lives to one extent or the other; the next ring are the people on the margins, the baptism/marriage/funeral types, who by all appearances are not people of faith but who nevertheless feel/display some sort of attachment to the church or denomination; and then there are the outliers who have no connection or interest in the church. Of course, the people in the innermost rung will want to help the people in the outer rings move closer to the center. But I don't think it's particularly helpful for people in the inner rings to get all judge-y about at what point people at the margins are "in" or "out."
Everyone has a story about why they do or do not participate in formal religion. I know a family who opted out of churchgoing after hearing a pastor, officiating at the funeral of an unbaptized toddler, scolding the parents for consigning the child to hell by their neglect. I know another family who stayed away from a church for 30 years because at one point the parents had been removed from the membership rolls for not contributing enough money to meet the church council's requirements for membership in good standing...after undergoing a humiliating visit from the pastor and a council member.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik
But I don't think it's particularly helpful for people in the inner rings to get all judge-y about at what point people at the margins are "in" or "out."
As a Lenten discipline I am re-reading The Imitation of Christ. One interesting idea I have come across is that judging other people is a complete waste of time.
I already had lots of reasons for not judging other people, but I had never thought of this one.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I too have noticed the emergence of 'Giving up something for Lent' in popular culture over recent years.
A peculiar development given the decline in traditional Christian commitment .
Is it to do with the current state of excess in which most Westerners live ? Or is it a surprising reconnection with Christian practice in the complete absence of finger-wagging sermons ?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Here's an excellent article from the Church Times on the subject
To summarise, about 50% of 'members of the CofE' don't go to church but have faith that seems very similar (given the terms of the survey) to the vast majority of churchgoers.
An interesting article perhaps, but I'd hardly describe either it or any of Professor Woodhead's other recent productions as 'excellent'. 'Complacent' perhaps, 'depressing' or even 'the sort of thing that would go down well in Laodicea'. Her attitude towards enthusiasm in its C18 sense would have fitted very comfortably into that century. She seems to think the CofE should encourage its more committed laity to go and join the dissenters where, in her view, they should be more welcome, and leave the CofE to its clergy and those that want to use the church for the occasional offices.
Perhaps that's a travesty of the case she has been trying to make, but if so, she hasn't been making it clearly.
quote:
Originally posted by Rolyn
I too have noticed the emergence of 'Giving up something for Lent' in popular culture over recent years.
A peculiar development given the decline in traditional Christian commitment .
Another oddity is the way every works or office canteen serves fish and chips on Friday, even though that hasn't technically been a CofE discipline since the C16 and I don't think is an RC one any more.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'd hardly describe [the article in *Leon*'s link] or any of Professor Woodhead's other recent productions as 'excellent'. 'Complacent' perhaps, 'depressing' or even 'the sort of thing that would go down well in Laodicea'. Her attitude towards enthusiasm in its C18 sense would have fitted very comfortably into that century. She seems to think the CofE should encourage its more committed laity to go and join the dissenters where, in her view, they should be more welcome, and leave the CofE to its clergy and those that want to use the church for the occasional offices.
It's interesting you should say that. I've noticed that she does try to put a positive gloss on everything to do with church life, even if the reality is quite sobering.
Her idea that non-churchgoing Anglicans could be invited to get involved in the less 'religious' aspects of CofE church life is valuable, but is there any sign that such people want that level of responsibility? CofE leaders ought to try and find out, because the National Trust fears many ancient CofE buildings will crumble away if their maintenance is left in the hands of decreasing numbers of churchgoers. It does make sense for non-churchgoers to be made aware of the problems, which isn't happening at the moment.
I've read that in a few decades the mainstream English denominations will reach a crisis point as the late middle aged and elderly people who currently support them fail to be adequately replaced by younger people. If I'm still alive I'll be watching to see if any kind of cultural memory of church allegiance kicks in when local communities begin to see a more rapid pace of church closures.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
An interesting article perhaps, but I'd hardly describe either it or any of Professor Woodhead's other recent productions as 'excellent'.
What I found excellent about it was the analysis of the actual belief of non-churchgoers who identify as CofE, and how this compares with the beliefs of churchgoers. This paints a picture that is radically different to what most people assume, and I'd argue that this understanding is essential if the church is to relate to non-churchgoers.
I wasn't convinced at all by her comments on what should be done in response to this, but that struck me as a less significant aspect of the article.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
What would 'relating to non-churchgoers' entail in this respect?
As Jengie Jon says, even churchgoers believe a variety of different things. Yet they're willing to attend church, listen to sermons and sing hymns that fail to affirm their beliefs in reincarnation, astrology, the impossibility of an afterlife, for example. So it would seem that theological orthodoxy or the lack of it isn't necessarily the main barrier that prevents people from relating to the church, or vice versa.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What would 'relating to non-churchgoers' entail in this respect?
As Jengie Jon says, even churchgoers believe a variety of different things. Yet they're willing to attend church, listen to sermons and sing hymns that fail to affirm their beliefs in reincarnation, astrology, the impossibility of an afterlife, for example. So it would seem that theological orthodoxy or the lack of it isn't necessarily the main barrier that prevents people from relating to the church, or vice versa.
I think it'll take a bit of time to work that out.
Firstly theological orthodoxy or lack of it is even less of a barrier than Jengie Jon says, since most people who have orthodox belief (or, more precisely, beliefs similar to that of about 2 thirds of churchgoers) don't go to church.
Secondly, it seems people don't have a problem relating to the church. They just don't see that relating to the church involves going anywhere near a church building. A lot of 'the church' assumes that people who don't go to church don't relate to the church, and that needs to change.
Which brings us round to the endlessly discussed question of whether or not you need to be a churchgoer to be a christian. If the answer to that question is yes, the church needs to do a much better job of explaining why the answer is yes. If the answer is no, the church needs to consider what spiritual support can be given to those christians who chose not to go to church. I suspect the answer is 'maybe' which makes things complex.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
Some people writing on this thread seem to suggest that the defining characteristic of a Christian is attending church often or regularly. Does that mean that a little old lady who for health reasons cuts back on her Sunday attendance is thereby less of a Christian?
There also seems to be a suggestion that people who do not attend church every week have a "folk religion". I suspect there are people who seldom attend services who nonetheless know quite a lot about their beliefs and about scripture.
This thread reminds me of some other threads on the Ship in that some Shipmates appear to conflate the religion with the institution. I do not equate the two, and I value the first much more than the second.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
There has always been the idea of some sort of discipline on a Friday for many Christians.
For Catholics (apart from in Spain) abstinence from meat was traditional until after Vat 2.
Since then people ,in theory, could choose their own
penance.In practice the idea of penance simply disappeared.
Local bishops' conferences try to encourage particular disciplines. I believe that in the USA abstinence from meat is strongly encouraged on the Fridays of Lent.
Fairly recently in England (not in other parts of the UK) the bishops'conference encouraged regular Friday abstinence ,without making it mandatory.
I don't think that pope Benedict had anything to do with this.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cathscats
Shipmate
# 17827
|
Posted
[Ship of fools message boards purgatory folk religion]
Not sure if this link is done right, as I have never tried to do this before but if not, google (other search engines are available) "Steve Aisthorpe listening to and learning from" and that should be enough to help you find the report of recent fascinating work done by Steve Aisthorpe regarding non church-going Christians in the Scottish Highlands.
[removed broken link]
[ 12. March 2014, 21:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
"...damp hands and theological doubts - the two always seem to go together..." (O. Douglas, "The Setons")
Posts: 176 | From: Central Highlands | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
There is also another troubling group and that is those who choose to belong yet would not claim to believe.
Jengie
Why should this group be troubling? I have difficulty believing but I choose to belong to the Anglican church. Partly, that is my cultural heritage, and partly because the Anglican Church is a broad church that does not insist that its members sign up to a list of beliefs before they can join.
I have met a lot of lifelong churchgoers whose theological views are less than orthodox. Arianism is alive and well in the Church of England.
People no longer go to church because of social expectations, so those people who only come to church at Christmas must come because they have some sense of the spiritual dimension of life. Similarly those who choose to get married in church or bring their babies for baptism must have a reason for doing so, even if their ideas of being spiritual may not accord with orthodox theology.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The participation in a faith community at any level is dropping. In fact intriguingly we can remove "faith" and suggest that commitment that involves attendance is dropping for all voluntary organizations.
As a member of a Rotary Club, I agree that it s very difficult to persuade people to join any sort of organisation. We hear the same from a multitude of organisations - Women's Institute, political parties, other service organisations, leadership of youth organisations - the list goes on. In part it seems to be lack of time after work and family commitments, people have less spare time than they had in the past.
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Cathscats, as you'll see I've removed your link because it was broken and pointing to the wrong thing. Please feel free to have another go, if needs be by practicing on the UBB practice thread in the Styx
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cathscats:
Not sure if this link is done right, as I have never tried to do this before but if not, google (other search engines are available) "Steve Aisthorpe listening to and learning from" and that should be enough to help you find the report of recent fascinating work done by Steve Aisthorpe regarding non church-going Christians in the Scottish Highlands.
I think the report is this pdf file
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
HCH and Gwalchmai
I don't think this thread has emphasised the necessity of churchgoing, or of theological orthodoxy. But there comes a point when the lack of these things begins to undermine the whole project.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I read this blog post the other day which contains the rather controversial line 'I never invite anyone to church any more'...
It's making the point that discipleship - i.e. showing people the ways of Jesus - can and should begin way before anyone is 'converted', and that people will seek to join in with the community of faith in a more formal way as and when they're ready. Inviting people to church services is putting the cart before the horse, I think the author is saying.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo: quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
C16 and I don't think is an RC one any more.
RCs have gone back to having no meat on Fridays - the last pope reintroduced it.
No they haven't and no he didn't. The Bishops of England and Wales reintroduced it in their dioceses. It doesn't run in Scotland or in Ireland.
[Code fix to correct attribution. -Gwai]
[ 13. March 2014, 12:49: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
There is also another troubling group and that is those who choose to belong yet would not claim to believe.
Jengie
Why should this group be troubling? I have difficulty believing but I choose to belong to the Anglican church. Partly, that is my cultural heritage, and partly because the Anglican Church is a broad church that does not insist that its members sign up to a list of beliefs before they can join.
"Troubling" in the sense of not fitting with the neat categorical assumptions that underlie much of the debate in this area.
Jengie
[ 13. March 2014, 13:08: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Perhaps the CofE model is a little like a political party. The clergy are the MPs; the weekly church goers are the party members; but the vast majority of voters would describe themselves as 'conservative' or 'labour' or whatever. That is the CofE byond the church walls.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Perhaps the CofE model is a little like a political party. The clergy are the MPs; the weekly church goers are the party members; but the vast majority of voters would describe themselves as 'conservative' or 'labour' or whatever. That is the CofE byond the church walls.
I think that's rather how Professor Woodhead sees it. Like political parties, I get the impression she also thinks that the regular churchgoers/party members put the public off, get in their way and discourage them from voting.
This might be an interesting idea sociologically, but it is a travesty of the New Testament understanding of the church.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
