Ship of Fools: Church decline and the Bishop of Blackburn

Thread: Church decline and the Bishop of Blackburn 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=028791

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

I have to say the newspaper report of what the Bishop (and Archdeacon) of Blackburn have said about church decline upset me. The Archdeacon's inspiring words are that unless there is change by 2050 there will be no C of E in his diocese.

I don't mean I disagree, I just find it both challenging and upsetting (and I have to say not very encouraging to elderly members of congregations).

Here is a newspaper report about the Bishop's comments.

One of the questions I ask is what do Church of England hierarchy want? More in the pews or other types of seats so parish share is paid and the unpruned down C of E continues? Or fewer churches...

Sometimes I get the impression the idea behind 'church growth' is everyone should become Christian, but then others say differently.

I guess I would be more encouraged if Bishops talked more of vision, prayer and God, rather than of plans to revive.

I realise this is a bit of a muddled starter, but I'd be pleased (and helped) to read others thoughts about this.

[ 29. October 2014, 22:01: Message edited by: Magersfontein Lugg ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
... by 2050 there will be no C of E in his diocese....

I don't get real excited by the predicted death of the church - CofE or in general.

Decline of numbers and influence is not surprising in an increasingly non-homogeneous society. But God is not dead and the church will not die.

I do believe church as we have known it may need to die - morph into something less medieval, less focused on spending horrendous amounts of money renewing the lead on stained glass windows and restoring stonework carvings, become vibrant in ways that address today's cultures and concerns.

I'm not saying adopt societal values. Jesus used then contemporary stories about contemporary people with contemporary values - we put men in floor length dresses and funny hats and wonder why outsiders think that's strange, we ask for a pledge for the year from people who aren't sure they'll have a job next month, we preach "Jesus heals" to people on ten medications for pain and disability who walk out of church with all those same problems, we speak of sacrifice while ignoring the homeless a block away and the throw-away kids desperate for one on one attention.

I don't have answers, but when the next generation can't see the relevance of church to real life, I understand. If it weren't a habit I wouldn't be there either.

[codefix]

[ 30. October 2014, 05:00: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Depends what you mean by decline.

If its based on numbers attending (bums on seats, pews, chairs etc) and outlets available (churches), then yes there is a decline. But on a more qualitative measure, it's possibly true that there's growth in terms of the church's depth as opposed to its width. By and large, those who attend do so because they want to not because they feel they have to: that must mean something for the UK where church attendance (as opposed to commitment) had huge social implications and economic necessity.

I see church attendance as a wider reflection of engagement with God and less of the social obligation of the past. It's good too that in some churches, if we don't know the answer then we say we don't -- without presuming or pretending otherwise.

But that is not to be complacent: tbh I'd rather hear more God talk and prayer and a bit less vision casting and talk of revival (its always talked up as Cwmbran demonstrated recently). A lot of churches do the latter without the former.

There are too many churches are doing too little and some are living on the cash provided by the sterling efforts of others without doing much themselves. There needs IMHO to be more joined up thinking on a local level with a great deal more flexibility of approach in the uses of the buildings. (English Heritage can be a real pain if you want to change or even repair, a listed building).

That's not to say that every church becomes ecumenical with a rotating cycle of services - that doesn't work IME as people only attend for the stuff they like. No, decide after full and frank discussion and prayer what form of Christian expression your church should have and stick to it but be open to engage with the world around.

Alternative uses for churches can be found to make them a hub of the community - shops, libraries, drop in, advice centre, film clubs: you're only really limited by your imagination. Oh and church rules - get them sorted soon or they will continue to hinder growth.

[ 30. October 2014, 06:37: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The evangelical tendency in the CofE uses the alarming statement - no church by 2050 or whatever - as a stalking horse to promote argument or to justify their preoccupation with 'change'.

And change is what they'll impose regardless of whether a church or parish is moribund, struggling or thriving: I've seen a MOR/Anglo-Cath parish be given a new evangelical incumbent installed and it was decline in action, with a reduction in the electoral roll of 75% in less than 3 years.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I've seen a MOR/Anglo-Cath parish be given a new evangelical incumbent installed and it was decline in action, with a reduction in the electoral roll of 75% in less than 3 years.

This perhaps needs to be unpacked a little, doesn't it?

It could be, for example, that the church in question had become an Anglo-Cath "centre" with Christians travelling significant distances to get there ... in which case the decline is clearly due to the churchmanship but may reflect little on the church's relationship with the surrounding community.

On the other hand, if the church was engaging well with its hinterland, and became more inward-looking as a result of the new incumbent, then that is a serious cause for concern.

Or it could simply be a matter of people: Incumbent 1 was harder-working/more approachable/a better preacher (or whatever) than Incumbent 2.

All I'm saying is that we must be cautious in making to simplistic a link between "apparent cause" and "apparent effect" - something quite different may, in fact, be going on.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Baptish Trainfan Nice try, but no.

The old congregation only had 2 people from outside the parish boundary and they lived less than half a mile from the church.

The old incumbent wasn't noticeably hard-working - in part perhaps because they combined the parish with another diocesan post. The new person has only the one post, that of incumbent.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Fair enough ... I read an account some time back of a church in a working-class district of (I think) Swansea, where a new Evangelical Vicar came in. Soon the church was thriving, to the extent that it was getting noticed by the Christian media. But in fact its links with the community were getting weaker and it was moving up the social scale.

When said Vicar moved on, everything collapsed.

Of course, it doesn't have to be like that ... but different examples can be instructive!

PS An intriguing article from the "Guardian" a few months back ...

[ 30. October 2014, 07:34: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Which is why we strive to be the VILLAGE church: in fact our reputation is spreading to the extent that we are now getting requests for weddings and baptisms from people who live well outside the parish.

No secret, just plain middle(ish)-of-the-road services celebrated with the minimum of fuss or false bonhomie, good music, friendly congregation all delighted to see new faces and make them feel welcome. While permanent population has shrunk church attendance and electoral roll have increased.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And change is what they'll impose regardless of whether a church or parish is moribund, struggling or thriving: I've seen a MOR/Anglo-Cath parish be given a new evangelical incumbent installed and it was decline in action, with a reduction in the electoral roll of 75% in less than 3 years.

And my parish was a MOR one with 15 regular worshippers before being planted by an evangelical team appointed by the Bishop of London, and 10 years later we now have 250 regular members.

We can all use anecdotes to "prove" our own churchmanship biases, but in the bigger picture I'm not this is particularly helpful.

Objectively, the types of churches that are growing the most in the UK, largely due to immigration, are evangelical/charismatic and Roman Catholic.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Not true for the CofE seekingsister: the attendance in the CofE which is growing most is at Cathedrals, during the week - in other words, BCP Choral Evensong.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Not true for the CofE seekingsister: the attendance in the CofE which is growing most is at Cathedrals, during the week - in other words, BCP Choral Evensong.

That's why I said churches, not CofE. I thought it was clear given I said RCC is growing that I meant churches in general.

Within CofE I'm aware cathedral services are growing, which again has no bearing on a parish church replacing an Anglo-Catholic vicar with an evangelical or vice-versa.

I think our anecdotes have cancelled each other out, unless someone has some numbers. What I know is that at least in the Diocese of London, my rector is being asked to oversee a larger evangelical church planting program and requests are starting to come from the Southwark Diocese as well. It remains to be seen if those churches will all dry up with new leadership as was your experience, of course.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I don't think there is much point in trying to say which tradition encourages or hinders growth. Church of England's own report quite clearly states that "Style of worship and where a church places itself in terms of its theological tradition appear to have no significant link with growth, so long as there is consistency and clarity and the chosen style and tradition are wholeheartedly adopted".

The report stresses that the important factors for growth are good leadership, a clear mission and purpose, a willingness to self-reflect and (yes!) to change and adapt according to context, together with the involvement of the laity, being serious about focussing on growth and the nurturing of new disciples.

However, said report notes that "Association [of apparent growth factors] by itself does not prove or disprove anything, and can only at best show that two things are mathematically related, whether or not they are causally related. Therefore a study can only establish that there is association, not proof of why there is association. Given the discovery of an association the next step may be to do further research to test whether, why and how these factors inter-relate".

[ 30. October 2014, 09:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:

I guess I would be more encouraged if Bishops talked more of vision, prayer and God, rather than of plans to revive.

I think this is an often overlooked point. Talk about revival, and you've already planted an idea in people's heads that there's a decline going on. Even if it's true, it's not a good signal to send.

One of these days I'll get round to starting a discussion about how the Church cares for its older members, because I think that's a big part of the problem. I come across many older people who feel they've been forgotten or neglected by churches that they used to go to before they became to frail or unwell to do so. My opinion is that there's really no point recruiting people in their 20s if you're going to lose interest in them when they're in their 80s.

(Welcome aboard, by the way, Magersfontein Lugg - loving the Margery Allingham reference!)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think this is an often overlooked point. Talk about revival, and you've already planted an idea in people's heads that there's a decline going on.

Yes, in a church I once served I said, "We need to talk about the future of this church". I meant it as "We need to talk about our future plans and direction" - a value-neutral comment. But some people immediately interpreted me as meaning, "There's no future worth thinking about".

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

A local church I have lots of friends in recently did a series of meetings with all interested congregation members on what the church and its programs would look like if there were no barriers of money & talent & other resources.

What really came through was - people want to participate in ways that are meaningful to them, not just walk in sit down and go home or fill some misfit of a volunteer labor slot.

Little mention was made of most of the long-standing programs. Whether out of taking for granted or disinterest I don't know.

They want more outreach to the community like building ramps for houses of poor folks with a new disability, reaching out to new widows/widowers with practical help like yard care, take part in the local soup kitchen.

They want youth included in the adult music program (youth have no music program they can be part of), congregational creativity welcomed like poetry and songs and graphic arts used in worship or on the web page.

And they want more Bible studies.

Biggest complaint: "museum mentality." That probably unpacks in lots of different ways. There are folks who object to any changes - different arrangement of flowers from how their grandma did it, the existence of a daytime womens Bible study that attracts 40 people mostly unchurched (the objection is using church respouces - building wear and air conditioning costs - on a mostly non-members Bible study).

Traditions can ground us but they need to breathe, not be frozen. Some churches have no room to breathe in their traditions.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Amen and Amen! [Overused]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I do believe church as we have known it may need to die - morph into something less medieval, less focused on spending horrendous amounts of money renewing the lead on stained glass windows and restoring stonework carvings, become vibrant in ways that address today's cultures and concerns.

Perhaps it is that today's culture is no longer concerned with patronage of the arts. More's the pity, but I think that maintaining our artistic heritage of glass and stone not only reflects that continuing patronage, but also provides jobs for those craftspersons so employed.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

While I do agree, I think we mustn't forget that the essence of the Church is not found in the arts etc. but in the meeting together of God's people, the preaching of the Word, praying together and celebrating the Sacraments.

[And this is from someone who is actually preaching on Sunday on the need to be creative and use arts in worship!]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

The Bishop wants to try the stuff that Evangelical churches in the US were doing 20 years ago. Throw in some WWJD bracelets to get the full effect. Problem is the reasons for church decline don't have simple fixes. The church has spent decades if not a century creating the conditions for decline. No simple solution exists for saving it.

I'll be surprised if the mainline churches in the United States still exist at the end of this century. I read an article suggesting the last Episcopalian might already have been born. My suspicion is that more moderate Evangelicals will gradually take the place once occupied by the mainline churches.

Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :

Belle Ringer, just to say the idea of 40 unchurched willingly attending a daytime Bible study just sounds so amazing! Getting 1 person here would be a struggle.

And indeed the level of interest in general conveyed by the congregation, even if it is making complaints. They have sufficient interest to turn up and complain! How different to the "dying and apathetic about it" attitude I am used to (congregational meetings to turn around a dying church where noone turns up etc). I am sure that indeed, there are many things to improve as you say, but the overall feeling from your post (from here in the UK) is heart-warming [Smile]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Retired people like church events in the afternoon. Gives them something to do and they don't have to drive at night. People always turn up to complain.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

They want more outreach to the community like building ramps for houses of poor folks with a new disability, reaching out to new widows/widowers with practical help like yard care, take part in the local soup kitchen.

They want youth included in the adult music program (youth have no music program they can be part of), congregational creativity welcomed like poetry and songs and graphic arts used in worship or on the web page.

And they want more Bible studies.

Well, that's what they say they want; but how do they mean it? Are these people going to be willing to show up on a Saturday afternoon to help build the ramp, or do they just have a vague sense that "the church" ought to do it? Does their vision of yard care for the elderly include their spending some time behind the mower, or are they really thinking that the rector ought to go over and work in someone's yard?

In my experience, parish people can be full of wonderful ideas when it comes to brainstorming about outreach, but when it comes time to put those ideas into practice most of them are busy, or on vacation, or or or.

The church is primarily a worshiping community. I wish more churches had a better handle on that; many churches seem to regard themselves as charitable societies with God as a sort of mascot hovering over them. Not surprisingly, that sort of church is usually moribund.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

No, the youth are supposed to do the yard work. [Biased]

Such surveys give you a lot of information about what others think they think the church should be doing for them and on their behalf.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

I've been involved in churches for long enough to have heard a whole heap of good ideas, for other people to do.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

A survey, in the UK, some years ago by the religious sociologist Grace Davie. Showed that it doesn’t make any difference what music tradition you had, as long as it was done well.

Which is a problem for many churches, with lack of musical ability and money to pay for it..

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

We had this stated in Canada too. Not sure about it as a complete prophecy. Except: we started after we moved house in a small church in our neighbourhood. It was closed by the bishop due to numbers, though there may have been other considerations. Just more than a year ago, the church we started attending after church #1 closed, was closed itself, by another bishop, same diocese. Though this time, some 30 years later, the bishop did a more progressive thing, amalgamating it into another church, which really meant that it was wanted that we'd all show up at another particular church which changed its name just to welcome us.

I would suggest that poor church and diocesan planning, doing things that look good on paper, and not bothering to minister to the people who are present, are reasons enough. The church (as an organization) is often careless with the people, and seems to proceed along the lines of as long we open the doors on Sunday, people will come. I think this is basically wrong, because it often puts the organization before the people.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
I have to say the newspaper report of what the Bishop (and Archdeacon) of Blackburn have said about church decline upset me. The Archdeacon's inspiring words are that unless there is change by 2050 there will be no C of E in his diocese.

I don't mean I disagree, I just find it both challenging and upsetting (and I have to say not very encouraging to elderly members of congregations).

The elderly members are probably already discouraged if they can see the system failing around them. But at least they won't be around in 2040s if and when things are grinding to a halt (in Blackburn, anyway).

I'm not an Anglican, but I often worship with the CofE these days. The thought playing at the back of my mind is that when I reach old age, the mainstream churches in the areas where I might live won't have the staff or the younger people to provide me with adequate pastoral support. At least today's elderly Christians have that, so they shouldn't grumble too much.

If, however, the elderly are complaining that they don't have this support then it certainly won't be available when I'm an old lady - if things continue as they are! Whether we like it or not, young people need to be courted if the churches are going to be able to carry on with their work. Churches don't run on thin air and nostalgia.

quote:

One of the questions I ask is what do Church of England hierarchy want? More in the pews or other types of seats so parish share is paid and the unpruned down C of E continues? Or fewer churches...

I'm afraid I don't understand this bit: 'other types of seats so parish share is paid'. What 'other types of seats' are you talking about?

(NB: I do realise that parts of London plus some well-heeled (semi-)rural and suburban areas don't face these troublesome issues. Maybe the CofE will retreat to these places and hence continue to exist beyond 2050. Who knows? These are structural matters, and we can't predict what the decisions will be.)

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

I would suggest that poor church and diocesan planning, doing things that look good on paper, and not bothering to minister to the people who are present, are reasons enough. The church (as an organization) is often careless with the people, and seems to proceed along the lines of as long we open the doors on Sunday, people will come. I think this is basically wrong, because it often puts the organization before the people.

Not only before the people, but before God perhaps, which may have something to do with decline.....

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

I would suggest that poor church and diocesan planning, doing things that look good on paper, and not bothering to minister to the people who are present, are reasons enough. The church (as an organization) is often careless with the people, and seems to proceed along the lines of as long we open the doors on Sunday, people will come. I think this is basically wrong, because it often puts the organization before the people.
Not only before the people, but before God perhaps, which may have something to do with decline.....

That's more or less what I was trying to get at in my post.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Belle Ringer, just to say the idea of 40 unchurched willingly attending a daytime Bible study just sounds so amazing! Getting 1 person here would be a struggle.

It grew out of something else.

The church has long had a Mother's Day Out program for little kids Tuesday and Thursday. One of the directors noticed that many of the mothers were not church members, and chatting with them realized they knew little of Christianity even though aware their kids were in a church program that used Bible stories as well as Big Bird.

The director was not a member of this church, not even of this denomination; she kept saying "you need to start a Bible study for the mothers." Church was disinterested, told her "it's your idea, you do it." So she finally did.

It started with a dozen, grew to 40+, for two years they used nothing but Beth Moore because Beth's programs are specifically aimed at women.

Some women from other churches came too, I don't know of any other local church that has a weekday daytime Bible study for women.

One woman, some well done DVD-based studies (plus workbook and discussion and prayer needs time) targeted to that audience, an easy way to chat up the program with potentially interested people by chatting with the mothers of the kiddies in the MDO.

For a church with ASA 150, to have 40 mostly outsiders in a Bible study group is amazing.

One thing I think it shows, lots of outsiders are interested if we approach them where they are at and meet their own needs, not expect them to join our church and fill our rotas.

(Some in the church have opposed it from the start and still do; they think the group is not church members so it should pay rent for using the space.)

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Lugg (if I may; it's what Campion called you) said:

quote:
The Archdeacon's inspiring words are that unless there is change by 2050 there will be no C of E in his diocese.

This reminds me of an incident a few years ago on the Isle of Man. The present Bishop of S&M wanted to push some restructuring through his Diocesan Synod. The line used there was exactly the same; unless these changes went through there would be no CoE on the island in 50 years times. When challenged as to whether all Anglicans would disappear, the line was qualified: the CoE in its present form would not exist unless these reforms were made. To me this was a circular argument; by changing things the Bishop was already making sure the current form of Anglicanism would not exist in the future.

In other words, I think this is a scare mongering slogan, used to push some rebranding through. (Out of interest, is Bradford getting rid of Deaneries and replacing them with Mission Partnerships? That was S&M's bold new idea to save Anglicanism.)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Out of interest, is Bradford getting rid of Deaneries and replacing them with Mission Partnerships? That was S&M's bold new idea to save Anglicanism)

Well, in this document the Bishop talks about "working collaboratively with neighbouring churches" and "redrawing the Deanery map".

[Edited to tinyurl the URL because it was breaking scroll lock and bothering me. - Gwai]

[ 31. October 2014, 12:48: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
They want more outreach to the community like building ramps for houses of poor folks with a new disability, reaching out to new widows/widowers with practical help like yard care, take part in the local soup kitchen....
Well, that's what they say they want; but how do they mean it? Are these people going to be willing to show up on a Saturday afternoon to help build the ramp, or do they just have a vague sense that "the church" ought to do it?

Probably some of the suggestions were people saying how they want to be served instead of how they want to serve, I suspect "help widows and widowers with yard work" might be an example.

But it's also been a church where a number of people (including some of my friends) wanted to start and lead a program of some kind (an "art as worship" afternoon, a Taize service, a Bible study) and were told no because any new activity might draw some away from already existing activities, upsetting those leaders. Also, existing activities need more volunteers, so anyone willing to volunteer must work on the existing activities.

I like the Willow Creek approach I read about, each member is asked what they like to do, and a way is found within the church for them to do it. Also, if not enough people are interested in doing some program decently without overworking the volunteers, that program is cut. No one wants to teach 4th grade Sunday school? That's OK, must mean God doesn't care to have 4th grade Sunday school in this church or God would have sent someone who looks forward to doing it.

Build a church around what people want to contribute, not around what services people want to receive from others. People based, not pre-existing program based. A few things must happen that no one wants to do, like cleaning toilets, so most churches hire out that job.

Pressuring or guilting people into duties mismatched to their interests and abilities is not a good way to convince them to keep coming to church.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I would suggest that poor church and diocesan planning, doing things that look good on paper, and not bothering to minister to the people who are present, are reasons enough. The church (as an organization) is often careless with the people, and seems to proceed along the lines of as long we open the doors on Sunday, people will come. I think this is basically wrong, because it often puts the organization before the people.

I completely agree. Really look after the people you already have, and others will find it attractive.

Tertullian tells us what impressed people outside the early Church: "See how [the Christians] love one another." Not, "See how they've got their doctrines all worked out," or "See what endless hours they spend in their Alpha courses", but "See how they love one another".

A Church that forgets that doesn't deserve to survive - in any form.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

[personal tangent]
We think we have found a parish church to attend, now 15 months later. This Sunday when we attend will represent the first two in a row at the same parish.

I know a number of people who have simply stopped church, and we did that for almost 7 of the 15 months.
[/personal tangent]

Posted by dv (# 15714) on :

Particular issues in Blackburn, of course: given current demographics the town is likely to be almost entirely Muslim in a few years.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dv:
Particular issues in Blackburn, of course: given current demographics the town is likely to be almost entirely Muslim in a few years.

When I did (part of my) teacher training there 7 years ago it was around 25% Muslim. I think we've a few years to go yet before it's even majority Muslim.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by dv:
Particular issues in Blackburn, of course: given current demographics the town is likely to be almost entirely Muslim in a few years.
When I did (part of my) teacher training there 7 years ago it was around 25% Muslim. I think we've a few years to go yet before it's even majority Muslim.

Psssh - don't let mere facts get in the way of a good old whine about bloody foreigners!

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Psssh - don't let mere facts get in the way of a good old whine about bloody foreigners!

Most of Blackburn's Muslims were born in Britain.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

I'e enjoyed reading the posts so far on the thread, and they are helping me in thinking over my disquiet about the current C of E and some of its bishops' pronouncements (like Bp of Blackburn)!

Two things come into my mind. Firstly there does seem a priority given to numbers and youth, as above truth and integrity. That may sound a bit harsh, but I'm not happy about church is declining so get on with Alpha groups, adopt the culture of the day and change to appeal to youth approach. This (Alpha etc) approach seems to be quite different in teaching from much traditional anglicanism. Are we to reject a central generous position because numbers are going down?

Secondly, what does the Bishop actually want? All in his diocese to be members of the C of E, hardly. All to be Christian, or some, ... about how many 'should' there be?

Now these are foolish questions! BUT by talking of decline the assumption seems to be there is a level which one should have, otherwise decline can be OK.

(I know, and I'm sorry for it, that my thoughts on this are not as coherent as I'd like but I hope some of this makes sense!)

Lugg

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dv:
Particular issues in Blackburn, of course: given current demographics the town is likely to be almost entirely Muslim in a few years.

Though the diocese of Blackburn and its bishop, cover a much wider area, than just Blackburn itself

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
Firstly there does seem a priority given to numbers and youth, as above truth and integrity. That may sound a bit harsh, but I'm not happy about church is declining so get on with Alpha groups, adopt the culture of the day and change to appeal to youth approach.

I should think it's quite reasonable for bishops to raise concerns if it's a serious statistical possibility that there won't be enough involved individuals to keep church structures functioning.

Whether the answer to that problem is Alpha courses is another matter, but people need to know there's a big problem before they can think of solutions.

Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Fair enough ... I read an account some time back of a church in a working-class district of (I think) Swansea, where a new Evangelical Vicar came in. Soon the church was thriving, to the extent that it was getting noticed by the Christian media. But in fact its links with the community were getting weaker and it was moving up the social scale.

When said Vicar moved on, everything collapsed.

Of course, it doesn't have to be like that ... but different examples can be instructive!

PS An intriguing article from the "Guardian" a few months back ...

So 'Evangelical' minister not a bit evangelistic.

Neglecting his actual PARISHONERS

and far from incarnational.

A sad waste....

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
I'e enjoyed reading the posts so far on the thread, and they are helping me in thinking over my disquiet about the current C of E and some of its bishops' pronouncements (like Bp of Blackburn)!

Two things come into my mind. Firstly there does seem a priority given to numbers and youth, as above truth and integrity. That may sound a bit harsh, but I'm not happy about church is declining so get on with Alpha groups, adopt the culture of the day and change to appeal to youth approach. This (Alpha etc) approach seems to be quite different in teaching from much traditional anglicanism. Are we to reject a central generous position because numbers are going down?

Secondly, what does the Bishop actually want? All in his diocese to be members of the C of E, hardly. All to be Christian, or some, ... about how many 'should' there be?

Now these are foolish questions! BUT by talking of decline the assumption seems to be there is a level which one should have, otherwise decline can be OK.

(I know, and I'm sorry for it, that my thoughts on this are not as coherent as I'd like but I hope some of this makes sense!)

Lugg

I totally disagree that to be concerned about decreasing numbers of people attending church and identifying as Christians means that "there is a level which one should have"

Jesus calls us to go and make disciples of all nations not sit about watching the numbers of Christians dwindle-if decline is not stopped there will be nobody left to tell others about Jesus.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Psssh - don't let mere facts get in the way of a good old whine about bloody foreigners!
Most of Blackburn's Muslims were born in Britain.

Do you think that makes them less forrign to the sort of mind that goes on about this sort of thing?

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
Firstly there does seem a priority given to numbers and youth, as above truth and integrity. That may sound a bit harsh, but I'm not happy about church is declining so get on with Alpha groups, adopt the culture of the day and change to appeal to youth approach.
I should think it's quite reasonable for bishops to raise concerns if it's a serious statistical possibility that there won't be enough involved individuals to keep church structures functioning.

Whether the answer to that problem is Alpha courses is another matter, but people need to know there's a big problem before they can think of solutions.

I agree its Ok for bishops to raise concerns BUT I don't agree if that is simply in order to keep church structures functioning. The concern the bishop should then raise is have we a realistic structure, or are we putting too much effort time etc. into tryng to keep a large creaky ship afloat.

I suspect, sadly, you are right that bishops are raising concern because they want the structures as they are to remain functioning.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:

Secondly, what does the Bishop actually want? All in his diocese to be members of the C of E, hardly. All to be Christian, or some, ... about how many 'should' there be?

Now these are foolish questions! BUT by talking of decline the assumption seems to be there is a level which one should have, otherwise decline can be OK.

(I know, and I'm sorry for it, that my thoughts on this are not as coherent as I'd like but I hope some of this makes sense!)

Lugg
I totally disagree that to be concerned about decreasing numbers of people attending church and identifying as Christians means that "there is a level which one should have"

Jesus calls us to go and make disciples of all nations not sit about watching the numbers of Christians dwindle-if decline is not stopped there will be nobody left to tell others about Jesus.

I do worry about the stress that puts on people to frantically stop decline.

Evangeline, do you think that call of Jesus as you describe it means everyone should be a christian and this should come about through other christians? (Go...make all nations...)

Personally I have more hope.

However, I do feel if Bishops spent more time on spiritual matters such as prayer, encouraging prayer and spirituality, good well prepared sermons, encouragement of the everyday good that is being done, rather than searching for the new and more initiatives, then the church may decline but I believe commitment and service to God's people would grow.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:

Evangeline, do you think that call of Jesus as you describe it means everyone should be a christian and this should come about through other christians? (Go...make all nations...)

Personally I have more hope.

However, I do feel if Bishops spent more time on spiritual matters such as prayer, encouraging prayer and spirituality, good well prepared sermons, encouragement of the everyday good that is being done, rather than searching for the new and more initiatives, then the church may decline but I believe commitment and service to God's people would grow.

There's a difference between being unconcerned about decline and being frantic about stopping it.

Nurturing the faithful and engaging in well considered evangelistic events are not mutually exclusive activities. It's quite possible to do both. I am not suggesting that getting more bums on pews is the only thing churches should focus on, just that they shouldn't ignore the fact that numbers are dwindling.

I believe that Christianity is the truth, so I guess I do believe everyone should be a Christian. I don't believe it is the Christian's duty to convert everybody they come across but Christianity is "good news", it has always been spread by Christians and the life of the Christian must be lived in community with other CHristians so I don't understand the implication in your question that it isn't the job of Christians to share their faith.

I worry that you seem to think I expect Christians to preach on street corners or badger everyone to come to Alpha or Two Ways to Live, I'm more of the "at all times preach the Gospel and, if you have to, use words" school of thought. I think God would be disappointed if we turned our backs on non-Christians and became purely inward focused, eventually that sort of church will collapse.

[code]

[ 01. November 2014, 12:46: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I interpret 'make disciples of all nations' to mean that christians should be present in all cultures and all parts of the world, as 'salt of the earth' or 'leaven within'. There is cause to worry if the church is representative of only a particular demographic. But we are always going to be a tiny minority of the world as a whole, and unless our particular grasp of the truth is superior to- and includes the insights of - any other possible faith or philosophy that's how it should be.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
I agree its Ok for bishops to raise concerns BUT I don't agree if that is simply in order to keep church structures functioning. The concern the bishop should then raise is have we a realistic structure, or are we putting too much effort time etc. into tryng to keep a large creaky ship afloat.

I suspect, sadly, you are right that bishops are raising concern because they want the structures as they are to remain functioning.

Actually, I think I've misunderstood you. I thought you wanted CofE structures to remain the same, because earlier you said this:

quote:

Two things come into my mind. Firstly there does seem a priority given to numbers and youth, as above truth and integrity. That may sound a bit harsh, but I'm not happy about church is declining so get on with Alpha groups, adopt the culture of the day and change to appeal to youth approach. This (Alpha etc) approach seems to be quite different in teaching from much traditional Anglicanism.

Will 'traditional Anglicanism' be able to maintain its traditional character if its structures are unsustainable? How about if the parish system goes? If the CofE has to be disestablished because too few people identify with it will it still be able to present a 'traditional' face to the world?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Psssh - don't let mere facts get in the way of a good old whine about bloody foreigners!
Most of Blackburn's Muslims were born in Britain.
Do you think that makes them less forrign to the sort of mind that goes on about this sort of thing?

Of course, given that Islam regards Judaism and Christianity as part of its own historic tradition, why not run interfaith courses on the old testament with all three faiths - bit of community building for everyone ?

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
I agree its Ok for bishops to raise concerns BUT I don't agree if that is simply in order to keep church structures functioning. The concern the bishop should then raise is have we a realistic structure, or are we putting too much effort time etc. into tryng to keep a large creaky ship afloat.

I suspect, sadly, you are right that bishops are raising concern because they want the structures as they are to remain functioning.
Actually, I think I've misunderstood you. I thought you wanted CofE structures to remain the same, because earlier you said this:

quote:

Two things come into my mind. Firstly there does seem a priority given to numbers and youth, as above truth and integrity. That may sound a bit harsh, but I'm not happy about church is declining so get on with Alpha groups, adopt the culture of the day and change to appeal to youth approach. This (Alpha etc) approach seems to be quite different in teaching from much traditional Anglicanism.

Will 'traditional Anglicanism' be able to maintain its traditional character if its structures are unsustainable? How about if the parish system goes? If the CofE has to be disestablished because too few people identify with it will it still be able to present a 'traditional' face to the world?

Angloid - thank you thats what I think too. We are called to be a light, not to make everyone into that light, or yeast but not all to be yeast. Thats what I think.

My comment SvitlanaV2 wasnt so much about structures, more about teachings and theological positions. Alpha courses and the theology it teaches is within Anglicanism (and beyond it) but its not representative of a liberal, bible, tradition and reason, tradition which it seems to me to be so part of the Anglican tradition. What I fear is the new corporate approach in the C of E says "Oh this product produces results, so lets push that..." Lets focus on youth and more youth. I'm asking why? if the reason is because we must counteract decline to keep the structures we have, then I am very unsure that's a sufficiently good reason. I suppose I expect more from bishops, more thought out teaching and vision, and less corporate plans and doom and gloom.

Personally I do strongly support the parish system of the C of E, BUT if it had to go, so be it. Its important to distingush between the C of E and Anglicanism. The parish system is a traditional part of the C of E. The Church in Wales isn't established - it manages without being.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

As I've observed before on these boards, though, the Church in Wales has been disestablished since 1920 but nobody there seems to have noticed ...

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

Gamaliel, I've just said the Church in Wales is disetablished and manages without being established...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Some of my Orthodox friends think that the CofE is dead in the water and beyond redemption ... but they would do, because most of them left the CofE to become Orthodox ...

I think there is a distinctively Anglican 'flavour' or character that I wouldn't want to see die out ... and whilst I'm not against Alpha or 'Messy Church' and so on per se, I do worry that something is being lost in the current obsession about bums on seats and the dumbing down that certain clergy seem to think is necessary to achieve and sustain that.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry, I cross-posted.

I know what you said - that the Church in Wales manages without being established.

I grew up in South Wales.

People still act as if the Church in Wales is Established.

I spoke to an Archdeacon from North Wales recently and he agreed with me.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Some of my Orthodox friends think that the CofE is dead in the water and beyond redemption ... but they would do, because most of them left the CofE to become Orthodox ...

I think there is a distinctively Anglican 'flavour' or character that I wouldn't want to see die out ... and whilst I'm not against Alpha or 'Messy Church' and so on per se, I do worry that something is being lost in the current obsession about bums on seats and the dumbing down that certain clergy seem to think is necessary to achieve and sustain that.

Agreed! There is such a drive to church growth but no one seems to say why precisely (there may be many reasons but which one is the agreed priority, say).

Where are the bishops or other church dignataries saying have retreats, quiet days, compline by candlight for half a dozen in a country church...

And why don't they promote clearly and openly the lovely and good things they find in local churches? Share good ideas and news. (They could use a blog or facebook to do so) I suspect this would go further than the gloomy pronouncements like those of the Bishop or Archdeacon of Blackburn!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Magersfontein Lugg

Perhaps the way to foil the evangelical Alpha course agenda is for the liberal, traditional and rational Anglicans to take on the task of evangelising in their own way. Otherwise, by 2050 the evangelicals might end up dominating English Anglicanism by default.

My thinking is that disestablishment might reduce the evangelical share, since it could encourage a number of evangelical congregations to leave the CofE. But I haven't seen any scholarship that considers this possibility.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
Alpha courses and the theology it teaches is within Anglicanism (and beyond it) but its not representative of a liberal, bible, tradition and reason, tradition which it seems to me to be so part of the Anglican tradition.

This is totally not my experience, although in my parish Alpha is led by talks given by staff, not the videos. And Alpha is so discussion-based that the flavor of any given course is going to be mostly dependent on the people who participate in it.

I enjoyed the course when I took it, but I don't see that it is very useful for non-Christians because it starts with the premise that Christianity is true and moves on from there. I haven't seen anyone converted through Alpha specifically, personally.

So while I think the course is good, probably for new Christians or cultural Christians who are interested in exploring, as evangelism I find it lacking. And in churches where there's not a wider program of evangelistic activity, relying on Alpha and hoping people wander in to attend seems problematic.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don't buy that, SvitlanaV2.

Most evangelical Anglicans I know would be broadly in favour of disestablishment.

I can't see how establishment or disestablishment would affect Anglican evangelicals one way or another.

The Church in Wales is often seen as generally 'High Church' but, on a smaller scale, it has all the nuances and shades of Anglican opinion that you'd find in the CofE or most other churches within the Anglican Communion.

There wasn't a mass exodus of evangelical Anglicans when the Church in Wales was disestablished.

I see no reason why there would be if the Church of England were disestablished this year, next year or in 20 or 30 years time.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Magersfontein Lugg

Perhaps the way to foil the evangelical Alpha course agenda is for the liberal, traditional and rational Anglicans to take on the task of evangelising in their own way. Otherwise, by 2050 the evangelicals might end up dominating English Anglicanism by default.

My thinking is that disestablishment might reduce the evangelical share, since it could encourage a number of evangelical congregations to leave the CofE. But I haven't seen any scholarship that considers this possibility.

I guess thats partly tongue in cheek - or at least put starkly! However it does capture a fear I for one have. A slick evangelical approach taking over the C of E. And so liturgy goes minimalist, if at all, poetry of hymnody goes, silence and holy space goes down, lesbians and gays are, at best, 'tolerated' and certainly not welcomed, the divorced are maginalised.... And the bishops allowing it because it gets bums on pews and keeps the hierarchy and its structures in place.

Trouble is Svitlana its very difficult to be 'evangelising' from a more liberal and generous position.

I think you have a point, myself, about establishment. I suspect some evangelical vicars are in the C of E for the employment package and take much else loosely. They seem in some places to me to run their own shows with only an occasional nod to the diocesan authorities. However, they do usually pay their (big) quotas and so bishops are shy of seeming to stand against them

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think what Magersfontein Lugg is saying, Seekingsister, is that whilst the kind of theology promoted by the Alpha course can and does exist within Anglicanism - and beyond it (which is how and why Alpha has been taken up well beyond the Anglican constituency) it is somewhat at odds with what one might consider the broad, mainstream of Anglicanism.

I think that's indisputable.

I think that evangelicalism per se and even charismatic evangelicalism can have a place within Anglicanism ... just as a charismatic emphasis can and does find a place within Roman Catholicism.

However, there is something about Alpha that both fits within an Anglican paradigm and also rubs it up the wrong way at one and the same time.

It's a bit formulaic, a bit too 'franchised' ...

I agree with you on the strengths and weaknesses of it ... it does presuppose a particular end in view and tries to steer people towards that.

What seems to be the best features are the discussion aspects and the meal sharing.

The ins and outs and rights and wrongs of Alpha have been done to death here in the past.

FWIW my own view is that it's coming to the end of its shelf-life ... the 'decline' stage of the product-life-cycle if we can look at it in those terms. It's stuttering on in some places but it's largely had its day.

Our parish has run successful Alpha courses in the past and people have come to faith through it - but as you say, largely from a 'cultural Christian' or quasi-Christian background.

Each year the numbers are less than they were the previous year. I'll be interested to see how many they get next time.

Meanwhile, SvitlanaV2 raises a provocative but fair point about more liberal or traditional Anglicans getting off their arses and doing something if they want to prevent those nasty evangelicals from hijacking their nice, liberal, cuddly compline church ...

I don't know how they can do that - without turning into in-your-face evangelicals in some way themselves ...

Unless it's by quietly modelling 'a more excellent way ...'

Is that a law of diminishing returns though?

It's easy to knock evangelicalism and I do it myself - despite of, or because of, my evangelical background.

But the fact is that many liberals and traditionalists one meets these days started out evangelical and gradually moved in a more broader or more traditional direction later.

Love 'em or loathe them we need the evangelicals.

I knock 'em here on these boards at times but I'm grateful to my evangelical background.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think what Magersfontein Lugg is saying, Seekingsister, is that whilst the kind of theology promoted by the Alpha course can and does exist within Anglicanism - and beyond it (which is how and why Alpha has been taken up well beyond the Anglican constituency) it is somewhat at odds with what one might consider the broad, mainstream of Anglicanism.

I think that's indisputable....
Meanwhile, SvitlanaV2 raises a provocative but fair point about more liberal or traditional Anglicans getting off their arses and doing something if they want to prevent those nasty evangelicals from hijacking their nice, liberal, cuddly compline church ...

I don't know how they can do that - without turning into in-your-face evangelicals in some way themselves ...

Unless it's by quietly modelling 'a more excellent way ...'

Is that a law of diminishing returns though?

It's easy to knock evangelicalism and I do it myself - despite of, or because of, my evangelical background.

But the fact is that many liberals and traditionalists one meets these days started out evangelical and gradually moved in a more broader or more traditional direction later.

Love 'em or loathe them we need the evangelicals.

I knock 'em here on these boards at times but I'm grateful to my evangelical background.

Thanks gamaliel. Very helpful. I take a bit of issue about 'cuddly' though. It seems to me the 'nice, liberal' position is challenging of modern society, evangelicalism etc. and is not always an easy place to inhabit. It demands sacrifice, prayer as well...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure - I was caricaturing to a certain extent - just as some of my comments on evangelicalism have veered in that direction too.

At their best, both traditions involve sacrifice and rigour.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

Yes, indeed, Gamaliel.

One area where I do feel the C of E has to change is its top heavy committee ridden structures. Some dioceses are very big and yet people are expected to travel three times a year or more to a Diocesan synod, which can often be stunningly tedious, or simply be presentation after presentation.

And what about all the other meetings which expect laity to attend after busy days work or are even held during the day. And then they say young people aren't there!

I hope the Bishop of Blackburn (and his archdeacon) are looking at slimming structures down, and reducing senior staff. So many dioceses seem to have actually increased the senior staff and the support staff they have. They are good people I am sure. But because they are good they like to have full diaries and do initiatives, because that shows them they are working! Trouble is it just gives more work for the laity who are getting, as the Bishop says, fewer and fewer.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

One of the problems I have with the Bishop of Blackburn's pronouncements is that they come from a pretty unreconstructed conservative evangelical, who has not shown much sign so far that he appreciates the nuances of engaging afresh in a post-Christian society.

On the surface, his analysis is reasonably accurate - though hardly ground-breaking, as many people have been pointing this out for some years. The stats don't lie. What matters most is what (if anything) to do about it.

I'm also a little concerned about the message that he gives the existing congregations in the diocese - which is, effectively, "You've been doing it all wrong so far and now I'm going to put you right".

Also, it is a more than a little incredible that the bishop wants to invest heavily in attracting young people into the C of E - the same bishop who is dead set against toleration of homosexuality. Even a moment's engagement with the "Yoof" he wants to attract will quickly tell him that systemic homophobia is one of the reasons younger generations have no time for the C of E.

I think there ARE ways of re-engaging with people who have been turned off of Church, or who have never encountered Church to begin with. And you don't have to be evangelical or liberal or anything to do it. It requires authenticity, humility and love. It means that you avoid the mistake of trying to impose a pattern from on high, and that you allow the time to find out how you can meet the particular needs of your own community.

The problem is well-known and hardly unique to the C of E. I am not terribly convinced that the Bishop's proposed solution will have that much effect.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

The problem is well-known and hardly unique to the C of E. I am not terribly convinced that the Bishop's proposed solution will have that much effect.

Yes, I think you're right, well said.

We had leaders in Sydney say exactly "you're doing it all wrong, we'll show you how it's done". Once they got there, they found the reality of church growth wasn't as easy as they'd thought. The humility to realise there is no magic bullet solution is a start.

[fixed code decline]

[ 02. November 2014, 05:53: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... I know what you said - that the Church in Wales manages without being established.

I grew up in South Wales.

People still act as if the Church in Wales is Established.

I spoke to an Archdeacon from North Wales recently and he agreed with me.

Perhaps that is more because the CinW is the one that is organically in continuity with David and all the other original saints that first evangelised Wales, and all the others aren't. [Razz]

On the more general subject, in its long history, the Christian Church in these islands has had some very low periods. From about 450-650 it seems to have largely disappeared in the eastern half of the country, it was at a very low ebb in the aftermath of evicting the Danes in the 10th century. It had a very rough spell between 1525 and about 1580. Between 1642 and 1651 its members were killing each other off. It was very complacent in 1750.

The first thing I would say is that restructuring and programmes aren't a solution for anything. They may be a necessary tool for doing something else, but unless you know what that something else is and have designed them so as to achieve that, both are a waste of effort and an illusion.

Second, I've heard a lot of sermons over the last 60+ years and remember very little from any of them. Nevertheless, a few years ago, the Bishop of Swindon preached one that has stuck in my memory because it was saying something that really is important. It was that the church is about God. It isn't really about anything else.

Unless we really believe that and live by it, it is no wonder if we don't have much effect.

Third, many of the revivals before the 1520s were triggered and delivered by the religious. If we are traditional Prods, we may not recognise this. I'm not even sure the Oxford Movement got it. They seem very often to have concentrated on reviving the trappings of the religious life, the recreation of a sort of C15 dream-world. But the one thing that is really fundamental to the religious call is a 100% commitment to it.

Christianity is not another leisure activity like stamp-collecting, singing in a choir or going to the gym. There are many ways of living the faith, but at the core of none of the effective ones is 'you can take it or leave it'.

The revival when it happens will be founded in this. There will be quite a lot of people who will find that unsettling. If it happens while I am still alive, there will probably be some aspects that I will find unsettling. But so be it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm not sure you are strictly correct on the preoccupations of the Oxford Movement. We are most aware of the trappings as these have come down to us and what most of us would regard as the Movement's legacy.

I was at the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius in the summer and it was observed that a whole plethora of religious communities and orders came out of late 19th century Anglicanism ... there were retreat houses, monasteries, convents, urban missions ...

Most of them have died out which is why we aren't aware of them. For whatever reason they proved largely unsustainable in the 20th century British climate and soil.

If you go to Llantwit Major in South Wales they'll still tell you about nuns and other religious who settled there in the early 20th century and who lived in poverty and obscurity - doing good and helping the people of the industrial valleys to the north.

I have no idea why these things haven't continued but they were there. There was more to the Oxford Movement than tat, lace, gin and sodomy.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

I so much agree with Oscar the Grouch and Evangeline.

I think Oscar's point about this Bishop seeming to say to folk - you've got it all wrong and I'll now show you, (or what Oscar said!) - is very true. Not only is their a hint of arrogance, but also a hint of lack of thought and awareness.

Again as Oscar says there is nothing particularly new in what this Bishop and Archdeacon are saying its their approach, and lack of positivity.

Ultimately the strength of the C of E it seems to me is in the parishes. Its the parishes that have the churches, the worshippers (albeit declining), where the money comes from, where the laity are.

Gloomy pronouncements from bishops who come and go, and archdeacons who so often simply say 'Yes, the Bishop is right, and I agree with him' don't always encourage the lay people and the local church.

I think most churches know that they should work to appeal to all people whatever age.

The seed that grows grows from well cultivated soil and good quality local parish churches modelling how it can be done are important. Such churches will have prayer, worship and pastoral care at the heart of their life. Sometimes their numbers may go down sometimes up. Lets hope bishops say well done to such churches and their people.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure you are strictly correct on the preoccupations of the Oxford Movement. We are most aware of the trappings as these have come down to us and what most of us would regard as the Movement's legacy.

I was at the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius in the summer and it was observed that a whole plethora of religious communities and orders came out of late 19th century Anglicanism ... there were retreat houses, monasteries, convents, urban missions ...

Most of them have died out which is why we aren't aware of them. For whatever reason they proved largely unsustainable in the 20th century British climate and soil.

If you go to Llantwit Major in South Wales they'll still tell you about nuns and other religious who settled there in the early 20th century and who lived in poverty and obscurity - doing good and helping the people of the industrial valleys to the north.

I have no idea why these things haven't continued but they were there. There was more to the Oxford Movement than tat, lace, gin and sodomy.

Quite. Stolen Daughters, Virgin Mothers is an excellent book on the topic, by the way.

Posted by Ashworth (# 12645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
One of the problems I have with the Bishop of Blackburn's pronouncements is that they come from a pretty unreconstructed conservative evangelical, who has not shown much sign so far that he appreciates the nuances of engaging afresh in a post-Christian society.

On the surface, his analysis is reasonably accurate - though hardly ground-breaking, as many people have been pointing this out for some years. The stats don't lie. What matters most is what (if anything) to do about it.

I'm also a little concerned about the message that he gives the existing congregations in the diocese - which is, effectively, "You've been doing it all wrong so far and now I'm going to put you right".

I was quite surprised to hear of some the Bishop of Blackburn's comments because my experience of the Blackburn Diocese has been very well attended churches. However, all my visits to churches in the diocese have been in fairly wealthy areas along the coast around, Lytham, St Annes and Blackpool. Yes, there are some quite middle class, wealthy areas,of Blackpool away from the town centre!

The main difference I have found is that many of these churches in these areas are of the anglo-catholic tradition. In the type of residential areas that in other parts of the country you would traditionally find large, well cared for, relatively wealthy conservative evangelical churches, here you find large, well cared for, relatively wealthy anglo-catholic churches.

St Stephens on the Cliff, St Christopher's Haweside and St Paul's Marton all in Blackpool are all of this type. There's also a whole string of parishes along the coast through St Anne's and Lytham of the same type. Many of these churches have well over 100 communicants at their Parish Eucharist each Sunday and the amount of money given in the collection is not small.

Except for St Stephen's none of these churches have been strongly Forward in Faith. However, perhaps because many of the clergy, and a significant number of laity, are quietly more of that persuasion and are now in sympathy with the Soiciety of St Wilfrid and St Hilda, the current Bishop of Blackburn does not wish to acknowledge their success. Is he worried that many of the churches in his diocese that are thriving and perhaps even growing are of this type.

I don't know what the rest of the diocese is like. There may be areas around Blackburn and Burnley in East Lancashire where the church is in big trouble.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Most evangelical Anglicans I know would be broadly in favour of disestablishment.

I can't see how establishment or disestablishment would affect Anglican evangelicals one way or another.

The Church in Wales is often seen as generally 'High Church' but, on a smaller scale, it has all the nuances and shades of Anglican opinion that you'd find in the CofE or most other churches within the Anglican Communion.
There wasn't a mass exodus of evangelical Anglicans when the Church in Wales was disestablished.

I see no reason why there would be if the Church of England were disestablished this year, next year or in 20 or 30 years time.

My impression (which has been reinforced by some of your comments on other threads) is that the CinW has become the default church in Wales because the alternatives in many cases (though obviously not all) have weakened quite rapidly. In this environment, it hardly makes sense for Anglican evangelical congregations to go it alone, and risk facing the same fate.

England seems to be different, though. For a start, size matters; many evangelical Anglican congregations in England are likely to be bigger and wealthier than the ones in Wales, which could make the decision to leave easier. Also, while many independent churches may be struggling in Wales, a number of English independent churches are more successful than their local CofE parish churches. Although they may lack the age and stability of the CofE 'brand', neither do they appear to be on the brink of implosion. Their example might encourage some CofE congregations to go it alone.

OTOH, there's Magersfontein Lugg's comment that

quote:
I suspect some evangelical vicars are in the C of E for the employment package and take much else loosely. They seem in some places to me to run their own shows with only an occasional nod to the diocesan authorities.

Would you agree with this?

I can well imagine that there are CofE evangelicals who'd approve of disestablishment. Presumably some of them think it would make a positive difference to their work within the CofE. But others might want it because it would provide them with a 'good' excuse to go! (I know some Christians who are like that; they won't be 'pushed out' of their church, but they'd like an honourable reason to leave.)

If evangelicalism does become the dominant force within the CofE, as predicted then disestablishment might become irrelevant to many evangelicals themselves. But the country at large might not want to be officially represented by Christians like that....

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE] ....the country at large might not want to be officially represented by Christians like that....

They're not over happy at being represented by the current bunch of indecisive, bearded, fence sitters either (hyperbolic parody) - hence the meltdown in attendance.

It can't get any worse - so be hung for doing something as opposed to seeking accommodation and achieving nothing.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

The meltdown in attendance follows from the majority of the population's walking on by, not believing or being interested. If it merely derived from too many indecisive, bearded, fence sitters, the other denominations would be bulging at the seams with disaffected members of the CofE. Chapels would be open and booming, not converted into private houses, gurdwaras or minimarts.

Besides, to refer to the general population as "not over happy at being represented by" is a very odd verb for anyone to choose. 'Represented by' to whom? God? Parliament? Archbishop Justin Welby? Their neighbours?

I've once heard a very high-church vicar with a very high-church view of the Eucharist describe a Holy Communion service as offered on behalf of the whole of his parish. However, I don't think the 10,000 odd residents who never go to that parish church or anywhere else, are even aware of the times of services, yet alone what goes on there.

[ 05. November 2014, 11:45: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
OTOH, there's Magersfontein Lugg's comment that

quote:
I suspect some evangelical vicars are in the C of E for the employment package and take much else loosely. They seem in some places to me to run their own shows with only an occasional nod to the diocesan authorities.

Would you agree with this?

Again I'm speaking from a London context here, but if anything the evangelical parishes around me could more than easily sustain themselves outside of the CofE, as they have larger congregations and more giving.

I have to question Magersfontein Lugg's entire premise here. There are smaller evangelical churches in the UK that pay their ministers quite a bit more than the standard CofE stipend.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
To refer to the general population as "not over happy at being represented by" is a very odd verb for anyone to choose. 'Represented by' to whom? God? Parliament? Archbishop Justin Welby? Their neighbours?

I've heard it said that the CofE acts vicariously, doing Christianity on behalf of people who don't wish to practise themselves, but who identify as Christians. It's also said to be 'representative' of faith communities in England generally. Perhaps most visibly, it has the task of providing public religious ceremony on a civic level. These, to me, are examples of the CofE 'representing' the nation.

If the CofE really doesn't have this representative purpose then it's hard to see why establishment is valuable. (Well, there are some atheists who think it keeps a lid on the crazy fundamentalist side of Christianity, but that's another subject.)

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

What really came through was - people want to participate in ways that are meaningful to them, not just walk in sit down and go home ...

They want more outreach to the community like building ramps for houses of poor folks with a new disability, reaching out to new widows/widowers with practical help like yard care, take part in the local soup kitchen.

Isn't church attendance the most basic, minimum level of outreach? Perhaps people who think that walking in and sitting down isn't "meaningful" participation don't realise that their presence in the congregation is part of their ministry in the church - a vocation?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've heard it said that the CofE acts vicariously, doing Christianity on behalf of people who don't wish to practise themselves, but who identify as Christians.

Some of those who fit that description may use that as a convenient way of thinking that lets them off the hook. It is though, an approach that is likely to lead to a very nasty shock shortly after death.

I'd hope there's no one in any official position who would advocate this.

quote:
It's also said to be 'representative' of faith communities in England generally. Perhaps most visibly, it has the task of providing public religious ceremony on a civic level. These, to me, are examples of the CofE 'representing' the nation.

If the CofE really doesn't have this representative purpose then it's hard to see why establishment is valuable. ...

I support establishment, but IMHO it has little to do with providing religious services to the state. It's about representing God in Christ to the state and the community, getting across the fundamental idea that in any exercise of power or doing any sort of service, one is accountable to God and that this applies just as much to those who say they don't believe in Him.

The Queen often expresses this rather well in her Christmas broadcasts.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've heard it said that the CofE acts vicariously, doing Christianity on behalf of people who don't wish to practise themselves, but who identify as Christians.
Some of those who fit that description may use that as a convenient way of thinking that lets them off the hook. It is though, an approach that is likely to lead to a very nasty shock shortly after death.

I'd hope there's no one in any official position who would advocate this.

I once heard a vicar on the radio describe the CofE as 'the church for people who don't go to church'. It's an ambiguous phrase, because it could be interpreted to mean that you don't need to go. But no church can exist without at least some participants, hence the vicariousness.

Obviously, it can have other meanings, such as the one you give at the end of the quotation below.

quote:
]I support establishment, but IMHO it has little to do with providing religious services to the state. It's about representing God in Christ to the state and the community, getting across the fundamental idea that in any exercise of power or doing any sort of service, one is accountable to God and that this applies just as much to those who say they don't believe in Him.

I think the servanthood understanding of establishment is perhaps more relevant, and certainly more visible, than its ability to reveal that we're all accountable to God.

Put another way, ISTM that 'representing God in Christ to the state' is done by the CofE via its services to the state (i.e. the people). Otherwise, it's not clear to me how the CofE get its 'fundamental idea' across.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've once heard a very high-church vicar with a very high-church view of the Eucharist describe a Holy Communion service as offered on behalf of the whole of his parish. However, I don't think the 10,000 odd residents who never go to that parish church or anywhere else, are even aware of the times of services, yet alone what goes on there.

I thought that was why the Angelus was sounded at the moment of Consecration, so the parishioners would know of the miracle of the transformation of the bread and wine even if they couldn't be present.

Most, of course, would just say, "I wonder why that church bell's ringing?", assuming they noticed it at all.

Baptists don't have bells, of course - or parishes.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... Otherwise, it's not clear to me how the CofE get its 'fundamental idea' across.

I would hope the fundamental idea of the CofE - and of other ecclesial communities - is some version, however expressed of "Christ died for our sins and on the third day rose again", "seek ye first his kingdom and his righteousness" and "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your whole household".

Against that, establishment is of second, third or even fourth order significance.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

1. The meltdown in attendance follows from the majority of the population's walking on by, not believing or being interested. If it merely derived from too many indecisive, bearded, fence sitters, the other denominations would be bulging at the seams with disaffected members of the CofE. Chapels would be open and booming, not converted into private houses, gurdwaras or minimarts.

2. I've once heard a very high-church vicar with a very high-church view of the Eucharist describe a Holy Communion service as offered on behalf of the whole of his parish. However, I don't think the 10,000 odd residents who never go to that parish church or anywhere else, are even aware of the times of services, yet alone what goes on there.

1. True - most people aren't interested because the church doesn't attract them. All they hear about is rows and arguments ... and they might just find the same on a visit to a local church.

As for the bearded fence sitters, we in other denominations have them as well (normally without the beards and the pointy hats). That's why many churches are struggling - some buck the trend and that's usually not down to theology or tribe, most often because they engage with the local community - going out instead of expecting others just to come in regardless.

2. It's a trifle arrogant if such a view is intended to imply that only the eucharist offered by the established church count in this regard. In my particular church we'd see that everything we do is offered to God on behalf of others.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

I can't speak for Enoch of course but I would be surprised if that was the case. I would be inclined to agree with the priest but would certainly not view only that Eucharist as valid. I think I've said before that while I see the parish priest's role as being for everyone in the parish, that's not to the exclusion of other churches in the area.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I can't speak for Enoch of course but I would be surprised if that was the case. I would be inclined to agree with the priest but would certainly not view only that Eucharist as valid. I think I've said before that while I see the parish priest's role as being for everyone in the parish, that's not to the exclusion of other churches in the area.

Thank you for such graciousness - pity my local Anglican colleague doesn't feel the same. Somehow we aren't "real" because we "can't do the magic."

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The meltdown in attendance follows from the majority of the population's walking on by, not believing or being interested.

Thank you for this - it brought to mind a recent article in a trad Anglo-Catholic journal, about why bother offering the Eucharist when few people come.

x

AV

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

But then, ExclamationMark, I could also point you to Baptists who wouldn't consider your local Anglican colleague 'real' because he says prayers out of a book rather than making them up extemporaneously each time ...

These things cut both ways, I'm afraid.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Of course Baptists are the only true Christians. After all, John the Baptist was the first Baptist. Don't know if the UK has this strand of Baptist but they are surprisingly common in the United States. Not a majority by any means but they make up a significant minority.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Beeswax Altar ... you should know better than to tempt me to make ad hominem remarks about the USA ... and Texas in particular.

Must ... re.sist ...

More seriously, no, we don't have that many of that kind of Baptist over here. We have some, but not on the same scale as you have them over there.

The Baptist Union over here is largely evangelical but it's by no means like the Southern Baptists nor the various independent Baptists you have in such large numbers.

This is a whopping big generalisation but British Baptists are generally pretty benign compared with some of their US cousins.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But then, ExclamationMark, I could also point you to Baptists who wouldn't consider your local Anglican colleague 'real' because he says prayers out of a book rather than making them up extemporaneously each time ...

These things cut both ways, I'm afraid.

Of course it's both/and - but just remember who has the bigger public voice.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This is a whopping big generalisation but British Baptists are generally pretty benign compared with some of their US cousins.

Yep - a fair few passive:aggressives though. Cross them at your peril - the cuddly kitten wields a sharp axe (tongue).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Some of the Reformed Baptist and Grace Baptist groups - independent Baptist types - are similar to what you'll have in the USA but there are still differences.

I had some friends in a Reformed Baptist church in a northern English city and a visiting US preacher was surprised to hear them singing contemporary worship songs and choruses as well as traditional hymns.

He was taken aback because he associated the former with charismatics and Pentecostals - neither of which he considered to be 'proper' Christians.

This was quite a hard-line Calvinistic place in some respects but clearly not as hard-line as its opposite numbers and equivalents in your part of the world.

I hope I can say that without sounding like I'm making a value judgement or starting a Pond War.

[Frown]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

In my experience, the passive:aggressive Baptists tend to reserve their aggression for among themselves.

Hell hath no Fury like a Baptist church divided against itself ...

[Frown]

Fortunately, I managed to avoid a lot of that when I was involved with Baptist churches, but I know of a few instances where things went pear-shaped badly - just as they used to among the restorationist house-churches and other independent groups.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In my experience, the passive:aggressive Baptists tend to reserve their aggression for among themselves.

Just so!

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But then, ExclamationMark, I could also point you to Baptists who wouldn't consider your local Anglican colleague 'real' because he says prayers out of a book rather than making them up extemporaneously each time ...

Or, even more relevantly, claiming that your baptism is invalid because you were baptised as an infant rather than as an adult.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ashworth:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
One of the problems I have with the Bishop of Blackburn's pronouncements is that they come from a pretty unreconstructed conservative evangelical, who has not shown much sign so far that he appreciates the nuances of engaging afresh in a post-Christian society.

On the surface, his analysis is reasonably accurate - though hardly ground-breaking, as many people have been pointing this out for some years. The stats don't lie. What matters most is what (if anything) to do about it.

I'm also a little concerned about the message that he gives the existing congregations in the diocese - which is, effectively, "You've been doing it all wrong so far and now I'm going to put you right".
I was quite surprised to hear of some the Bishop of Blackburn's comments because my experience of the Blackburn Diocese has been very well attended churches. However, all my visits to churches in the diocese have been in fairly wealthy areas along the coast around, Lytham, St Annes and Blackpool. Yes, there are some quite middle class, wealthy areas,of Blackpool away from the town centre!

I wonder if the Bishop of Blackburn and his Archdeacon are seeing churches in places like Lytham and Blackpool and saying yes there are good congregations but they are old people who will be dead by 2050. So we must have youth etc etc.

I wonder. I wonder if these retirement places renew their elderly congregations. That is yes older people die but slightly less older move in on retirement.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:

I wonder. I wonder if these retirement places renew their elderly congregations. That is yes older people die but slightly less older move in on retirement.

That's often the way even where the age profile is generally younger. Almost by definition, many people are drawn to faith in middle age and later, when they enter a more reflective stage of life. Then when they retire they have more time to devote to church anyway.

Of course there will always be some young people attracted to various forms of church. Obviously some will prefer extrovert charismatic-evangelical worship (though not necessarily swallowing the evangelical hard line on dead horse issues and others), but some - maybe a minority, maybe not - will be drawn to contemplative or liturgical forms. I don't think the church should get all neurotic about the comparative lack of youth, however. If there were more young people in the pews years ago it's probably down to church-based youth clubs and uniformed organisations. Even in their secular versions these don't attract the numbers they used to.

I remember an archdeacon some 40+ years ago bewailing a church he had just visited where all the congregation were older than he was. I don't think that particular parish has closed; churches have a way of renewing themselves. And those that don't, well, times change.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:

I wonder. I wonder if these retirement places renew their elderly congregations. That is yes older people die but slightly less older move in on retirement.

What I've read is that the elderly don't automatically become more religious than younger people; it's rather that recent cohorts of old people grew up in a more religious age, and have retained or returned to the faith of their youth. People without a religious background are less likely to become religious in old age (see 'Age or Cohort Effects').

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

I remember an archdeacon some 40+ years ago bewailing a church he had just visited where all the congregation were older than he was. I don't think that particular parish has closed; churches have a way of renewing themselves. And those that don't, well, times change.

I'm not sure that churches have a 'way of renewing themselves'. ISTM that in those cases of positive change the environmental conditions have become more advantageous for the church, or else a deliberate vision taken up and acted upon by the minister and congregation has had an effect. Probably both.

I don't think it's helpful to imply that a church will renew itself without any effort, or that if a church is struggling, it should just accept decay and possible closure as a sign of the times!

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But then, ExclamationMark, I could also point you to Baptists who wouldn't consider your local Anglican colleague 'real' because he says prayers out of a book rather than making them up extemporaneously each time ...
Or, even more relevantly, claiming that your baptism is invalid because you were baptised as an infant rather than as an adult.

I haven't come across anyone in a BUGB Church making statements like that for something like 15 years.

The vast majority of churches have open communion and open membership - membership being dependent simply on a declaration of faith. In most churches you can serve as a leader without being baptised (in any form). That's not the same as the CofE.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Interesting, I hadn't realised that you could be a leader in a BUGB church without being baptised in any form.

Are there any Baptist ministers - ie. paid clergy as it were - who haven't been baptised?

I'd be surprised if there were.

I'd be less surprised to find house-group leaders and others who hadn't been baptised as believers ... but I'd be surprised to find people who hadn't been baptised - or christened if you'd prefer to call it that - at all.

You mention this as if it is some kind of preferable state of affairs to the CofE one.

I'm finding myself struggling to understand why this should be the case unless the BUGB wanted to take up a more Quaker or Salvationist type position.

One could argue that it simply reveals the lack of theological discipline and regularity there ... [Big Grin]

It all depends on where you stand, of course.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

I don't think it's helpful to imply that a church will renew itself without any effort

Nor do I. Sorry if that wasn't clear. What is important is that any effort must be directed to the right object. That means, being true to its identity (not trying to pretend to be something different in order to attract people) and focusing on worshipping God and serving neighbour. Not on mounting increasingly neurotic recruitment campaigns. People will be drawn to a genuinely Christian community.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

1. Interesting, I hadn't realised that you could be a leader in a BUGB church without being baptised in any form.

2. Are there any Baptist ministers - ie. paid clergy as it were - who haven't been baptised? I'd be surprised if there were.

I'd be less surprised to find house-group leaders and others who hadn't been baptised as believers ... but I'd be surprised to find people who hadn't been baptised - or christened if you'd prefer to call it that - at all.

3. You mention this as if it is some kind of preferable state of affairs to the CofE one.

4. One could argue that it simply reveals the lack of theological discipline and regularity there ...

It all depends on where you stand, of course.

1. Yep - that's the case. Recognition by the church meeting is sufficient and on the understanding that you are a believer.

2. I don't know of any myself - but who checks up on these things??? It's required (I think) that a minister be a baptised (by immersion) believer unless there's a health reason for sprinkling.

It's perfectly possible to be a house group leader and, in some churches (this one included) a deacon without being baptised in any form. A statement of belief is considered adequate - and since Baptist churches hold membership relatively tightly (visitors and all that), it's discussed at several levels.

3. No I don't think I do. It's just different and it seems to work. I don't doubt - indeed I know that the CofE system works as well: I wouldn't knock it all apart from a weeny bit of reservation about the implication that there's regeneration through the baptism. A minor quibble that doesn't invalidate the CofE baptism but further than I'd go theologically.

The theology and belief bit is always addressed in Baptist churches - and the norm would be believers baptism or a recognition that you have had some rite of passage to initiate you into the universal church. If you haven't spoken about your faith before, they why, you can do it now!

4. Or it demonstrates a lack of legalism and a lot of grace and generosity. The theological discipline comes through the wider process of accepting the individual into the body, not necessarily through any event.

Picking holes in your argument for a moment, which of the CofE, Methodist, URC discuss membership or the qualifications for being on a church "roll"? generally none - and in the CofE case the main qualification is residence and at the Annual parish meeting anyone can attend (from the parish) and vote for the churchwardens even if you go to another church. Hardly a massive example of theological rigour methinks!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Which of the CofE, Methodist, URC discuss membership or the qualifications for being on a church "roll"? generally none - and in the CofE case the main qualification is residence and at the Annual parish meeting anyone can attend (from the parish) and vote for the churchwardens even if you go to another church. Hardly a massive example of theological rigour methinks!

Re Methodism, confirmation into membership (for those having been baptised as babies, or for those coming to Methodism as adult Christians from another denomination) assumes that the candidate has been baptised.

Membership matters in Methodism, because only members have an official vote at church council meetings, and the official lay posts in the church (e.g. church steward, pastoral visitor) are only open to members, hence to baptised people. Unofficial posts (e.g. prayer group leader) could in theory be held by non-baptised folk, but Methodist churches have a high number of official posts to fill, so anyone who is otherwise active in the church will eventually be encouraged to become a member (though they could refuse).

There's no way of hiding your lack of membership, because membership generates regular paperwork. No paper trail means you're not a member. (Or not a member of the congregation where you're worshipping.)

Interestingly, checks aren't routinely carried out to prove that a candidate from elsewhere actually has been baptised, or that their baptism was sound....

As for the 'cradle roll', this is just a list of all the infants who've been baptised, and their families. Churches have cradle roll secretaries to manage this list, so that local families who have this church connection but don't normally attend church can be invited to special events, etc. Baptised infants aren't classed as 'members', regardless of whether their parents attend the church.

I understand that Baptist churches normally have more non-members than members in attendance, whereas the opposite is true for Methodist ones.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
As for the 'cradle roll', this is just a list of all the infants who've been baptised....'

Just to be clear, the cradle roll of a particular church will only include the infants who've been baptised at that church, not every church in the area, or every church in the circuit, etc.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

1. Interesting, I hadn't realised that you could be a leader in a BUGB church without being baptised in any form.

1. Yep - that's the case. Recognition by the church meeting is sufficient and on the understanding that you are a believer.

Not always the case. I was a member of a Baptist Church whose rules said that Deacons had to have been baptised by immersion.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...assumes that the candidate has been baptised.

There's no way of hiding your lack of membership, because membership generates regular paperwork. No paper trail means you're not a member. (Or not a member of the congregation where you're worshipping.)

Interestingly, checks aren't routinely carried out to prove that a candidate from elsewhere actually has been baptised, or that their baptism was sound....

I understand that Baptist churches normally have more non-members than members in attendance, whereas the opposite is true for Methodist ones.

There's a flaw in your argument: the paper trail only applies for those who have been in one church. Moving around, there's no record of baptism.

Baptist churches often have a lot of non members attending (we're about 75:25 in proportion) but not always.

[code]

[ 09. November 2014, 05:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Not always the case. I was a member of a Baptist Church whose rules said that Deacons had to have been baptised by immersion.

Agreed - but it's becoming less common s churches adopt the new standard trust documents. Interestingly a lot of older trust deeds were not so prescriptive as our earlier 20th century ones

[edited code: please stop putting a superfluous [quote] tag at the start of your post; preview post is your friend, as is edit post]

[ 09. November 2014, 05:53: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes - and I was actually a member of the group which drew up said Trust Documents. However, the requirement for Deacons to have been baptised by immersion - or, sometimes, for "a majority" of them to have been baptised - isn't always in the Trust Document but in the Church Rules which, of course, can be amended by the local Church Meeting without any legal implications.

I once acted, around 1990, as Interim Moderator for a church which wanted to appoint a Deacon who had ben baptised and confirmed as an Anglican and definitely did not want to be rebaptised. Church Meeting wanted her to be a Deacon but many people felt that she was ineligible. Eventually the Church Secretary rummaged in a cupboard and found a set of the Rules, which proved that she could, in fact, be appointed.

One lady who had ben a member for years insisted that that could not be the case, that the Church Rules had obviously been changed at some point. "Well," said the Secretary, "these are the most recent Rules we've got - and they are dated 1899!"

She was appointed.

Posted by womanspeak (# 15394) on :

I was in a parish where a meeting was called to address the rapid loss in attendance which had occurred since the new Rector (an Archdeacon) had been installed. The Archdeacon even used a business / financial adviser with vague connections to the church ( went to an Anglican School / parents' funerals in our church) to lead our discussion.

I upset said Archdeacon when, after a brainstorming of solutions, I suggested that perhaps prayer should be on the top of the list for we were not a business or a social club with financial problems but a gathering of the people of God.

Not too long after I was sacked by this Archdeacon (as Vicar General after our Bishop left) from my position as Diocesan Education Officer and from my involvement in parish children and family ministry.

This Anglican church has had to be amalgamated with a 70 km distant parish but with a new encumbent attendance is slowly regrowing.

I brushed the dust off my feet and journeyed up the street to a more prayerful, musical and committed church which is founded on solid preaching by lay and ordained, hospitality, home groups, bible studies, prayer groups and community service.

Having been an Anglican for 65 years I do miss regular communion, but not watching my former parish shrivel though a fear of evangelism and a lack of Christian witness and prayer.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

There's no way of hiding your lack of membership, because membership generates regular paperwork. No paper trail means you're not a member. (Or not a member of the congregation where you're worshipping.)

Interestingly, checks aren't routinely carried out to prove that a candidate from elsewhere actually has been baptised, or that their baptism was sound....

There's a flaw in your argument: the paper trail only applies for those who have been in one church. Moving around, there's no record of baptism.

[code]

Members who've been active in one Methodist church may be reminded that they can transfer their membership to another if they move. Most practising Methodists should be familiar with the concept.

The problem nowadays is that denominational affiliation is weaker than it was, and if you don't like the Methodist church in your new area, you might just find some other church. Also, moving house is apparently quite risky for churchgoing in general; people are likely to stop going altogether, for various reasons.

Admittedly, membership lists are often out of date because movers haven't formally requested a transfer, and those who've simply stopped attending don't always ask for their names to be removed. Methodist churches don't like to cancel someone's membership simply for non-attendance, as this can cause offence. It's a delicate matter.

As for the lack of proof of someone's baptism, people who start attending a Methodist church without transferring from another one don't normally ask to become members straight away, so the lack of proof isn't urgent. Over time, a bond of trust will develop, so if the person claims to have been baptised, they will be believed, and membership can proceed. Sometimes they come with letters of introduction from their home church, especially if they're new immigrants.

The cradle roll is a more tenuous connection; there's no way of transferring from one cradle roll to another. I don't think families would want to do this anyway, because their sense of connection is often with a particular church, not with the whole of Methodism.

[ 09. November 2014, 13:32: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0