|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The gospel according to Linda
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
At the end of this link is a talk on the 29th June by Linda Woodhead Professor of the Sociology of Religion at the University of Lancaster. The title is "What's wrong with the Church of England? - and what can be done about it'.
The talk's quite long, but don't be put off by the 1 hour 15 minutes on the youtube. Here lecture is only about 40 minutes. The rest is questions. There's a sort of summary here. However, it's worth listening to the full talk if you can.
I found this talk quite disturbing. Perhaps unsurprisingly for a sociologist, she seems to see the church as a sociological construct, a version of the National Trust for those of vaguely religious consciousness. What is very noticeable is that there's virtually no mention of God in her talk. There is no suggestion that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit might have something to say about the future of the faith in this country, no sense of the church as the body of Christ or as the container for the message of salvation passed on down the centuries.
It's almost as though she too has read the comment by Andrew Brown at the bottom of my posts and decided we'd best take it as the message to follow, because there's not much else to hope for.
Professor Woodhead is a bit of a favourite with the editors of the Church Times. She is regularly asked to provide articles, comments etc. She got very near saying, a few months ago, that the CofE should discourage any sort of religious enthusiasm among its members, because that's what the dissenters are there to mop up. Those that have strong convictions should go off and join them.
I don't know a great deal more about her. There's a bit of a hint in the lecture that her husband might be a former clergyman who has given up his orders, which if so, might explain her somewhat jaundiced approach.
Anyway, my question is this. Do you agree with her? Is she a prophet to our times? Are her recipes just what we need. Or is she completely missing the point?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
She's just a rent-a-quote who has been employed so often she started to have the appearance of an expert. All universities have them, and pimp them out at every opportunity to push their own profile. Newspapers like them because they can get a quick, looks-informed comment at short notice and it will likely fit the side of the argument they need a quote for in order to meet their deadline. She crops up in the Guardian pretty often too.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I agree that Linda Woodhead's message comes across to me as "don't worry about what people believe, just make the Church of England more attractive and a bastion of what is best (by no clearly defined criteria) of English values".
Linda Woodhead was married for a time to Canon Alan Billings. They both have Cuddesdon connections in the past, he was Vice Principal, and she was Tutor in Doctrine and Ethics until they moved in 1992 to Kendal.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
(2nd attempt at posting)
I heard her speak at Greenbelt last year and have read a few of her articles. I agree with Enoch that Woodhead sees christianity solely as a socialogical construct. More than that, though, she seems incapable of discerning between christianity as a whole and the single denomination of which she is a part. This makes listening to her quite frustrating as she will talk of the problems of “the Church” when she really means the problems of “the CofE”. If anything, it is this hubris that is one of the problems of that denomination!
She is also highly anti-evangelical, seeing evangelicalism as a problem to be solved, rather than a valuable expression of faith that should be encouraged and supported just as much as other expressions of faith.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
From the linked summary:
Point 1: if you are going to talk about nationhood you should at least learn the difference between English and British. Anyway, what does affirming positive British values even mean? If values are worth promoting then we should promote them for their own sake, not because they are British.
Point 2: if we want clergy to be accountable to laity, then reforming General Synod and the freehold would be the place to start. I don't see how not paying clergy is going to improve ministerial standards.
Point 3: so in point 1 we want the church to articulate positive values, and in point 3 we want it to acknowledge that it doesn't agree on what those values are.
Point 4: we want the clergy to be full of amateurs but also think weddings should be more professional. Also, apparently this ex clergyman has never heard of setting up standing orders, unlike every Anglican church I have ever attended.
She may be right that we could leverage our ownership of interesting historic buildings a bit better (although the summary doesn't say if she also thinks we should charge admissions fees) but I don't feel this article is a prophetic answer to our prayers ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I'll listen to the talk and then make some comments. However two things do immediately spring to mind.
1. If her title was "What's wrong with the Church of England?" then we can't really complain if she refers to that as "the Church" in her talk. Having said that, I agree that there is a particular Anglican (and media) perspective which seems to forget that "other denominations are available".
2. If she's a sociologist, then she's going to talk like one ... although, from what you are saying, it seems as if she has applied sociological reductionism to the Church. As someone with a Masters in Sociology & Anthropology of Religion, I know how easy that is to do - yet such insights can be helpful.
Having said that, Lancaster's department under Paul Heelas has, I think, tended to apply a purely "social science" and atheistic approach to religion; in contradistinction to (say) King's College London which is far more tolerant of "spiritual" understandings.
[ 29. July 2015, 11:26: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
... Linda Woodhead was married for a time to Canon Alan Billings. They both have Cuddesdon connections in the past, he was Vice Principal, and she was Tutor in Doctrine and Ethics until they moved in 1992 to Kendal.
Interesting. I did not know that. It sounds as though I misread the reference in her talk. Is he the one who is a Police Commissioner?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
She is no longer married to Alan Billings, and he is the one who is a Police Commissioner.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
From the linked summary:<snip>Point 4: <snip> Also, apparently this ex clergyman has never heard of setting up standing orders, unlike every Anglican church I have ever attended.
Your point is valid, but, in point of fact, she's not a clergy person.
[ 29. July 2015, 14:07: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I've listened to her talk. Yes, it is very pragmatic; I agree that she has missed out "spirituality" and also that her ideas, in themselves, are not going to revive the CofE. Here are some jottings made as I listened (I have not read the summary version, nor listened to the Q&A session).
1. Woodhead suggests that the CofE is bound up with “Englishness” (although ISTM without ever specifically defining what this means), with national history, ambition and pride. I suspect that she exaggerates this, especially when she describes the profile of the “typical” member. What she seems to ignore is the fact that many of those now joining it (especially in cities) are from former colonial countries and clearly welcome this connection with the past.
Nevertheless I don’t deny its anachronistic pretensions in modern society: one senses that Woodhead might quite welcome disestablishment. (N.B. I don’t agree with the comment that Woodhead ignores other denominations; on the contrary, she quite explicitly says that the CofE must recognise that it is just one of many Christian [and non-Christian] expressions of faith).
2. Linda maps a trajectory of increasing clericalism, adducing especially the composition of General Synod. This means that its deliberations are unrepresentative of the thoughts of “ordinary” Anglicans. This is particularly true when she looks at the relatively small number of women in Synod. Others will be able to comment on this better than I, but I suspect she may have a point – although the same may be true in the Assemblies and Synods of other denominations (however I know that the URC, at least, takes particular pains to limit the number of clergy at General Assembly).
She spends a lot of time talking about clergy salaries; she feels that this not only means that clergy have to be spread increasingly thinly “to make ends meet” but that the CofE has to put in a lot of effort raising money. She also feels that the job security offered by tenure insulates clergy from the pressures faced by parishioners. Her solution is for an increased number of SSMs (with higher status than they enjoy at present), linked to better partnership with laity.
Where, I think, she falls down is by failing to recognise the practical constraints in ministry that SSMs have to cope with, especially if they have other employment; she also seems to imply that there is a vast untapped pool of laity to draw on for the work of the Church. But this may well not be true; Leslie Francis made this observation in his work on rural churches 20 years ago, and the situation can hardly be better today. Where I think she is right is in trying to lay the idea that “only clergy can do proper ministry” – in fact she sounds like a good Nonconformist whose idea of “priesthood” is very different to the Anglican one!
3. A major issue for Woodhead is the contrast between the openness and transparency demanded in modern society and the culture of dishonesty and hypocrisy in the CofE. She highlights its attitude to gay partnerships but hints at other areas of concern. She notes the breadth of the CofE and suggests that certain “franchises” – often at loggerheads – exist within it. Her solution is that all congregations should celebrate these identities and “go it alone” while acknowledging that they are part of a wider whole.
I couldn’t really see how this really differs from the present situation, especially in urban areas. I can’t see how it would reduce the inter-factional sniping; more to the point, it capitulates to religious consumerism and the idea that a local church can be a place of worship for all. Admittedly many people do now go out of parish to a church they “like” (the same has always been true for Free Churches); but it sounds like a fundamental change to a market-driven religious economy. Pragmatically that may be a good thing but it effectively sounds the death-knell of the parish system. Woodhead may well think that’s a good thing, but she doesn’t actually say it!
4. Woodhead pleads for a greater diversity of worship styles: “one-size fits all” and timeless traditions no longer serve. The Church needs to offer the best possible worship which meets peoples’ real needs. Here she sounds like an advocate of “Fresh Expressions” (although she clearly believes that there is a place for traditional worship, so long as it is well done). However she fails to give guidelines as to how this may be achieved.
5. Finally she speaks of money, noting the attachment of many nominal Anglicans to their local churches and suggesting that they might be “tapped” for money by making allusions to heritage and beauty. In so doing she adopts a very cavalier attitude to less historic (but potentially useful!) church buildings – “Just get rid of those!”
Although speaking earlier with great approval of the Scandinavian “state churches”, she fails to make the obvious suggestion of having historic buildings supported by the State and merely “tenanted” by their congregations. She also fails to mention those churches which do already have “friends” organisations. I also feel that her approach would reinforce the popular concept of the Church being “old” and antiquarian. I could imagine that active congregations wishing to alter their buildings so they are “fit for purpose” might face even greater difficulties if Linda’s proposals were adopted.
Disappointing: failed to reach the core of the issue and could have been done much better.
[ 29. July 2015, 14:10: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That sounds like a pretty convincing 'take' to me, Baptist Trainfan ...
Although, at a risk of a tangent and of looking like I'm carrying a candle for the CofE - I've never encountered the 'hubris' that Sipech complains of -- and I've been involved in new church, Baptist and Anglican churches ...
I'm sure there is hubris within the CofE but the Anglicans don't regard themselves as THE Church like the RCs and Orthodox do.
If anything, I encountered far more hubris among the restorationist new churches than anything I've encountered elsewhere ...
That said, there is a kind of media assumption that the CofE is the only show in town or the only place to go for a comment ...
And yes, the CofE can be a bit remiss at times when it comes to gathering support for statements and so on from across the piece -- there was an incident last year, I remember, where they left out both the Pentecostals and the Orthodox when canvassing comments on some issue or other.
Both groups were understandably dischuffed.
But it's certainly not the case the CofE thinks it's the only kid on the block. Far from it.
Tangent over.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I can't resist replying: no, the CofE doesn't think it's the only kid on the block.
But some of its Ministers (and even members) behave as if they do - especially those who are further up the candle (tho' they presumably recognise the existence of Catholics and Orthodox). This may well be because they don't recognise Free Church ministers as "properly ordained" nor their Sacraments as "valid" (or whatever better adjective you might wish to use).
/Tangent ends again!/
[ 29. July 2015, 14:43: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
True of some. But as you say if you're writing or speaking about research on the CofE it is perfectly reasonable to use the short form 'the Church' to refer to it there- as it would be if your subject were the RCC or the URC or for that matter the Church of Scientology.
[ 29. July 2015, 15:04: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Anyway, let's get back to her main points. Are they useful? Do they hold water? Are the OP's criticisms justified?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Unless someone can persuade me I've misunderstood her, I wouldn't see any point in going to, yet alone belonging to, the sort of churches she advocates. They seem to be designed for those who want the form without the substance, a place where you can be comfortable that there's no danger of bumping into God.
If that were really all there is, wouldn't I be better off on a Sunday morning lounging in bed with the Sunday papers? Indeed, I probably would be. She commends the Scandinavian churches for having members who don't go to them. Perhaps they feel vaguely edified that somebody else is doing something on a Sunday; so they don't need to.
Might one as well belong to the National Trust that she commends? At least they have more tasteful A/B tat in their shops. AndI won't hear anything read that might disturb me.
Am I being unfair? Is there some understated profundity that I have missed? Is she a true prophet that my own presuppositions deafen me from being able to hear?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Your point is valid, but, in point of fact, she's not a clergy person.
True, but the person who wrote the summary is clergy. (Although I'll admit I thought the summary-writer was a bit more closely connected to Prof Woodhead.)
[ 29. July 2015, 20:16: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Linda Woodhead is the president of Modern Church (formerly known as The Modern Churchperson's Union IIRC), of which Jonathan Clatworthy is a major light. I don't know if that enlightens your comment about connectedness, Ricardus.
But it reminds me that it's the organization that Dave Marshall is (or was) associated with, though I haven't seen him post here for a year or so. I only mention it because I used to have the same problem in comprehending what he was advocating in terms of the CofE being a national church, and why.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So there ARE churches where there is a danger of bumping in to God?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I don't understand why instead of coming up with SSM, the CoE can't use the permanent diaconate? It could very easily be part time and alongside a regular job - I think I am right in saying this is how RC permanent deacons do it.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Signaller
Shipmate
# 17495
|
Posted
So the problem is SSMs who don't agree with SSM.
Or is that just acronym overload? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 113 | From: Metroland | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I used to have the same problem in comprehending what he was advocating in terms of the CofE being a national church, and why.
I think this actually goes to the heart of what Linda is saying. Is the CofE still to be a "national Church" as of old; and, if so, what will that look like in the future? Or should it become one denomination, albeit Episcopalian (and even Established), among others?
Methinks that the latter is the only possible scenario in a modern State, although the change away from its former prominence will be regretted and resisted by many.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think the latter is actually closer to the current position than is often realised, Baptist Trainfan -- other than royal occasions and the presence of the 'Lords Spiritual' in the House of Lords.
Gradually, I suspect, it'll become the default position over time without anyone noticing or protesting that much ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
She makes some interesting points about the ties of nationhood, yet at the same time still wants it to be 'English' in a 'tea with the Vicar' sort of way, but it strikes me as spiritually vacuous.
She makes a good point about attendance (hinting at levels of dedication and commitment) and services not necessarily connecting to people today. I think on that point she is quite correct in relation to Western society in general. I would separate from her in the conclusions. I would think the church has a role in bringing people back to setting time aside for spiritual recourse without 'modern' distraction and with a level of commitment. I think the church could speak 'prophetically' to this, but I doubt it would be popular.
Where I really couldn't follow her was when she said that clergy were among the highest paid professionals in the land, earning an equivalent of £75-100,000 per annum. Now I understand she is talking of equivalencies in relation to housing and the bills paid etc, but I was under the impression that the vast majority of CofE clergy were paid in the region of £12,500-15,000 per annum. Have I got that totally wrong? I know in the past that parishes tended to cover bills such as house maintenance, repairs, decoration and some domestic bills, but again I was under the impression (perhaps wrongly) that this is pretty much gone these days? Of the clergy I know, they estimate that around one third of their wage is ploughed back into the parish in some form or another, so all considered, where does the figure of £75-100,000 come from?
[ 30. July 2015, 13:13: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Sorry, also meant to add that the idea of 'franchising out the CofE' seemed to me to be a sure fire way of creating a fifth problem for future generations, quite apart from being the sure and certain destruction of the core principles of what Anglicanism actually is.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Average stipends in the CofE are in the low to mid 20 000s these days, with housing provided. The value of that obviously varies massively - in London it could conceivably be worth upwards of 30k a year, and less than 10k in parts of Yorkshire. Add in the fact that it's not taxed and you might be able to make an argument that the total remuneration of a London parish priest could hit &75k but that's a reflection of atrocious London housing costs rather than anything else.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
And does 'housing provided' mean that the associated costs like household bills etc are also covered by a parish?
Maybe I am miscalculating this, but a mortgage costing 30K per annum would suggest that there are a lot more people earning 100K+ in the UK than I thought!
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Seems to me that the sociology of religion is about the process of belief-community. And says nothing about the content of communal belief.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
It surprised me a little that a sociologist speaking on where the CofE went wrong didn't take into account what also went wrong in society too. I know they aren't an exact match, but church and society do mirror each other in many respects and both relate and have an effect on the other.
I do think she is spot on when it comes to point about hypocrisy. Even in the recent past society in general was far more forgiving on that front, but certainly not today.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
And does 'housing provided' mean that the associated costs like household bills etc are also covered by a parish?
Maybe I am miscalculating this, but a mortgage costing 30K per annum would suggest that there are a lot more people earning 100K+ in the UK than I thought!
I think some bills are covered, but not all.
I was comparing with London rental prices, based on the standard "spec" for a vicarage. And no, not very many people can actually afford those prices on one salary. Buying is out of the question for most in London, and anyone earning less than about 40k is likely to be sharing rented accommodation.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
And does 'housing provided' mean that the associated costs like household bills etc are also covered by a parish?
Maybe I am miscalculating this, but a mortgage costing 30K per annum would suggest that there are a lot more people earning 100K+ in the UK than I thought!
Episcopal priests on average are compensated better than COE priests. What I get in stipend, housing, and social security comes to around 37,000 pounds. Add the entire cost to the church to employ me and it comes to around 56,000 pounds. Only bishops and rectors of well heeled parishes make the equivalent of 75,000+ pounds. In other words, Linda is full of shit. All that stuff about clergy not getting paid and turning more ministry over to the laity but expecting more professional weddings sounds good in theory but doesn't work very many places. Usually, it is the equivalent of putting the parish on hospice care while pretending it is on some promising new experimental drug.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
There are undoubtedly people who want no change in a small-c conservative sort of way, leo, and they would likely oppose her on the basis of "no change". But I don't think any of them have posted here.
Surely the discussion here revolves around the accuracy of her diagnosis and the viability of her suggested changes?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
A former vicar in these parts created a minor stir by giving an interview to the local paper saying that Anglican clergy get the equivalent of £60K a year in terms of stipend plus benefits - housing, not paying council tax etc ...
He said that no clergy person he'd ever met was worth that much and that consequently he was stepping down as vicar ... only to change his mind and sticking with it for a while until he then got a chaplaincy job down south ...
I could see what he was getting at but he queered the pitch for a number of local clergy who all faced acrimonious questions from their congregations - 'Are you really on £60,000 a year?!'
Anyhow, I'm intrigued by leo's comments on how the CofE should change to accommodate the wider world and not simply cater for its membership - most of whom are 60+ these days ... and that's years, not income ...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the kind of Anglo-Catholic Anglicanism that leo ascribes to seems likely only to appeal to people as they get older - it wouldn't have appealed to me at all when I was in my 20s and 30s ...
Sure, there are pockets in some university cities where youngsters attend their local Ang-Cath shack, but by and large I suspect that most Anglo-Catholics - apart from in one or two inner-city areas with largely migrant populations - are towards the older end of the spectrum.
I don't want to see the CofE become all drum'n'bass and HTB-ish but that seems to have had some appeal for some time now -- whether it will continue to do so remains to be seen.
I think there are a whole range of factors here - and the decline in people joining groups and societies of all kinds has some bearing here as well -- it's not just affecting churches but trades unions, craft groups, the scouts, guides and much else besides.
I'd love to see the CofE acting 'prophetically' whilst remaining true in some way to its roots and heritage -- but that's a difficult juggling act.
I'm not sure how easy it is for non-Anglican and non-establishment churches to act that way these days either ... no-one gives two hoots whether we're processing in lace and drinking gin or whether we're boogying on down with drum'n'bass and trying to 'get down wiv da kids' ...
Nobody gives a monkey's.
If people want 'spirituality' these days they're inclined to look elsewhere.
Sure, there are places and points where we can engage and strike a chord - but these seem few and far between to me.
What does leo suggest?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Yeah, if you will look at what I actually receive and what it costs the church to keep me, you will find that I don't see about a 1/3 of that directly. What people look at is the total cost of maintaining a clergy and compare that to their take home pay. They don't factor in how much money it costs their employer to employ them nor do they care. Now, as somebody who is some form of a political conservative, I find this reaction from a group of people who vote overwhelmingly Democrat and complain the Democratic Party isn't progressive enough to be amusing and hypocritical. Parish priests receive basically the same salary and benefits that those on the Left say all middle class working people should receive. Oh, comes the reply, but clergy should live like the "poor.' OK...you go first Mr. Physician and Mrs. Attorney with two homes, two luxury cars, and two Facebook timelines full of Bernie Sanders quotes and pictures of your last trip to Europe. You all start living like the "poor" and my health insurance wouldn't cost an arm and a leg.
Sorry that turned into a rant only tangentially related to the OP. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
If I had any writing ability at all, I would devote my life to becoming Tom Wolfe's literary successor.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
On the clergy pay one, I thought she was saying clergy should be more like rabbis - if I've understood how synagogues work. Rich churches would offer the best salaries to hire the sort of clergy who would grow the product, run the most efficient pastoral services, tell them what they wanted to hear or whatever. If nothing else, that would show which clergy cut the mustard and which didn't.
If congregations couldn't afford to hire a full time person, they would have to make do with someone doing it for free.
Something I'm not clear on is what ethic would drive this re-formed church, but then the one we've got never seems to have faced that question either. I've said elsewhere that I don't think any church in history has ever taken Lk 22: 25-7 and similar anything like seriously enough. To avoid copyright issues, this is from the WEB Bible.
quote:
“The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ 26 But not so with you. But one who is the greater among you, let him become as the younger, and one who is governing, as one who serves. 27 For who is greater, one who sits at the table, or one who serves? Isn’t it he who sits at the table? But I am in the midst of you as one who serves.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
peaking of the Nonconformity I know: Baptist churches being supported by the denomination, and some others, pay a standard stipend. But others do pay more, in some places considerably more - or so I believe. My own stipend is slightly enhanced, reflecting the fact that our church is joint Baptist/URC and URC stipends are higher.
In the URC all ministers are paid centrally and receive the same stipend, this includes Synod Moderators (the closest they have to Bishops). Of course the "value" of their housing will differ according to where they live.
As a general point, "free" housing may not be much of an asset if you reach retiring age and have never been able to get into the housing market.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I've always thought of the 'free' housing as more like a tied cottage than a perk. Would you want to live in a house you had no choice about, you can't alter and which will never be yours? Because of the retirement problem, quite a lot of clergy either try to buy property where they think they might eventually retire to, or retain where they lived before they were ordained and let it out.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the kind of Anglo-Catholic Anglicanism that leo ascribes to seems likely only to appeal to people as they get older - it wouldn't have appealed to me at all when I was in my 20s and 30s ...
Sure, there are pockets in some university cities where youngsters attend their local Ang-Cath shack, but by and large I suspect that most Anglo-Catholics - apart from in one or two inner-city areas with largely migrant populations - are towards the older end of the spectrum.
I don't want to see the CofE become all drum'n'bass and HTB-ish but that seems to have had some appeal for some time now -- whether it will continue to do so remains to be seen.
I suspect that the way you describe it here are the terms in which we - as in, churchy people - see it. I also suspect that this isn't how it is at all and that there is a larger malaise in society throughout much of the world that is a swing towards fundamentalism. To be able to point it out in pretty much every other religion in pretty much every other part of the world and claim it doesn't effect us seems to me to be a huge part of the problem in society she missed.
Posted by Enoch:
quote:
On the clergy pay one, I thought she was saying clergy should be more like rabbis - if I've understood how synagogues work. Rich churches would offer the best salaries to hire the sort of clergy who would grow the product, run the most efficient pastoral services, tell them what they wanted to hear or whatever. If nothing else, that would show which clergy cut the mustard and which didn't.
Yes, I think that is a very fair summary of what she was saying and I almost choked on my lunch while listening to it. What she is suggesting is that poor parishes in poor areas deserve shitty, poor clergy! Do you think she might be a conservative voter?
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Since it has come to light in the course of this thread that she has an ex-husband who is both a retired Canon and a Police Commissioner - a strange combination -, we can check his affiliation. he turns out to be Labour of many years standing. That doesn't, of course, decide how she votes.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Heh heh ...
Back in the day, I used to hear a lot of liberal clergy saying similar things -- that the CofE should be reformed so that there were 'centres of excellence' - whether evangelical, charismatic or Anglo-Catholic etc - and the rest of the parishes should be shut down and the clergy put out into the work-place as 'industrial chaplains' ...
Yeah, like as if the private sector in general would fall over itself to pay for such chaplains or give them rooms and premises to use ...
It also struck me that it hadn't seemed to have occurred to them that these 'centres of excellence' would almost inevitably flourish where the money was -- so they'd be concentrated in well-heeled areas ...
Ok, one might argue that is already the default position as far as the big exemplar churches are - wherever they might be on the scale in terms of churchpersonship ...
But I must admit, unreconstructed political liberal though I am, I did find myself sympathising with Beeswax Altar for once on a political issue ... I'd get pretty pissed off by comfortably off lefty-liberal attorneys and doctors giving me that schtick whilst living the Life of Riley themselves ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, I was surprised to find out recently that the poshest family in our parish - in terms of wealth, house, social status and exciting adventure holidays all over the world -- which are invariably drawn on (annoyingly) for illustrations in the husband's sermons (he's a lay-reader) - were actually Labour voters ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm afraid I'm with Beeswax Altar on this one - some of the 'chattering classes' type trendy lefties haven't got a ****ing clue. In fact, give me an honest Tory voter any day of the week -- at least they are aware of any wealth and privilege they might have and are open enough about wanting to defend it ...
Some of the Hampstead socialist types aren't actually aware of how privileged they are -- and they can tend to act in an annoyingly patronising Lady Bountiful type way too ...
But don't get me started ...
Of course, I wouldn't tar all middle-class lefty types with that brush - but there are those around who conform to this stereotype ... I may even do so myself to a certain extent ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I get the impression that we're all more or less agreed that the Church, whether we mean the CofE or the cumulative total of ecclesial communities in the UK, is in a dire state. We may not express it in these alarmist terms but we are in danger of being the last generation of Christians here, of dying out as the churches of Hippo and Antioch, Things have got to change. In that respect, the Professor is right. However, it doesn't take a prophetic insight to say that. It takes earth-shattering complacency to say anything else.
I am sure there will be one or two people on these boards who will say that this afflicts only the CofE, or even that this is a problem of establishment. If we all reconciled to Rome or became some sort of Vineyard, the faithless would pour through the doors. Personally, I think that's a delusion. Am I wrong?
Where I differ from the Professor, is that I don't think the gospel according to Linda is the answer. We're often rude, and quite rightly, of those that think that the answer lies in a different sort of music, new sorts of service or borrowing last year's ideas from various business schools. Is her answer merely a different version of the same phantasy, looking to the sociology rather than the business studies department?
When I was working, I saw enough of fashionable ideas on management to know that when I come to church, I don't want to find them there too. I hope the kingdom of heaven is different, really different, not a religious version of the same. The business gurus fool the clergy because the clergy haven't lived among them. So what they say seems fresh, bright, new, engaging.
I haven't lived among sociologists. But I suspect that if there those who lap up this approach, it's because they don't live among them either - different subject matter, same phenomenon.
What are the answers? I'm not sure there's even only one of them, though I'm sure that a church that sees itself as about God rather than trying to please the Zeitgeist is one of them.
IMHO the arguments about establishment are red herrings. Establishment is about God speaking to the nation, and particularly to those in power in it. It's not about those in power enlisting a chimera of God in support of themselves.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
There are plenty of 20something Anglo-Catholics (I am one!) but they are mostly an, ahem, particular type of young man who seems to have been born aged 60 (I am not one of those). It's a bit niche.
Not all clergy get a house - chaplains and others without a parish don't. I think it's both a perk and a millstone, but it does rather say more about house prices in London and the South East being obscene! However clergy housing tends to be older and especially in more rural areas, drafty and expensive to heat - the stipend doesn't go all that far, especially for single clergy. Do RC clergy get provided with housekeepers like Mrs Doyle?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Or - possibly better - with housekeepers who are not like Mrs Doyle? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I get the impression that we're all more or less agreed that the Church, whether we mean the CofE or the cumulative total of ecclesial communities in the UK, is in a dire state. We may not express it in these alarmist terms but we are in danger of being the last generation of Christians here, of dying out as the churches of Hippo and Antioch, Things have got to change. In that respect, the Professor is right. However, it doesn't take a prophetic insight to say that. It takes earth-shattering complacency to say anything else.
I am sure there will be one or two people on these boards who will say that this afflicts only the CofE, or even that this is a problem of establishment. If we all reconciled to Rome or became some sort of Vineyard, the faithless would pour through the doors. Personally, I think that's a delusion. Am I wrong?
Where I differ from the Professor, is that I don't think the gospel according to Linda is the answer. We're often rude, and quite rightly, of those that think that the answer lies in a different sort of music, new sorts of service or borrowing last year's ideas from various business schools. Is her answer merely a different version of the same phantasy, looking to the sociology rather than the business studies department?
When I was working, I saw enough of fashionable ideas on management to know that when I come to church, I don't want to find them there too. I hope the kingdom of heaven is different, really different, not a religious version of the same. The business gurus fool the clergy because the clergy haven't lived among them. So what they say seems fresh, bright, new, engaging.
I haven't lived among sociologists. But I suspect that if there those who lap up this approach, it's because they don't live among them either - different subject matter, same phenomenon.
What are the answers? I'm not sure there's even only one of them, though I'm sure that a church that sees itself as about God rather than trying to please the Zeitgeist is one of them.
IMHO the arguments about establishment are red herrings. Establishment is about God speaking to the nation, and particularly to those in power in it. It's not about those in power enlisting a chimera of God in support of themselves.
I'm with you. The church isn't an opportunity for Consultants to pore over, it'a body to be resuscitated. As for Linda's ideas - well they're typical of the kind of woolly "it'd be nice if ..." type of stuff that hasn't exactly helped us thus far.
You're right: it isn't just an Anglican problem. Even we non conformists who are allegedly "holding our own" - really aren't. Other non cons like the URC and the Methodists are in free fall. It's only a matter of time for them.
WE must avoid at all costs the kind of magpie theology that goes for the blingy and shiny new ideas.
The only disagreement I have is over establishment. The churrch cannot be both prophetic and established. Ditch establishment tomorrow, speak with passion and power to the heart of the nation.
[ 31. July 2015, 07:03: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
...... tell them what they wanted to hear or whatever. If nothing else, that would show which clergy cut the mustard and which didn't.
Yes and it would be a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune.
The bible has a succinct phrase for it - it's call ear tickling. I wonder who reads it these days ...
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
... The only disagreement I have is over establishment. The churrch cannot be both prophetic and established. Ditch establishment tomorrow, speak with passion and power to the heart of the nation.
There's nothing about establishment, and hasn't been since at least the C18, that prevents anyone in the CofE, clerical or lay, from doing this.
Nor do I hear voices in the non-established churches doing this effectively. Of course, I've no way of knowing whether this is because they are not speaking or because the media isn't interested in reporting them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I wouldn't mind disestablishment - it would at least provide some relief from constant Dead Horse debates! But I can't imagine the government agreeing to it, too much work for them. The problem with disestablishment is that it's largely out of the CoE's hands.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes ... but the Church in Wales managed it a century ago. Admittedly the CofE is far more closely linked with British (aka "English") society; but it shows that the concept is not impossible.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I wouldn't mind disestablishment - it would at least provide some relief from constant Dead Horse debates!
I can't imagine how you think that will happen. The Anglican Communion will still be divided on the issues and the English Primates will still wring their hands and pretend to be finding a compromise by sucking up to the homophobes and misogynists.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
