Thread: The gospel according to Linda 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=029249
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
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.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
(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.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Anyway, let's get back to her main points. Are they useful? Do they hold water? Are the OP's criticisms justified?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So there ARE churches where there is a danger of bumping in to God?
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on
:
So the problem is SSMs who don't agree with SSM.
Or is that just acronym overload? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
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 ]
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
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.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
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!
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
Seems to me that the sociology of religion is about the process of belief-community. And says nothing about the content of communal belief.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
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.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Sociologist she may be but she takes Christianity seriously. I've met her and was impressed.
People dismiss what zshe says because they don't want to face the stark truth that if the Church doesn't change but merely panders to her members, mainly aged over 60, it will; be dead very soon.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
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?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
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?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
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?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Or - possibly better - with housekeepers who are not like Mrs Doyle? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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 ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I wouldn't mind Disestablishment either, but having grown up in Wales where the Anglicans have been Disestablished since 1920 I can't see how it's made a blind bit of difference.
I'm sorry ExclamationMark but I've come to the conclusion that all Disestablishment would do is give a temporary buzz to those who want to cock a snook at the toffs ...
That buzz would soon wear off.
Bluntly, it would make sod all difference.
It'd just make non-conformists and anti-establishment types feel better -- until, in the cold light of day, they realise that it has made bugger all difference.
When I worked in Yorkshire, I remember a story of a mill-owner who said to an aspiring advertising agency guru, 'All this here talk of PR and marketing communications ... it strikes me that it's like pissin' thissen in a thick worsted suit. It gives you a nice warm feeling but no other bugger knows you've done it ...'
Same with Disestablishment I suspect. It'll give some people a nice warm feeling, 'Yay! The corridors of power are crumbling! The rich and the privileged have had their day!'
Only for the cold light of dawn to rise and for them to realise that bugger all has actually changed. Because the problems lie within all of us as well as within societal structures - it's a both/and thing.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm sorry ExclamationMark but I've come to the conclusion that all Disestablishment would do is give a temporary buzz to those who want to cock a snook at the toffs ...
That buzz would soon wear off.
I have never lived in Wales, but does the CiW have a civic role, as it often tends to in England?
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
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.
It would mean talking about something else at least temporarily.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Civic role in what sense, mr cheesy?
Do you mean having 'civic' or town services - such as for Remembrance Day or similar?
To all intents and purposes though, and I've heard CiW clergy acknowledge as much - the CiW continues to 'act' like the Church of England and is very much regarded in a similar way in Wales as the CofE is here in England.
Put it this way, I've lived in both Wales and England and been involved in both Anglican and non-conformist settings and I've never noticed any difference.
Overall, though, the CiW faces similar problems to the CofE and the non-conformist churches -- declining numbers, ageing congregations ...
In some areas of Wales, though, the non-conformists are undergoing an even steeper decline than the CiW is ...
Nobody is doing particularly well outside of Cardiff, Swansea and other major urban areas - and even there the picture is pretty mixed ... as Sioni Sais says of Newport - 'more churches than Christians ...'
As for civic roles - the Methodist church where I live now seems to play a civic role too - it hosts the annual 'civic service' for the town council and other agencies, for instance.
So a civic role isn't necessarily always an Anglican thing -- but I'd need some specific examples of what you mean, mr cheesy, in order to comment on the situation in Wales.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
In many/most parts of England, Anglican churches take most of the heavy lifting in terms of civic services - I have no idea whether this also happens in Wales.
So yes, remembrance services and any other occasion when a bit of religion is needed by the civic authorities.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Out of interest - it seems relevant enough to not be a tangent - do RC churches take on a civic role on Merseyside and any other areas with a big RC population (parts of Scotland for instance)?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok - I suppose my answer would be that the mileage varies - as it does across England. For whatever reason here where I live now the Methodists seem to fulfil the civic role alongside the Anglicans to some extent - perhaps because this is a traditionally strong Methodist area.
So the simple answer would be that yes, the CiW does fulfil civic functions in Wales in a similar way to how the CofE does in England ...
So, in that respect Disestablishment has made no difference whatsoever.
I can't honestly see how it could do - unless all CiW churches were suddenly to turn around and refuse to perform any civic functions whatsoever - but why would they do that?
What would they gain by doing so?
You see, I'm afraid that lefty/liberal though I am politically I can't really see how Disestablishing oneself makes a blind bit of difference to any church's ability to 'speak truth to power' or to challenge the status quo in any 'prophetic sense'.
Simply by refusing to take part in a Remembrance service or to host an annual service for the local council and dignataries is hardly cutting-edge prophetic witness ... it's simply a form of posturing ...
If we want to have a 'prophetic' witness to the nation we'd have to do better than that. Perhaps we all ought to go and sit on top of poles in the desert or volunteer to help in an asylum-seeker's centre or something like that.
Being all arsey about civic services or getting on some kind of Puritanical high-horse about things doesn't strike me as helping anything.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Indeed I think your average generally secular/unchurched person would be much more offended at the local CoE church refusing to do a Remembrance service!
I understand and agree with the principle of disestablishment. But I think nowadays it is just a principle with no real effect on day to day church life - and I'm not sure it's worth such rigmarole just for that. Establishment in terms of the CoE does not have the same connotations or effect that it did in the 17th or 19th or even early 20th centuries - the parish priest is no longer in with the squire.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wouldn't mind Disestablishment either, but having grown up in Wales where the Anglicans have been Disestablished since 1920 I can't see how it's made a blind bit of difference.
I'm sorry ExclamationMark but I've come to the conclusion that all Disestablishment would do is give a temporary buzz to those who want to cock a snook at the toffs ...
That buzz would soon wear off.
Bluntly, it would make sod all difference.
It'd just make non-conformists and anti-establishment types feel better -- until, in the cold light of day, they realise that it has made bugger all difference.
When I worked in Yorkshire, I remember a story of a mill-owner who said to an aspiring advertising agency guru, 'All this here talk of PR and marketing communications ... it strikes me that it's like pissin' thissen in a thick worsted suit. It gives you a nice warm feeling but no other bugger knows you've done it ...'
Same with Disestablishment I suspect. It'll give some people a nice warm feeling, 'Yay! The corridors of power are crumbling! The rich and the privileged have had their day!'
Only for the cold light of dawn to rise and for them to realise that bugger all has actually changed. Because the problems lie within all of us as well as within societal structures - it's a both/and thing.
I think you are seeing a motive there that I hadn't looked for. The buzz and "yay" aren't the point: the idea is to bring in a greater amount of local oversight and accountability - if people have a real stake n something they'll want to keep it going. [This is instead of the current situation where local parish councils have to take over disused churchyards if the church request - in one case they did so knowing that there's a £25k repair bill for the wall required. It doesn't go down well - partnerships do!].
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
The CofI has been disestablished for quite some time. When it happened at first there was a bit of a hullabaloo, some were vociferously against it, some welcomed it. As time passed, and Ireland's history developed the disestablishment of the church worked in its favour. It removed the sense of privilege, which wasn't necessarily a bad thing. Oddly, the CofI in the Republic has a much more 'civic' role today than the CofI in Northern Ireland; although there are many and various reasons for that I guess. On the whole in Ireland (both north and south) disestablishment has been a fairly good thing with many positive results. We have lost land, money and privilege but I can't imagine it having that today and being taken in any way seriously.
The situation in the CofE is very different and cannot be compared. I think back in empire days there was a very real risk that the entanglements of state and church presented a significant risk both politically and theologically/spiritually. I don't think those same risks exist today and the church can have a much more prophetic role in society, so I don't really see that disestablishment would do an awful lot. The privilege for it today is in its civic role and its attachment to the establishment and as long as that is a healthy relationship then I can't really, currently see an argument to be rid of it.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I repeat what I said a few hours ago, but I'll put it differently.
If not being established is such a wonderful and prophetic opportunity, why don't I hear key figures in the other ecclesial communities speaking truth unto power? Saying the things CofE people dare not say? Are restrained by establishment from saying?
Cardinal Hume is the only such person in recent years that was heard above the clamour, and I'm not sure that those who heard him gave much heed to what he said. I can't think of any leading Baptist, Methodist or URC (in strict alphabetical order) who managed it, yet alone any Restorationist.
Oh, and I suppose one ought to mention the Revd Ian Paisley, but has he turned anyone on the mainland from the broad way to the narrow one?
Where I might differ from a lot of shipmates, is that I'm rather less persuaded that speaking about public issues and events changes hearts much. Does it bring about metanoia, cause people to repent, change direction, 'turn from their wickedness, and live'? Unless more people do that, the Christian faith in this country will wither and die.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I wasn't necessarily saying that the 'buzz' and 'yay!' thing were your motivations, ExclamationMark - and the issue of parish councils and bills for churchyard wall repairs is certainly annoying and ought to be rectified ... but apart from the occasional parish-pump issue of that kind, I don't really see any big issue about Establishment/Disestablishment ...
I'd certainly like the CofE apparatchiks to act more sensitively towards other churches, though and to act less condescendingly towards them -- when I've talked to RCs and Orthodox I get a similar impression in that respect to the one I get from non-conformists.
Some Orthodox clergy I know were well hacked-off when the CofE didn't canvass their Church for its views on some issue or other recently - and when one of their Bishops complained he was told that they represented a minority, migrant population largely so that's why they weren't consulted ... which added insult to injury ...
They didn't approach the Pentecostals either ...
So, yes, the CofE conspires to hack everyone off in one way or another.
It comes with the territory I suppose. The more 'civic' and community-oriented they are the more they are accused of being 'worldly' by the 'come ye out from among them and be ye separate' brigade. The less of that sort of thing they do then they're accused of being other-worldly or disengaged.
It's a lose/lose situation all ways round.
I don't know what the answer is ...
I'm not even sure there is one.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
To be fair, Enoch, to the RCs, the Baptists, Methodists, URC and other non-conformists - and plenty of 'restorationists' these days - a lot of them are pretty involved with social and socio-political issues on the ground.
But it has to be said that the bulk of Christian energy and activity here in the UK is geared towards maintenance and survival - of keeping the show on the road ... and that applies as much to the 'fresh expressions' and 'emergent' or 'new church' crowds as it does to anyone else.
I well remember reading an article in The Baptist Times by a minister who'd got involved in some kind of pressure-group activity in his area. A very left-wing, communisty type member of that group observed to him one day that whilst it was great to have him on board and engaged with the issue, why weren't any other members of his congregation there?
Irrespective of churchpersonship and ideology, I suspect that's where most churchy people are at ... leading their own lives and putting a lot of effort it keeping whatever it is they're involved with church-wise afloat. They haven't got a great deal of time to 'speak truth to power' or anything else - let along trigger some kind of 'metanoia' within society as a whole ... they've got all on trying to achieve that for themselves ...
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
When I lived in East Sussex, most churches were of a conservative evangelical persuasion and agreed with each other on most issues - the exceptions being (broadly) the Quakers, the RCs and the relatively large Greek Orthodox congregation. There being a large historic Nonconformist presence and newer large NFI/Vineyard churches, the CoE didn't dominate at all but it didn't mean churches worked together any more than in more polarised communities and indeed the NFI church in particular seemed to dominate. I think one or more dominating churches is unfortunately how human nature works.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Gamaliel, I don't disagree. Round here, the various ecclesial communities are all engaged in all sorts of activities, sometimes together and sometimes on their own.
My comments were really aimed at Mark. He was saying that it would all be so different if the CofE were not trammelled by establishment. quote:
Ditch establishment tomorrow, speak with passion and power to the heart of the nation.
I'm asking whether his fellow (I think) Baptists are actually doing that. I suspect he'd rather they were doing so more. Perhaps they are. If so, I can't hear them. And if those who are not established aren't doing that, why should a disestablished CofE suddenly start doing it any more than it is at the moment.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If not being established is such a wonderful and prophetic opportunity, why don't I hear key figures in the other ecclesial communities speaking truth unto power? ... I can't think of any leading Baptist, Methodist or URC (in strict alphabetical order) who managed it, yet alone any Restorationist.
The Baptists, Methodists and URC - recently joined by the CofS - have a joint "Public Issues Team" which looks seriously at lots of socio-political issues. Their papers are thought-through and sensible. They do all they can do link to the media. Yet they are almost completely ignored, probably because the news media simply won't understand that there are any Christians except in the CofE and RC.
Just occasionally their work manages to make the headlines: the BBC Radio 4 6 o'clock news on Easter Sunday a year or two ago actually began with the words "The Baptist Union ..." - it was a paper on poverty produced by JPIT. But that is so, so rare!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
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?
Linda Woodhead was obviously invited to speak as a sociologist, not as a theologian or as a priest. If she's a Christian I'm sure she'd agree that God must be at the heart of the church. Nevertheless, churches and denominations are institutions which, whether we like it not, display a range of characteristics that makes them comparable to secular human institutions, and hence are suitable subjects for sociological attention. So some useful insights might indeed come from sociology.
Linda suggested at one point that more diversity of churches was needed. I share this belief, so I was interested in what she had to say about this, particularly in connection with 'franchising' the CofE. Clearly, in this understanding 'franchising' doesn't mean that each CofE church is a carbon copy of the next (which is not how the CofE's 'broad church' works in any case). I think it's more about enabling congregations to use the well-known CofE 'branding' while being much more flexible in terms of structure, setting, organisation, etc.
Franchising would tie in with Linda's proposals for creating a kind of National Trust-style membership for the majority of Anglicans who don't attend church. Developing greater lay engagement, as she proposes, would also benefit. Whereas the CofE and most other denominations assume that having a full-time paid minister is highly desirable and that the alternatives are simply about 'making do' a franchise system would enable alternative structures, arrangements and attitudes to develop in those places where they would be of benefit.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If not being established is such a wonderful and prophetic opportunity, why don't I hear key figures in the other ecclesial communities speaking truth unto power? ... I can't think of any leading Baptist, Methodist or URC (in strict alphabetical order) who managed it, yet alone any Restorationist.
The Baptists, Methodists and URC - recently joined by the CofS - have a joint "Public Issues Team" which looks seriously at lots of socio-political issues. Their papers are thought-through and sensible. They do all they can do link to the media. Yet they are almost completely ignored, probably because the news media simply won't understand that there are any Christians except in the CofE and RC.
Just occasionally their work manages to make the headlines: the BBC Radio 4 6 o'clock news on Easter Sunday a year or two ago actually began with the words "The Baptist Union ..." - it was a paper on poverty produced by JPIT. But that is so, so rare!
I can see that Establishment probably doesn't help there - but in fairness the RCC isn't Established, nor are the Orthodox churches which get a little more airtime than the JPIT. So is it not also about numbers and presence more generally and not just Establishment? I completely agree that the news media is terrible at acknowledging the existence of other Christians - but it is pretty terrible at accurately reporting all sorts of church issues, including Anglican ones (eg off the top of my head, liturgy affirming trans people's name changes being called rebaptism when they are NOT baptismal services, even though the people involved have made this clear). I think there's a wider lack of 'church literacy'.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I'd agree with Pomona's point.
I well remember the not inconsiderable BBC and other coverage of the statement by the BU and other non-conformists -- but to be fair to the media on that occasion - there was certainly a story there and the BU and its partners DID have something significant to say.
With the best will in the world, 9 times out of 10 they won't -- however worthy an initiative this joint-statement thing is.
I don't think that it's so much of an issue of the media having an anti-nonconformist bias so much as it being easier for them to get Anglican or RC viewpoints on things - there's a single port of call in those cases.
Give it some time then the joint-statement thing from the Baptists and others will begin to get through to them ...
Journalists are generally lazy in my experience and tend to go with whatever comes to hand - or more charitably, are up against deadlines and often don't have time to research things properly.
It's interesting that Fr Gregory - who used to write on these boards - was regularly asked by the BBC to contribute to radio debates and so on about religious issues after the BBC moved its religious broadcast unit up to Manchester ...
They seem to have forgotten about him since - although he once told me that they were delighted initially to have an alternative to the standard Anglican line on things and - indeed - to find a clergyperson who was prepared to state their case and not pussy-foot around ...
I don't think it's a case of the Baptists, URCs and Methodists needing to go, 'Woe, woe, woe, they aren't listening to us ...' Bide your time and your time will come.
It also helps if you have something significantly interesting to say.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Also this might seem very trivial but I feel like certainly TV media prefers clergy (of all faiths/denominations) to look like an 'idea' of clergy - to make them more recognisable to people as being from that faith group I suppose. A Baptist minister in a suit and tie is going to have less visual impact than a priest in a dog collar or rabbi in a kippah or imam in robes with a beard.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I was present at that lecture and found it very disappointing. She did say she used to be married to a clergyman but I didn't know until reading this thread that he is Alan Billings. If what I know of him is correct (it may not be) is that he is a former Labour councillor of distinct 'New Labour' (i.e. Blairite) views. That chimes with her apparent wish for the C of E to be 'popular' without actually standing for anything. New-Labourites would do anything to get elected even at the expense of eviscerating their party of any socialist convictions; it seems Woodheadite Anglicans would do the same for the church (i.e. abandon theology).
There is a contradiction between pushing for a 'franchise' model of different types of worship for different congregations, and idolising the 'village church' ideal. The 'franchise' (where people can go to another church if they don't like what is on offer) only works in cities: the village church needs to be all things to all people.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Increasingly, though, Angloid, village churches around here are only attracting or retaining people in their 60s and 70s ...
That said, I know of some instances where dedicated lay-people have kept shows on the road despite the CofE authorities having virtually given up on particular places ...
A lot depends on location. Around us there are a string of medieval village churches within easy striking distance of nearby towns whose congregations have been swelled by refugees from drum'n'bass or the eradication of robed choirs or the BCP in urban/suburban settings.
You get further out into the countryside and that effect wears off and you have a handful of elderly people rattling around in buildings that are way too big for them.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
In the old days, non-conformist ministers had impressive uniforms. Many years ago when clearing out a cupboard at the evangelical church of my youth, I found an impressive pair of waters the minister used to wear to keep his gear dry during baptism.
I'm not sure when the fashion became to dress down.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
And I'm not sure how he managed to use "waters" to keep dry ... I presume you mean "waders".
But, then, I have seen a Pentecostal minister wearing a wet suit to perform baptisms, no less ...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Around us there are a string of medieval village churches within easy striking distance of nearby towns whose congregations have been swelled by refugees from drum'n'bass or the eradication of robed choirs or the BCP in urban/suburban settings.
It's not confined to Anglicans. I know a URC church (I preach there about twice a year, as it happens) which has grown from an outflux of surrounding nonconformist churches. Problem is, they use their "success" as a justification for continuing with ultra-traditional worship, without recognising that what they are doing is highly unattractive to most people under 60 or so.
They are nice people, but their conversation always drifts onto the alleged defects of other congregations ...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
A Baptist minister in a suit and tie is going to have less visual impact than a priest in a dog collar or rabbi in a kippah or imam in robes with a beard.
A Baptist minister? Wearing a suit rather than an open-necked shirt or a sweater? Is outrage!
[ 31. July 2015, 15:02: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I was present at that lecture and found it very disappointing. She did say she used to be married to a clergyman but I didn't know until reading this thread that he is Alan Billings. If what I know of him is correct (it may not be) is that he is a former Labour councillor of distinct 'New Labour' (i.e. Blairite) views. That chimes with her apparent wish for the C of E to be 'popular' without actually standing for anything. New-Labourites would do anything to get elected even at the expense of eviscerating their party of any socialist convictions; it seems Woodheadite Anglicans would do the same for the church (i.e. abandon theology).
I don't think it's a case of abandoning theology, but accepting that the CofE may need to become even more theologically broad than it already is.
If most of the people who identify with the CofE don't go to church, it seems a bit odd for the Church to refuse to develop a theology that incorporates or capitalises on that reality. This is already a kind of popular Anglicanism, but the thinkers in the Church don't seem to have engaged with it except perhaps in terms of pastoral need.
I suppose the problem is that we still see theology as something that happens from a pulpit or in a classroom or study. It's often left to sociologists to try to establish what ordinary non-churchgoing Christians actually believe about God, rather than theologians or priests! But the national church surely has a role to play here.
[ 31. July 2015, 15:08: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The Baptists, Methodists and URC - recently joined by the CofS - have a joint "Public Issues Team" which looks seriously at lots of socio-political issues. Their papers are thought-through and sensible. They do all they can do link to the media. Yet they are almost completely ignored, probably because the news media simply won't understand that there are any Christians except in the CofE and RC.
Just occasionally their work manages to make the headlines: the BBC Radio 4 6 o'clock news on Easter Sunday a year or two ago actually began with the words "The Baptist Union ..." - it was a paper on poverty produced by JPIT. But that is so, so rare!
Sorry BT. "Joint Public Issues Team" doesn't have the buzz that will make a journalist prick up his or her ears. Sadly, it's words like embezzlement and bestiality that attract their attention.
[ 31. July 2015, 15:10: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And I'm not sure how he managed to use "waters" to keep dry ... I presume you mean "waders".
But, then, I have seen a Pentecostal minister wearing a wet suit to perform baptisms, no less ...
Yes, sorry waders.
I've also seen a lot of old photos of old-style baptists, congregationalist and methodist preachers with impressive dog collars.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
My comments were really aimed at Mark. He was saying that it would all be so different if the CofE were not trammelled by establishment. quote:
Ditch establishment tomorrow, speak with passion and power to the heart of the nation.
I'm asking whether his fellow (I think) Baptists are actually doing that. I suspect he'd rather they were doing so more. Perhaps they are. If so, I can't hear them. And if those who are not established aren't doing that, why should a disestablished CofE suddenly start doing it any more than it is at the moment.
Enoch, thanks. I don't think i know what the answer is - other than a return to the repentance of which you speak. I don't have an issue with establishment per se - as long as it works for our benefit. If it doesn't do then, then even at neutral it's a drag on resources and proclamation. I'm not concerned that it's the CofE everyone turns to in times of disaster or civic stuff - as long as it engages people without putting god to one side then I'm ok with it.
I'm not overly happy with Linda's approach as it seems to look at the least common denominator: a sort of "everyone's idea of what church could be like, without challenge." Doesn't seem to bear much relationship to the church I read about in the gospels with reference to justice and humility.
Yep I do speak from within a Baptist (Union) framework. Baptists aren't the answer, Christ is. There's significant scope for baptists to get involved too - although there's been big moves to embrace social justice in recent years. In this neck of the words some pressure put on local employers by a group representative of churches and others meant that the living wage was taken on board by a major national corporate ahead of the Government's involvement. This in a place (sorry I can't be too specific for obvious reasons) where 20% of wage earners were earning below that before. A difference can be made if gone about in the right way .... our Anglican colleagues didn't want to be involved as they saw the issue as national not local.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'm not overly happy with Linda's approach as it seems to look at the least common denominator: a sort of "everyone's idea of what church could be like, without challenge." Doesn't seem to bear much relationship to the church I read about in the gospels with reference to justice and humility.
Yeah, that's a fairly familiar refrain from the Baptists since at least the times of Spurgeon - fiery rhetoric telling others how they should think about church.
The fact is that different people exist with different understandings of the purpose of church. You are looking at this from a very particular baptist position, others are available.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I definitely think a local approach works best. Somewhat surprisingly, in my friend's town the Vineyard church is really getting behind that sort of thing and being at the forefront of it.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'm not overly happy with Linda's approach as it seems to look at the least common denominator: a sort of "everyone's idea of what church could be like, without challenge." Doesn't seem to bear much relationship to the church I read about in the gospels with reference to justice and humility.
I don't think she's suggesting that no one should be challenged by the Church. But it's quite clear that the CofE has no intention of challenging everyone to become a devout, committed, engaged, etc. Christian. The CofE is also into diffusive Christianity, which has more humble aims. Linda's point, I think, is that the CofE could in some cases turn this diffusive Christianity into something more productive.
Whether diffusive Christianity is biblical is another matter, but if you have a state church then it's just a fact of life.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Yep I do speak from within a Baptist (Union) framework. Baptists aren't the answer, Christ is. There's significant scope for baptists to get involved too - although there's been big moves to embrace social justice in recent years. In this neck of the words some pressure put on local employers by a group representative of churches and others meant that the living wage was taken on board by a major national corporate ahead of the Government's involvement. This in a place (sorry I can't be too specific for obvious reasons) where 20% of wage earners were earning below that before. A difference can be made if gone about in the right way .... our Anglican colleagues didn't want to be involved as they saw the issue as national not local.
But then there have also been examples of controversy caused by members of churches having (or perhaps the perception of them having) undue impact on local politics etc.
So I think it can cut both ways. Not everyone thinks all local causes promoted by particular churches are a good thing.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If most of the people who identify with the CofE don't go to church, it seems a bit odd for the Church to refuse to develop a theology that incorporates or capitalises on that reality. This is already a kind of popular Anglicanism, but the thinkers in the Church don't seem to have engaged with it except perhaps in terms of pastoral need.
I suppose the problem is that we still see theology as something that happens from a pulpit or in a classroom or study. It's often left to sociologists to try to establish what ordinary non-churchgoing Christians actually believe about God, rather than theologians or priests! But the national church surely has a role to play here.
I think that is true. And 'theology' as an academic exercise is not what I mean. I mean a vision of God/ human potential that transforms the world and gives people hope. The parallel with contemporary British politics is strong. People are fed up with theoretical arguments and labels like 'left' or 'right'. What they want, and need, is a vision which can transform society.
A church which just gives people what they say they want, rather than challenges them to look deeper, is shortchanging them. In the same way a political party which responds only to tabloid-influenced perceptions of what people want, rather than offer a new way of looking, will become irrelevant. As the Labour party more or less has IMHO, and as the C of E is fast becoming.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
If the CofE has the means and the will to challenge everyone with whom it comes into contact then that's impressive. But in reality, there are barriers to that happening, aren't there? The institution has to decide what can be done and try to do it rather than worrying about what seems almost impossible.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... If most of the people who identify with the CofE don't go to church, it seems a bit odd for the Church to refuse to develop a theology that incorporates or capitalises on that reality. This is already a kind of popular Anglicanism, but the thinkers in the Church don't seem to have engaged with it except perhaps in terms of pastoral need. ...
There's a real problem with that take. Most of us are aware of it, but prefer to push it under both our own radar and other people's.
It may be nice to have a cuddly message for those who identify with the church but do little about believing, or who hope they can sort this out later. What, though, if the true prophetic message is that that is not enough, that that is the gate is wide, the way that is easy, but that it leads to destruction? What if the call of the national church, as of any other ecclesial community, is to try to persuade as many people as possible to choose the narrow gate, to go through it and up the steep and rugged pathway that leads to life?
I can't help noticing that the words that come immediately after those are 'beware of false prophets'. I could be wrong. It could be those that say the uncomfortable words are the false prophets, and those that say we must have a gospel that enables the bland and latitudinarian to remain at peace in their complacency are the true prophets. However, I have to admit that scripture as I read it tends strongly the other way.
This may be an awkward suggestion. I know I've put it a bit bluntly. But are we entitled to ignore it for fear of upsetting the horses? Or do we have confidence to say that the power to forgive or retain sins at Jn 20:23 entitles us to change the message so as to make it easier for people?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
On the Vineyard thing, Pomona, I have a theory that the Vineyard and other currently charismatic churches will go the way of the Quakers and gradually slough off their more overt charismaticism for a kind of principled form of Christian-flavoured social engagement.
How long will this take? Wait and see but I think some of the indications are already there.
As for ExclamationMark's point about whether the CofE (or any other church for that matter) puts God to one side ... well, that's difficult to demonstrate and identify -- after all, to what extent does God have to be invoked in order to be involved with something?
I'm sure the Almighty is just - if not more - involved with things that go on beyond our Christian ghettoes than he is within them ...
But I can see the point Mark's making ... and I'd certainly suggest that some forms of spirituality are trying to 'do Christianity without God' ... but I wouldn't identify this tendency with any one particular church or denomination -- and I doubt whether Mark would either.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It may be nice to have a cuddly message for those who identify with the church but do little about believing, or who hope they can sort this out later. What, though, if the true prophetic message is that that is not enough, that that is the gate is wide, the way that is easy, but that it leads to destruction? What if the call of the national church, as of any other ecclesial community, is to try to persuade as many people as possible to choose the narrow gate, to go through it and up the steep and rugged pathway that leads to life?
I understand the point you're making. Christianity is a serious religion, which makes serious demands.
However, I can't see how a national church can be too precious about the 'narrow gate' when it's fairly relaxed about the theological breadth within itself, and also sees itself in some amorphous way as the church for everyone, even while it struggles to provide strong spiritual nurturing to the people who already sit in its pews. It seems to be spreading itself very thin.
Words are easy - especially when most people won't be listening anyway. But creating a 'narrow gate' church requires a theology that cries out for a lot of hard work, and a willingness to be not merely politely ignored, but actively despised and condemned by the culture. This is not where the CofE is at. It mostly just wants to keep the show on the road.
To be fair, this is not an era for risk taking in the life of any English denomination that I know of. Putting a brave face on things is what we're all doing, but perhaps that's not the right body language if you're trying to drive folks off the path of destruction....
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
The CofE doesn't have a 'position' on a lot of the things other ecclesial communities do. That's part of the way it is. It's an ecclesiastical household open to all those that claim to be or aspire to be Christians.
Having said that, if it were to adopt 'the gospel according to Linda' as it's 'position', 'what it stands for', I for one would regard that as a mistake of profound cosmic implications. Come what may be, it seems to me that it has to be the job of the most committed to exhort by word and example the rest of us to be more committed rather than less.
I think also that most people instinctively know that. Even those that aren't interested do not respect any ecclesial community when they sense it is not doing that.
[ 01. August 2015, 08:26: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Relevant
piece by Giles Fraser in today's Grauniad.
Of course the C of E is a 'broad church', and open to many interpretations of the Gospel. But at the heart of it is, and must be, the Gospel of Jesus Christ and its implicit challenge. I don't believe it is possible to interpret our Lord's words or deeds as simply 'don't rock the boat and just be nice to people (unless it disturbs your comfort zone)'
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Well, that was predictable.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, three of the Levellers were shot if I remember rightly - we're not talking a massacre here ... although clearly it was pretty disastrous for those who did face the firing squad ...
I wouldn't like to see Cameron march down to Giles Fraser's parish and have him arrested ... he'd like it too much ... 'Help, help, I'm being repressed ...'
I'm sorry, but for my money Fraser is the mirror-image of Nicky Gumbel when it comes to the 'annoying Anglican cleric' stakes ...
I can no more sit through Fraser ranting on Question Time than I could sit through a Nicky Gumble video.
Both would make me want to gouge my eyes out with rusty forks.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Fraser is younger, yet apparently with less hair. According to "a well-known online encyclopaedia", both had Jewish fathers and both went to public (i.e. fee-paying) schools.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The CofE doesn't have a 'position' on a lot of the things other ecclesial communities do. That's part of the way it is. It's an ecclesiastical household open to all those that claim to be or aspire to be Christians.
Having said that, if it were to adopt 'the gospel according to Linda' as it's 'position', 'what it stands for', I for one would regard that as a mistake of profound cosmic implications. Come what may be, it seems to me that it has to be the job of the most committed to exhort by word and example the rest of us to be more committed rather than less.
I think also that most people instinctively know that. Even those that aren't interested do not respect any ecclesial community when they sense it is not doing that.
As I say, I don't think Linda is proposing a 'gospel' so much as diverse ways of being church. Committed people can still 'exhort by word and example' if that's what they feel called to do.
Perhaps the problem is that there simply aren't enough Anglicans willing and able to do this exhorting at the moment (although I'm not entirely sure I understand what you have in mind here). If so, it may be simply be practical for the Church to work on other ways of being present in people's lives for the time being. The commitment might come later.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I think, Svetlana, I'd say that it's important to decide what you're trying to do, and then work out the best way of doing it, i.e. 'where are we going?' comes before 'how do we get there?'.
We're all too ready to say, 'things are a mess; let's try this' without taking the steps in the middle. After all, it takes longer. 'There's a problem; do anything, rather than nothing' is quicker and gives us the illusion that we're doing something about it.
Besides, if a person produces answers without explaining what underlying objective they are trying to achieve, it's always worth asking what assumptions underly what they are proposing.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
What is the CofE doing now? Is it succeeding?
I think the CofE is trying to do several different things. It probably needs a range of different strategies to deal with them all. But in those contexts and situations where things are already going well in most respects sharpening up some of the goals and developing new strategies probably wouldn't make a lot of difference.
You might be worried that your church and church community might suffer, but if things are going okay, why would a re-structuring process want to destroy that? I suppose it depends on the quality of the people and groups doing the thinking and the planning.
[ 02. August 2015, 12:38: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
A few loose ends - I'm old enough to remember Baptist, URC and Methodist clergy with impressive dog-collars - and indeed Geneva gowns. You can still find them too - as well as more recent forms of non-conformist bling of a vaguely 'Celtic' or Latin-American style.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
If church offers nothing different from the everyday, then why bother?
Linda's view is just the sort of bland cosy liberalish unchallenging inoffensive approach that, though tried and tested, doesn't transform. Neither lives nor communities will be affected by a church like that.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
But not every church is going to transform the surrounding community is it? Let's be honest here. Most churches try to offer something that the community will engage with, if only fleetingly. But some of them simply won't have the spiritual or practical means to 'transform' everyone who has a passing contact with them. (We haven't asked how that's to be judged, either.)
The question is whether these churches are worth supporting to do what is within their means, or whether they should simply be allowed to die. What would be better for the Kingdom? Is it worth maintaining a 'Christian presence' in certain places at all costs, or are we prepared to see a swathe of church closures in the 2040s, or whenever? Would that demoralise the 'transformatory' churches that remain, or would it clear away the dead wood?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Svitlana, don't your think that if there are Christians, they need to have a church to belong to - even if it may have to function in a simpler way that hitherto?
And it isn't only about whether a church is transforming others, or the community in which it finds itself. There are times when we are the ones that most need transforming. The state of the faith in this country at the moment suggests to me that that is one of the most urgent tasks.
Going back to the OP, and the talk it links to, would that approach transform, or would it just encourage church members in complacency?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Svitlana, don't your think that if there are Christians, they need to have a church to belong to - even if it may have to function in a simpler way that hitherto?
And it isn't only about whether a church is transforming others, or the community in which it finds itself. There are times when we are the ones that most need transforming. The state of the faith in this country at the moment suggests to me that that is one of the most urgent tasks.
Going back to the OP, and the talk it links to, would that approach transform, or would it just encourage church members in complacency?
I certainly believe that we do need churches of some sort to belong to. But just wanting them there isn't going to keep them going. Linda is saying that even weaker, smaller churches can have a role to play, even if that work doesn't obviously change society's spiritual condition or morals, or lead to great church growth. The effect on society might be more subtle.
And complacency? I don't know how the complexity of creating 'franchise' churches that would require developing a range of structures across the denomination would lead to complacency.
I imagine that the weakest churches might breathe a sigh of relief at being protected from closure, but for many them, becoming 'transformatory' churches in the sense that you mean probably wouldn't be on the agenda anyway.
The 'successful' churches, however, would bear more of the burden of engaging in the role of transforming their communities, or themselves. Even as things stand, I can imagine that a lot more will be expected of the popular evangelical CofE congregations in future, since the other kinds of congregation are likely to be weaker and less prominent in most areas.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I think that's likely to happen ... and to an extent, it could be argued that this process has started already with the example of HTB 'plants' in struggling or redundant churches across London and the surrounding counties.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I still suspect the Linda model assumes that an organisation + a lot of buildings provides something that consumers of religious services can buy into. I think it also assumed they can then drop out of if they don't think they are getting what they want - whether that's seen as religious value for money, a nice comfortable feeling, reassurance, or nice music in a nice building. Somehow, it's the church's job to provide people with what they want.
Do we actually think that? Am I stupid, misguided, tarnished with enthusiasm or what in thinking that really isn't enough, that ultimately it's the religious version of the quotation from Andrew Brown below.
If we look at movements in the past that made a real difference, that turned around a Laodicean culture, is that what Duncan Campbell, Evan Roberts, John Wesley, St Francis, St Dustan or other significant people believed or did?
If it isn't enough, though, what is?
[ 05. August 2015, 21:27: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Somehow, it's the church's job to provide people with what they want.
It may not be the church's 'job' as such, but it's fairly obvious that churches that don't provide what people perceive as engaging, inspiring or appealing for whatever reason don't attract members. In fact, as Linda says, they lose members and gradually lose their connection with the society. This is what the CofE and many other denominations have experienced as a reality here.
Unfortunately, not giving people 'what they want' can just look like arrogance, self-absorption and irrelevance from the outside.
quote:
If we look at movements in the past that made a real difference, that turned around a Laodicean culture, is that what Duncan Campbell, Evan Roberts, John Wesley, St Francis, St Dustan or other significant people believed or did?
Those men aren't alive today. The movements they started or influenced in Britain are no longer particularly inspiring to the surrounding culture, except in a few cases.
Sociologists and historians say that certain conditions are generally in place before 'revival' occurs. The Bible too notes that everything happens at the appointed time; and God claims to respond to a people who call out to him in humility, repentance and desperation. If the social conditions are not auspicious at the moment, I'd say that the spiritual conditions aren't either.
However, the CofE doesn't live only for those powerful moments of divine energy, does it? Until the right social conditions and spiritual attitudes converge it still needs to work out how to pay its staff, look after its heritage properties and maintain 'brand recognition'. Or it could jettison the whole thing, enter a period of purification and start afresh, but that's not what religious institutions normally do.
[ 06. August 2015, 00:56: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I imagine that the weakest churches might breathe a sigh of relief at being protected from closure, but for many them, becoming 'transformatory' churches in the sense that you mean probably wouldn't be on the agenda anyway.
The 'successful' churches, however, would bear more of the burden of engaging in the role of transforming their communities, or themselves. Even as things stand, I can imagine that a lot more will be expected of the popular evangelical CofE congregations in future, since the other kinds of congregation are likely to be weaker and less prominent in most areas.
So the churches who are not engaging at all - and who are simply there, perhaps even unwelcoming to outsiders - are allowed and encouraged to thrive?
Doesn't seem to square with the idea of bearing fruit, does it?
[code]
[ 06. August 2015, 06:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It may not be the church's 'job' as such, but it's fairly obvious that churches that don't provide what people perceive as engaging, inspiring or appealing for whatever reason don't attract members. In fact, as Linda says, they lose members and gradually lose their connection with the society. This is what the CofE and many other denominations have experienced
I agree. I've encountered people who seem to think we've only got to proclaim their particular version of 'the gospel' in the language of Zion, and the Lord will bring to us those he has chosen. If nobody comes, then obviously this is an evil and adulterous generation, and serve them right.
quote:
Unfortunately, not giving people 'what they want' can just look like arrogance, self-absorption and irrelevance from the outside.
quote:
If we look at movements in the past that made a real difference, that turned around a Laodicean culture, is that what Duncan Campbell, Evan Roberts, John Wesley, St Francis, St Dustan or other significant people believed or did?
Those men aren't alive today. The movements they started or influenced in Britain are no longer particularly inspiring to the surrounding culture, except in a few cases.
Obviously they aren't alive today, but what is the difference? Why aren't people returning now? Is there something different that needs to happen, or is it just that the tide is out at the moment?
quote:
Sociologists and historians say that certain conditions are generally in place before 'revival' occurs.
Interesting. Do you happen to know what they say those conditions are? quote:
The Bible too notes that everything happens at the appointed time; and God claims to respond to a people who call out to him in humility, repentance and desperation. If the social conditions are not auspicious at the moment, I'd say that the spiritual conditions aren't either.
Are you saying, Svetlana, that we ought to be calling out to God in humility, repentance and desperation? Perish the thought. That really would scare off the Laodiceans. I didn't detect any hint of such a suggestion in the professor's talk. I haven't in what she's written in the Church Times, for that matter, but perhaps I've just been reading the wrong things.
Actually, if you are saying that, I am sure you are onto something. Less initiatives, less bright ideas, more humility, more repentance, more desperation. I'll go with that - but will we actually do it?
It's so much easier and more fun though to talk about it than to spend the long hours in prayer. quote:
However, the CofE doesn't live only for those powerful moments of divine energy, does it? Until the right social conditions and spiritual attitudes converge it still needs to work out how to pay its staff, look after its heritage properties and maintain 'brand recognition'. Or it could jettison the whole thing, enter a period of purification and start afresh, but that's not what religious institutions normally do.
Yes it has to pay its staff and keep the rain out, but those are the means to an end. Without being fixed on the more fundamental purposes, there's no point in the incidentals. If we agree with the professor that things are desperate, the sort of questions for which we should be seeking answers are more like 'what is the church for?', 'what should we be doing to further the kingdom of heaven?', 'how do we bring the ex-churched, unchurched and dechurched to repentance?' and 'is God calling us to do something different?'
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Somehow, it's the church's job to provide people with what they want.
It may not be the church's 'job' as such, but it's fairly obvious that churches that don't provide what people perceive as engaging, inspiring or appealing for whatever reason don't attract members.
Although one has to ride the very fine line of being subsumed by, or sucking up to, a culture and its values, and standing as a counter-cultural, even prophetic, institution. No easy answers here.
quote:
If we look at movements in the past that made a real difference, that turned around a Laodicean culture, is that what Duncan Campbell, Evan Roberts, John Wesley, St Francis, St Dustan or other significant people believed or did?
quote:
Sociologists and historians say that certain conditions are generally in place before 'revival' occurs.
Exactly ... and the "Laodicean culture" is one which still has a nodding acquaintance of, or even a grudging respect for, Christianity. IMO revival (in its strictest etymylogical sense) cannot happen in a totally secular(ised) culture. Nor can it take place in which lacks a sense of community - although social media may have provided a community spirit which didn't exist 20 years ago.
(Sorry ... couldn't quite get the quote marks sorted!)
[maybe I have]
[ 06. August 2015, 09:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I suppose I'd ask four things.
1. Is our society totally secularised?
2. We can say it might make our work harder but are we justified in saying that there are some sociological situations that are so arid that God cannot act in them?
3. What is the basis for saying that God's ability to act is limited if there isn't a strong sense of community? Isn't it just as likely that a very strong sense of community could impede him, e.g. a society like Bhutan where another religion is deeply embedded?
4. The Laodiceans were neither hot nor cold. Weren't they also a small Christian community that was just about surviving in a predominantly pagan environment, but was doing so by not rocking the boat and by accommodating themselves too closely to their surrounding culture?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
So the churches who are not engaging at all - and who are simply there, perhaps even unwelcoming to outsiders - are allowed and encouraged to thrive?
Doesn't seem to square with the idea of bearing fruit, does it?
'Unwelcoming' churches may not want to continue their existence in any case. They're often the kinds of churches that are very stubborn, and if they insist on maintaining their traditions they might simply be choosing their own demise.
But Linda was focusing on weak churches in general, some of which may be quite friendly, in their own way. The problem is that such churches are likely to increase in number as attenders age and die, without being replaced. Saving them in some form will probably require a change of purpose, or structure.
I guess the concern is that these churches can't all be allowed to fail, not in the numbers that may present themselves if trends continue in the same direction. The result could be highly demoralising or destabilising for the CofE, and lead to further marginalisation in the culture. Moreover, Robin Gill in his books about poorly attended churches notes that church closures can actually hasten denominational decline rather than limiting or reversing it.
[ 06. August 2015, 20:30: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
What it will lead to is a rise in fundamentalism - a movement taking place throughout the world and throughout all religions. The only hope is that there will be enough to cling to a semblance of faith and stay the course through the long storm. It is exacerbated though, in the church's indulgence of fundamentalism (or at least in the inroads towards it) borne out of its fear of dying.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Not sure that I can see the connection. Blandness is form without substance. But so also is fundamentalism, relying on an absolute faith in the book, and X's interpretation of it, rather than repentance and turning to God. In a way, fundamentalism is form without substance for those for whom blandness is inadequate.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
What it will lead to is a rise in fundamentalism - a movement taking place throughout the world and throughout all religions. The only hope is that there will be enough to cling to a semblance of faith and stay the course through the long storm. It is exacerbated though, in the church's indulgence of fundamentalism (or at least in the inroads towards it) borne out of its fear of dying.
Well, no. I would say that fundamentalism is *dying* - what we're seeing is the angry death throes, not a resurgence. 24/7 news media has just made us more aware of it.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But so also is fundamentalism, relying on an absolute faith in the book, and X's interpretation of it, rather than repentance and turning to God.
I think your portrayal of fundamentalism is a little on the binary side - certainly I suspect there are fewer - in percentage terms - of that kind of fundamentalist over on this side of the pond, and those that exist would tend to believe in all of the options you label as mutually exclusive above.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Pomona:
quote:
Well, no. I would say that fundamentalism is *dying* - what we're seeing is the angry death throes, not a resurgence. 24/7 news media has just made us more aware of it.
I would have said so about a decade ago of the world generally, but today I think there is a pattern of people gravitating towards extremes in the realm of faith that wasn't quite so obvious ten years ago and I don't think that is because of the media. But it isn't just in religion, if you take the UK only as an example, the rise of the right in UK politics is very alarming, and its speed and momentum is terrifying.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
The rise of the right in European politics isn't really anything to do with fundamentalism which is more of a niche concern over here. It is more, I would suggest, to do with the collapse of any coherent narrative in mainstream (former) leftwing parties that concern the lives of working people who are not highly paid, and its replacement with an issue-driven approach. If the issues are not those that immediately concern them, they migrate. And heaven help you if a populist rightwing outfit puts together a coherent narrative they can relate to.
You can see a similar thing in the USA, although there the rise of identity politics has contributed more. We have imported some identity politics here too, but rather less so.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Sociologists and historians say that certain conditions are generally in place before 'revival' occurs.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch
Interesting. Do you happen to know what they say those conditions are?
This is a complex subject, and it partly depends on what is meant by revival. There have been several different 'types', which presumably entailed certain sociological differences depending on the denominations and societies where they occurred.
Regarding the English Methodist revival (which is only one type), there are claims that it provided outlets for political frustrations, coincided with the early Industrial Revolution and hence was attractive in the face of the uncertainties and dislocations of industrial life, gave the industrial worker a status which he otherwise wouldn't have had, that it was most successful in regions where the CofE was structurally or culturally weak, and that it enabled the rise of 'charismatic' leaders who spoke the same language as the working class people they reached out to. It also gave rare power to working class women, in many cases. All of these potential reasons and contexts have sociological implications.
Distinctions are made between spontaneous and planned revivals, with planned revivals requiring skills, gifts, techniques and leaders that are highly attuned to the entrepreneurial and cultural zeitgeist. Planned religious revival movements may require more money and expertise, and may involve hiring professional evangelists rather than passionate amateurs. There are sociological implications here too, e.g. where is the money coming from, and what cultural and/or political agenda comes with it? Billy Graham seems to be of interest to sociologists as a global 'phenomenon'.
Strangely, I find it hard to imagine a female British revivalist arising today. In my mind I have an image of an Yvette Cooper figure on the one hand and a buxom Nigerian lady on the other. Maybe society is so fragmented that we'd need different revivalists for different groups of people. That in itself implies a need for carefully planned rather than spontaneous revivals.
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
the "Laodicean culture" is one which still has a nodding acquaintance of, or even a grudging respect for, Christianity. IMO revival (in its strictest etymylogical sense) cannot happen in a totally secular(ised) culture.
This is true, but to assume that we British people now live in culture that knows enough about Christianity to be able to 'return' to it in the normal sense of revival is problematic. The children of non-religious parents no longer go to Sunday School, and very many parents don't feel willing or able to share even the rudiments of 'cultural Christianity' with their offspring.
The notion of a 'grudging respect' for Christianity will last longer in some circles than others, though. I wonder if Christianity will become a regional thing.
[ 09. August 2015, 23:07: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
the "Laodicean culture" is one which still has a nodding acquaintance of, or even a grudging respect for, Christianity. IMO revival (in its strictest etymylogical sense) cannot happen in a totally secular(ised) culture.
This is true, but to assume that we British people now live in culture that knows enough about Christianity to be able to 'return' to it in the normal sense of revival is problematic. The children of non-religious parents no longer go to Sunday School, and very many parents don't feel willing or able to share even the rudiments of 'cultural Christianity' with their offspring.
I totally agree, which is why I feel "re-evangelisation" (of a relevant cultural type) needs to happen rather than prayers for revival. But a lot of church people just don't get it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes. I'm not sure that 'planned revival' in the revivalist sense could do much more than make a slight dent in the apparently inexorable slide towards secularism - other than slowing it down in some areas.
Christianity as a regional thing?
Possibly - in which case its future would seem to lie among migrant groups in the major cities ...
In Anglican terms, I think I'm right in saying that rural Herefordshire ranks as the county with the highest proportion of regular CofE attendance ... I once met a vicar from that county and when I asked him about it he said that he was getting about 1% of the local population through his doors - which he thought was a good rate ...
Are bums on seats necessarily going to be the best measure in future?
Does the future have a Church?
I think it does - but perhaps not in the way that either revivalists on the one hand nor more 'High Church' idealists on the other might envisage it.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
A quick glance at some of the Statistics for Mission on the CofE website does rather suggest that attendance & occasional offices tend to be higher in 'deep England'- dioceses like Hereford, Gloucester and Carlisle.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Christianity as a regional thing?
Possibly - in which case its future would seem to lie among migrant groups in the major cities
I don't know if the CofE will continue to be the main beneficiary of this presence, though. The appeal of membership may decline for such groups.
quote:
Are bums on seats necessarily going to be the best measure in future?
Possibly not. This is why Linda is proposing other practical ways of belonging to the CofE.
[ 11. August 2015, 12:57: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure - but I was thinking more generally and more widely than the CofE - in fact, I wasn't assuming that largely migrant communities in inner city areas would necessarily gravitate towards the CofE - although many do of course.
I'm thinking of largely black-led churches, for instance, with African or Afro-Caribbean roots - and of migrant communities of Copts and Orthodox, of Eastern Catholics and so on.
Some of which may gradually find themselves spreading out beyond the ethnic/cultural confines of their tradition ...
I don't think we've seen a great deal of that so far but some black-led churches have attracted white-working class people in small numbers, admittedly - but it's not unknown.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Gamaliel wrote:- quote:
In Anglican terms, I think I'm right in saying that rural Herefordshire ranks as the county with the highest proportion of regular CofE attendance ... I once met a vicar from that county and when I asked him about it he said that he was getting about 1% of the local population through his doors - which he thought was a good rate ...
I should imagine that is a low rate for a rural parish. Rural parishes usually clock up over 5% around here (Hampshire), though as always some people travel to and from elsewhere. 1% would be a large town sort of figure.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Are bums on seats necessarily going to be the best measure in future?
Possibly not. This is why Linda is proposing other practical ways of belonging to the CofE.
I think that's the point which most epitomises why I really disagree with her. I sense that she's look at this almost entirely from the standpoint,
'How can we keep as many people vaguely attached to the church?'
It is a concept of the church as a club for those benevolently disposed towards it, as I've put it, a version of the National Trust for those that are interested in that sort of thing.
I get the impression that she's rather less interested in or concerned about the church as the ark of salvation, the visible society of Christ's people here on earth, the shock troops of the kingdom of heaven. Indeed, I slightly suspect that sh'e rather people didn't get too keen on that sort of thing. It's tainted with enthusiasm. It's a bit like the comment by a clergyman in a comic novel of about 80 years ago that any signs of interest in religion in a lay person were a mark of impending insanity.
Can you have a fringe membership if it isn't built round a core of faith? Is there any point in having one? What would keep it going?
Her picture of church seems to be keeping something going that will keep happy those that aren't there, those that like to think that somewhere there are still elderly spinsters pedalling through misty streets to 8 'o' clock, but have no intention of joining them.
It may not be just a question of bums on seats. Might it be more time it was a question of knees on hassocks.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well yes, although I agree with you, Enoch, I'm finding it hard to envisage any form of 'intentional' devotion that doesn't run the risk of running into the caricatures that people have of either smiley, happy-clappy evangelicalism on the one hand or spikey, obsessed with rubrics and anally retentive tat-fests on the other ...
Yes, there should be a 'more excellent way' ... but the way our local vicar assesses spiritual vibrancy is the extent to which it conforms to his particular brand of evangelicalism ... by and large ...
I'd like to see a serious form of 'intentional' faith and spirituality that doesn't tumble over into New Wine territory on the one hand or a kind of other-worldly spikey intensity on the other ...
I agree that a kind of vague, beige, MoR National Trust style Anglicanism isn't where it's at -- but I can understand why people might be driven towards that by extremes they encounter out at either end of the Anglican spectrum ...
And I am thinking more in Anglican terms now rather than more generally and widely.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
'The best lack all conviction ...
The worst are full of passionate intensity.'
Things fall apart, Enoch, the centre cannot hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world ...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
(Sounds as if you're describing today's Labour Party, there).
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Gamaliel, as ever you are right. I agree with both those posts, and as it happens with Baptist Trainfan's point about the Labour Party.
If the best don't have conviction, that's why the worst with their passionate intensity can do so much damage. It might be so much easier to manage, but the solution isn't, alas, abolishing conviction. To present something better than misplaced passionate conviction, heat rather than light, one has to have people with wisdom and spiritual conviction, who can explain, commend and persuade what they are speaking for, not blandness.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well yes, although I agree with you, Enoch, I'm finding it hard to envisage any form of 'intentional' devotion that doesn't run the risk of running into the caricatures that people have of either smiley, happy-clappy evangelicalism on the one hand or spikey, obsessed with rubrics and anally retentive tat-fests on the other ...
I don't think the increasing numbers of people seeking spiritual direction resemble either of those caricature extremes. Most seem very level-headed even if their roots are in such traditions.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Coming back on something else, is it possible to have a planned revival?
Am I too much influenced by histories of events like the Welsh Revival of 1905 and the Hebridean one of 1949? I've been under the impression that the thing about revivals, what distinguishes them from missions, is that they seem to happen because God suddenly and unexpectedly intervenes. People start turning to him without somebody running a campaign.
Somehow, to me, the statement 'we're planning to have a revival in the third week in September' doesn't sound quite right. And it isn't just that there's probably a committee 'tasked' with bringing it about.
If such a thing were to happen again, would the experts recognise it? Would they say, 'this can't be God's doing because people aren't ....(doing something they are meant to be doing) .... or are ...... (doing something they are not meant to be doing) ...... '?
One thing I think back to was the Decade of Evangelism. It was supposed to happen in the 1990s. Looking back, I'm not sure now what there is to show from it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, but are there enough of them?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
That was in response to Angloid.
As for revivals in the more spontaneous sense - no, they aren't planned but they don't happen in a vacuum either.
When Wesley started his Fetter Lane society there were 40 other 'religious societies' of various stripes meeting in London.
Most of the converts of the Welsh revival were nominal young chapel goers.
The people affected by the Lewis revival were mostly attending Presbyterian churches of one form or other already.
It's difficult to assess how many of the converts of the First Great Awakening were at least nominal believers or church-goers - most of those who have left accounts of their conversion were. The poorer and less literate ones might not have been - but in all these cases we are dealing with societies where the Christian narrative was embedded and well known.
It isn't now
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Which then makes me wonder if immigration from nominally or actively Christian areas might have more likelihood of creating some kind of revival/more interest in Christianity.
Also, maybe this is somewhat optimistic - but what about ex-Christians from particular groups who feel unable to be part of the Church as it is, but could feel able to be part of a different kind of Christianity?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I sense that [Linda looks] at this almost entirely from the standpoint,
'How can we keep as many people vaguely attached to the church?'
It is a concept of the church as a club for those benevolently disposed towards it, as I've put it, a version of the National Trust for those that are interested in that sort of thing.
I get the impression that she's rather less interested in or concerned about the church as the ark of salvation, the visible society of Christ's people here on earth, the shock troops of the kingdom of heaven. Indeed, I slightly suspect that sh'e rather people didn't get too keen on that sort of thing. It's tainted with enthusiasm. It's a bit like the comment by a clergyman in a comic novel of about 80 years ago that any signs of interest in religion in a lay person were a mark of impending insanity.
Can you have a fringe membership if it isn't built round a core of faith? Is there any point in having one? What would keep it going?
Her picture of church seems to be keeping something going that will keep happy those that aren't there, those that like to think that somewhere there are still elderly spinsters pedalling through misty streets to 8 'o' clock, but have no intention of joining them.
It may not be just a question of bums on seats. Might it be more time it was a question of knees on hassocks.
I don't think she's suggesting that a 'core of faith' has to be dispensed with at all. Indeed, the core gives the Church its meaning. But if most Anglicans even today don't belong to that core or have much contact with it, what can be done for them?
Some would say that the CofE is blessed to have the remnant of a diffusive cultural presence, no matter how vague. You've got something positive to work with, even if it's just a silly fantasy about Englishness and spinsters at Mattins, etc. Isn't that better than nothing?
Killing the fantasy and purposely winding down to 'nothing' might enable something new and vigorous to be born, true. I lean in that direction myself. But I don't see the signs that this is what the CofE (or indeed, the Church universal) is generally aiming for. It's also hugely risky - and ageing churches in general, let alone established churches, find risk very difficult.
Moreover, perhaps you (and I...) too are engaged in a different fantasy. The fantasy that the 'knees on hassocks' thing is actually going to happen. That 'the core of faith' is going to give up on material, historical and cultural advantages in order to seek the heartfelt conversion of the nation. Are we going to do that? Really?
There's a lot of good work being done in the churches, but we're not in an evangelistic age at the moment. Incarnational work is very hard, and the returns are often meagre. Few people are willing to sacrifice their comfort (and their family's comfort, since celibacy is unfashionable now) to the point where the world might stand up and pay attention. Personal contentment is what we use religion for these days, and that doesn't sit easily with the work of the self-denying, wandering prophet who gives all his possessions to the poor and weeps for the sins of the people.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I'm not saying we should kill the heritage and deliberately wind it down to nothing. It has much that is valuable and it is how many of us express our faith. I would though, say it would be empty, a shell without a crab living in it, if we regard keeping it going as the gospel we are called to proclaim.
The early C18 was not an evangelistic age. The C18 had an excuse to be wary of enthusiasm. 100 years previously, their great grandparents had been killing each other over it. That's the same distance as separates us from 1914-18. I remember well people who fought in it. One can understand why form without content might have seemed a safer bet. We don't have quite the same excuse.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, we don't have the same excuse ... but I can well understand how people who may have been 'damaged' at one or t'other ends of Anglican spectrum may plump for something 'safer' and MoR ... but Aslan isn't safe, is he?
At one time I'd have agreed with SvitlanaV2 and wanted to see root and branch radical reform ... cut down the trees, remove these empty and unspiritual traditions ... every man to his tent, oh Israel!
I no longer believe that is either feasible or desirable - you simply end up with some kind of Pol Pot Year Zero Christianity with no sub-soil ... when the wind comes it blows away.
Where possible, I believe we should work with, in and through the traditions - looking to find the life and vitality that they undoubtedly convey and express ...
There will, however, be some aspects that hinder.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I think it is a mistake (not that I accuse you of it, Gamaliel) to assume that the sort of Anglicanism that is neither evangelical fundamentalism nor nit-picking anglo-catholicism is bland and superficial. I think what has largely disappeared is the sort of 'King and Country' middle-of-the-road churchmanship such as lampooned by Betjeman: 'St Mary's, where the Rector preached/ In such a jolly, friendly way/On cricket, football, things that reached/ The simple life of every day.' The 'Establishment' is now quite alien from the old certainties of old-Tory England.
A bit like the political scene, where the old language of 'left' and 'right' appears to be breaking down, there are many people in the church today who have a deep and searching faith and a real yearning for profound spirituality. I'm not despondent at all, though living through the change and dealing with the debris of collapsing ideologies and buildings is not easy.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I think what has largely disappeared is the sort of 'King and Country' middle-of-the-road churchmanship such as lampooned by Betjeman: 'St Mary's, where the Rector preached/ In such a jolly, friendly way/On cricket, football, things that reached/ The simple life of every day.' The 'Establishment' is now quite alien from the old certainties of old-Tory England.
Hmmm, not so sure about that. It sums up pretty well many of the (well attended) rural churches of Oxfordshire and Worcestershire in my experience... My vicar preaches in a black scarf and Oxford MA hood every week! The situation in the towns of the area is a little different, but I think King and Country MOR is alive and well overall round here.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm not saying we should kill the heritage and deliberately wind it down to nothing. It has much that is valuable and it is how many of us express our faith. I would though, say it would be empty, a shell without a crab living in it, if we regard keeping it going as the gospel we are called to proclaim.
The early C18 was not an evangelistic age. The C18 had an excuse to be wary of enthusiasm. 100 years previously, their great grandparents had been killing each other over it. That's the same distance as separates us from 1914-18. I remember well people who fought in it. One can understand why form without content might have seemed a safer bet. We don't have quite the same excuse.
Are you able to explain why you believe that a revival, or a surge of evangelistic energy, is just on the horizon? And do you think it's likely to come from (or at least to benefit) the CofE?
If you really believe this then you are fortunate.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Are you able to explain why you believe that a revival, or a surge of evangelistic energy, is just on the horizon? And do you think it's likely to come from (or at least to benefit) the CofE?
If you really believe this then you are fortunate.
Unless I've expressed myself very badly, I'm not saying that. I think we need it, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.
What I'm asking is what needs to happen for that to change? Has anyone got any good ideas, because I'd really like to hear them. Most of the things people have been trying, don't seem to have much effect. I personally don't think what Professor Woodhead was saying in her lecture (or that matter elsewhere) has any prospect whatsoever of changing that. Perhaps I'm a bit odd but I don't think so. As I've already said, if I didn't believe, a church like the sort she recommends would not get me out of bed and through its doors on a Sunday morning.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Many of the leaders who are working with alternative forms church would agree with Linda that getting people into church on a Sunday morning can't be the only benchmark of success in a culture like ours. In Linda's case, she wants to see the CofE finding new ways of working with people who probably won't ever be regular attenders. I think that's quite reasonable as part of a much broader strategy to connect with different kinds of people in different ways.
However, I think the basic problem with what you're proposing is that we churchgoers like the idea of personal Christian witness and revival more than we want to do it ourselves. We want someone else to be the prophet or the hair-shirted penitent. Someone else must convince the minister and the congregation that it's time to fast and pray in earnest, or to take a mutual vow of poverty, or to invite asylum seekers into our homes, or whatever. Someone else should create the conditions for powerfully spiritual and inspiring church gatherings where amazing things happen, etc.
There's no answer to this problem except that if you want something doing, you have to do it yourself. We (and I'm speaking to myself also) can't expect someone else's heart to be burdened with longing for revival on our behalf; that in itself is vicarious religion!
[ 13. August 2015, 21:01: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0