Thread: Isms, was-ms and 'sectional' contributions 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=029556
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
This thread is inspired by conversations on the 'Going Forward' thread about the possible future for a major UK denomination.
It's been suggested that the Methodists in the UK should stop trying to remain a denomination but allow their 'leaven' to spread across the whole 'lump' by reverting to a movement or ethos - which is how they started, of course.
I recently met an interesting RC chap who works with religious orders and movements in the RCC - and elsewhere - to help them identify and articulate their core distinctives and recast or rebrand them for a 21st century audience.
This struck me as an intriguing concept.
Back in my restorationist 'new church' days we used to say - among other things - 'let all your isms become was-ms' ... like as if we weren't also an 'ism' ourselves ...
My questions here are:
- Is such a position possible for the Methodists (or any other denomination we might mention)?
- What would this look like in practice if it were?
- How feasible, desirable or realistic is it as an aspiration for any denomination or grouping that might be considered 'at risk' demographically?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Just as a clarifying example, what you're talking about would be something similar to, say, thc charismatic movement, which has followers in numerous denominations, but isn't actually a denomination itself?
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Like the Church of South India?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Like the Church of South India?
Fletcher Christian, you'll have to explain your reference. Isn't the Church of South India a Protestant denomination formed in South India by the amalgamation of a number of previously separate churches? As such, it's the opposite of what Gamaliel and Stetson have called as a movement.
[ 27. October 2015, 14:33: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Back in my restorationist 'new church' days we used to say - among other things - 'let all your isms become was-ms' ... like as if we weren't also an 'ism' ourselves ...
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Just as a clarifying example, what you're talking about would be something similar to, say, thc charismatic movement, which has followers in numerous denominations, but isn't actually a denomination itself?
Wouldn't that make it the charwasmatic movement? For that matter, shouldn't Gamaliel be referring to "my restorationwast 'new church' days"?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, that's the sort of thing I had in mind, Stetson - more like a movement or ethos that extends across denominational boundaries, such as the charismatic movement or 'sacramentalism' even, which can be found beyond the boundaries of the more avowedly sacramentalist Churches such as the RCC and the Orthodox.
Or evangelicalism, say, which is also found across a wide range of denominations and can't be pinned down to any one particular Church or group.
The Church of South India, as I understand it, is more of an ecumenical, pan-denominational experiment. Aspects of the way it operates may be pertinent to this discussion but it functions as a church per se rather than as a 'movement' or an ethos ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ha ha Croesos ... but as there are people who are still charismatic and still into the restorationist thing ... it isn't a 'was-m' for them, however much it might be for me ...
So these things are still 'isms' for those who're involved with them.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Methodists here are already attending Church of Scotland services; the nearest Methodist congregations to my village are 16 miles in one direction (which is feasible) or 84 miles away in the other direction (which isn't). At least one of our ordained elders has a Methodist background, and became Church of Scotland in order to worship locally.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I know a lot of Methodists from a bunch of socially aware Christian places (SCM, Greenbelt, what have you) and friends training to be ministers. I am very interested in their future and shall be watching this thread with interest.
Intrigued by the RC chap going around the religious orders - wonder if ARC [Anglican Religious Communities, the body representing religious orders in the UK) could do with similar!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I recently met an interesting RC chap who works with religious orders and movements in the RCC - and elsewhere - to help them identify and articulate their core distinctives and recast or rebrand them for a 21st century audience.
This struck me as an intriguing concept.
Back in my restorationist 'new church' days we used to say - among other things - 'let all your isms become was-ms' ... like as if we weren't also an 'ism' ourselves ...
My questions here are:
- Is such a position possible for the Methodists (or any other denomination we might mention)?
- What would this look like in practice if it were?
- How feasible, desirable or realistic is it as an aspiration for any denomination or grouping that might be considered 'at risk' demographically?
I don't think the idea is that Methodism should lose the 'ism' that gives it its identity, but that it might or should lose its denominationalism.
This is rather different, I presume, from what the RC guy is trying to do to drum up interest in RC religious orders. I imagine that the new monks and nuns (or whatever modern label they adopt) he wants to attract should still be committed to the RCC as a distinct denomination.
Or would I be wrong on that?? It would certainly be interesting to hear that the RCC was willing to draw in would be religious who didn't have to become RCs first. Very interesting indeed. Is that a possibility?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Methodists here are already attending Church of Scotland services; the nearest Methodist congregations to my village are 16 miles in one direction (which is feasible) or 84 miles away in the other direction (which isn't). At least one of our ordained elders has a Methodist background, and became Church of Scotland in order to worship locally.
Some 50 years after their Canadian equivalents, the Methodists, Congregationalists and most Presbyterians here merged in the 1970's into the Uniting Church. Some Presbyterians continued as an individual body (a much more accurate use of "continuing" than the Anglican equivalent, but that's another story). From an outsider's perspective, its taken until very recently for the individual threads to disappear and a united church start to show itself. It is theological liberal when it is anything, while the continuing Presbyterians are very conservative on most of the button-touching questions. The real spur was declining numbers rather than a flash of ecumenism.
[ 27. October 2015, 20:02: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The real spur was declining numbers rather than a flash of ecumenism.
Some would say that these two things almost always go together. This would certainly be the case in British Christianity today.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
What the RC chap was aiming to do was help some these orders do was explain their particular 'mission', 'charism' (to use an RC word) and distinctives in order to build understanding, gain support (financial and in other ways) and through that develop an interest in vocations ...
It wasn't all about recruitment as such, more a case of, 'Well, if you've ever wondered what the Dominicans do, here's something that'll tell you more about us ...'
So there'd be nice photos of monasteries and details of particular forms of prayer and spirituality and so on.
An RC priest I once knew told me about a conference he'd attended where it was mooted that the life-expectancy or active 'floruit' of a religious order was around 600 years whilst for that of a Protestant denomination it was around 250-300 years - in which case the Methodists are coming to the end of their shelf-life - and for 'new church' type set-ups the life-expectancy was around the life-span of their founder members ...
I'm not sure how true that is, the Anglicans have been around for nearly 500 years, for instance and the Pentecostals have been around for about a century ...
The RC chap was also working with some Protestant groups now - including Australian Baptists where they're aiming to retain a Christian ethos with a faith-based hospital/medical initiative that has expanded beyond its original Baptist roots.
Apparently, most health services in Australia developed from one or other of the Christian churches and denominations.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Enoch:
quote:
Fletcher Christian, you'll have to explain your reference. Isn't the Church of South India a Protestant denomination formed in South India by the amalgamation of a number of previously separate churches? As such, it's the opposite of what Gamaliel and Stetson have called as a movement.
I guess it depends on what you think constitutes a church. As Gam pointed out, it is an ecumenical amalgam of denominations. If the ecumenical movement isn't a movement, then I guess it wouldn't be relevant.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I am fairly sure that the Church of South India is at least partially how it is due to the relatively low numbers of Protestants in India, and so joining forces makes practical sense. It's not a movement, more like something akin to the URC or other United Churches on a wider scale.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's been suggested that the Methodists in the UK should stop trying to remain a denomination but allow their 'leaven' to spread across the whole 'lump' by reverting to a movement or ethos - which is how they started, of course.
Hmm, interesting... Especially as, like you say, that's precisely how Methodism started.
I'd only see it as feasible with a denomination that can clearly define what it stands for. Movements, like the charismatic movement, need a clear ethos, so that one can say 'I am part of the ... movement because I do / believe / practice this or that thing'. Does present-day Methodism have a distinctive defining feature like this...?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think that's an interesting point, South Coast Kevin.
Arguably, it's a lot easier for the charismatic movement as it has a set of readily definable common feature irrespective as to how much individual charismatics may differ in terms of churchmanship, theology, ecclesiology and praxis.
Equally though, whilst it used to be the case that Pentecostals could be easily identified and defined by their belief in 'tongues', 'prophecy' and supernatural healing etc - I'm not sure this is so apparent across the wider charismatic movement. A lot of the traditional Pentecostals were somewhat alarmed at the apparent lack of emphasis on tongues and so on in favour of more physical manifestations - laughing, crying, falling etc - during the Toronto Blessing thing 20 years ago now.
Whilst tongues, prophecy and other spiritual gifts are still emphasised across the contemporary charismatic movement across the denominations, they aren't necessarily as prominent as they used to be when they were seen as THE single defining feature.
I'm intrigued by SvitlanaV2's point about maintaining distinctives whilst losing denominationalism.
I wonder how feasible this is?
Can a group that has become denominationalised de-denominationalise itself?
What would that involve and how would it look?
Equally, I'm not so convinced that those things that HAVE been identified so far on this thread as Methodist distinctives ARE that distinctive ... they certainly aren't unique.
It would be very easy to find URCs, Anglicans, Catholics and others with very similar concerns.
With the charismatic thing, it's easier to identify and define a particular spirituality - or set of spiritualities - far easier, in fact, than identifying a common theology - the old 'a spirituality in search of a theology' canard.
I think it's less easy to do so with Methodism - or even Wesleyanism as a subset of that if we want to be pernickety.
Arguably, groups like the Salvation Army and the Church of the Nazarene are more 'Wesleyan' than contemporary mainstream Methodism is.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm intrigued by SvitlanaV2's point about maintaining distinctives whilst losing denominationalism.
I wonder how feasible this is?
Can a group that has become denominationalised de-denominationalise itself?
What would that involve and how would it look?
A question I'd add - is there a convincing example of such a transition from denomination to ethos / movement across several denominations?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'd be interested to hear if there was.
As with much else with Martyn Percy, whilst I think his analysis can be insightful, I'm less convinced of his ability to diagnose any sensible solutions.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Methodism is probably not the right place to start. They are the most archetypical denomination there is among the mainstream grouping.
Roman Catholicism and Church of England make claims about being "the Church" while historic dissenting denominations are rather half-hearted about the institutional aspects of denominationalism and strive for minimal theological agreement to allow central provision. If you like we are denominations of convenience rather than principle.
Then look at the Reformed tradition. Yes there are denominations CofS, PCUSA, Dutch Reformed Churches and so on. There are also many Merged denominations that have Reformed streams eg Church South India, United Church of Canada. The URC falls between the two as all denominations that made up it had Reformed heritage.
Then however are both the strands within other traditions such as Anglicanism (historically Puritanism but today owned mainly by conservative evangelicals) and there are independent churches who adopt a Reformed theology.
I would pose that the Reformed Tradition is a morphous movement that changes form according to circumstance. The question therefore for the URC is not whether we are called to become a movement but how best we express that movement.
Jengie
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by JJ:
quote:
Roman Catholicism and Church of England make claims about being "the Church"
My understanding - which may be wrong - is that the Roman Catholic church uses this phrase of being 'THE church' in an ambiguous way; meaning both the church universal and THE church, as in, we are the only truly valid church. That would be my readings of some of their statements and documents, but that might be my bias in reading it.
I don't think the Church of England, on the other hand, has made any such claim. There is certainly a claim to apostolic succession (of a sort) and claims about the tradition to which it holds being fed and inspired by the early church and many references to 'the church' meaning the church universal, but I don't see that same distinctive claim to being 'THE church' in any documents or liturgy.
The capitals are not me shouting, just being lazy about the italics code.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Mind you, the very phrase "The Church of England" seems to imply something, for those of us in other denominations.
Queen Elizabeth would, I think, have understood it in that way.
[ 28. October 2015, 14:01: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Yes, and as someone brought up in the CofE I would understand it that way too. Now CinW and TBH I regard that as THE Church here in the same way as I regard the CofE as THE Church there.
That doesn't mean, BTW, that I don't think those other churches are churches- far from it. But I suppose I see them as bodies which might come and go (tho' I hope not go, in almost all cases*) whereas the CofE/CinW are in some way the basic continuing presence. I know that members of other churches may not like that, and I'd be hard pushed to unpack it- it;s as much a gut thing as it is a head thing- but that's how I see it.
*I suppose exceptions might be some of the prosperity gospel crowd and there are certain types of conevo- actually, quite a lot of whom are in the CofE- who I'd not be sorry to see the back of. Of course, God might be more sorry than I am about that.
[ 28. October 2015, 14:27: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Albertus:
quote:
Yes, and as someone brought up in the CofE I would understand it that way too. Now CinW and TBH I regard that as THE Church here in the same way as I regard the CofE as THE Church there.
That doesn't mean, BTW, that I don't think those other churches are churches- far from it. But I suppose I see them as bodies which might come and go (tho' I hope not go, in almost all cases*) whereas the CofE/CinW are in some way the basic continuing presence. I know that members of other churches may not like that, and I'd be hard pushed to unpack it- it;s as much a gut thing as it is a head thing- but that's how I see it.
And would this be a personal notion or something you have garnered from CofE/CinW documents and liturgies?
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Mind you, the very phrase "The Church of England" seems to imply something, for those of us in other denominations.
Like The Presbyterian Church of Scotland? If so, is it more to do with being an established church?
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I remember, several years ago, that people joined our then church from the Vineyard Fellowship, for the same reason as cited in the OP. The only difficulty was with what comprised 'spreading the leaven' - it can lead to conflict when they wish to change everything they see in their new church too quickly, adopting a confrontational stance. Rather like when a new vicar arrives, it would be much more effective to take time to get to know the new congregation, and for them to get to know the newcomers, before rushing in with alternative ideas.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, and as someone brought up in the CofE I would understand it that way too. Now CinW and TBH I regard that as THE Church here in the same way as I regard the CofE as THE Church there.
That doesn't mean, BTW, that I don't think those other churches are churches- far from it. But I suppose I see them as bodies which might come and go (tho' I hope not go, in almost all cases*) whereas the CofE/CinW are in some way the basic continuing presence. I know that members of other churches may not like that, and I'd be hard pushed to unpack it- it;s as much a gut thing as it is a head thing- but that's how I see it.
*I suppose exceptions might be some of the prosperity gospel crowd and there are certain types of conevo- actually, quite a lot of whom are in the CofE- who I'd not be sorry to see the back of. Of course, God might be more sorry than I am about that.
I know who I'd rather save out of that end of the CoE (some of them would not ID as Anglican) and the Methodists! Although I'm sure Methodism has its own difficult children.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Yes the CofE took the dominant* Reformed understanding of Church as being the expression of Church as in a set context and time. Calvin only meant city and environs with Geneva. This was actually adopted to allow Ecumenical relationships to exist between Protestant churches where "church" was defined as being in a separate city. So different churches existed in different areas. It took the Scots and the Dutch to make it to a nation-state. Intriguingly Oliver Cromwell seems to have sided with Calvin over Knox on this.
The minority Reformed position stance is much closer to Anabaptist and the community of the elect. Both have existed since the fifteenth century. In Scotland you actually get both!
Jengie
*There is a "dominant" and a "minority" form of belief about the nature of Church within the Reformed tradition.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Albertus:
quote:
Yes, and as someone brought up in the CofE I would understand it that way too. Now CinW and TBH I regard that as THE Church here in the same way as I regard the CofE as THE Church there.
That doesn't mean, BTW, that I don't think those other churches are churches- far from it. But I suppose I see them as bodies which might come and go (tho' I hope not go, in almost all cases*) whereas the CofE/CinW are in some way the basic continuing presence. I know that members of other churches may not like that, and I'd be hard pushed to unpack it- it;s as much a gut thing as it is a head thing- but that's how I see it.
And would this be a personal notion or something you have garnered from CofE/CinW documents and liturgies?
I wouldn't call it a personal notion- more an identification with a certain kind of CofE/CinW culture and experience. I am aware that there are others in these Churches who identify with different elements of their cultures and so may not erach the same position as mine.
[ 28. October 2015, 15:19: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Interesting observations ...
I think Jengie has highlighted something very interesting in terms of the Reformed tradition - because in its Big R and small-r forms it does span various churches, denominations and groupings.
The fun starts when they start arguing among themselves as to whether such-and-such a body or such-and-such an individual is sufficiently Reformed or not ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
The thing with 'semper reformanda' of course, is that you never stop doing it ...
Be all that as it may, I think Jengie's right in observing that Methodism wouldn't be a good place to start if one wanted to reverse the denominational process and turn a denomination back into a movement ...
Although, if I understand her correctly, I'm also at a loss to understand why the URC might be a better place to start ... they strike me as just as denominational as the Methodists.
Meanwhile, for all the kerfuffle about whether the CofE or CinW thinks of itself as THE Church - Big C - in England or Wales - (it depends on the type of Anglican I suspect) I'm more interested - for the purposes of this discussion - in whether there is a definable Anglican ethos that transcends culture, church-state links and so on.
I mean, US Episcopalians I've met - both from the TEC and the breakaway 'continuing' type groups - seem very Anglican to me - even though they operate in a different culture. They don't seem 'English' or 'British' - for all their almost idolatrous attitude (some of them) towards the Monarchy and their pleasing penchant for British real ale (yayy!) ...
But they do seem Anglican in the way that they seem to out-Anglican the CofE in terms of liturgy and a penchant for C S Lewis and so on.
Am I making sense?
If the CofE were disestablished tomorrow, would a distinctively Anglican approach and spirituality continue? Yes, I think it would.
However, I'm not so convinced in terms of Methodism. If the Methodist Church - as a denomination - ceased to exist in the UK would a kind of distinctive 'Methodist' spirituality continue?
I've read comments by Methodist ministers who believe it would ... I'm struggling to visualise how that might work and how that might look if there wasn't such a thing as the Methodist Church of Great Britain in denominational terms.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If the CofE were disestablished tomorrow, would a distinctively Anglican approach and spirituality continue? Yes, I think it would.
Has done here in Wales, although there are two factors which opertaed for a long time to take into account (i) defensiveness against (and suspicion from) the chapels (ii) I get a sense that the CinW sometimes just didn't accept that it had been disestablished.
quote:
However, I'm not so convinced in terms of Methodism. If the Methodist Church - as a denomination - ceased to exist in the UK would a kind of distinctive 'Methodist' spirituality continue?
I've read comments by Methodist ministers who believe it would ... I'm struggling to visualise how that might work and how that might look if there wasn't such a thing as the Methodist Church of Great Britain in denominational terms.
So might that be better preserved by keeping a Methodist identity within another Church? There have been proposals for a Uniting Church here in Wales consisting of CinW, Presbyterians, URC, Methodists (and a few Baptists)- an episcopal church with the 6 (or fewer if they ever get round to some mergers which they talk of from tiem to time) territorial CinW dioceses and non-territorial dioceses for each of the other 3 main traditions. (Not sure where the Covenanted Baptists would fit in- I imagine they'd go in with the URC or something.)
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Not really
Have you ever checked out whether the URC and the Baptists are one or two denominations legally?
DON'T
I think when the merger happened we legally made sure we were separated from remaining Congregationalists. We did not investigate our status with respect to Baptists. The historic stuff is far too complex.
However, I would suggest that the Baptists Union would a good place to start. Indeed, one of the things I would argue we got wrong in 1972 was to making the boundary of URC too tidy. We needed all sorts of weird uncles and aunts and nieces and nephews hanging around the fringes.
In my book within English Nonconformity 1972 was the high water mark of denominational-institutionalism. It will recede over the next fifty years or so. The church is already getting stronger outside the traditional denominational boundaries. A new way of working will arise eventually and we will start building institutions again, but this time it will not be denominations which are really a nineteenth-century phenomena. In that age some will be denominations re-formed to the new modus operandi, some denominations will disappear and some will merge with other bits to create new institutions. There will also be institutional groupings that owe little to the old denominations.
Jengie
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I don't disagree with what Jengie has said, not at all. But I would add that the Baptists are far less of a centralised "denomination" than the Methodists or the URC; they are much more a Union of individual churches. This would make it difficult to merge them as a homogeneous whole within a wider body.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
The Baptists who might enter the Church Uniting in Wales are a very small group - the ones who are part of the Covenanted Churches within Cytun (alongside the CinW/PCW/Methodists/URC)- they are AIUI within BUGB.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Which should just about with my above post spell out why I think the Baptists are uniquely placed. A coalition of the willing can of the travel lighter and further more easily than those with more centralised authority. Sometimes they will head in the wrong direction but we are in the situation where standing still is doomed.
Jengie
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
The Baptists who might enter the Church Uniting in Wales are a very small group - the ones who are part of the Covenanted Churches within Cytun (alongside the CinW/PCW/Methodists/URC)- they are AIUI within BUGB.
I think that's right. There are other churches which are in the Baptist Union of Wales (and, I think, some which are in both Unions). Relations are friendly but the Unions are legally separate.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Hmmm Gamaliel - even though I am distinctly High Church, I would tend to see the kind of MOTR church you get in the CoE as the 'most Anglican'. In my experience US Episcopalianism is much higher and much more liberal, and a lot of English Anglicans would feel more comfortable in a US Lutheran church. I have a friend who works for St Thomas the Apostle in LA, Latin Mass a go go - I wouldn't call that very Anglican. YMMV of course.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, I'd agree with that Pomona, what I was doing - for the sake of brevity and at the risk of caricature - was highlighting some of the more 'Anglican' aspects of US Episcopalianism as I've encountered yet -- and yes, on the whole they are 'higher' than most MoTR UK Anglicans ...
Meanwhile, I think Jengie's raised an interesting point about denominationalism being a largely 19th century phenomenon. Are we heading to a post-denominational but still 'connexional' future in some way, shape or form?
The US 'non-denoms' and the UK restorationist 'new churches' each made (and to an extent continue to make) a big thing out of not being 'denominational' - although in practice their own networks and individual congregations often had much more homogeneity and indeed, authoritarian control than is the case across most of the traditional denominations.
I can certainly see how a Reformed - or small r reformed - ethos can span a range of churches and crop up in all sorts of places ... what I'm still not convinced about is whether 'Methodism' or 'Wesleyanism' can - save as a subset within something else and with less clarity about what it actually stands for.
That's not to suggest that the Reformed (or small r reformed) are more homogeneous ... there are various strands under those umbrella terms too.
But I dunno why but I'm struggling to envisage 'Methodism' as an ethos, principle or form of spirituality having an independent and separate existence outwith the denomination of that name - or the few independent Methodist groups which still exist.
As for the Baptists ... churches can be 'baptistic' without being Big B Baptist ... I remember lots of Baptist ministers' tales about people they called 'Big Baptists' ... Baptist Trainfan will undoubtedly recognise the type.
When is a Baptist not a Baptist? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I think Chorister has also raised an interesting point about how Christians with a particular ethos or 'take' might go about trying to spread their 'leaven' as it were ...
The situation she describes with former Vineyarders trying to impose their values/praxis on a host church is one that is not uncommon with charismatics in general, I've found. Back in the day, when people were leaving the traditional denominations for the restorationist 'new churches' you'd hear all sorts of sob-stories about how they'd been 'forced out' because of their charismatic stance or how they'd been constrained, not allowed to express themselves etc etc ...
What you didn't hear about so much were the ministers who'd been exhausted trying to keep both sides on board or people who'd found themselves uncomfortable as the enthusiasts tried to foist their charismatic expression onto everyone else - whether they wanted it or not ...
I'm sure both things were equally true.
I'm also sure that what Percy is envisaging isn't some kind of 'Methodist' infiltration of existing denominational structures - but something more fluid than that ...
I dunno what he had in mind ... former Methodists giving workshops on Wesleyan hymns or spirituality or taking a lead in social action, equality issues etc ... which again, I don't think are necessarily a Methodist distinctive - they are found elsewhere.
I s'pose forms of Ignatian and other comtemplative/reflective spiritual practices are spread that way - through retreats, through workshops, conferences etc - and extend way beyond their original context within Roman Catholicism. The same is true with charismatic things ... those were spread in large part initially by conferences and pan-denominational events.
Can we envisage something similar to spread, disseminate Methodist values, say? Or Baptist ones? or Reformed ones?
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Let me try and put my finger in the air and tell you what I expect. Firstly I expect numerical decline to continue for at least another twenty years and maybe forty. The result of which is that many of the current big church institutions whether denominations, training colleges or other will implode or merge.
Secondly I expect a growth of high commitment Christian groups. These maybe Independent Churches, neo-monastics, intentional communities, dispersed communities, ginger groups etc. At the same time I expect these groups and others to explore different ways of developing religious communities. Not all of these will succeed, indeed many will fail. These are the test tubes of the new institutions.
At some point, twenty, thirty, maybe forty years time there will be a trigger (goodness knows what) and suddenly these groups focus will change from inward holiness to an evangelistic outreach. Perhaps that is wrong but a sense that what they have got is not just for the keenies but for everyone. It is at that point we will see the new institutions start to appear.
I can make guesses. The Baptists I think will participate in the process, the URC and Methodists will either merge with others or implode. The Anglican will try to adopt what is successful, as indeed will the CofS. Roman Catholicism will wait until the explosion and then react.
Jengie
[ 28. October 2015, 19:24: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Interested to hear those predictions about religious communities/other high commitment groups. I hope and think you're right.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I wish I could share the optimism of 'explosion' - but I think you're right about the emergence and growth of 'high commitment' and 'intentional' communities of one form or other.
My guess would be with the RCC that there'll be a spontaneous growth of similar groups there - with or without official sanction. After all, when you look at the pietist movements of the 17th and 18th centuries there were parallel movements going on both within Protestantism and across the Catholic world ... and not necessarily influencing each other.
I so suspect that things will become more 'gathered' and 'sectarian' - not in the perjorative sense - but in the sense of covenanted communities or 'intentional' communities of one form or other. It is possible to be in a 'sect' in sociological terms without being 'sectarian' in the perjorative and negative sense - just as it's possible to be narrowly sectarian within one of the wider and ostensibly broader historic Churches or denominations ...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Methodism is probably not the right place to start. They are the most archetypical denomination there is among the mainstream grouping.
For the purposes of this thread, though, this is perhaps what makes Methodism especially interesting among the non-established English Protestant denominations and movements.
It seems that the other groups will more easily be able to split apart, reconfigure themselves, and adapt a new role as leaven, etc., without much disruption to their identity or to their worshipping culture. This is partly because their more independent congregational structure makes such adaptations less disruptive to the whole. Also, their identity in many cases resides in their theological distinctiveness. With effort, commitment to a particular theology can withstand organisational changes.
The two most obvious problems for Methodism, then, are that its structure is rigid and hence less adaptable; and that it didn't come into existence as a result of clear theological disagreements, which means its identity doesn't rely on a distinctive theological issue, but springs out of a more subtle mix other related factors. Having said that, I do think Methodism is theologically interesting. Its basic theological ingredients are evident elsewhere, but not in quite the same proportions, nor blended in quite the same manner.
In the medium term my guess is that the denomination will merge with the CofE, but what will this mean for individual congregations? The chapel closures will continue. The circuit system will collapse, because the most successful congregations won't need it, and the others will be too weak to argue for it effectively.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Interesting observations ...
However, I'm not so convinced in terms of Methodism. If the Methodist Church - as a denomination - ceased to exist in the UK would a kind of distinctive 'Methodist' spirituality continue?
I've read comments by Methodist ministers who believe it would ... I'm struggling to visualise how that might work and how that might look if there wasn't such a thing as the Methodist Church of Great Britain in denominational terms.
Well, the United Church of Canada has done well keeping up the Methodist Franchise in Canada for 90 years. There are still lots of ministers who really love John Wesley's ideas. One of my great-uncles (also a UCCan minister) used to be the curator at Hay Bay Church, the oldest Methodist church in Ontario, established 1792.
And the UCCan certainly did begin as a movement; our "fourth parent" was the Association of Local Union Churches, which had 250 congregations across Canada in 1925, which was particularly popular on the Prairies.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I wonder if there will ever be a 'United Church of England', or a 'United Church of the United Kingdom'? (However, the former would be ambiguous and awkward since we already have the CofE, and the latter just sounds rather ugly!)
A 'United Church of Great Britain' might be possible, since the churches of Northern Ireland probably wouldn't join. In all honesty, though, I don't think any likely union that didn't include the CofE would generate much interest in the country at large. In the mainstream media it would come across as a boring administrative matter, if the media covered the story at all.
As as for John Wesley, he's always a popular focus for scholarly attention. In a sense, such scholarship has no need for actual Methodists, though; just a few clergymen/women and other theologians who 'love John Wesley's ideas'.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I remember lots of Baptist ministers' tales about people they called 'Big Baptists' ... Baptist Trainfan will undoubtedly recognise the type.
I think you mean "Big B Baptists" ... and, although I've come across the term, I don't really know what it means!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think Chorister has also raised an interesting point about how Christians with a particular ethos or 'take' might go about trying to spread their 'leaven' as it were ...
... What you didn't hear about so much were the ministers who'd been exhausted trying to keep both sides on board or people who'd found themselves uncomfortable as the enthusiasts tried to foist their charismatic expression onto everyone else - whether they wanted it or not ...
Not just that, but also very Evangelical people who've found themselves in more liberal churches and then want everyone to jump to their tune straight away - yes, I know that too, and have found them exhausting too even though I have a lot of sympathy for their views.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I so suspect that things will become more 'gathered' and 'sectarian' - not in the perjorative sense - but in the sense of covenanted communities or 'intentional' communities of one form or other. It is possible to be in a 'sect' in sociological terms without being 'sectarian' in the perjorative and negative sense - just as it's possible to be narrowly sectarian within one of the wider and ostensibly broader historic Churches or denominations ...
I think that is already happening as (a) we have lost the "Christendom" model in Britain and Church is increasingly an intentional thing; (b) Christians are more mobile and can choose what church they wish to be part of rather than simply having to walk to the local shack; (c) consumerism, even within the Church, means that we will seek out what we want.
And that's as true in the CofE as elsewhere: how many folk don't go to their local Parish Church because it's not Evangelical enough, or doesn't do enough for the children, or isn't High enough, or doesn't have the "right" music (insert your choice here), isn't committed enough (or doesn't understand how busy I am) ... Of course, people may dress up their choices in high-flown spiritual language, but ultimately most of are saying, "I'm in this church because I like it more than its competitors".
That has huge implications for the denominations as the "local offering" is far more important to most folk nowadays than "maintaining brand loyalty" when they move to a new place.
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Mind you, the very phrase "The Church of England" seems to imply something, for those of us in other denominations.
With a more generous ecclesiology it need not imply a bad thing, though. I think of Dean Stanley's view that the "others" were "non-conforming members and ministers" of the National Church. Changes over the last 50 years mean that nowadays that would have to be widened to "occasionally conforming members and non-conforming ministers." Rather than pursue an institutional merger and run the risks of another jilting at the altar, it would be good for the powers that be in the C of E to humbly invite the Methodists to make their unique and much needed contribution more explicitly within the national church, and then allow such local fudges and adjustments as seem needed.
But the "place" of Baptists and Prebyterians within "the national church" is a tougher challenge! I often think that a unified clergy pension scheme would be a good practical start. After all, it is what has held the C of E (in the narrow sense) together.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Before the Government brought in pension reforms c.1990, membership of the Baptist pension scheme was a sine qua non for Accredited Ministers. It was said that you'd get on the list of such ministers irrespective of what you believed, so long as you were prepared to sign up to the pension scheme.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I would take 'Big B Baptist' rather like 'Big E Evangelical' or even 'Big M Methodist' or 'Big A Anglican' perhaps ...
It's the sort of thing that's difficult to define but noticeable when you see it ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Yes, I think the intentionality/consumerism thing has already kicked in ... it's a 'given' -- what I was thinking of was more along of the lines that Jengie appeared to be outlining ie, the emergence of more intentional forms of intentionality - if you like - where the ante is upped from 'I go to this church because I prefer the music here to what's available at the church down the road' - to a more obvious commitment to a particular ethos or spirituality ...
If I've understood Jengie correctly that is.
Currently, that sort of thing is just for the keenies - people who seek out a neo-monastic group, say, or who join one of the 'Third Orders' of religious orders such as the Franciscans say.
I think what Jengie is envisaging, at least for a season or a generation or so, is that these kind of more intentional or 'covenanted' communities will keep the flame burning until such time as it can be re-ignited or passed on elsewhere.
It's a view that has some appeal, but I'm not quite sure how it balances out with less full-on forms of church engagement.
Perhaps the less full-on forms are doomed to wither away as Christendom dissolves?
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Albertus:
quote:
I wouldn't call it a personal notion- more an identification with a certain kind of CofE/CinW culture and experience.
Wouldn't that fly in the face of agreed ecumenical statements of reformed churches as valid and truthful expressions of the church? I know the ecumenical movement and agreed statements haven't necessarily brought them all together as one unit, but it's a positive statement to my mind that wouldn't quite tally with what you are stating here.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
No, please read my post again: I explicitly said that it's NOT about thinking other churches aren't valid expressions of the church. But I'd see them, I suppose, as additional expressions of the church alongside the 'basic' model of the CofE/CinW.
[ 29. October 2015, 09:46: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I mean, of course, in an English / Welsh context. But anyway YMMV.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
My original point was not about how ecumenical denominations but what is the story they tell about themselves. In other words how they understand themselves rather than how they relate to others. To much of a discrepancy between that and the line taken in Ecumenical relationships is problematic but a degree of discrepancy is normal.
Jengie
[ 29. October 2015, 09:59: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
So why isn't the RCC the 'basic model' Albertus? It predates the CofE and CinW.
In some parts of the UK in the mid-1800s there were almost equal numbers of Anglicans and non-conformists. In many inner ity areas today, Anglicans would be in the minority.
Anyhow, I was thinking in broader terms with the OP than the Establishment issue and its ramifications - although these are pertinent considerations.
Meanwhile, I can see what SvitlanaV2 is getting at when she describes the Methodist Church as combining particular distinctives together in one place - but I wonder how sustainable that would be without the framework of the 'package' we call the Methodist Church?
Other than an interest in Wesley, I wonder what - if any - elements of the Methodist franchise survive in the Uniting Church of Canada beyond a tinge or flavour?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Because I see the CofE and CinW as being essentially the continuation, in England and Wales, of what the RCC was pre-Reformation. That is if anything an understatement of a fairly mainstream CofE/CinW position. To put it a little more strongly, the Church remained the same but it changed its relation to Rome. There is an enormous and undeniable amount of instituional continuity between the Church in England & Wales pre-reformation and the CofE and latterly CinW thereafter.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Nah, that's special pleading. The RCs don't see it that way.
I know it's a standard Anglican line but I'm not convinced it's any more tenable as a position than the Anabaptist idea that the early church looked like they do.
A more realistic (or more honest?) position would be to acknowledge the Anglican establishment for political or pragmatic reasons as the default option rather than trying to argue for some kind of continuity with the Pre-Reformation Church here in these islands.
Of course, that is our common ancestor but that's as far as it goes. Rome doesn't recognise Anglican orders.
We might say we prefer Canterbury to Rome - or Geneva or Constantinople or ...
But that's a different issue.
I'm in a cleft stick on this one.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Nah, that's special pleading. The RCs don't see it that way.
What does that have to do with anything? As a matter of historical fact, the C of E is the continuation of the pre-reformation church in England. The church continued with basically all the same priests, all the same churches, the same parish structure; just without Rome.
You can argue that the C of E is a bunch of breakaway heretics and that only those with allegiance to Rome form the One True Church, but whatever your theological position, you have to agree that on an organizational and structural level, the pre-reformation English church continues in the C of E.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well yes, a change of management but the personnel stayed the same. Hardly a management buy-out though.
I was simply making the observation that one man's continuation is another man's heretickal schism ...
As far as I can make out the RC take on this one varies - from 'they are almost like us only without the Pope' to 'they are schismatics and their orders are invalid'.
I'm not taking sides - simply observing that the issue of continuation/succession isn't nice and neat.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Nah, that's special pleading. The RCs don't see it that way.
What does that have to do with anything? As a matter of historical fact, the C of E is the continuation of the pre-reformation church in England. The church continued with basically all the same priests, all the same churches, the same parish structure; just without Rome.
You can argue that the C of E is a bunch of breakaway heretics and that only those with allegiance to Rome form the One True Church, but whatever your theological position, you have to agree that on an organizational and structural level, the pre-reformation English church continues in the C of E.
Quite right. And so what if tthe RCs don't see it that way? I'm not an RC, am I?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure - but the fact that somebody sees it differently is part of the point I was making ...
Oh, never mind ...
I'll get me coat ...
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure - but the fact that somebody sees it differently is part of the point I was making ...
There is scope for differing opinions on what is the proper successor body (or bodies) of the pre-reformation English church in terms of apostolic authority.
There is, however, no scope for differing opinions on what is the successor to the pre-reformation church in terms of organizational structure - it's the C of E, which along with all the priests and parishioners, inherited a set of attitudes and responsibilities to do with being "the" church.
The fact that Rome might view the C of E as a bunch of schismatic heretics staffed by non-priests affects their view of the first paragraph, but not the second.
Seeing the second point differently is as wrong as seeing the earth as flat.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Exactly so.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Other than an interest in Wesley, I wonder what - if any - elements of the Methodist franchise survive in the Uniting Church of Canada beyond a tinge or flavour?
Ahem. United. Oz is Uniting.
And since you ask, well, the Canadian Methodists were always a Low and plain lot, hymn sandwich all the way, so they were never very far from their partners to begin with.
And most of the UCCan's upper organization is a direct continuation of Methodist practices, while the mid and lower levels are Presbyterian in character.
But in general, the seams have healed too well, as a former Moderator said.
This silly dichotomy between Methodism and Presbyterianism is a silly foreign concept anyway.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, seeing that the Welsh Methodists were effectively Presbyterian, that holds to some extent, Sober Preacher's Kid (and apologies for getting my 'Unitings' mixed up - Australia and Canada ... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
But Wesleyanism in England wasn't Prebyterian ... although I can certainly see how that situation could and would change as soon as Methodism was exported elsewhere ...
Meanwhile, on the slight flurry of disagreement I've been having with Albertus and Leorning Cniht, I'm not suggesting for one moment that the persistence/continuation of the pre-Reformation parish system under new Anglican management doesn't represent some kind of physical continuation.
Of course it does. I don't know any RCs who would argue otherwise - they'd simply say that the Anglicans 'nicked' their parishes, plant and people ...
The point I was making was simply that whilst some would see that as an apt and appropriate and completely valid development - not everyone does ... least of all the RCs.
Ok, so it's an obvious point - is the Pope a Catholic?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... Meanwhile, on the slight flurry of disagreement I've been having with Albertus and Leorning Cniht, I'm not suggesting for one moment that the persistence/continuation of the pre-Reformation parish system under new Anglican management doesn't represent some kind of physical continuation.
Of course it does. I don't know any RCs who would argue otherwise - they'd simply say that the Anglicans 'nicked' their parishes, plant and people ...
The point I was making was simply that whilst some would see that as an apt and appropriate and completely valid development - not everyone does ... least of all the RCs.
Ok, so it's an obvious point - is the Pope a Catholic?
This argument has been around for a long time, and I suspect will continue to be. But at the core of it is whether one thinks obeying the Pope is of the esse of the Church (RCs), of the bene esse, Anglo Catholics, or historically interesting but of low priority, most of the rest. If you're in the first category, then the fact that it's the CofE and CinW that are clearly the institutional descendants of David, Aidan, Bede etc. is a theological delusion. If you're not in the first category, the argument that the CofE and CinW "'nicked' their parishes, plant and people" is sour grapes.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Again, dead right. And quite honestly when it comes down to it I don't give a flying proverbial what the Pope thinks the CofE/CinW are. As 'the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm' it simply doesn't matter to me. I know what I think the CofE/CinW are and that'll do me, thank you.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You're beginning to sound like a Big A Anglican ...
Whatever the CofE / CinW are, they are both sadly in decline. The latest figures make scary reading.
It's easy to say that the 'Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England' and can piss off or that non-conformists are all very well and good but they aren't really like us, are they?
But when push comes to shove we're all struggling at the moment, whatever label we attach to ourselves.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
But on one level they (Protestant non-conformists) aren't really like us, are they? That's the point of them. What they are (there may be some I'd think were exceptions but I can't think of any at the moment and anyway it's none of my business to say it) is different manifestations of 'the church'.
Certainly, 'all hands to the pumps' at the moment. Tho' note that here in Wales, for structural and ecclesiological reasons, the CinW seems to be responding to decline with a bit more resilience.
[ 30. October 2015, 13:39: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Cathedral worship figures, however, make for slightly cheerier reading - is this the first hint of an interest in 'intentional' communities worshipping together? Traditionally cathedrals had religious attached to them in some way...perhaps this will return in some form?
We already have smaller-scale examples, eg Moot being based at St Mary Aldermary in the City.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But on one level they (Protestant non-conformists) aren't really like us, are they? That's the point of them. What they are (there may be some I'd think were exceptions but I can't think of any at the moment and anyway it's none of my business to say it) is different manifestations of 'the church'.
Certainly, 'all hands to the pumps' at the moment. Tho' note that here in Wales, for structural and ecclesiological reasons, the CinW seems to be responding to decline with a bit more resilience.
Lutherans, albeit not really existing here, are probably the most like us.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Oh yes. But as you say there are hardly any of them here.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Cathedral worship figures, however, make for slightly cheerier reading - is this the first hint of an interest in 'intentional' communities worshipping together?
Well, the cathedral figures are going up by much smaller numerical increments than general parish attendance (and probably increasing at its expense).
It's also unclear whether cathedral attendance is generationally contingent or not.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Albertus
What you are mistaking is the English radical reformations* understanding for that of the continental magisterial. The CofE as did the CofS adopted the magisterial one.
If I am being crude then
Roman Catholic - context= World - Pope decides
Magisterial - context= country - Prince/Crown decides
Radical - context=congregation - either minister or worshippers collectively decide.
Jengie
This is trying to adapt the differentiation made by Geoffrey Nuttal in dealing with Puritans. The English radicals do not necessarily map onto the continental radicals. They were more theologically diverse and tended to be congregational in terms of context.
[ 30. October 2015, 17:05: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
It would be good for the powers that be in the C of E to humbly invite the Methodists to make their unique and much needed contribution more explicitly within the national church, and then allow such local fudges and adjustments as seem needed.
But the "place" of Baptists and Prebyterians within "the national church" is a tougher challenge! I often think that a unified clergy pension scheme would be a good practical start. After all, it is what has held the C of E (in the narrow sense) together.
But why would the Baptists want to be within the national church? What would they gain? Why do their ministers need to be in the same pension scheme as CofE vicars?
The Methodist-CofE union might be presented as a virtue, and I'm sure in many ways it will be, but above all it's a necessity for the Methodists, as they have few other long-term options. The Baptists aren't in the same position.
As for the 'Presbyterians', it's interesting that we never hear much about the URC merging with anybody, except on a strictly local basis. They face almost the same issues that the Methodists do, but perhaps they have a different long term plan?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Tell it not in Gath, but I have heard some moot an eventual CofE /Methodist/URC merger.
The URC doesn't seem in any healthier a position than the Methodists ... or the Anglicans.
As far as the CinW goes, I hear mixed reports - that it is resisting decline in rural areas rather better than the non-conformists - that it is on the verge of collapse ... that it ...
My brother lives in a sizeable Glamorganshire village and the parish church only has 8 regulars. There's a "united" non-conformist chapel which seems to have discussions rather than services as such and which gets around 20 or 30 people from a wide area - hardly any of them from the village itself - mostly people who find their local chapels too conservative.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
United Reformed Church has got bored with waiting for others to be ready for talks about mergers.
We have contributed to every substantive merger talks in the last forty years. The only reason the Anglican Methodist talks did not include us was because we were kept out.
The last merger was only in 2000 when we joined with the Scottish Congregationalists.
Svitlana perhaps you do not hear because it ain't news. We have continually sought greater unity at a denominational level but has met with little welcome from others including Methodists who are far happier chasing the CofE.
Oh your claim for Methodist distinctives we have a better track record than you on almost all of them as well.
Jengie
[ 30. October 2015, 18:36: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
For those who want to know how things look from a URC perspective. The URC was created in 1972 the road map said that very soon the Methodist and Anglicans would merge and then there would be talks between the URC and the new denomination. The Methodist Anglican talks failed We were born to die as a stage in the Ecumenical process and the coming to terms with surviving has been part of the struggle within the URC.
Then in the early eighties there was talk of covenanting. We voted for often with much misgiving but hoping this would lead to further unity. The Anglicans voted against. However we did manage to merge with the Reformed Association of the Churches of Christ in 1981.
In the 1990s we were involved in both SCIFU and talks with the Scottish Congregationalists. We merged with Scottish Congregationalist in 2000.
We have since been party to the united church talks in Wales and also after raising a stink on being excluded allowed into talks on the Methodist-Anglican Covenant.
Our attitude is that CofE, the CofS and the RCC have the attitude at the moment that they will all be the last standing so need to worry about the rest.
I prefer tidy institutional dissolution to further institutional merger. Institutional merger takes energy that should be spent elsewhere! I say that unlike Svitlana as someone who has experienced it.
Jengie
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Oooh, the URCs are more 'Methodist' than the Methodists ... who knew?
Actually, I do sympathise. The URC have done a lot of the running in ecumenical terms only to have been cold-shouldered o a number of occasions.
Trouble is, however distinctive they might feel they are - and they might well be for all I know - that's not the way they tend to be perceived by everyone else. We've all heard the jibes - 'neither United nor Reformed', 'the marriage of two coffins' and so on - grossly unfair of course.
I must admit, I've been impressed with the URC ministers I've come across but I find their services spectacularly bland - less gusto than Methodism and little sense of the vatic, the aesthetic or the numinous. You do get a nice sense of something worthy and wholesome, democratic and concerned ...
When I compare the Methodist and URC churches here, a merger seems the obvious thing to aim for.
I do know a former 'new church' couple who are very happy in their local URC - which has a very wise and lovely minister - a real credit. One of the things they like is that they're left alone, without anyone asking questions about their spiritual lives all the time.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
United Reformed Church has got bored with waiting for others to be ready for talks about mergers.
We have contributed to every substantive merger talks in the last forty years. The only reason the Anglican Methodist talks did not include us was because we were kept out.
The last merger was only in 2000 when we joined with the Scottish Congregationalists.
Svitlana perhaps you do not hear because it ain't news. We have continually sought greater unity at a denominational level but has met with little welcome from others including Methodists who are far happier chasing the CofE.
Thanks for the above, and for your following post. Very instructive.
quote:
Oh your claim for Methodist distinctives we have a better track record than you on almost all of them as well.
Fighting talk, eh? But it clarifies something that occurred to me the other day - that the Methodists and the URC are too similar, that they're competing for the same small niche, and for the same kind of distinctive identity. This is perhaps why they find it hard to make common cause on a denominational level. (I'm also aware of some URC/Methodist conflict at a local level, but that was really before my time. It'd be interesting to talk to an elderly URC person who was in the thick of things then.)
And as for Methodists chasing after the CofE - you're quite right on that. I think it's partly a class thing. IMO Methodists have a certain lower middle class nervousness about any threat to their respectable image. Apart from the heritage thing (i.e. the Wesleys being Anglican), cuddling up to the CofE is a way for the Methodist Church to bask in some of that reflected respectable glory. There seems to be some comfort in that....
quote:
I prefer tidy institutional dissolution to further institutional merger. Institutional merger takes energy that should be spent elsewhere! I say that unlike Svitlana as someone who has experienced it.
You seem to think that I'm full of praise for denominational mergers. That's not really the case. I said that the Methodist Church had 'few other options', not that it had no other options. However, I find it hard to imagine Methodists pursuing a radical course of action on their own, in which case the proactive step of merging with the CofE seems preferable to just drifting along and sputtering out in 2031 or 2045, or whenever. But if there's energy to be spent elsewhere let the Holy Spirit do its work, certainly! At grassroots level I don't think talk of a denominational merger can be blamed for a failure to evangelise, etc. Most ordinary Methodists don't spend enough time thinking about merging with the CofE for that to be any sort of excuse.
FWIW, I think Methodism as an active identity and tradition claimed by individual Christians would continue to decline following a merger with the CofE. Indeed, I'm well aware that denominations usually continue declining after merging. This has been the case for the URC, and also for British Methodism after the Union of 1933.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Indeed, I'm well aware that denominations usually continue declining after merging.
Generally because decline is one impetus for merger.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm less convinced that it's a class thing, although that may come into it to a certain extent. It's probably as much to do with perceived 'reach' and ubiquity.
I daresay the class thing depends on where you are - I don't see any substantial class differences between Anglicans and Methodists hereabouts - nor where I used to live in Yorkshire - but there are class differences between them and the Pentecostals.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
It's likely to vary depending on the different historical and social circumstances from place to place, and different levels of participation in church life. Where you are is likely to be very different from where I am. But studies do show subtle social differences between various Christian faith traditions in England overall.
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I often think that a unified clergy pension scheme would be a good practical start. After all, it is what has held the C of E (in the narrow sense) together.
But why would the Baptists want to be within the national church? What would they gain? Why do their ministers need to be in the same pension scheme as CofE vicars?
With Dean Stanley I think they are within the national church. And I think that's a better starting place to sort out a 21st century way to live together.
A shared pension scheme would recognise that at least in part C of E pensions rely on the historic endowments of the National Church which perhaps ought not to belong to just one section of it.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I find their services spectacularly bland - less gusto than Methodism and little sense of the vatic, the aesthetic or the numinous. You do get a nice sense of something worthy and wholesome, democratic and concerned ...
We might introduce a sense of the vatic if we knew what it was .... ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I often think that a unified clergy pension scheme would be a good practical start. After all, it is what has held the C of E (in the narrow sense) together.
But why would the Baptists want to be within the national church? What would they gain? Why do their ministers need to be in the same pension scheme as CofE vicars?
With Dean Stanley I think they are within the national church. And I think that's a better starting place to sort out a 21st century way to live together.
A shared pension scheme would recognise that at least in part C of E pensions rely on the historic endowments of the National Church which perhaps ought not to belong to just one section of it.
What, even to those who have wilfully separated themselves from it?
Let's talk about a United/Uniting Church by all means. But for a lot of Anglicans effectively partially disendowing the CofE would not be a good place to start from.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
If you had to knowingly introduce a sense of the vatic then you'd be missing the point ...
I'm sorry, I don't wish to insult anyone but as much as I will rail against the more manipulative forms of happy-clappy worship on the one hand and wax more lyrical about certain contemplative or sacramental forms than they probably deserve ... I do find MoTR hymn-prayer-sandwich style services immeasurably dull.
They're like a lecture with hymns.
At the last URC service I attended the minister had written his own communion liturgy which struck me as spectacularly unnecessary when there are already so many to choose from ...
It contained some clever turns of phrase - and also some questionable theology (or at least, questionable expressions of what might have been fairly standard theology) - 'Because the God in Jesus is the God in us' - type of thing. Well, yee-ees ... but back up a bit ... are we talking Adoptionism here?
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
I couldn't quite see the point. There was also an embarrassing Dad-Dancing moment when the minister put on a recording of some execrable 1970s Disco style version of 'Lord of the Dance' which he'd heard at a recent URC conference. The preamble and apologies/caveat in advance, you might not like it but ... went on longer than the musical item itself - which was mercifully short - albeit accompanied by some stylised thigh-slapping and on-the-spot hardly moving at all dancing by one or two of the congregation who clearly wanted to get with the programme ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Fortunately, the rest of the service was fine - including the way they received someone into membership and extended them the right-hand of friendship in a way that seemed to have as many caveats, sub-clauses and officialdom attached to it as the endowing of British citizenship ...
On the class thing - yes, SvitlanaV2, there are indeed subtle class distinctions across the denominations in the UK - and I was particularly aware of that growing up in South Wales.
Where I am now, there isn't really a great deal of subtle class distinction between the evangelical Anglican parish, the Methodists and the URCs. They are all pretty similar demographically in socio-economic terms - although the evangelical Anglicans have more young people.
The liberal-catholic Anglican parish has a largely older congregation (although the 9am service at the evangelical one tends to be older too) and they're probably also more homogeneous than the others when it comes to social-class ... old established families, as it were, plus retired professionals.
The RCs are pretty mixed and the Pentecostals largely working-class/lower middle class ... which is what they tend to be across the board I've found - other than in inner-city areas where they're much more working class of course.
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
What, even to those who have wilfully separated themselves from it? [/QB]
Just two remarks.
Most of the wilfulness belongs to forefathers and mothers long since departed; we are where history has brought us.
And in the case of the Presbyterians, at least, it would perhaps be fairer to say that the C of E split when they were "ejected".
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
With Dean Stanley I think the [the Baptists] are within the national church. And I think that's a better starting place to sort out a 21st century way to live together.
A shared pension scheme would recognise that at least in part C of E pensions rely on the historic endowments of the National Church which perhaps ought not to belong to just one section of it.
From what you're saying this 'national church' idea could give the impression that the CofE somehow 'owns' all the other churches, and also that it treats its clergy better than the alternatives. All it needs to do, then, is get the other denominations to acknowledge these facts and then fall into line. It's a bit patronising, tbh....
The other possible argument against it is that church mergers and unions are a rather old-fashioned answer to denominational problems, and that the local church of the future will require looser affiliations to institutions rather than increasingly centralised structures.
I mean - pensions! If the community of faith is in any way representative of the society of the future then many of its members won't have pensions at all. They'll have to cobble together new ways of funding their old age. I understand that the CofE can't run its ship this way, but to suggest that all clergy everywhere have to be formally protected from the financial problems facing their members will be unacceptable in some quarters.
[ 31. October 2015, 13:52: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Not to say impractical.
Baptist Trainfan will know more than I do, but back in the day I've heard it was often the custom to purchase property for Baptist ministers to live in which could eventually be sold in order to provide for their old age. I'm not sure how that worked in practice or how feasible it was.
The CofE used to rely heavily on investments in order to fund its pension pot - but it famously lost out heavily on some of those a good few years back.
In a number of non-established churches there are still 'tent-maker' ministries as it were - clergy/ministers supporting themselves in secular employment. This happens across many Pentecostal and independent evangelical churches as well as across the Orthodox diaspora in the West. There are also RC 'worker priests' and I was privileged to meet one of these recently.
I was leafletting the other day for a ward by-election north of here and bumped into an independent evangelical pastor I was aware of who runs his own roofing and guttering business. He was working on a house I leafletted and we had an excellent chat.
I don't know how these things work out across the board. One of the Anglican clergy in this town is 0.75 of a post here and 0.25 somewhere else. As I've mentioned, my brother's local parish church in South Wales has 8 regulars and one full-time incumbent - who receives very little support, it seems from her mentor and local ecclesiastical structures.
I don't know what she does all day long - apart from mither about how she can work with the little old ladies who block her every move (she's evangelical, they aren't) and presumably head towards a nervous breakdown or ministerial fall-out ...
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The RCs are pretty mixed and the Pentecostals largely working-class/lower middle class ... which is what they tend to be across the board I've found - other than in inner-city areas where they're much more working class of course.
I wonder about inner city Pentecostalism. Black majority Pentecostal churches are common in cities, but the churches of Caribbean provenance are becoming less working class over time. Some studies suggest that these churches have been losing the least financially successful parts of the black community. Many church members no longer live in the vicinity of their churches as they get better jobs and move into smarter areas.
The African Pentecostal churches are growing as a result of more recent immigration, which suggests a younger and less well-off constituency. OTOH, I think these churches are very encouraging of educational and professional success.
Anyway, from a city perspective it'll be interesting to see whether any of these churches will find it advantageous to lose their 'isms'. The (largely white) Elim Pentecostal Church chose to drop the 'Pentecostal' label, perhaps in imitation of the charismatics whom you mentioned in your first post. However, many Pentecostal churches have never had the word 'Pentecostal' in their denominational name anyway, yet seem to be attached to the idea of 'Pentecostalism'.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I wonder about inner city Pentecostalism. Black majority Pentecostal churches are common in cities, but the churches of Caribbean provenance are becoming less working class over time. Some studies suggest that these churches have been losing the least financially successful parts of the black community. Many church members no longer live in the vicinity of their churches as they get better jobs and move into smarter areas. ...
Isn't that just history repeating itself? It's how the Methodists are supposed to have become so middle class. The faithful have steadier living habits and so tend to progress up the social ladder.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I agree.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At the last URC service I attended the minister had written his own communion liturgy which struck me as spectacularly unnecessary when there are already so many to choose from ...
It contained some clever turns of phrase - and also some questionable theology (or at least, questionable expressions of what might have been fairly standard theology) - 'Because the God in Jesus is the God in us' - type of thing. Well, yee-ees ... but back up a bit ... are we talking Adoptionism here?
Then of course it is just that he is doing what the tradition requires. Indeed I do not think I have ever been to a URC communion service where the minister has not written the liturgy to some extent. If you have then I suspect it just shows how good liturgists they are.
The fact that it is close to heretical would be a matter for certain members of the congregation to point out to him as kindly as possible and explain why.
Jengie
[ 31. October 2015, 20:29: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Isn't that just history repeating itself? It's how the Methodists are supposed to have become so middle class. The faithful have steadier living habits and so tend to progress up the social ladder.
I have heard that John Wesley was concerned about this. If people stopped spending their money on alcohol and similar things, they would become more prosperous than their neighbors who kept their old lifestyle.
Moo
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've heard URC ministers preach and teach in ecumenical contexts, but have only attended two URC services - one was the one I described - t'other was in a tiny village chapel when the minister wasn't present and one of the elders led the service. Rgwy has set prayers on hand-outs but I don't know who'd written them. I presume the minister from what you've said here. It's a long time ago and I don't remember all the details but there was one prayer where there was a sung 'Amen' - whereas there wasn't on any of the others - I've no idea why.
One URC minister I knew didva pulpit-share exercise with her local Anglicans and came away envious that it was all written down for her and all she had to do was 'go by the book' ...
Why would anyone want to do otherwise?
I'd have deplored that at one time but the older I get the more sense it makes. Just give it me out of the book, I'm not interested in people reinventing the wheel and not putting the tyres on properly or bending the spokes.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
'Rgwy'? What was I typing there? It's not tongues and it's not Welsh ...
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Gamaliel
After all these years of trying to tell us what we believe you own up to not knowing a thing about our worship tradition!
I am going to quote from the introduction to Reformed Worship: English Reformed Principles and Practice. It is the most recent book on learned essays in the area. It is long I am sorry but I would rather not try and write this out for myself.
quote:
The generalisation that the Scriptures shaoe the content of Reformed worship to a substantial extent still holds today ...Reformed worshippers have taken the apostle Paul's exhortation to the church at Corinth that their worship should proceed "...decently and in order" as a maxim. Reformed worship is ordered worship. This is not to suggest that ist sequence is always the same - though often it is - it is to sa that in Reformed worship certain essential elements will always be present. The scriptures will be read and preached; praise and prayer will be offered; money will be collected for particular needs; the common life of the fellowship will be renewed and the Lord's Supper, even when not celebrated, sounds its dominant note of thanksgiving.
Within this order there is much scope for the second mark of Reformed worship: freedom. Reformed worshippers have taken as a maxim another of the apostle'f reflections "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" Reformed worshippers have not strictly adhered to a standard written liturgy or prayer book. This is because the Reformed believe that worshippers and presiders at worship should be free to respond to the leading of the Holy Spirit. In saying this, however we would not wish to give the impression that spontaneity predominates. Rather, it means that Reformed leaders of worship are free to prepare and use newly-composed prayers and liturgies for each act of worship, often shaped by the theme of the sermon, which is itself shaped by the scriptural message
The "Reformed" in this case is not simply URC, there are many Baptists, Congregationalists and Presbyterians who would hold to similar notions of "scriptural", "ordered" and "freedom" though with differing balances. I can lay hands easily on a number of texts that say similar things from other settings. They are not arguing for it, they are laying out context for the essays to come.
Jengie
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I have heard that John Wesley was concerned about this. If people stopped spending their money on alcohol and similar things, they would become more prosperous than their neighbors who kept their old lifestyle.
There was an academic - whose name slips my mind - who wrote a book about this phenomena which he termed 'Lift'. One of the problems he explored was the issue of people moving away from inner-city parishes/churches in London. A concern that must almost sound quaint these days.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Gamaliel
After all these years of trying to tell us what we believe you own up to not knowing a thing about our worship tradition!
Jengie
Such calumny!
I have never tried to tell you guys what you believe ... I have ribbed you all gently at some times but that's as far as it goes.
As it happens, I've been a member of a Baptist church and have attended others and am pretty familiar with non-conformist churches in general.
The non-conformist body I'm least familiar with - and I've never pretended otherwise - is the URC. I've known 3 or 4 URC ministers reasonably well in my time but only ever attended two services - and I've spoken as I've found - I can't say I was terribly impressed on the last occasion but the first was ok ...
So, yes, I'm very familiar with extemporary prayer (from my restorationist 'new church' days and my Baptist days) and with the way Baptist churches conduct their communion services and church-meetings and much else besides.
What I've also said is how impressed I've been by the 3 or 4 URC ministers I've known - they've all been cracking people and know their stuff.
Whatever the case, I seem to remember you telling other people how reformed or otherwise they are and dotting their i's and crossing their t's when it comes to their particular traditions. I'm not saying you're right or wrong in doing that ... but can't see why I shouldn't express an opinion based on what I've seen.
Teasing aside, I've always acknowledged I don't know a great deal about the URC worship tradition - but skimming through the quote you provided I didn't see anything that took me by surprise.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
To clarify, I'm not sure I was aware that URC ministers were expected to write/craft the liturgy for the communion service until recently. I'm not sure what I thought - I imagined they might have a broadly 'set' form and then improvised or extemporised around that - or perhaps they had a suggested form as is found in some Baptist hymn-books - or a more structured one like the Methodists.
I'm not sure the first URC service I mentioned included communion. I'd have to check (I Mystery Worshipped it as it happened but it'd be well buried in the archives by now) ...
I did give it a good write-up because I liked them - and I had a cordial exchange of letters (it was still letters back then) with the minister later on after the piece appeared. I seem to remember she may even have been interviewed about it on her local radio station. This was years and years ago ...
It's none of my business but I don't really have an issue with them crafting or writing their own communion liturgies each time - but it does seem rather unnecessary seeing as there are already plenty of perfectly adequate ones to choose from.
How many variations can there be on a communion liturgy for goodness sake?
I used to wonder that when I was in a Baptist church. We only had communion once a month and the house-groups took it in turns to prepare and deliver the service. I quite enjoyed the freedom and flexibility of that but after a while we found we'd simply pinch bits and pieces out of existing liturgies - the Anglican communion service and even on one occasion (which no-one noticed) by pinching a passage or two from the Roman Missal.
I've 'broken bread' very informally in a number of different settings - Brethren, charismatic 'new church', Baptist ... and whilst I can well understand the attraction of that I do wonder how many variations there can possibly be on a theme.
I'm sure most URC ministers don't strive for originality every single time. Or perhaps they do. Perhaps I ought to visit their services more often in order to find out.
FWIW the one our local URC minister had written seemed to go on longer than necessary (although that's true of a number of liturgies) and although it contained some memorable flourishes and turns of phrase, I couldn't quite see the point of it.
Sorry. He's a top bloke though.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How many variations can there be on a communion liturgy for goodness sake?
Lots. As someone who was brought up on Rite A of the ASB 1980, my whole adult life has been a surprise of how many different ways there are to do Anglican liturgies.
Making up your own sounds quite hard, but a worthwhile thing to do, I'm thinking.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Gamaliel
Get this. The thing you did not get is the one thing most people know of Nonconformist worship, the precious "freedom in worship".
It is not about doing something novel, it is about the primacy of the interaction with scripture within worship. That interaction does not just mean that scripture is included in worship, it means that scripture forms worship. You, therefore, cannot have a set form because if the interaction with scripture suggest otherwise you are bound to follow that. You start with scripture and all else in worship subservient to that.
Jengie
[ 02. November 2015, 08:54: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
The URC is general is more formal and liturgical than Baptists (as a rule, there are of course exceptions on both sides). Baptists tend not to use any Communion "liturgy" at all, it tends to be extempore although with the "words of institution" always used and, often, one or two Deacons leading in prayer before the elements are shared (which is the closest you'll get to an epiclesis!) Of course there are good formal liturgies available but hardly anyone uses them.
The URC has formal liturgies in its "prayer book" - lots of them! - but it's up to each minister/presider to do what they want. I suspect many are like me and tend to mix and match, tailoring things for the occasion; or hunting the Internet for the appropriate settings. I'm sure Jengie is right in what she has said.
There is a "reactionary" strain among some (?older) ministers, to do things "properly" (see "Shaping Up" by Ernest Marvin); in my opinion this is a reactionary dead-end and may not be widespread. Others I am sure have taken liturgies from more reflective traditions.
[ 02. November 2015, 08:58: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
(Cross-posted with Jengie's last post)
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
A Baptist friend of mine (I'm also a Baptist) wrote that communion is a lovers' tryst, and you don't take a book when you go to meet the one you love. Over many years I have kept recalling this quaint saying, because I've found it feels right. I go to the communion table with an internalised sense of liturgy - epiklesis, anamnesis and the rest - with a theological understanding (or eight) of the meal, some awareness of the pastoral needs of church and people, and full of the import of the divine human encounter that has just happened in the breaking of the Word: and then I 'make it up', I extemporise, I find the words that will come.
I mention this, because if you ask for denominational distinctives and think about printed and agreed liturgies, you might miss the Baptist point, which isn't about the actual words, but the 'feel' of it. In my case, the new-minted feel, the flexibility, the responsiveness, the mindfulness and openness of communion.
I suspect this is true of all denominational distinctives. They are impossible to analyse in each other's terms.
To take another example, when I go to an RC service, although it is 'higher' than the Anglican ones I am more familiar with, it is curiously demotic. It lacks the self-regarding grandness of much Anglicanism. What's that about? How do the RCs manage to feel more egalitarian, less posh, less solemn than the C of E? I don't know, but it seems to me that they do. There's a bustle about a RC church; something that is hard to describe, but I believe matters more than theology, doctrine or liturgy. It might explain why in ecumenical discussions, Baptists and Catholics have often felt comfortable with each other.
Or, to take another example, the Baptist church where I worship is embarking on a partnership with the local Methodists. It looks as though the biggest factor in that will not be theology or liturgy, but the fact that everything in Methodist life is discussed, booked and fixed months and years ahead. There are procedures and systems that are all sensible, perfectly intelligible, and even reasonable, but which are alien to the Baptist way. Methodists are well named.
So style or intention or self-image, call it what you will, is a big part of denominational essence. And it's very hard to see how to share it. With our Methodist partners I feel like saying I don't care what we do, I don't mind about compromises or changes, but let's decide at least some things the week before. And they would think that was nuts.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
There's a bustle about a RC church; something that is hard to describe, but I believe matters more than theology, doctrine or liturgy. It might explain why in ecumenical discussions, Baptists and Catholics have often felt comfortable with each other.
Yes, I've found that. We're both fairly matter-of-fact and pragmatic in worship; we are also both regarded by the CofE as "old Nonconformists", albeit of very different strains (and, for some, validities).
quote:
There are procedures and systems that are all sensible, perfectly intelligible, and even reasonable, but which are alien to the Baptist way. Methodists are well named.
Yes, although the word "Methodist" predates Methodism as a denomination - it was used as a term of opprobrium against Wesley and his Holy Club associates at Oxford. But I expect you know that.
quote:
So style or intention or self-image, call it what you will, is a big part of denominational essence. And it's very hard to see how to share it.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. But it's a hard thing to define: the URC has ben going through a process of trying to decide what makes it distinctive, but it's finding it almost impossible.
[ 02. November 2015, 10:03: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Actually my main concern, if the URC melds with the Methodist, is that we get the URC manual! Even though it has grown substantially over the years it is still a lighter weight volume than the Methodist equivalent. There is a case that they actually serve different purposes.
My nightmare is a URC eldership with Methodist Handbook. That would be bureaucracy rampant.
Jengie
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I do 'get' it, Jengie. As Wordsworth wrote, 'Souls who have felt too much liberty welcome form.'
I'm not saying the URC inhabit formless roller-coaster liturgical land -- few churches do. I'm sure I'd be very impressed by the liturgical efforts of many URC ministers. I wasn't on this occasion but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be on another occasion.
Relax. I can see the point of variations but not variation for variations sake or simply to demonstrate how 'free' or semper reformanda one considers oneself to be.
I agree with hatless and Baptist Trainfan that RC services can be more demotic and feel less 'contrived' than certain Anglican ones too as it happens.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Actually my main concern, if the URC melds with the Methodist, is that we get the URC manual! Even though it has grown substantially over the years it is still a lighter weight volume than the Methodist equivalent. There is a case that they actually serve different purposes.
My nightmare is a URC eldership with Methodist Handbook. That would be bureaucracy rampant.
Jengie
Have you seen the United Church of Canada's travesty of a Manual? Recently revised in full, for the first time since 1925, with zero historical memory.
King Josiah had nothing on us!
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0