Ship of Fools: Denominations and class

Thread: Denominations and class 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=029603

Posted by Lord Clonk (# 13205) on :

It is a frustration that Quakers seem to be pretty middle class from what I am aware. What about other denominations?

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Lord Clonk:
Could you, or somebody, please define middle class in sufficient details to enable me to decide whether a person is middle class?

E.g. me. I always like to think of myself as working class, but others may not agree. How should I determine this important issue?

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

We could use The Great British class calculator as a definition.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Broadly, I'd suggest that most denominations in the UK are middle-class ... and that even traditionally working class groups like the Pentecostals are less working class than they used to be ...

The only exceptions, it seems to me, are migrant churches in the large cities - African churches and the like.

How would we classify Gypsy Pentecostal churches though? They're sort of 'outside' conventional society to an extent ...

I'm not so sure the class thing is as stratified as it used to be but when I was growing up in South Wales you could have categorised the various churches in sociological terms as follows:

1. Church in Wales (Anglican) - predominantly middle-class and quite 'Anglo'.

2. Methodists - largely middle-class, but 'new money' not 'old'.

3. Baptists/Salvationists/independent evangelicals - predominantly middle-class by that time but with roots in lower middle-class/working class social strata - and still some working class members and converts.

4. Pentecostals - largely working class but moving more towards 3.

5. Roman Catholics - predominantly working class and Irish with some Polish and Italian families. One or two posher Catholic families.

Posted by Lord Clonk (# 13205) on :

*shrugs, gesturing vaguely at something in the distance that presumably has a satisfactory answer*

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Why is it a 'frustration'? The Quakers were less and less likely to be from the lower classes from the late 17th c. onwards, so it's not a new thing. Their meeting houses are mostly in middle class areas as well. (I've noticed that their buildings in more humble areas are likely to be rented by other organisations, but I suppose the majority of them have already been demolished.)

Churchgoing is a mostly middle class business in the UK these days. That's what we'd expect in terms of church-sect theory. But different denominations have a slightly different class mixture.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

We have family portraits and hunting trophies, but we didn't inherit our silver. I'm told that makes us middle class? According to a recent test on the BBC website we are firmly 'Traditional Working Class'.....

I believe Church of England clergy were traditionally classed as social Class A, so my wife moved up two classes when she said 'I will' at the altar. Presumably on retirement I tumbled from Class A to Class E in one moment.

It's all a bit arbitrary, and bonkers in a terribly English kind of way......

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Broadly, I'd suggest that most denominations in the UK are middle-class ... and that even traditionally working class groups like the Pentecostals are less working class than they used to be ...

The only exceptions, it seems to me, are migrant churches in the large cities - African churches and the like.

Even the African churches are probably more likely to involve and retain the most upwardly mobile members of the community. This was the case for the Caribbean Pentecostal churches before them.

I find it hard to imagine that it would be different for the other migrant churches.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
It is a frustration that Quakers seem to be pretty middle class from what I am aware. What about other denominations?

I'm with Svitlana in wondering why this is a source of frustration. (Although cross-pond differences in the use of term "middle class" may have something to do with it).

One could, I suppose, reasonably be concerned that your church/denomination wasn't doing more to reach out to lower-income persons. But making that a goal might have some bad fruit, where folks have to pass some doctrinal purity test or sit through (often schmaltzy, poorly given) evangelistic messages in order to get aid.

It would be interesting to see if there's any studies to support the ecclesiastical legends that religious conversion leads to increase in socio-economic standing among the poor, which could be another explanation-- if true. Even better would be if religious conversion led to demotion of socio-economic class among the wealthy because they gave so much of their $$ away.

Posted by Lord Clonk (# 13205) on :

It is frustrating because it's pretty ominous. Something that appeals predominantly to the middle classes seems like it runs the danger of, like, not being very challenging towards people's relation to their money and possessions.

I am also curious to know whether people think that other denominations tend to look down more on denominations that are more working class than ones which are predominantly middle class.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I've never quite understood the British distinction between Working Class and Middle Class. OTOH in the States, class is largely a mere function of income/wealth.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've never quite understood the British distinction between Working Class and Middle Class. OTOH in the States, class is largely a mere function of income/wealth.

Class is a very British thing. At the extreme for example the aristocracy may be divided into those who have the land (which may be a county or two) and those who do not. Those who do will often have an enormous country house, the land to provide a income to keep the house and more besides and possibly some more properties. Those who are not "landed" may, if they are lucky, have an allowance from their landed relation plus a more modest house. They will still have a title (usually "Hon"ourable), but a pretty junior man in the City will have more property and a higher income.

Yes, that's it. Titles and family.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Lord Clonk

Interestingly, I think mainstream, moderate churches are often quite uneasy with the concept of 'wealth'. They don't promote wealth acquisition as a 'good thing' in itself. They're often into promoting justice for the poor, raising money for underprivileged people abroad, etc.

In modern Methodism (and also in Quakerism, I believe), there's a closer connection with the caring professions than with industry, trade, commerce, etc. The problem is that though these churches are for the poor, they're not usually of the poor.

The reasons for this are cultural and sociological, and it would be hard to change the class make-up of these churches without causing a considerable disruption to church culture. The process would also require a lot of work and probably money, and many mainstream congregations have limited resources and manpower.

Regarding snobbing attitudes from the more mainstream, middle class British churches, I think this used to be a bigger problem, but these churches are more humble now because they know they face serious challenges themselves. Also, many of the 'poorer' churches are now developing habits that are drawing them closer to the mainstream; e.g. their clergy are getting more education, and ecumenicalism is bringing out shared agendas. Ethnic Pentecostal churches used to be a bit beyond the pale, but inner city CofE vicars now approve of their 'vibrancy', and declare that there's no competition between them. Disapproval is more likely to be voiced in relation another church's theology. This is my experience, anyway.

I also suspect that increasing social segregation means that poor churches and rich churches are less likely to be in physical proximity anyway, so they might not have to deal with each other very much. It's more likely to be a case of growing churches in proximity to struggling churches. The difference between the two might have little to do with the social background of the church leaders.

[ 19. December 2015, 18:57: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

'snobbish attitudes'

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Well according to the Class Calculator I'm Elite!!
[Razz]

But it didn't ask the really important questions like what your favourite TV sitcoms are (any Peter Kay, Royle Family).

Or whether you have been reliant, all your life on your own work, which is what I thought defined working class.

I think we are going the American Way and Middle Class more or less equals fairly prosperous.

Maybe my assumed working class persona is a fraud. But if you polled by Dearly Beloved I don't think Elite would be first to mind.

BTW I'm Anglican. JWs are probably one of the most working class denominations in the UK. So you could always . . .

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:
...
I believe Church of England clergy were traditionally classed as social Class A,......

Middle class people in upper class houses on working class incomes (once upon a time).

I think the RCs are probably the church that most consistently cross class divisions. IM (limited) E Quakers do tend to be middle class, often intellectuals, which is why they tend to be disproportionately high-profile in ecumenical things, just as (in the UK) Bahais and Buddhists are in interfaith things.

[ 19. December 2015, 19:24: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Mousethief's comment about the difference between working class and middle-class in a UK context is an interesting one - yet most responses have concentrated on the landed gentry rather than the traditional division between middle-class and working class ..

My only suggestion to aid MT's understanding is for him to watch hours of British sit-coms, read lots of British novels and come and live here for 5 years or so.

I think we have been moving in a more US-style direction for some years - the traditional categories apply less and less - but there are still discernible.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

One could, I suppose, reasonably be concerned that your church/denomination wasn't doing more to reach out to lower-income persons. But making that a goal might have some bad fruit, where folks have to pass some doctrinal purity test or sit through (often schmaltzy, poorly given) evangelistic messages in order to get aid.

My sense is that church food banks and other charitable activities are more about generating and maintaining good PR for the church rather than getting more bums on pews. And most people in difficulty don't require such basic care from the church anyway. Their needs are probably more challenging or more subtle.

quote:

It would be interesting to see if there's any studies to support the ecclesiastical legends that religious conversion leads to increase in socio-economic standing among the poor, which could be another explanation-- if true. Even better would be if religious conversion led to demotion of socio-economic class among the wealthy because they gave so much of their $$ away.

I don't think conversion itself increases socio-economic standing. The idea is rather that socialisation into the expectations of the church is likely to suppress the kinds of habits that can be detrimental to advancement, if you're starting from a low point. So(depending on the type of church) gambling, drunkenness, frequent changes in sexual partner, domestic violence, adultery, laziness, use of profane language, etc. may be deemed immoral in themselves - but they're also risky activities that can prevent you from getting on in life if you're not already cushioned by money or social capital.

Once you cut these behaviours out of your life, you'll be wasting less money, will have a calmer home, will be more employable, etc. and probably be better respected by your peers. Your progress is life will be more likely, and your children, if they inherit your new attitudes, will already be at an advantage.

We don't hear so much about how churchgoing reduces the disposable income of the wealthy. I suppose this is because wealthy people keep on making money; they don't give it all away and then stop working (or stop investing, etc.).

[ 19. December 2015, 19:48: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Actually in church attendance, there are subtle differences within the English middle class. I know this due to my Ph.D. The Presbyterian Church of England was on average socially higher in the middle class than the Congregational Church of England and Wales at the time of the URC merger. You can find still see this in some congregations. Basically, the Presbyterian Church of England was dominated by professionals and senior managers, while the Congregational Church of England and Wales was dominated by middle managers and white collared workers. If you like, when Presbyterians were Doctors and then Congregationalists were senior nurses. That said it is also true that Congregationalists came from a broader cross-section of the population than the Presbyterians did. There certainly were upper-class Congregationalists and working class Congregationalists, sometimes within the same congregation. The Presbyterians being dominated by the educated Scots diaspora did not find it easy to reach out beyond their own social niche.

Equally, it is not simply that more middle-class type people stayed in the church, but the act of participating in church fellowship makes people more middle class due to the social norms of the group. I have known over the years a number of people who due to involvement have become socially neither fish, nor fowl, nor good red herring with respect to social class. They started out working class, but the involvement with the congregation has meant different emphasises brought out and now they are between working class and middle class.

Jengie

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mousethief's comment about the difference between working class and middle-class in a UK context is an interesting one - yet most responses have concentrated on the landed gentry rather than the traditional division between middle-class and working class ..

My only suggestion to aid MT's understanding is for him to watch hours of British sit-coms, read lots of British novels and come and live here for 5 years or so.

I think we have been moving in a more US-style direction for some years - the traditional categories apply less and less - but there are still discernible.

If you want to discern a difference between the working class and the middle class then I would concentrate on the lower-middles and upper/respectable end of the working class.

A major shared character is that they own, or are at any rate buying, their home. A difference is that the working class will be more likely to be buying an ex-council home while the lower-middles will buy on an estate. The other #1 difference is the job: lower-middles work in offices and may be minor professionals while working-class have trades. One has a dress code, the other has a uniform. They probably have about the same amount of income although the working-class may have a higher disposable income.

That is just some of it but my Dad was middle-class, my mum a working-class Tory (through and through!) but we never knew what class we were as a family until he left the RAF and joined the lower-middle class as a technical author, which is pretty much my level too.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Or you could come to Canada where church has naught to do with class, and everything to do with tribe.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Or you could come to Canada where church has naught to do with class, and everything to do with tribe.

That might be true when you're talking about RCC, United, Anglican etc, but I'm not sure if it applies to groups like Pentecostals etc.

The Pentecostal family I knew best in Edmonton were Ukrainians, but when their daughter got married, it was to another Penetecostal named Smith. Other members of generally low-on-the-candle denominations didn't really seem to fit into any consistent "tribal" pattern. But if I had to guess, I'd say they were mostly blue-collar, probably, like my Ukrainian neighbours, one generation away from the farm.

And I've known old-line UCCers whose kids strayed, and ended up in outfits like Messianic Judaism!

[ 19. December 2015, 20:26: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
It is a frustration that Quakers seem to be pretty middle class from what I am aware. What about other denominations?

Surely it depends where you live. The Quakers where I live are more working class, because it's more of a working class area. The Quakers in the rather upper middle class town where certain family members of mine live are more middle class. And the same, to some extent, with all denominations. There are Catholic and Anglican churches throughout the city I live - the social class of the people attending will largely be based on what area of the city it is - whether it's on a council estate or in more of a 'posh' area.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

In modern Methodism (and also in Quakerism, I believe), there's a closer connection with the caring professions than with industry, trade, commerce, etc. The problem is that though these churches are for the poor, they're not usually of the poor.

I'm neither Methodist nor Quaker, but this describes my church to a T. I'm not sure I'd agree that it has to be a problem, although I'd agree there are real dangers inherent to this niche. But the educated "caring class" is all about reading/ studying an issue, so they're open to correction (altho one of the dangers is studying an issue to death rather than, you know, doing something). At the same time, you're avoiding some of the other dangers-- social justice as thinly veiled mode of evangelism, manipulative giving etc. So it's a mixed bag.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

One could, I suppose, reasonably be concerned that your church/denomination wasn't doing more to reach out to lower-income persons. But making that a goal might have some bad fruit, where folks have to pass some doctrinal purity test or sit through (often schmaltzy, poorly given) evangelistic messages in order to get aid.
My sense is that church food banks and other charitable activities are more about generating and maintaining good PR for the church rather than getting more bums on pews.

Either or both are possible. I think different churches and different individuals have different motives and approaches to their charitable activities, with a variety of success. To some degree, pretty much everything we do has mixed motives-- none of us are as purely altruistic as we'd like to think we are. Which should not become an excuse to do nothing, but should cause us to be thoughtful about ongoing evaluation and reflection about both motives and means.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[b]. And most people in difficulty don't require such basic care from the church anyway. Their needs are probably more challenging or more subtle.

Perhaps it's a cross-pond different, but here in the US, it's both. Very much both.

When it comes to say, the bigger issues of homelessness, there are some "big picture" factors that need to be approached on multiple levels. Our church is partnering with both local and federal agencies, as well as other local churches, to address that thru the new "housing first" initiative. But while the "housing first" paradigm shows great promise, it is new, and expensive, and will take years-- or decades-- to house the more than 4000 homeless in our community. In the meantime, there's a lot that's needed in emergency aid-- the old-school stuff: food banks, bad weather shelters, showers, soup kitchen, etc. Very much "basic care" but still very much essential-- even while the more challenging and "subtle" aspects of holistic aid is slowly working.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

It would be interesting to see if there's any studies to support the ecclesiastical legends that religious conversion leads to increase in socio-economic standing among the poor, which could be another explanation-- if true.
I don't think conversion itself increases socio-economic standing. The idea is rather that socialisation into the expectations of the church is likely to suppress the kinds of habits that can be detrimental to advancement, if you're starting from a low point. So(depending on the type of church) gambling, drunkenness, frequent changes in sexual partner, domestic violence, adultery, laziness, use of profane language, etc. may be deemed immoral in themselves - but they're also risky activities that can prevent you from getting on in life if you're not already cushioned by money or social capital.

Once you cut these behaviours out of your life, you'll be wasting less money, will have a calmer home, will be more employable, etc. and probably be better respected by your peers. Your progress is life will be more likely, and your children, if they inherit your new attitudes, will already be at an advantage.

That's exactly what I was referring to.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've never quite understood the British distinction between Working Class and Middle Class. OTOH in the States, class is largely a mere function of income/wealth.

I disagree strongly.

I think of my mother-in-law, who was born into a middle-class family. Her parents were missionaries in Japan, and she was born there. She married in this country and eventually gave birth to six sons. During the Depression life was somewhat of a struggle, but she and her husband managed. Then her husband was killed in an accident. She did not receive any insurance money. She did receive $26 a month from AFDC. They also received surplus food from the Agriculture Department.

At that time the oldest boy was sixteen and the two youngest were two and three. Her health was not good, and in any case there were no jobs available. Her parents could help a little, but only a little.

As soon as each of the boys was old enough, he took a part-time job to help support the family. They all did well in school, and all graduated from college (with scholarships). Several of them got graduate degrees.

I am convinced that her sons all succeeded because of the middle-class attitudes she had learned when growing up.

Moo

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

It would be interesting to see if there's any studies to support the ecclesiastical legends that religious conversion leads to increase in socio-economic standing among the poor, which could be another explanation-- if true.
I don't think conversion itself increases socio-economic standing. The idea is rather that socialisation into the expectations of the church is likely to suppress the kinds of habits that can be detrimental to advancement, if you're starting from a low point. So(depending on the type of church) gambling, drunkenness, frequent changes in sexual partner, domestic violence, adultery, laziness, use of profane language, etc. may be deemed immoral in themselves - but they're also risky activities that can prevent you from getting on in life if you're not already cushioned by money or social capital.

Once you cut these behaviours out of your life, you'll be wasting less money, will have a calmer home, will be more employable, etc. and probably be better respected by your peers. Your progress is life will be more likely, and your children, if they inherit your new attitudes, will already be at an advantage.

That's exactly what I was referring to.

In what sense do you think this scenario is likely to be simply an 'ecclesiastical legend'?

I would say it's a rare scenario only because British churches are hardly converting anyone from a poor background. British 'ecclesiastics' don't refer to upward mobility at all, even as legend, because it's been generations since it was part of church life. The mainstream clergy don't really expect Christianity to draw in and transform the lives of working class people, and the successful evangelical churches here tend to attract people who are already middle class - and I don't think anyone would claim that upward mobility somehow propels middle class converts into the aristocracy!!

The exception to this might be with regard to ethnic minority converts in, say, black-led churches; for example a young Rastaman from a tough background who ends up as a Pentecostal pastor and does his PhD in theology. But on the whole, the upwardly mobile trajectory is something I'm more likely to come across in a text on the sociology of religion, or in a book on church history.

(BTW, I fully recognise that your reference point is the USA. The USA is a special case with regards to religion and class, and it wouldn't surprise me to hear that things are rather different there.)

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

It would be interesting to see if there's any studies to support the ecclesiastical legends that religious conversion leads to increase in socio-economic standing among the poor, which could be another explanation-- if true.
I don't think conversion itself increases socio-economic standing. The idea is rather that socialisation into the expectations of the church is likely to suppress the kinds of habits that can be detrimental to advancement, if you're starting from a low point. So(depending on the type of church) gambling, drunkenness, frequent changes in sexual partner, domestic violence, adultery, laziness, use of profane language, etc. may be deemed immoral in themselves - but they're also risky activities that can prevent you from getting on in life if you're not already cushioned by money or social capital.

Once you cut these behaviours out of your life, you'll be wasting less money, will have a calmer home, will be more employable, etc. and probably be better respected by your peers. Your progress is life will be more likely, and your children, if they inherit your new attitudes, will already be at an advantage.

That's exactly what I was referring to.
In what sense do you think this scenario is likely to be simply an 'ecclesiastical legend'?

If you'll refer to the original reference, you'll see I was wondering aloud if there was any research to support the legend. iow, this is the sort of thing I have often heard reported, but usually by church people (like me) who do have something to gain from the notion. So I was genuinely wondering if any research supports it. So it's "legend" for me at this point only because I don't know one way or the other if it's true.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I am convinced that her sons all succeeded because of the middle-class attitudes she had learned when growing up.

So what are these "middle class attitudes" and what would have happened to her if she didn't have them?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

cliffdweller

I didn't realise initially that you were looking for someone to post some links. I was going to look for some after your latest message, but I've stopped to think about your experience, as you've described it. Have you found that many of the Protestant churches and denominations in your setting have always seemed pretty middle class, except for these legends that appear to have no connection to the present? If so, that's very interesting.

The theory of the Protestant work ethnic, the experience of British Nonconformity (especially the history of British Methodism), and the development of Pentecostalism all seem to speak of the gradual upward mobility of Protestant church members and congregations. This is something that I've seen signs of and felt and read about in various texts. But your posts indicate that not all Protestants in non-established churches can see signs of this heritage. Maybe it indicates that some churches in some places have been so consumed by their middle class present that nothing else seems possible.

Yours is a very different experience from mine, and on reflection I don't know if links about the kinds of churches I have in mind would be particularly meaningful or relevant to your context. I'd be interested to see if anyone else can find something suitable.

[ 20. December 2015, 01:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Was it Dorothy Parker who said "Methodist ain't chic, Episcopalian is". And of course the much older saying (of which there are many variations) that the carriage drives past the chapel door by the second generation. The latter of course owed a lot to the C of E's status as established, but given the rapid growth of Methodism in the 13 colonies, the lower status of Methodism is harder to understand.

Anglicanism in Sydney shows another pattern. The traditional old-fashioned low church group remains much better established in the better-off suburbs, and most of the stole parishes are in similar locations. The Moore College group tend to be in the newer or less comfortable suburbs. They are where the so-called community churches are located lso.Then, CCSL, the bastion of AngloCatholicism in Sydney, has a long and honourable tradition of outreach to the poor and fringes of society. The soup kitchens it operated in the Depression were a great work.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

My Anglo Catholic church is very much the province of the university educated brigade although we happily accept all and don't discriminate. I think there is much less of a class system in Australia than some other countries.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
cliffdweller

I didn't realise initially that you were looking for someone to post some links. I was going to look for some after your latest message, but I've stopped to think about your experience, as you've described it. Have you found that many of the Protestant churches and denominations in your setting have always seemed pretty middle class, except for these legends that appear to have no connection to the present? If so, that's very interesting.

The theory of the Protestant work ethnic, the experience of British Nonconformity (especially the history of British Methodism), and the development of Pentecostalism all seem to speak of the gradual upward mobility of Protestant church members and congregations. This is something that I've seen signs of and felt and read about in various texts. But your posts indicate that not all Protestants in non-established churches can see signs of this heritage. Maybe it indicates that some churches in some places have been so consumed by their middle class present that nothing else seems possible.

Yours is a very different experience from mine, and on reflection I don't know if links about the kinds of churches I have in mind would be particularly meaningful or relevant to your context. I'd be interested to see if anyone else can find something suitable.

You're taking my pondering waaay more seriously than I intended it. Really, it was just a "wondering aloud". I
think it's true, but don't want to claim it's so without having some basis of research behind it. I certainly know individuals who fit the pattern-- but I also know counter-examples. So it would take a true sociological study to determine if it's more than just observation effect. I'm not really trying to get us sidetracked one way or the other, just curious if anyone knew of any such research.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
It is a frustration that Quakers seem to be pretty middle class from what I am aware. What about other denominations?

I haven't come across a Quaker who wasn't middle class. Teachers and Lectutrers feature prominently.

Again, IME they do have a tendancy to forget that church meetings aren't the classroom and they don't need to try and treat everyone like small children .... it's quite a passive/aggressive presentation, in fact, with one Meeting "forcing" the local Church Together to rewrite the Constitution to fit in with their views. .

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

On broad terms I think Svitlana's observations about the 'legend' fit the UK situation well.

We'd have to go back to the early 1900s and with a slight stretch into the 1920s and '30s to find mant examples of the 'upward mobility' effect on the 'indigeneous' urban poor ... although I've seen it suggested that the 'labouring poor' had become largely disenfranchised from the churched by at least the early 1700s.

If that's the case, it's not a new phenomenon.

As for Quakers being middle-class - of course they are? How could they be otherwise? The reason so many Quaker families excelled in 'trade' was because they were barred from the usual routes into the 'professions'.

It's only in recent years that the Society of Friends has expanded beyond its 'dynastic', Quaker-family base. The movement has changed almost beyond recognition since around 1950 - and most Quakers now aren't of Quaker heritage, as it were.

By and large, these days - any group that attracts principled participants from outside is likely to be middle-class or 'professional' in feel.

The exceptions tend to be the Pentecostals.

Back in the day, of course, The Salvation Army attracted large numbers of working-class converts - but we're looking at close-knit industrial communities - pit villages, docklands, mill-towns - of a kind that no longer exist - or which only exist in pockets.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

We'd have to go back to the early 1900s and with a slight stretch into the 1920s and '30s to find mant examples of the 'upward mobility' effect on the 'indigeneous' urban poor ... although I've seen it suggested that the 'labouring poor' had become largely disenfranchised from the churched by at least the early 1700s.

To a large extent this was dependent on a set of historical contingencies that largely no longer exist (mass labor and so on), after all the flip side to the working class religious autodidact, was the kind of philosophies which in the secular world led to things like the WEA.

To that extent we are more likely to see it's effect abroad - and indeed there are examples of this phenomena in places like Brazil and so on.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Well, the great age of education has gone. That was the generation born before World War II. In them, you can find examples of deputy-VCs whose fathers worked on the factory floor having left school at 12 (I am thinking of a specific case). They got into secondary school because of one of the school act that made it compulsory and got into university because of local council grants. They were bright. I suspect that in today climate every single one of them would be Oxbridge as the total university size was so much smaller, pre 1960s expansion and many gained places despite the priority being ex-service men. No, we are not going to see that again today. It would be unreasonable too.

However, please do not tell me I am the only person who has been in congregations where a person from a working class background has found a home and gained some middle-class form? If that is the case then it is clear that the poor old URC is doing less badly than so many others who pride themselves on their inclusiveness. We have them, usually not many, about 1% of a congregation but they are there.

Jengie

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And the Lord just gave me a picture of an ever diminishing swirl going down the plug-hole with three distinct shades of black, white and grey.

10,000 years.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The exceptions tend to be the Pentecostals.

As you know, Andrew Walker
[Overused]

who was originally a Welsh Apostolic claims that Charismatics are basically middle-class Pentecostals (and without their "nous" for charlatanism).

I have been told that I sound "too posh" to be a Baptist minister.

[ 20. December 2015, 12:07: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Please do not tell me I am the only person who has been in congregations where a person from a working class background has found a home and gained some middle-class form? If that is the case then it is clear that the poor old URC is doing less badly than so many others who pride themselves on their inclusiveness. We have them, usually not many, about 1% of a congregation but they are there.

Jengie

The only church I know where I suspect that's happening is a Baptist church. The congregation is seriously committed to evangelism, and particularly to youth work. Since it's an inner city area, the people they work with are not well off. But there are some well-paid professionals in the congregation. And the minister is a former public school boy.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Plenty of working-class RC and Anglo-Catholic priests, if that counts Jengie.

I agree that the RCC crosses class boundaries more successfully than other denominations - one Dead Horse in particular is behind that I suppose - and in many places in the UK it is still very much an immigrant church, just now Polish rather than Irish.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My sense is that church food banks and other charitable activities are more about generating and maintaining good PR for the church rather than getting more bums on pews.

The trouble is that churches doing this are DOING GOOD FOR the poor rather than being churches OF the poor.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My sense is that church food banks and other charitable activities are more about generating and maintaining good PR for the church rather than getting more bums on pews.
The trouble is that churches doing this are DOING GOOD FOR the poor rather than being churches OF the poor.

We are called to do good for the poor. That's not trouble that's being true to our calling as Christians.

Creating a church OF the poor implies we can do something to make them come to church, or make them coalesce into a church of their own creating. If you can find a way to do that, more power to you, although it seems rather a patronizing attitude from the get-go. We can preach the gospel, but if a poor person (not "the poor" which is an arm's-length abstraction, but a poor person, and then another poor person, and then another) doesn't want to be associated with church, or go to one, or even check out what it's like (so many probably know all too well), that's their do's and not ours.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The point is that church is seen by many working class as a bunch of do-gooders who want to 'kelp' the poor but who don't crusade to change the system so that there are no 'poor'.

Running food banks exhonerates the Tories' austerity agenda.

An inclusive church resource on poverty suggests that churchgoers rub their hands with glee at the chance to be noticed as helpful but wouldn't know how to relate to the people on the council estate in their parish.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The point is that church is seen by many working class as a bunch of do-gooders who want to 'kelp' the poor but who don't crusade to change the system so that there are no 'poor'.

Running food banks exhonerates the Tories' austerity agenda.

This doesn't have to necessarily be true, but agree that it can too often be the case.

The churches in the town I live in run the local food bank - actual organisation against austerity is done by a community group which I suspect not many Christians are either familiar with (they run a cafe/bar among other things in the centre of town so are reasonably visible) or regard with suspicion.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I was also suspicious of food banks, initially. But I think that the amount of data that they have collected about food hunger, and the petulant response that they have provoked from IDS etc when they publish it, shows that they can also be an agent of political change.
I also now see them as an expression of solidarity and sharing, which is in stark contrast to the economic actor model so beloved of our neo-liberal rulers.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thing is, Lord Clonk, if the Quakers where you are tend to be more middle class, what are you going to do about it?

I presume you are a Friend, otherwise you wouldn't have highlighted the Quakers rather than, say, the Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, RCs or any other church or denomination ...

I'm reminded of something I heard Grayson Perry, the Turner Prize-winning artist say on Radio 4 one time ... he was observing how many art galleries and other arty organisations sometimes employ people specifically to attract punters from lower socio-economic groups ... or put grant bids together for that purpose.

He thought this was daft.
'How often,' he said, 'Do we hear about the local Stock Car Racing ground or Greyhound Racing stadium getting together to see how they can attract more middle class people?'

I can see his point. I'm not sure what the answer is, though ...

Should churches 'target' particular groups or should they just whatever good they can, whenever they can - as John Wesley advocated - irrespective of any anticipated outcome - whether in PR terms, the assuasion of bourgeois guilt or whatever else ... ?

How would you go about broadening the demography of your local Friends' Meeting Houses, Lord Clonk?

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

I think saying that food banks exonerate the government's policies is nonsense - nobody who has ever had to use a food bank would say this! Of course the government's policies are wrong, and the Trussell Trust say as much, but in the meantime struggling people still have to eat. Leo, what do you think people in need would say if a right-on church turned around and said 'sorry, we're closing our food bank so we don't exonerate Tory policy'?? People need food banks - it shouldn't be the case but it is, and they can be provided as well as challenging the policies causing the upswing in their use.

Many food banks are run or supported by religious communities under a vow of poverty, too.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I think saying that food banks exonerate the government's policies is nonsense - nobody who has ever had to use a food bank would say this! Of course the government's policies are wrong, and the Trussell Trust say as much, but in the meantime struggling people still have to eat.

What I meant at least, was that in my experience, at least to some in my church the fact that we are involved in running a food bank is proof that the provision in society is still quite generous - when it is anything but.

I imagine such attitudes are not merely local.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I believe that they have been expressed by Mr Cameron.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...

I'm reminded of something I heard Grayson Perry, the Turner Prize-winning artist say on Radio 4 one time ... he was observing how many art galleries and other arty organisations sometimes employ people specifically to attract punters from lower socio-economic groups ... or put grant bids together for that purpose.

He thought this was daft.
'How often,' he said, 'Do we hear about the local Stock Car Racing ground or Greyhound Racing stadium getting together to see how they can attract more middle class people?'

...

Tangent: I do agree. It's rather like the occasional thing you hear about the BBC feeling it must attract more young people in the inner cities to listen to, say, Radio 3, when nobody complains that Radio 1 Xtra is reaching too few retired schoolmasters in Wiltshire.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My sense is that church food banks and other charitable activities are more about generating and maintaining good PR for the church rather than getting more bums on pews.
The trouble is that churches doing this are DOING GOOD FOR the poor rather than being churches OF the poor.
We are called to do good for the poor. That's not trouble that's being true to our calling as Christians.

Creating a church OF the poor implies we can do something to make them come to church, or make them coalesce into a church of their own creating. If you can find a way to do that, more power to you, although it seems rather a patronizing attitude from the get-go. We can preach the gospel, but if a poor person (not "the poor" which is an arm's-length abstraction, but a poor person, and then another poor person, and then another) doesn't want to be associated with church, or go to one, or even check out what it's like (so many probably know all too well), that's their do's and not ours.

I should say firstly that the quote attributed to cliffdweller above is actually mine. Secondly, if Christ came for all then that includes working class people as well as the middle classes, so it's hardly patronising to wonder what the issue is here.

In any case, I don't think evangelists have always been obsessed with patronising the humble people. I understand that in the past the aim in much missionary work was to reach the leaders first, with the expectation that the lower status groups would follow. Even today you can find signs of the same approach; I remember reading about some church planters in Paris several years ago. They wanted to reach middle class professionals first, rather than acquiring the reputation of being a church for the poor (or perhaps a church of 'immigrants'??).

However, I don't think it's simply a coincidence that most of our churches have developed in a particularly middle class direction. A culture has arisen in which certain behaviours, attitudes and personalities have become utterly normative in the average church environment, and to such an extent that anything else is hard to conceive of. And that's okay in the sense that there are certain kinds of people who cope fine with that. Unfortunately, many do not, and that includes a disproportionate number who are not middle class.

One problem in Britain now is that outside of the multicultural inner cities, there seems to be an undersupply of churches in poorer areas. Poor white estates and towns are very fragile places for Christian witness, and any work in those areas has be highly intentional, i.e., the existing churches or new church plants have to be highly focused on reaching their particular demographic, rather than just hoping that people might drop in and be happy to do church in the usual middle class way.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I am convinced that her sons all succeeded because of the middle-class attitudes she had learned when growing up.
So what are these "middle class attitudes" and what would have happened to her if she didn't have them?

She valued learning and taught her sons to value it and to work at it. She thought about what she was doing and did it intelligently. She had little money to spend on food, so she considered the nutritional value of what she served her family.

I think the main thing was that she rightly assumed she was dealing with a temporary problem. The situation wouldn't last forever, but meanwhile she had to insist that her sons maintain the standards their father would have wanted.

Moo

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
What I meant at least, was that in my experience, at least to some in my church the fact that we are involved in running a food bank is proof that the provision in society is still quite generous - when it is anything but. ...

Sorry, unless one equates society and the government, that's a complete non sequitur .

If you take the view that the government should care for the poor, then the fact that churches and other organisations are running food banks, is fairly good evidence that the government isn't doing that job adequately.

If you take the view that it's not the government's job to protect the poor from starving, then it's good that there are other people in society who are doing that, but it's no reflection on government.

I think most people would people would take the first view, in which case, the existence of food banks demonstrates government's failure, not society's success. However, I hope most people would agree that if government is defaulting, it's better that somebody else is doing this, rather than that nobody is.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, that's true, and I was once part of such an intentional initiative ... and 'fragile' is the right term.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That was a reply to SvitlanaV2.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My sense is that church food banks and other charitable activities are more about generating and maintaining good PR for the church rather than getting more bums on pews.
The trouble is that churches doing this are DOING GOOD FOR the poor rather than being churches OF the poor.

Svetlana already pointed this out, but just want to note that I wasn't the one who said this. And S already used the juicy FOR the poor rather than OF the poor line.

And, yes, I agree-- but don't think it's as much of a problem as it's being portrayed to be FOR The poor but not OF the poor.

Sure, we would all prefer to be a multi-ethnic, multi-class, diverse church (or at least I hope we'd all prefer to be). And I would hope we are all rigorous in trying to figure out what sort of hidden barriers might be preventing people outside our usual demographic from feeling included or welcome.

But there's also a place for being comfortable with who you are. Who we are is who we are-- and if we aren't a church OF the poor, shouldn't we at least be a church FOR the poor? Not because it makes us cooler or better or more pious or bigger, but just because that's what Christ calls us to be, without trying to figure out a way to be coerce the poor into joining us?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My sense is that church food banks and other charitable activities are more about generating and maintaining good PR for the church rather than getting more bums on pews.
The trouble is that churches doing this are DOING GOOD FOR the poor rather than being churches OF the poor.
We are called to do good for the poor. That's not trouble that's being true to our calling as Christians.

Creating a church OF the poor implies we can do something to make them come to church, or make them coalesce into a church of their own creating. If you can find a way to do that, more power to you, although it seems rather a patronizing attitude from the get-go. We can preach the gospel, but if a poor person (not "the poor" which is an arm's-length abstraction, but a poor person, and then another poor person, and then another) doesn't want to be associated with church, or go to one, or even check out what it's like (so many probably know all too well), that's their do's and not ours.

Exactly.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The point is that church is seen by many working class as a bunch of do-gooders who want to 'kelp' the poor but who don't crusade to change the system so that there are no 'poor'.

Well, that's just a more educated version of being FOR the poor, though, isn't it?

Again, it sounds like nice sound-bites that don't really fit with reality. In my limited experience as the "urban ministries pastor" for an inner-city church, the one leads to the other. You begin with people where they are-- which usually means getting involved with helping the poor in fairly old-school ways: food banks, tutoring programs, homeless shelters. That's a good starting point for most everybody. But as people get involved in those ways they start asking questions. They start to ask Romero's "when I asked why they were hungry..." questions. And then they start to notice their privilege and start to think about how they can use that privilege and influence in positive ways. They start to learn more about the cause and complexities of poverty, and they start to learn more about the grimy underbelly of local and federal politics and business etc. It's complex, there's a very steep learning curve (one I'm just beginning to tackle) but now they are motivated to look into it, because it's not just (as someone said already) about "the poor" as a concept, it's about my friend Margie and her 3 kids, who I know from the soup kitchen/ food closet/ domestic violence shelter.

I've seen this trajectory happen in our little church as our very old-school, stop-gap, bandaid-approach bad weather shelter has moved us to get involved in real advocacy for "housing first"-- permanent solutions to homelessness. Heck, I've seen the trajectory in my own life.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

I think most people would people would take the first view, in which case, the existence of food banks demonstrates government's failure, not society's success.

Er yes. I didn't say that their view was intellectually coherent.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
[QBLeo, what do you think people in need would say if a right-on church turned around and said 'sorry, we're closing our food bank so we don't exonerate Tory policy'?? [/QB]

Hopefully there would be massive food riots and we could be rid of this evil government.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The point is that church is seen by many working class as a bunch of do-gooders who want to 'kelp' the poor but who don't crusade to change the system so that there are no 'poor'.

Running food banks exhonerates the Tories' austerity agenda.

Running food banks helps people eat. You can politick all you want to change the system, and we should, but while you're doing that, people still need to eat. You've overshot your mark.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Leo, what do you think people in need would say if a right-on church turned around and said 'sorry, we're closing our food bank so we don't exonerate Tory policy'??
Hopefully there would be massive food riots and we could be rid of this evil government.

Right. Would you be interested in some swampland in Arizona? Waterfront property. Never been a better time to buy.

Kinda lets us off the hook, too. "We don't want to feed you people. Go riot for yourselves." Hope we're not surprised if our houses get torched along with the Tories'.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But there's also a place for being comfortable with who you are. Who we are is who we are-- and if we aren't a church OF the poor, shouldn't we at least be a church FOR the poor? Not because it makes us cooler or better or more pious or bigger, but just because that's what Christ calls us to be, without trying to figure out a way to be coerce the poor into joining us?

There. This is what I was trying to say.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I think the main thing was that she rightly assumed she was dealing with a temporary problem. The situation wouldn't last forever, but meanwhile she had to insist that her sons maintain the standards their father would have wanted.

Okay, that answers my question about what constitutes "middle class values." But how is that different from "working class values" as opposed to "poor people values" or "upper-class values"?

[ 21. December 2015, 15:17: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Running food banks helps people eat. You can politick all you want to change the system, and we should, but while you're doing that, people still need to eat. You've overshot your mark.

Sadly they usually don't and he hasn't. At best they're a sticking plaster on a gaping wound which is left to go green with infection whilst all the attention is focussed on the short term activities. Meanwhile the government uses the fact that the churches are not going to sit back and allow people to starve in their locality as an excuse to do even less, as if food banks are a solution to anything.

In England, the broken food-bank model advocated by the Trussell Trust predominates, supported by well-meaning people in churches who like to believe that "something is better than nothing" even when the evidence is clear that the provision is next to useless.

This is a major problem. Christians have been seduced into actions that have almost zero impact on the problem they're claiming to address, whilst becoming unwitting supporters of the reckless class war perpetuated by the wealthy governing classes and essentially avoiding doing anything substantial at all. Meanwhile the churches just become the place where people go when there is nowhere else to go to be given food that nobody else wants to eat.

quote:

Kinda lets us off the hook, too. "We don't want to feed you people. Go riot for yourselves." Hope we're not surprised if our houses get torched along with the Tories'.

Nope. As long term activists have said: "The truth is the more time I spend in the food bank, the more certain I am of the failure of a charitable approach to hunger and poverty, which serves the interests of food corporations and some volunteers better than it does the poor themselves." from here

Sadly that's exactly right. Too often food banks are more about the donors and the volunteers than any possible benefit the recipients can be getting.

"Letting us off the hook" would imply we don't have to do anything. The hard road is recognising the way that our goodwill is being used and abused by pandering to our own self-interest rather than the needs of people.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Running food banks helps people eat. You can politick all you want to change the system, and we should, but while you're doing that, people still need to eat. You've overshot your mark.
Sadly they usually don't and he hasn't. At best they're a sticking plaster on a gaping wound which is left to go green with infection whilst all the attention is focussed on the short term activities. Meanwhile the government uses the fact that the churches are not going to sit back and allow people to starve in their locality as an excuse to do even less, as if food banks are a solution to anything.

In England, the broken food-bank model advocated by the Trussell Trust predominates, supported by well-meaning people in churches who like to believe that "something is better than nothing" even when the evidence is clear that the provision is next to useless.

I'm an American, so can't speak to any specifics of the UK system. But, from my experience close to the action here in US-- It's not useless to the people who receive the aid. It is, rather,
temporary. It doesn't solve the long-term, deep-seated problems. But it does keep people alive for another day (sometimes quite literally) while others (or, in some cases, the same people) work on those long-term solutions.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE].As long term activists have said: "The truth is the more time I spend in the food bank, the more certain I am of the failure of a charitable approach to hunger and poverty, which serves the interests of food corporations and some volunteers better than it does the poor themselves." from here

Sadly that's exactly right. Too often food banks are more about the donors and the volunteers than any possible benefit the recipients can be getting.

"Letting us off the hook" would imply we don't have to do anything. The hard road is recognising the way that our goodwill is being used and abused by pandering to our own self-interest rather than the needs of people.

Again, my experience leading a team of some 70 volunteers (2/3 of our small congregation) is that the more they get involved in our short-term, band-aid type efforts to address poverty, the more likely they are to ask thoughtful questions about the underlying issues of poverty and get involved in advocacy and support for long-term political solutions.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Really, the issue is more complex than you're making it out to be-- there are real, hard choices between the short- and long- term options. Perhaps a concrete example would help:

Our church has hosted a short-term emergency shelter for the homeless for over 20 years. It is an old model, one that really fits all the criticisms listed above-- it doesn't solve underlying problems, it doesn't change anything, it gets homeless off the street and inside our church building where they are invisible to the public, so there's less pressure on political leaders to do anything. It attracted homeless to the city from other communities both near and far away when they heard there were services available here, swelling our annual homelessness census.

But... our involvement in the shelter has kept our hearts tender. It has put a human face (some 600 of them, actually) on the problem. And it did, in fact, keep people alive, even as it failed to adequately address the issues of homelessness.

And by doing those two things... keeping our hearts tender and keeping people alive... we were well positioned when a better option came along. We have been very active in partnering with a broad coalition of church and civic groups within our city in putting forth the housing first model, which shows real promise for addressing the underlying issues of homelessness. Through our combined efforts, we have been able to implement this in a big way in our community.

But it's not been without painful trade-offs. The Housing First model is significantly more expensive, at least initially, than the old-school shelter model (presumably at some point in time the axis will shift, as there are fewer homeless, and it will become a bargain in the long-run). There simply were not funds-- or personnel, or, in crowded LA, sufficient apartments-- to house all of our homeless in the Housing First model. So we had to implement a very fraught and heavily debated triage to make painful decisions about who gets into housing first and who doesn't.

In the meantime, what do we do with those who don't? (Primarily single men). For now, we are continuing the shelter model-- even as that itself requires fraught decisions about how much $$ goes to the old-school shelter model and how much $$ goes to Housing First.

These decisions simply aren't as simple, black-and-white as we'd like to think they are. It's fraught. It's imperfect. It's steeped in messy, complicated, motives among both politicians, businesspeople, and church people. But it involves real, human lives-- and for that reason, we need to keep engaged. And I continue to believe that doing something is better than nothing, because it keeps the conversation going and keeps us actively involved in a messy, trial-and-error system that leads to positive outcomes.

I am looking forward to the day when no one shows up for our shelter some cold, rainy night. I'll sit down with our weary volunteers to eat up all our frozen casseroles, turn out the lights, and go home.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I can't really comment on the food bank issue ... In some ways the comments being made seem to be rather similar to those made about the Teetotal movement of a century and more ago. It is, I think, true that the churches tended to concentrate on getting people to sign "the pledge" without necessarily focussing on the social conditions which led to intemperance (although General Booth certainly painted the link between poverty and drink). But that doesn't mean that their efforts failed to help the lot of many people - and, in particular, their abused and impoverished wives and children.

However I do know is that our church helps to run a winter night shelter which aims to be much more than a temporary palliative. It seeks to help people into more permanent accommodation, it has done a lot to raise the profile of homelessness and push it up the political agenda. Before the project started 5 years ago the "professionals" were very possessive of the homeless and the local Council denied that there were any homeless people in our town at all. And I am sure this is true of other such projects around Britain.

I would flatly refute the assertion that people are taking part to massage their own egos; that seems an awful thing to say as they are sacrificially giving their time and efforts. They are also well aware that there are some folk - those with complex needs of addiction and mental health - which they are unable to help, and that makes them feel bad. But the project has evolved and those who run it are convinced that it has saved and, hopefully, helped to rebuild lives.

What all of this has to do with the OP is anyone's guess! How did we get here from there?

(Crossed with CliffDweller's excellent post above).

[ 21. December 2015, 17:06: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Meanwhile the government uses the fact that the churches are not going to sit back and allow people to starve in their locality as an excuse to do even less, as if food banks are a solution to anything.

Ah, I see. So that the government is willing to allow people to starve gives the church the right to allow people to starve. Roger.

quote:
In England, the broken food-bank model advocated by the Trussell Trust predominates, supported by well-meaning people in churches who like to believe that "something is better than nothing" even when the evidence is clear that the provision is next to useless.

Useless to whom? If I have hungry children, and a food bank is the difference between their eating and not eating tonight, then it's not fucking worthless to ME. You're playing fast and loose with other people's lives.

quote:
Meanwhile the churches just become the place where people go when there is nowhere else to go to be given food that nobody else wants to eat.

Your food banks must be very different to ours. Maybe this is a pond thing. Maybe you guys just don't know how to do food banks right. Maybe you should send some people over here to learn effective food bank operation.

Also maybe the only kind of poverty you have in Great Britian is permanent poverty. We have a lot of people who were "productive members of society" who lost their jobs and need to be tided over until their fortunes reverse again. Statistically most people who receive help either from the goverment or from private charity are of this type. For them it's not about long-term poverty, and fighting long-term poverty won't help them a gnat's. They just need a bit of temporary help while they "get back on their feet." Closing the food banks fucks them over, too.

Teperance movement, hell. This begins to sound an awful lot like the Irish potato famine.

"Be warmed and fed. Somewhere else. We're busy fighting the government."

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I missed a comment of Jengie's earlier ... no, I don't think you're the only one who has seen converts from working-class backgrounds who've then gone om a more middle-class trajectory ...

I've seen that among the Baptists both in South Wales and in Yorkshire and also in the the restorationist house-churches - which - to be fair - in the north at least - drew from a wider demographic range than I've seen in most charismatic churches.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
In England, the broken food-bank model advocated by the Trussell Trust predominates, supported by well-meaning people in churches who like to believe that "something is better than nothing" even when the evidence is clear that the provision is next to useless.
Useless to whom? If I have hungry children, and a food bank is the difference between their eating and not eating tonight, then it's not fucking worthless to ME. You're playing fast and loose with other people's lives.

The situation is that usually the food bank won't/can't/doesn't give out food unless the person concerned has been referred specifically. Generally the services that can refer - which generally mean social workers for most people - are having their funding cut, so they have less time available to help and assess in all but the most obvious of situations.

So nothing gets done in the long term, because the government perpetuates a myth that no one can starve (and the issue is normally malnourishment) and so everything is worked as intended. Meanwhile the press hypes up the odd outlier who managed to get more than they should have done (and this is what most people end up believing).

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

In addition, users are only allowed to use 4 food bank vouchers a year (under the Trussell Trust system). It is left unsaid exactly what the user is supposed to do when the donation runs out.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Yeah, that's a very different system than what we have here in the US. Here, it's really up to the food bank how they are run and it varies widely. There are different sorts of privately and publicly funds available that may have some conditions attached to the grants, but if they're raising funds independently they are free to administer aid however they see fit. Some food banks I've worked with keep track of recipients and may have a limit to how many visits they can have in a year, others take all comers and just figure if someone is willing to come they probably have a need. Our homeless shelter is a "high tolerance" shelter which means we take everyone and I do mean everyone. Many come high or drunk. We do have security pat down on the way in, but they will simply take your drugs/weaponry and put it in a neatly labeled zip loc bag for the night and return it to you when you check out in the am. The only thing that gets you kicked out is if you are violent toward another guest, staff, or volunteer.

Our funding does come from some federal sources which means we have to track our guests a bit more than we have had in the past. That's been a pain simply because it slows down check-in and has meant having to hire a couple more staff to keep up with the paper work. But it also has helped us track folks better to try and get them in to the pipeline for permanent housing, so it's been a worthwhile trade-off, even though on any given night you'll find us grumbling about it.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

I was wondering aloud if there was any research to support the legend [of upward mobility among poor people who join the church]. iow, this is the sort of thing I have often heard reported, but usually by church people (like me) who do have something to gain from the notion.

quote:
I certainly know individuals who fit the pattern-- but I also know counter-examples. So it would take a true sociological study to determine if it's more than just observation effect. I'm not really trying to get us sidetracked one way or the other, just curious if anyone knew of any such research.

I thought I'd return to these two separate passages because they introduce some especially interesting ideas.

Regarding your first comment, you said that church people like you had something to gain from the idea of upward mobility in the church. I'd respond by saying that upward mobility in the church isn't an unalloyed advantage.

Commentators have frequently referred to the challenges that arise when the church becomes a place of wealth: the focus on God and godliness risks being undermined. John Wesley himself referred to this problem, and he evangelised and organised a whole bunch of working class people over a whole country, so he had experience of what he was talking about.

As I said previously, the church-sect sociological concept proposes that new Christian movements may be started by less advantaged members of society, or at any event they grow as a result of attracting such people. This isn't new research, although, as the link states, there are disagreements regarding various aspects of how it works, and how the process differs in different contexts.

Your second comment, for example, implies that upward mobility doesn't occur in all cases, and that some people either lose status or money as a result of being in the church. (I hope I haven't misunderstood you.) We've all heard of educated, upper middle class vicars who turned down well-paid, prestigious careers in order to work for the church for a relative pittance. Or individuals who gave all their money away to sects, or struggled with paying tithes.

There are various different contexts in all of this, of course. Are we talking about poorer people joining new movements, or joining established churches? New converts, or their descendants? With regard to people who give up their advantages for the gospel, don't they still retain their cultural or social capital? When poorer people join a settled, institutional church, it could be that the 'discipline of ascetism' is less rigid than in a sect, so their upward mobility may not be so assured; OTOH, a strict sect might prefer its members to stay or become relatively low status, the better to maintain its power over them.

ISTM that a mainstream denomination like the CofE allows for different levels of belonging. This could mean that the social impact of belonging depends on where the individual (and their kids) end up. IOW, an unemployed, struggling single mother will be encouraged to go on a rota and contribute where she can, but she won't be urged to contribute more or to significantly transform her life unless she pushes for it herself. But her troubled step-brother might feel driven to get more involved. In the process he's going to have more sustained contact with the church's middle class norms. And as has been said elsewhere, if he finally trains for the ministry, he's likely to take on middle class values to a significant extent, because that's what a highly institutionalised denomination subconsciously expects.

Church institutionalisation seems to mesh almost inevitably with intellectual middle class rather than popular or lower class norms.

I don't know if any of this resonates with your situation, though.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

The concept of Methodist (sometimes called Evangelical) Uplift is quite well known in certain circles. I'm not quite sure if it is what you are discussing above, SvitlanaV2 and cliffdweller - but the general idea is that the "wretched" poor join the church, become better educated and get better control of their lives, make better choices and become overall better people. This was often seen as a desirable end of the church.

But some critics also argued that the net effect was gentification of the church, with the previous generation not allowing the poorer kinds of people to "mess up" their traditions (even though these might have been the very traits that these same elders had when they came into the church 40 or 50 years earlier).

I've not explained that well, I'll look for a reference.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I referred to the Methodists briefly earlier. The 19th c. Methodist Church is the textbook example of the process, including its tendency to create breakaway movements on class lines.

I suppose that for those of us in contemporary institutional churches, the issue really is whether 'uplift', which would now refer to individuals rather than groups of newcomers, is generally possible or desirable today. Generational uplift is problematic first of all because the faith isn't passed on to new generations as it used to be; converts seem to have less impact on their families than before. A touch of postmodernism there.

[ 22. December 2015, 17:45: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

mousethief.

It's not like that AT ALL. In a city of 300,000 I'm not aware of ANY Christian group that has ever turned ANY ONE away. It would be a scandal. Even those we suspend for violence can come to the door for food. I don't think we've ever actually turned any one away without food and a cup of tea or a fiver for some fish and chips. If you make the mistake of coming with money, you usually leave without it.

And yes, they are the permanent poor.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I referred to the Methodists briefly earlier. The 19th c. Methodist Church is the textbook example of the process, including its tendency to create breakaway movements on class lines. ...

To what extent is that objectively so, or to what extent is that imposing a post-Marxist analysis on a pre-Marxist past?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Your second comment, for example, implies that upward mobility doesn't occur in all cases, and that some people either lose status or money as a result of being in the church. (I hope I haven't misunderstood you.)...

Well, sort of misunderstood. Again, I wasn't making any declarative statements one way or the other but was simply musing aloud/ not making any truth claims one way or the other-- primarily because I wasn't motivated enough to do the research myself. You're taking the question, again, far more seriously than I was or am, which is fine-- glad my random musings are of interest to someone.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I referred to the Methodists briefly earlier. The 19th c. Methodist Church is the textbook example of the process, including its tendency to create breakaway movements on class lines. ...
To what extent is that objectively so, or to what extent is that imposing a post-Marxist analysis on a pre-Marxist past?

An interesting question. I don't think there's any such thing as 'objective' history, really.

On the 'Bad Religion' thread Gamaliel has recently mentioned the historian E P Thompson, who famously looked at the history of Methodism through a Marxist lens. Church-sect theory also owes something to Marxism.

AFAIUI, a good many modern critical theories within the humanities are partly responses to or ongoing dialogues with Marxism. Its influence is impossible to escape!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
An interesting question. I don't think there's any such thing as 'objective' history, really. ...

Tangent alert

It may be that objectivity is difficult or even impossible to achieve, but we should at least try as hard as we can.

"The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there". An important part of that is not evaluating people in the past by standards or ideas that only came along after they had gone. So if one applies an analysis to them that is based on such, one needs both to be open about it and to acknowledge that although this may be interesting, it doesn't have much that is useful to say about what was actually going on in their heads and hearts.

I know that this is a matter of controversy in some circles but personally, I find it difficult to regard any other approach as intellectually legitimate.

Anyway. This is a tangent. I'll say no more about it here.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

at the risk of extending the tangent, I agree, although I think I'd put it in terms of recognising subjectivity.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I don't accept that there is any such thing as objective history. Everything is narrative and interpretation of the available information.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Hence the need to recognise that process and the subjectivity which one brings to it. That's the best you can do.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The problem is with historians (or other cultural commentators) who think they're objective, but aren't. Historians who are openly coming from a Marxist perspective don't fall into this category.

To come back to the topic, Christians frequently assume that how they worship, or do church or do theology, or whatever, is normal, that they're simply looking at things 'as they are'. But this can't be true. Everything is mediated by our experience, our degree of understanding, our knowledge of the world.

Theology in particular is no longer deemed to be a pure field of inquiry, without agendas. Black/postcolonial/feminist/queer/liberation etc. theologies all exist precisely because the apparently normative, objective theologies of the past have been discovered to be normative only to a limited group of people. These normative theologies may be good for what they are (and it's probably impossible for any Christian to escape their influence in any case) but still limited.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It's difficult to assess how working class the early Methodists were ... modern historians like Rack tend towards the view that many, if not most - were what we'd call lower middle-class / upper working-class in contemporary UK terms ie small shop-keepers, skilled tradesmen and so on ... although there were also domestic servants and labourers ... miners and so on. The later Primitive Methodists were more working class ...

For all that, Wesley probably moved more widely across the social classes than any of his contemporaries.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

The Kingswood miners who welcomed Wesley so readily must have been working-class, though?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I'd always assumed that the Tolpuddle Martyrs were Prims, and was slightly surprised to discover that they were Wesleyans. But perhaps they were the 'better' kind of farm labourer.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Whitefield was the one who had the 'breakthrough' at Kingswood, but Wesley did get involved and formed them into Societies and so on.

He also got involved with the miners at Coleford in the Forest of Dean - 'my second Kingswood' he called it.

Yes, the Kingswood miners were working class but I'd suggest they were 'outliers' to a certain extent - their involvement was seen as pretty remarkable and worthy of comment.

I'm not suggesting that there weren't servants, farm labourers and miners involved in the Methodist awakening ... the fact that most of the testimonies and conversion stories come from the 'better sort' or skilled labourers and small shop-keepers etc doesn't mean that there weren't others involved who couldn't read or write.

John Nelson the redoubtable stone-mason in the West Riding of Yorkshire springs to mind as an example of a skilled, itinerant labourer who used to preach alongside his trade - and who served for a while as Wesley's 'adjutant' in the North.

Generally speaking, Wesleyans were lower down the social pecking order than Congregationalists and Independents - who had become quite well-heeled by then. You can see the nuanced social differences in the style/architecture of redundant non-conformist chapels across West Yorkshire.

Baptists tended to be more working-class, but many of their leaders came from the skilled-trades and small shop-keepers - cobblers, agricultural agents and so on.

The Congregationalists had some pretty impressive plant, followed by the Wesleyans and with the Prims having fairly plain and simple structures.

The Tolpuddle Martyrs weren't well-heeled, but neither were they the 'lowest of the low' as it were ... there were grades and nuances between trades, of course.

As I've said, historians generally acknowledge that Wesley moved more widely across the social divisions of his day than almost all - if not all - of his contemporaries. The only class of people he felt uncomfortable with was the aristocracy.

I would imagine that a mid-18th century class-meeting would have been more socially diverse than almost any other grouping or gathering you could find at that time.

But the idea of hordes and hordes of unlettered horny-handed sons of toil flooding into Wesleyan Methodism is something of a myth.

Even at its height it represented a relatively small proportion of the population as a whole.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Also, mining varied a great deal at that time, with some combining it with other activities such as farming small-holdings or charcoal burning etc. This was particularly the case in the Forest of Dean.

Some miners owned property and were reasonably well off. Others scratched out a living underground.

Even further back, Luther's father is often described as a miner, but he seems to have had a fair degree of social status and disposable income - combining mining with other activities.

Before the large scale industrialisation of the mines, most mines and miners were in rural areas - so mining was part of a mixed economy. Up until comparatively recently Forest of Dean miners often kept pigs and ran small-scale ancillary businesses - fitting, welding, mending agricultural machinery, carrying out odd-jobs etc or running small-holdings.

The Kingswood miners were seen as a particularly needy group - somewhat outside conventional society and living in virtual isolation without 'benefit of clergy' and so on.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

My sister lives in a small village under the edge of the Cotswold scarp, built on the Fullers' Earth stratum, so a bit slippy, and once not full of anyone of any status. It had a number of pubs (she lives in what was one of them, that stopped way back at the beginning of the last century). The Baptists arrived and built a large classical edifice - the village had until then been unchurched. The powers that be became so concerned about the effects of this on their labourers, that a small CofE chapel was built to make sure of the votes being cast correctly. I believe it was an outpost of a church elsewhere, and Oxford Movement influenced. The Baptists had rooms which could be used for education. The Anglican church was little more than a tin chapel. I think class may have been involved there.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I need to do some more reading about the Forest of Dean, but my impression having been there many times is of a place deeply rooted in hard physical labour and with a kind of "wild west" prospector feel. There is a story I was told many times growing up about how the houses are all shapes because the miners had a day to put up the walls and roof, and could have as much garden as they could throw their picks.

Unlike the Cotswold villages, which always had some massive houses due to the boom in wool (also tiny workers cottages, of course), the towns of the Forest of Dean seem more like mining towns.

Of course, maybe it depends on what one is comparing with what - it is fairly obvious that the culture of the Forest of Dean was quite different to that of the deep pit mining areas of the Welsh valleys and North of England.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, it was 'wild west'-ish. That complements what I said ... we're talking about small scale prospecting back in the day ...

The story about building a house in a day and throwing a pick to claim some land is reminiscent of the old Welsh 'gavelkind' system where land was parcelled up in ever decreasing amounts. All the sons had an equal share so after a few generations the plots got smaller and smaller - so a chap would go onto common land, build a house in a day and then throw an axe to claim some land.

I'm sure there's some conflation of stories going on there. But yes, the Forest of Dean was, and remains, more working class than the Cotswolds and Wye Valley.

On the issue of Anglicans trying to muscle in on non-conformist territory - yes, that happened - throughout Wales and parts of rural and industrial England. Indeed, reparations from the Napoleonic Wars were used to fund an extensive church-building programme across the industrial north.

The Anglo-Catholic thing tied in with that to a certain extent as there was a view that this offered working people something different to what the non-conformists were offering - some spectacle, a touch of glamour, bling and ecclesiastical razzamatazz.

In London's East End, of course, it led to the 'slum-priest' thing.

The influence of that has been exaggerated, I think, but even today, in the north, you find many inner-city parishes remain Anglo-Catholic whereas those in the better off suburbs are evangelical or MoTR.

But yes, back in the late 1800s/early 1900s most Anglicans would have been High Tories and most non-conformists would have been Liberal.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I did some study a few years ago about the establishment of a workers mission in my town in the early 19 century. Initially it was set up in co-operation with the Anglican parish and other local churches. For the first 40 or 50 years it operated out of a shack with a "missionary" who was paid but not ordained. Then it was decided that a proper church building was needed, and the Anglicans asserted that services had to be led by an ordained priest, because the existing messy non-denomination services were not good enough. Eventually there was a massive falling-out and the free-churches set up their own mission down the road.

One interesting aspect of this is to compare the efforts of the mission with those of the contemporary temperance groups. The latter tended to be run by ordained ministers, usually along denominational lines, and were frequented by the "great and the good" who would give speeches which were reprinted in total in the local press. The mission, in contrast, was in the poorest part of town, in a crappy building and was almost always run by lay missionaries. They rarely had any coverage in the newspapers.

At the same time there was a revival going on along the Thames with the "bethel flag" movement, and at one point there was a huge floating chapel being used in work amongst sailors. And it wasn't long before the Anglicans not only saw this as a good idea but competition, so set up their own floating chapel.

From hindsight of 150 years it all seems rather ridiculous and comic. But it must have seemed like a spiritual fight at the time. And also suggests to me that the Anglican church structure saw the souls of working people as something worth fighting the free-churches for.

Or something.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think we also underestimate the extent to which the Free Churches were also competing among themselves - although, to be fair, as in the instance you cite there could be collaboration too.

But look at any of the northern industrial towns and cities and the South Wales Valleys and you'll find chapels built in direct competition with one another - often over-sized and unsustainable for the congregations they actually had at the time.

Plus, of course, a lot of these chapels resulted from splits and schisms ... non-conformity was highly fissaporous - just as evangelicalism can be today.

Without getting into value judgements as to who was right - or more right - and who was wrong, I think the safest thing we can conclude is that the Anglicans were caught on the back-foot by the industrial revolution ... and tried hard to play 'catch-up' with the Dissenters and the Methodists when it came to re-engaging with the industrial working class - or the rural under-class.

In the early 18th century the parishes were the same size as they'd been in medieval times - so a parish like Halifax covered a vast area. Even before Wesley set out on his mission there were 'religious societies' of various types and stripes springing up all over - partly to fill the void left by a dispersed Anglican presence ... it was difficult to get to your parish church on a Sunday if it was only accessible by muddy, rutted tracks and 7 miles away over the moors ...

Not all of these societies were particularly pietistic or evangelical, but there had been pietistic influences from the continent already, so there was a general zeitgeist of interiorised piety that Wesley, Whitefield and the others were tapping into.

Going back to the Forest of Dean, what we have there is an example of an 'outlier' - a wild tract of land that lay outside of conventional norms and had done so for generations. Back in medieval times it was the haunt of woodland charcoal burners and small-holders ... some of whom relied on mining as a source of income alongside subsistence farming.

By the time we get to the Civil War you've got a fairly independent, bolshie, yeoman-class almost of 'Free Miner' -- who would poach, mine, have grazing and timber rights and the right to let their pigs rootle about in the Forest. You're talking about an extensively 'industrialised' pre-industrial rural landscape ... not so much tracts of wild, unkempt forest but a landscape worked and scratched over by man and beast.

There'd be wood-piles and charcoal kilns everywhere, small mines and scratch workings, new growth and old - some coppiced woodland, some left wild.

By the mid-1600s there were disputes between the 'Free Miners' and local gentry such as the Wintour family who sought to enclose tracts of woodland and grazing land. Even so, it is still surprising that Lord Herbert of Raglan thought that the miners would join his 'Mushrump Army' of Welshmen to assist in the siege of Gloucester by undermining the walls - as Forest of Dean miners had at Berwick and other sieges throughout the middle-ages ...

As it turned out, they were raising troops to fight for Parliament, as Herbert soon found when his advance guard ran into them at Coleford.

Anyhow - we're talking about a pretty wild-bunch somewhat removed from conventional 'norms' ...

Back to the OP ...

Whilst I think it's possible to discern broad trends, there are always 'outliers' and instances that don't quite 'fit' expectations.

As far as Anglo-Catholicism in the East End of London goes, I'm sure that a lot of the 'slum-priest' mythology we hear is just that ... comforting mythology. That said, I used to know an old-school Communist Party of Great Britain former docker from the East End who had all the time in the world for the 'slum-priests' he'd encountered when growing up between the Wars.

He told me that they'd taught far more people to read and write than the conventional education system had, and often put themselves out to take on officialdom and unscrupulous landlords.

Sure, I can imagine a lot of this was 'paternalistic' but even so ...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's difficult to assess how working class the early Methodists were ... modern historians like Rack tend towards the view that many, if not most - were what we'd call lower middle-class / upper working-class in contemporary UK terms ie small shop-keepers, skilled tradesmen and so on ... although there were also domestic servants and labourers ... miners and so on. The later Primitive Methodists were more working class ...

For all that, Wesley probably moved more widely across the social classes than any of his contemporaries.

The article below (1994) might interest anyone who wants to read about the social composition of Methodism up to 1830. Occupational status is mentioned from p. 162 onwards.
https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m2333&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLIS HERS-DOCUMENT.PDF

The same author, Clive Field, has published other work on the composition of Methodism up to the present. It seems that the precise makeup of the early movement varied from place to place, but was rarely dominated by the destitute. Early Methodist men were frequently 'working class' in the sense that they made things, and were often skilled (or at least semi-skilled) at doing so.

The 'shop-keepers' were probably more prevalent in later generations, although Field notes that a miller, for example, could be classified as a 'retailer, manufacturer or processor of agricultural products.'

Regarding Wesley himself, what I've read is that he got on best with people who were below him in social status - though of course he had friends and colleagues of his own class. Apparently he wasn't very keen on aristocrats, apart from the Countess of Huntingdon and a few other devout people of her kind.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

Why is it a cause of frustration to be among middle class people, again?

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

It isn't, but it is frustrating for some denominations to be so lacking in class diversity. It seems that classism and class issues are invisible re inclusive churches. It can also be very isolating for one's church to not understand working-class culture/issues....when I was having issues with homelessness, it was so beyond the personal experience of my church at the time that it was very isolating. People who became homeless were people who they helped on the outside, not people who were really church members.

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

There may be a link with the "Too many buildings" thread here. It is a sad fact that a church whose members don't earn much, if anything, may not be able to survive. The parish I live in has two distinctly middle-class churches and, until last week, also had a distinctly working-class church. That is, working class, not necessarily in employment; a significant proportion was too disabled, old, young or generally disadvantaged to be actually working and earning.
This church served the local community, tried to hold money-raising events and very much wanted to keep going, but eventually there was a decision that it was no longer appropriate for the rich and successful churches to assist with its contribution to the parish share, so its last service was on Christmas Eve.
Incidentally, this leaves the parish with two churches less than ten minutes' walk from one another, while the poorer south end of the parish now has no church at all.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thanks SvitlanaV2 - that's pretty much in accord with what I've read elsewhere ...

The 'destitute' or 'under-class' were rarely, if ever, represented in any large numbers in any religious grouping. That isn't to say that churches and chapels didn't try to help them or alleviate suffering ... they did, but perhaps not always in ways we'd endorse or appreciate today.

And yes, a miller could be classified differently according to circumstances. The same was true for most other trades - other than the most menial.

As far as Wesley goes, yes, he did seem to struggle with the aristocracy - apart from devout individuals such as Selina Countess of Huntingdon.

By contemporary 18th century standards, though, his ability to move fairly comfortably across particular class divisions would have been unusual. But then, 18th century Britain was a lot more 'porous' in that sense than France and Spain were at that time ... as I keep reminding Americans who bang on about tyrannical King George and so forth ...

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I referred to the Methodists briefly ea
Church-sect theory also owes something to b

No it does not, you are muddling your nineteenth century social theorist. Church-sect theory is a Reformed theological take by Troeltsch of Weber. It haunts Reformed Ecclesiology in a quite complex way. For instane, should the local congregation be a sect or a church is the question behind Neibuhrs Christ and Culture.

Jengie

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Jengie, I'm a bit confused by that quote!

You you may well be correct about the origins of church-sect theory, but I've certainly come across the concept discussed in relation to Methodism. These theories, once they become fashionable, are applied to all sorts of developments!

Nowadays I think church-sect theory is referred to a lot in sociological writings about Pentecostalism, obviously because Pentecostal world expansion is of the moment. As you know, Pentecostalism has been described as a descendant of Wesleyan Methodism, and neither is Reformed.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

There is indeed a line from Weley to Azusa St and early Pentecostalism, but there is also a line thru Whitfield and other Reformed revivalists. Today youll see strong strains of both within American Pentecostalism anyway.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I don't know modern American Pentecostals, but I would have thought that their ancestry came much more through Wesley and the Arminian strand of Evangelicalism such as the Nazarenes and the Holiness movement.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

There are some Reformed charismatics, of course - New Frontiers (or whatever it calls itself now) would an example of that here in the UK.

Sovereign Grace was one such 'stream' in the US - but I'd consider them 'neo-pentecostal' or non-denominational rather than Pentecostal in the traditional sense ...

Cliffdweller will undoubtedly know more about US Pentecostalism than those of us on this side of the Pond, but my impression is the same at Baptist Trainfan's - that its roots lie more on the Wesleyan Holiness side of things (Church of the Nazarene etc) rather than on the more Calvinistic end of the spectrum.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Today youll see strong strains of both within American Pentecostalism anyway.

I'm not sure who you are thinking of - the reformed strand of pentecostalism/charismaticism is tiny by comparison (and is actually largely put together after the fact, rather than being some kind of straight line descent from Whitfield and his followers).

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Again historically the roots are primarily Wesleyan holiness but today we are the minority in U.S. Reformed and neo-reformed predominate among evangelicals, particularly Pentecostals

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Reformed and neo-reformed predominate among evangelicals, particularly Pentecostals

Okay, which denominations or church groupings are you thinking of?

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Well according to the Class Calculator I'm Elite!!

...

Elite! Look, my dog's really sick and it's going to take thousands to fix - could you paypal me a few hundred to help with the cost?

Interestingly, when I filled out the Pommy class survey I got Technical Middle Class, but when I filled out the Aussie one, I got Established Working Class. I think I just got better at filling out surveys.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Reformed and neo-reformed predominate among evangelicals, particularly Pentecostals
Okay, which denominations or church groupings are you thinking of?

I'm most familiar with Foursquare, Assemblies of God, Vineyard and Calvary Chapel.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don't think anyone could accuse the Assemblies of God of being 'reformed' or Calvinistic ...

[Confused]

Unless it's changed they used to be as Arminian as it was possible to be.

'Foursquare' I think, equates to our Elim ... and again, they were never particularly reformed in flavour either.

The Vineyard don't strike me as particularly Calvinistic either ... but neither would I count them as being close to the traditional Pentecostals ... although they've had some influences from the health/wealth end of things ...

Calvary Chapel might be different - but I've had no direct contact with them ... but I have met people who have. Again, these people didn't strike me as particularly Reformed in outlook ... although certainly slightly more prone towards that than the AoG, Vineyard and Elim people were ...

[Confused]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Again may be cross pond diTerence's but here Reformed theology is dominant in those denominations even tho again the roots are Wesleyan holiness.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I confess to being surprised. It must be about 15 to 20 years since I met any US Penties. None of those I've met could be considered Reformed.

Do you have any links?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again may be cross pond diTerence's but here Reformed theology is dominant in those denominations even tho again the roots are Wesleyan holiness.

AFAICR the most Reformed Vineyard/AoG et al would get - even a few years ago when there were a few young YRR influenced types around - was to stress grace heavily.

In fact the AoG has bylaws against some Reformed teaching.

[ 31. December 2015, 08:45: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Can I remind you that Arminius was Reformed. The Predestinarian versus Free-will debate is an internal Reformed debate. There are thus many different definitions of Reformed.

At its widest definition then you can include the Roman Catholic Church which has had its theology significantly shaped by having to debate quite often on the Reformed agenda. Normally it has not accepted the argument but still it has been theologically shaped by having to respond to it. The terminology used by Reformed Theology is often the dominant terminology in Western theological debate. This system determines what can and what cannot be debated.

At its narrowest definition, Reformed tradition is divided with groups claiming it that are single congregations. These groups would add so many more restraints to TULIP that only they could possibly satisfy.

Given this variety of ways of drawing the boundary, it is perhaps more useful to ask what aspects of Reformed theology these groups have adopted rather than to ask whether they are Reformed. There will be elements of Reformed Theology in them especially if they have a United Kingdom heritage.

Jengie

[ 31. December 2015, 08:58: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

No need to remind us, I'm aware of Arminius and those influenced by him as a subset of Reformed theology - the internal element you are referring to ...

In the context of this discussion, though, I am struggling to see how the US AoG can be seen as Reformed in any meaningful way than the generic point that they are Protestants and therefore part of a broader Reformed family that includes everyone who isn't Anglican (arguably) or Lutheran, Orthodox (Chalcedonian and otherwise) or RC.

I agree that it's better to ask which aspects of AoG or Vineyard theology corresponds with classic Reformed emphases.

There will be some overlap or convergence, of course, but I have yet to meet an AoG-er oe Vineyarder from either side of the Atlantic who could in anyway be described as Reformed in the TULIP sense.

I have known people from that background who have headed in aore Calvinistic direction in reaction to the Arminianism that formed the prevailing paradigm where they'd been ... but as Chris Stiles says, there are 'confessions' or statements of belief among the AoG and other Pentecostal groups that explicitly distance themselves from the bleaker predestinarian elements of what might be called 'populist' or fundamentalist forms of Calvinism.

Cliffdweller dwells on a cliff somewhere in the US and will have a closer view than we do, but I must admit I am astonished to hear the AoG and the Vineyard and Foursquare types described as 'predominantly' Reformed.

In my experience they are anything but.

The only people I've encountered 'Open Theism' amongst, for instance, have been Vineyard or 'emerging' types.

Ok, I accept I am using the term 'Reformed' in a narrow sense ..
But I'm sticking to my guns until someone shows me incontrovertible evidence to convince me otherwise.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Yes but I also suspect that you would find that the TULIP subscribers were a minority in World Communion of Reformed Churches. TULIP does not equal Reformed, it is a summary of a particular type of Reformed theology at a specific time within a specific historical setting.

Jengie

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, but still a stretch to include US style Pentecostalism, I'd have thought.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Particularly when none of the churches that Cliffdweller has mentioned are actually members of that world federation of Reformed churches to which you've provided a link.

They none of them self-identify as Reformed to my knowledge - other than in the broadest terms - ie they are not Catholic, Anglican or Lutheran.

Sure, I recognise that TULIP isn't the sum-total of being Reformed or that TULIP-ness is commensurate with Reformedness in its entirety - but we're talking about pretty conservative or even fundamentalist churches here - where such niceties and nuances aren't generally part of the fabric.

In my experience, former Pentecostals who move to a more Reformed position generally - but not always - gravitate to very Calvinistic or even hyper-Calvinist groups ... they replace one form of fundamentalism with another.

I'd like Cliffdweller to define and identify what is Reformed about the groups she's mentioned - Foursquare, the AoG, the Vineyard and Calvary Chapel
.. because unless we are using the term in so sweeping and generalised way as for it to become meaningless, I remain unconvinced.

If she were talking about the FIEC here in the UK or various independent evangelical groups in the US which had a mildly Reformed but not particularly charismatic flavour, then I'd probably agree.

As it is, we may as well claim that the Methodists or Salvation Army are Reformed.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

In the context of this discussion, though, I am struggling to see how the US AoG can be seen as Reformed in any meaningful way than the generic point that they are Protestants and therefore part of a broader Reformed family that includes everyone who isn't Anglican (arguably) or Lutheran, Orthodox (Chalcedonian and otherwise) or RC.

I agree that it's better to ask which aspects of AoG or Vineyard theology corresponds with classic Reformed emphases...

I have known people from that background who have headed in aore Calvinistic direction in reaction to the Arminianism that formed the prevailing paradigm where they'd been ... but as Chris Stiles says, there are 'confessions' or statements of belief among the AoG and other Pentecostal groups that explicitly distance themselves from the bleaker predestinarian elements of what might be called 'populist' or fundamentalist forms of Calvinism....

The only people I've encountered 'Open Theism' amongst, for instance, have been Vineyard or 'emerging' types..

Definitely not talking about open theism which would not be reformed by any definition, but is decidedly radically Wesleyan.

I also wasn't really talking denominational positions. Most Pentecostals eschew "creeds" (along with so-called "denominational ism"). Statements of faith tend to be quite minimal (Foursquare has just the four key beliefs none of which really deal w reformed v Wesleyan issues.

The main systematic theologian I hear quoted and used by Pentecostals is Wayne gruden. Other popular theologians that quoted a lot are Tim Keller and John piper. All part of the new reformed movement in US Pentecostalism. Part of the work hubby and I are doing is advocating/articulating a return to a Wesleyan paradigm among American pentecostals

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Iow I'm talking about a newer movement among preachers and laity not official denominational stances. I hear a few specifically aligning themselves explicitly as "Reformed" but more often it's simply who they are reading/ the voices that are influential in shaping theology

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok - that's clarified things to a certain extent, Cliffdweller ... what you're talking about, it seems to me, are recent seepage - as it were - of more Reformed emphases into US Pentecostalism from popular theologians such as Grudem and Piper.

Ok, I can see that - I'll 'buy' that as it were ...

Even back in the day when I was closer to Pentecostalism and neo-pentecostalism than I am now it was seen as something of a mark of theological nouse for charismatic and Pentecostal preachers to borrow from more Reformed sources ... the Reformed end of things was always admired for its learning and its emphasis 'on the word' ...

In my experience, this could lead to Pentecostals abandoning Pentecostalism in general and moving across into more avowedly Reformed churches - or at least seeking out those charismatic churches which had a more explicitly Reformed flavour ...

I know a few Reformed Baptists and other strongly Calvinistic Christians who were Pentecostals at some stage ...

Bluntly, it was a case of the smarter you were the less Pentecostal you eventually became ...

[Big Grin]

Although what tended to happen was as I've observed upthread - they simply replaced one form of fundamentalism with another ... a more Calvinistic, TULIP form by and large.

As to the extent that the writings and theology of figures like Piper and Grudem are influencing Pentecostalism per se ... I wouldn't be able to comment on that as I'm not as close to those circles as I once was.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

Right - so I've seen some of what you talk about (amongst younger ministers and lay people), but would not have read it the same way for reasons I shall explain later:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

The main systematic theologian I hear quoted and used by Pentecostals is Wayne gruden.

To a large extent the reason why Grudem's (decidedly average) systematic theology has such a large audience is that is one of the few modern ones out there which also has a large publisher behind it. The Pentecostal systematic theologies tend to be either older, rather niche and sectarian or pushed by much smaller (often denominationally associated) publishers.

quote:

Other popular theologians that quoted a lot are Tim Keller and John piper.

Well, both are reasonably widely published and publicized and a large amount of what they say is likely to be generically christian rather than 'reformed' (less so in the case of Piper).

Unless you believe that reading the Jesus of Nazareth series made me more Catholic, or that The Shack led to a massive rise in the number of people believing in Patripassianism.

[ 01. January 2016, 17:37: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Overall I would agree with you Chris. But I would note that the parts I see quoted from those authos seem much more than "gereically Christian" but rather more specifically Calvinist ( although not, as noted above 5 pt Calvinism). The preachers and laity I'm thinking of would not particular claim the "reformed" mantle/label-- but to me (as a Wesleyan) that's precisely the concern. In certain parts of Pentecostalism and American evangelicalism a soft 3-point Calvinism has come to be understood as precisely that --"generic Christianity" or "generic evangelicalism" w/o any awareness of th alternatives or their own Wesleyan holiness roots

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

FYI: Most Quakers in the world live in Africa (primarily Kenya) and are not middle-class by any western standards.

sabine

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Which hardly helps Lord Clonk seeing as he doesn't live in Kenya.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Do e.g. Kenyan Quakers tend to be middle class by local standards?

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which hardly helps Lord Clonk seeing as he doesn't live in Kenya.

This thread has discussed various topics, not just Lord Clonk's immediate neighborhood. Quakers in the US were mentioned as well as Quakers in the UK. I was adding another perspective.
****

Albertus asked if Quakers in Africa tend to be middle class by local standards. I know that Quakerism came to Africa through service work by Quakers in more developed countries and that this outreach to those in need, which continues today, has resulted in the largest population of Quakers in the world. Generally speaking. I don't know how this shakes out in terms of Kenyan or African ideas of class.

sabine

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It's an interesting development, but one wonders why Quakerism took hold to the extent it has in Kenya, for instance, whereas it didn't gain as much traction in other parts of the world where Friends were just as active?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0