|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The future of denominations?
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I've come across various figures as to when certain denominations in Britain, e.g. the CofE, the CinW, the Methodists, etc. could cease to exist as the century progresses. Are there people out there who are concerned about this? Is the solution simply more and more denominational mergers?
At the local level, the smaller, weaker congregations as they age and die will realise that being part of a large institution is no longer helping them. Meanwhile, the bigger, more successful congregations might become aware that being part of a denomination isn't necessary for their developing vision; in fact, for growing, self-supporting churches to be associated with an imploding denomination might be seen as a PR fail for them.
What about the small, alternative, organic forms of Christian life that might appear - in what sense will they have anything to gain from denominations that now have hardly any money or priests, and whose structures no longer reflect the realities on the ground?
Other countries will be facing some of the same challenges but in different contexts. It would be interesting to hear if they're beginning to discuss the place of denominations in the ongoing life of the Church.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Not an answer to your questions, but two observations from a Baptist perspective.
1. I think fewer and fewer Christians identify as "Baptist" or whatever (less true for RC and Orthodox, of course); rather, they are "Christians" who happen to be part of a Baptist church for now. Their affinity is local rather than denominational and they see little point in participating in denominational life. This means that denominations may end up becoming little more than "resourcing agencies", which is not reason enough for their continued separate existence.
2. Traditionally our churches are "independent" in the sense of being able to make substantive decisions locally. My intuition is that many larger churches (not all) are becoming increasingly "independent" in all senses, doing little in partnership with other churches and pursuing their own agendas. Some of these contribute very little towards denominational funding.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
In my lifetime the entire Anglican/TEC thing has soured me on the big structures. The next time I switch churches (to be compelled when we move across the country) I intend to look for a church that is not going to get sucked into these bloody and pointless battles.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Offeiriad
Ship's Arboriculturalist
# 14031
|
Posted
Increasingly I see denomination as a 'spiritual address' - some may stay in the one place, others may move, each as God/life leads them.
'Christian' is the name I bear wherever I might 'live', and my name has always got to be of more significance than my current address.
[ 02. February 2016, 13:55: Message edited by: Offeiriad ]
Posts: 1426 | From: La France profonde | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
I suppose it depends on your ecclesiology, to a great extent. if you think episcopacy is of divine institution, then no, the 'structure' of the diocese and wider 'denomination' will not fade away.
As for decline and fall - it has been predicted for so long. Some historic English nonconformist denominations which had specific constituencies may fade away as that constituency declines. But the RC Church and CofE will continue, changed, of course. But they have always been in a state of change.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Bibaculus
You say that the CofE will continue to exist, but do you have any particular reason for thinking so? It's hardly comparable to the RCC in size. Maybe you're thinking of the Anglican Communion - which itself seems not to be entirely secure as a network.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
No, I'm thinking of the CofE. I am less sure about the Anglican Communion.
The CofE seems to be adaptable. And the English people, while they may not attend it in great numbers, are comfortable with it as a part of the fabric of national life. I cannot see why that will change - because the CofE will change with the English people, just as it always has. It may lag behind, but compromise and a very English ambiguity have always been its strength.
I read a book written in the 60s (in a library, years back, cannot recall title or author) which predicted the demise of the CofE within a short space of time. Back in the 80s, AN Wilson, Charles Moore & Gavin Stamp collaborated on a volume which said much the same. And back in the reign of Queen Anne people feared the Church in Danger.
Maybe this is complacency? I just think it is an assessment of the future based on the past.
Of course, Renewal & Reform may bring about a huge upsurge in churchgoing. I am so looking forward to general Synod later this month...
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Ecumenism!
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think fewer and fewer Christians identify as "Baptist" or whatever (less true for RC and Orthodox, of course); rather, they are "Christians" who happen to be part of a Baptist church for now. Their affinity is local rather than denominational and they see little point in participating in denominational life.
There definitely may be cultural differences at play. On this side of the pond, this may be true of many in the mainline denominations, but in my experience it is not true at all of Baptists.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Bibaculus
One of the problems the CofE has is that fewer and fewer people are claiming it as part of their identity. The British Social Attitudes survey of 2015 shows that only 17% of British people currently do so.
However, when it has to rationalise severely and cut back on the number of actual congregations and clergy that it supports then it could perhaps re-position itself as a kind of 'resourcing agency', as Baptist Trainfan puts it, but with the additional role of managing a large portfolio of heritage property.
I tend to think the Church of England 'brand' will survive because of its historical value, but outside of its shrinking strongholds it'll have to create a public face that doesn't rely on the presence of clergy or congregations.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
The Reformed tradition does not depend on denominations for its existence. They are temporary institutions that float on the surface of a far more profound discourse. Not joking, we were born of merger (no not 1972 but Concensus Trigurinus in 1566) and our ability to split is legendary but that has neither led us to dissolve utterly as we merged nor to fragment into so small parts that there is no whole.
Thus, it is the Reformed tradition is not supported really by institutions such as denominations but by a theological, cultural and social discourses. Belonging to a congregation which belongs to a denomination in the tradition is just one way to engage with the tradition. The theological aspects of these discourses are often paraded, but in my opinion, is that it is the social and cultural ones that are far more important to the continuation of the tradition.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
There's a lot of talk in recent years about 'the Anglican Communion.'
One would think, listening to all the noise, that it is of 'ancient and august' origin. Not so, really.
'Overseas' bits of Anglicanism were historically under the direct jurisdiction of the Bishop of London, or else were founded and supported by the various 'mission societies,' still probably in +London's jurisdiction. (Or else were completely independent, like the Scottish Episcopal Church.)
The first talk about 'Anglican Communion' comes about the time of the first Lambeth Conference, Canterbury's rather belated recognition of those 'beyond the seas.' Those attending were those +Cantuar invited (that were able to get there). It was stressed from the beginning that the LC had no power to do anything, just to talk.
It was very much later that the anomalous beast the Anglican Consultative Council arose, along with a Primates' Council (not sure of its name), all supported by various bureaucracies.
Having not the organizational genius of the Roman Curia, it would seem that their influence/effect has not exactly been toward unity.
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In my lifetime the entire Anglican/TEC thing has soured me on the big structures. The next time I switch churches (to be compelled when we move across the country) I intend to look for a church that is not going to get sucked into these bloody and pointless battles.
Good luck with that, Brenda ...
Meanwhile, on the issue of denominational allegiance, it could be argued that the current understanding of 'denominations' is a 19th century one - and as such doesn't have a very long track-record within Protestantism in general - or the Reformed tradition in particular - as Jengie Jon reminds us.
That isn't to say, of course, that groups that 'denominated' themselves according to particular understandings or approaches didn't exist prior to the 19th century - of course they did - but they weren't understood in the way we tend to use the term 'denomination' today.
It seems to me that whether we approach these things in a Jengie Jon-like Reformed way or in a old-school 'episcopal' way - seeing the episcopacy as somehow divinely ordained and somehow almost self-perpetuating - then the overall understanding and framework 'transcends' the particular denominational foot-print ... if I can put it that way.
I think what Baptist Trainfan observes about the Baptists as a denomination is certainly true. It's equally true these days that there are people who attend Anglican churches who wouldn't necessarily identify themselves strongly with the 'Anglican' label ... they're there because of other reasons.
Whatever we call ourselves and however we organise ourselves, I suspect we're all heading into the same kind of territory - post-Christendom.
That doesn't necessarily imply, though, that RCs are going to stop organising themselves in some kind of diocesan framework, nor that some of the new-ish Orthodox diocesan/deanery frameworks here in the UK (or the US) are going to stop organising themselves along similar lines to how they have done in the past ... even if their 'parishes' extend over wider areas than would be the case in traditionally Orthodox countries.
I think the question isn't so much whether the idea of 'denominationalism' has a future - but whether certain groups (however denominated) will survive the century.
The prognosis for the Church in Wales and for the Methodists looks bleak. Some of the more pessimistic forecasts even have the CofE becoming extinct by 2100.
We'll have to wait and see ...
Meanwhile, some of the fresh, trendy, apparently more 'organic' groups are likely either to 'denominationalise' to a certain extent over time - or else to fizzle and fade and be replaced by who knows what ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It could be argued that the current understanding of 'denominations' is a 19th century one - and as such doesn't have a very long track-record within Protestantism in general - or the Reformed tradition in particular - as Jengie Jon reminds us.
That isn't to say, of course, that groups that 'denominated' themselves according to particular understandings or approaches didn't exist prior to the 19th century - of course they did - but they weren't understood in the way we tend to use the term 'denomination' today.
Certainly true for Baptists: local (e.g. county) "Associations" predated the formation of the national "Baptist Union" in 1832 by at least a century, I think. In a very real sense the "modern" denomination only dates from the appointment of J.H. Shakespeare as General Secretary in 1898.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
As a wise man once said, the big wheel keeps turnin'.
Denominations/jurisdictions with a strong identity and a commitment to theological distinctives will continue to exist. Once they start diluting that identity and giving up those distinctives, they begin to shrink.
The same denominations and jurisdictions that exist today may not exist in a century or two. Their places will be taken by others. In the US, mainline Protestantism seems to be withering as it jettisons the things which defined it; churches which are now viewed as evangelical or fundamentalist could be mainline denominations a hundred years from now.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've come across various figures as to when certain denominations in Britain, e.g. the CofE, the CinW, the Methodists, etc. could cease to exist as the century progresses. Are there people out there who are concerned about this? Is the solution simply more and more denominational mergers?
It might depend on how one views what a denomination is. Is it a sign of division or diversity?
I personally view them as signs of diversity, where one denomination will emphasise one aspect of the christian life and another will emphasise another. So I'm rather in favour of their continuance, though with a few caveats.
Some denominations (and I do think of Anglicans in particular) can be a bit solipsistic, treating their denomination as being the be all and end all of the Church (big C). In other words, being a part of a particular denomination is seen as synonymous with being a christian, rather than seeing that denomination as a part of a wider Church.
I sometimes think of denominations as akin to dog breeds. Some are pedigree breeds, kept unchanged for years, very beautiful but which may have some serious health issues. Others are mongrels, picking up a bit of Methodist here, a bit of Pentecostal there, with a dash of Baptist; they're a bit haphazard and not the prettiest of things, but they're quite healthy bounding around the place.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In my lifetime the entire Anglican/TEC thing has soured me on the big structures. The next time I switch churches (to be compelled when we move across the country) I intend to look for a church that is not going to get sucked into these bloody and pointless battles.
It's really a matter of luck and there is no way you can predict how things will go in a new church. Larger structures have a way of deflating and addressing hot issues which smaller groups often can't do (committees, studies etc), but issues come to the fore, and egos and other agendas try to use them for their own purposes.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think the question isn't so much whether the idea of 'denominationalism' has a future - but whether certain groups (however denominated) will survive the century.
[...]
I'm not sure if I agree entirely.
There may well be a tiny 'group' of self-designated British Methodists at the turn of the next century. But what there probably won't be is a 'Methodist Church'. IOW, the denomination is likely to disappear before the last Methodist does - which from a Methodist perspective is a significant change. To me, that's interesting, but I can understand how it's probably less interesting to Baptists and Reformed churchgoers who are basically congregational in focus.
Again, people are obviously free to attend CofE churches without considering themselves to be Anglicans, but I'm wondering what the CofE as a highly structured institution will do when it has few worshippers left, very little money, and little cultural support as a denomination from people who don't go to church. Will it be worth maintaining the structures as they are for such a tiny number or people? Maybe the CofE just needs to survive for long enough until no one still alive cares about these things, and then re-invent itself, not just in practice ('creeping congregationalism') but in theory also.
The new church movements may try to denominationalise in the historical fashion, but I wonder how well this will work when their presence in the culture is likely to be so fragile. To become a denomination you need numbers and money.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
This discussion seems unremittingly pessimistic. I don't say its wrong. But it is pessimistic.
When I were a youth, if someone had asked if 'denominations' would die out, it would have been assumed that the question was based on the ecumenical movement being such a success that we would All Be One Big Happy Family.
No we assume it means that we will just be a few ranting old biddies.
As I say, that might be an accurate perspective, but it isn't very cheering.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sipech's view of the CofE doesn't accord with my experience at all - not even with those clergy and people I know from the 'higher' end of things.
Which Anglicans has he been speaking to?
I don't know any Anglicans who wouldn't regard the RCC as a Church, for instance - and although some might still be sniffy towards 'non-comformists' I don't know any Anglicans who thnk of the CofE or wider Anglican Communion as The One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in the way that the RCC or the Orthodox do.
I have never, ever, ever met a single Anglican who believes that being a Christian and being an Anglican are synonymous in a way that, being a Baptist, say, and being a Christian aren't.
I ask Sipech to give evidence for this assertion.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
As a Catholic Anglican the OP struck me as a very Protestant-centred view of things. I suppose I am a 'liberal catholic' in most respects although I am very dubious about the word liberal, but I regard the C of E as an anomaly, being part of the Catholic Church yet but cut off from the mainstream. I think it is only when Christians acknowledge their Catholic roots that we will have unity; denominations do become largely irrelevant in that context. The community of Taizé is an example: founded by Protestants, now totally ecumenical and inclusive, it has regained its Catholic vision without losing any of its Protestant spirit.
I suspect its when we are always looking over our shoulders at what the 'other lot' believe and practice, that we get bogged down in doctrinal niceties. It's a particularly anglo-saxon problem since we have so many 'denominations'. In other cultures where there is a 'mainstream' church people just seem to get on with the job of being Christian.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
This discussion seems unremittingly pessimistic. I don't say its wrong. But it is pessimistic.
Sorry about that! The pessimistic possibilities of the thread had occurred to me. But if you feel positive about the church that's a good thing. It probably means the churches in your area are fairly healthy, and are in a fit state to benefit from the sorts of evangelism or renewal programmes you referred to previously.
Otherwise, this thread actually seems quite positive about non/post-denominationalism so far. Church decline hasn't been the driving factor in most people's comments. There's been mention of ecumenicalism, the churchly indiscrimination of evangelicals, the desire of Anglicans and others just to find a good church, the Reformed focus on ideas rather than denominational expansion.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
As a Catholic Anglican the OP struck me as a very Protestant-centred view of things. I suppose I am a 'liberal catholic' in most respects although I am very dubious about the word liberal, but I regard the C of E as an anomaly, being part of the Catholic Church yet but cut off from the mainstream. I think it is only when Christians acknowledge their Catholic roots that we will have unity; denominations do become largely irrelevant in that context. The community of Taizé is an example: founded by Protestants, now totally ecumenical and inclusive, it has regained its Catholic vision without losing any of its Protestant spirit.
It was Protestant-centred, I agree. The RCC is in an entirely different situation from most British churches, being a totally centralised global institution. Its future existence doesn't rely on what happens to it in Britain. (The Orthodox don't seem fussed, AFAIK. There seems to be a sort of equilibrium there.)
But the CofE? Well, perhaps its future is to enter into institutional unity with the RCC, as you say. I enjoyed my visit to Taizé many years ago, but its ecumenicalism is obviously focused on churches at the 'Catholic' end of things. If you're from another tradition it's still a unifying experience, but that doesn't mean institutional unity seems particularly desirable. Not in my case, anyway.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sipech's view of the CofE doesn't accord with my experience at all - not even with those clergy and people I know from the 'higher' end of things.
Which Anglicans has he been speaking to?
I don't know any Anglicans who wouldn't regard the RCC as a Church, for instance .
The majority view of Sydney Anglicans is that Roman Catholics aren't Christians so I don't think they'd view the RCC as part of the body of Christ. The former Dean of the Cathedral in Sydney said Roman Catholics were "sub-Christian at best."
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sipech's view of the CofE doesn't accord with my experience at all - not even with those clergy and people I know from the 'higher' end of things.
Which Anglicans has he been speaking to?
I don't know any Anglicans who wouldn't regard the RCC as a Church, for instance - and although some might still be sniffy towards 'non-comformists' I don't know any Anglicans who thnk of the CofE or wider Anglican Communion as The One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in the way that the RCC or the Orthodox do.
I have never, ever, ever met a single Anglican who believes that being a Christian and being an Anglican are synonymous in a way that, being a Baptist, say, and being a Christian aren't.
I ask Sipech to give evidence for this assertion.
I don't know about Sipech's assertions but (sadly) I have met Anglicans who fill each and every one of these categories-- the anti-RCC bunch being the more numerous. I think that the others were outliers/eccentrics/wingnuts but they still exist.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That wouldn't surprise me about Sydney Anglicans but Sipech doesn't live in Australia ...
Besides, everyone considers the Sydney bunch to be outliers ...
Yes, I've come across anti-RC sentiment in the CofE, partucularly among older people and not exclusively from the evangelical or more avowedly Protestant side of things either.
What I have never, ever come across is the notion that Anglicanism is THE One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that to be Christian one has to be Anglican.
Whatever else your average CofE parisioner is doing when they recite the Creeds, they won't be applying the 'We believe ... in the holy catholic church' exclusively to themselves - which Sipech seems to be accusing them of doing.
Sure, the 39 Articles attest that Rome, Antioch and t'others have 'erred' but I don't see anything there that suggests that the rest aren't Christians and besides, you won't find many Anglicans who'd go along with all the Articles anyway ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What I have never, ever come across is the notion that Anglicanism is THE One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that to be Christian one has to be Anglican.
No, but I have come across the attitude that all other denominations (except RC and Orthodox) are not "proper" Christians and definitely "below the salt".
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
The majority view of Sydney Anglicans is that Roman Catholics aren't Christians so I don't think they'd view the RCC as part of the body of Christ. The former Dean of the Cathedral in Sydney said Roman Catholics were "sub-Christian at best."
Yes, the full article is worth reading.
I might have expected this kind of thing at the extremes of evangelicalism, not from inside Anglicanism. I wonder how widespread these views are.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
And of course, Sydney Anglicans are not a majority of Anglicans in Sydney. The largest single grouping is of traditional low church Anglicans, that which has always been dominant in Sydney. Even amongst the Moore College clique, most would consider the views of Phillip Jensen would be looked on as extreme.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've come across various figures as to when certain denominations in Britain, e.g. the CofE, the CinW, the Methodists, etc. could cease to exist as the century progresses. Are there people out there who are concerned about this? Is the solution simply more and more denominational mergers?
It might depend on how one views what a denomination is. Is it a sign of division or diversity?
I personally view them as signs of diversity, where one denomination will emphasise one aspect of the christian life and another will emphasise another. So I'm rather in favour of their continuance.
I agree very much on the importance of diversity, but it's interesting to consider that these days the diversity frequently seems to exist within rather than between denominations, which often creates internal frustration and squabbling.
Whether this internal theological diversity makes denominations more or less important in Britain is an interesting question. It often seems that some denominations are held together mainly because they offer brand recognition, resources for congregations, and perhaps relatively good options for accessing training or maintaining a career. While benefits such as these exist, mainstream denominationalism (outside the RCC and Orthodox) will have a future.
The question is whether such benefits are likely to continue as we progress through the century. AFAICS, the CofE and the RC are the only denominations likely to retain some broad brand awareness in the wider culture. I imagine the CofE will absorb at least one or two other denominations in a couple of decades. It'll be interesting to see whether its evangelicals will go off and join other other groupings, leaving the CofE poorer, but perhaps more motivated to reorganise and redefine itself.
As for 'diversity', I think it's going to be a privilege enjoyed mostly by Londoners, followed by a couple of other cities, especially as British Christianity becomes increasingly 'ethnic'. To buy themselves more time the more liberal congregations elsewhere are going to have to continue to merge, which I find reduces diversity.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
LeRoc has it right in part: ecumenism. The other part is agreement among denominations and direct sharing.
Canada is perhaps rather a distance ahead (or away from) some of the Old World. The United Church of Canada, created in 1925, was made of nearly all of the Methodists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists. These denominations don't exist except in isolated and rare ways. The differences in ethnicity that were Old World-relevant just aren't here.
The Anglican Church of Canada and Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada have an agreement which means that an ordained Anglican or Lutheran are completely exchangeable. Thus, a Lutheran pastor can serve as an Anglican priest, and they do. No discrimination between the two. I don't know if this will ultimately mean that we'll have an Anglican-Lutheran Church of Canada, but it will probably function over time like that.
I know in most places the Roman Catholics function as if they have a fence around them. But not here. RC churches relatively frequently provide communion to non-Roman Catholics. Shared chaplaincy. It is priest dependent it seems, and no one seems to quibble much about it. Which apparently would horrify some, in some places. It is common for RC, Anglicans and Lutherans to go to each others' churches, share ministries and services, these quibbling issues just don't come up much.
So the boundaries will be eroded further, over time, here, and if not there, that's okay too.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE] The RCC is in an entirely different situation from most British churches, being a totally centralised global institution.
Of course you are right, in theory. I'm not a Roman Catholic, and maybe I'm being over-optimistic or romantic about the reality, but my sense is that where the RCC is the 'default' church (even more so than the C of E is here) most people just get on with being Christian and while obviously they see things from a catholic perspective they are not particularly fussed about the sort of dogmatic differences that obsess most of us. As for the centralised, papal authority aspect it doesn't really impinge. To a large extent i think that is true about Catholics in Britain too. It's only Anglo-Catholics and ex-a-cs like the Ordinariate that worry about women priests and such like.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yes, the full article is worth reading.
I might have expected this kind of thing at the extremes of evangelicalism, not from inside Anglicanism. I wonder how widespread these views are.
That wouldn't have been that unusual forty years ago, but it's important not to forget that a lot of Catholics regarded Protestants in much the same light. I know it's often said that the conflict was really about ethnicity, and in many ways it has been. Nevertheless, one of the many sad things about Northern Ireland, is that both sides regarded themselves as the privileged followers of the one true faith, and the others as benighted delusionists who inhabited a wilderness of spiritual self-deception.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The United Church of Canada, created in 1925, was made of nearly all of the Methodists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists. These denominations don't exist except in isolated and rare ways.
The almost 1,000 congregations and 225,000 people (baptized members) that make up the Presbyterian Church in Canada might take some issue with that statement. Approximately 30% of the Presbyterian congregations did not participate in the formation of the UCC.
Granted, it's not a huge group, relatively speaking, but I'm not sure "rare" and "isolated" fit either, at least for the country as a whole. Certainly, the Presbyterian presence may be more pronounced in some areas than in others.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Baptist Trainfan - I don't doubt that as a Free Church minister you have encountered some arsey and stuffed shirt attitudes from some Anglicans - but that's not the same as Sipech's assertion that the Anglicans consider themselves congruent with the Church Capital C.
If this thread tells us anything it's how diverse Anglicanism can be, from the ultra-Protestant rantings of Sydney to the gin-and-lace non-conformists can fuck off brigade.
Which is what makes the Archbishop of Canterbury's job such an interesting one ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
LeRoc has it right in part: ecumenism. The other part is agreement among denominations and direct sharing.
Canada is perhaps rather a distance ahead (or away from) some of the Old World. The United Church of Canada, created in 1925, was made of nearly all of the Methodists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists. These denominations don't exist except in isolated and rare ways. The differences in ethnicity that were Old World-relevant just aren't here.
The Anglican Church of Canada and Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada have an agreement which means that an ordained Anglican or Lutheran are completely exchangeable. Thus, a Lutheran pastor can serve as an Anglican priest, and they do. No discrimination between the two. I don't know if this will ultimately mean that we'll have an Anglican-Lutheran Church of Canada, but it will probably function over time like that.
I know in most places the Roman Catholics function as if they have a fence around them. But not here. RC churches relatively frequently provide communion to non-Roman Catholics. Shared chaplaincy. It is priest dependent it seems, and no one seems to quibble much about it. Which apparently would horrify some, in some places. It is common for RC, Anglicans and Lutherans to go to each others' churches, share ministries and services, these quibbling issues just don't come up much.
So the boundaries will be eroded further, over time, here, and if not there, that's okay too.
What No Prophet says, with two quibbles. The Anglican-Lutheran interchange depends on which Lutheran body is involved. If a cleric is from the ELCA, a bit of paperwork will make their orders apostolic, if from another Lutheran church, as nothing-- the Dean of Québec, brought in from a Baltic church, was ordained as if he were a layman.
The other quibble depends on the region. In some parts of Canada, Lutherans are thin on the ground, and so the agreement is not terribly relevant.
Most RC clergy regularly communicate non-RCs, using a most generous interpretation of Canon 844. There are a few exceptions, where parishes are under the (let's call it) guardianship of the Companions of the Cross or the Legionaries of Christ, but they are happily rare.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Baptist Trainfan again ...
Thinking about it, I certainly think it's possible to meet Anglicans who seem to think that the CofE should be the only Church operating here ... in the same way as they probably think that the Orthodox should be the only one operating in Greece or Russia ... (other than Anglican missionaries perhaps ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ).
But again, that's a step away from what Sipech was asserting about the CofE thinking that it was THE Church and that nobody else is a proper Christian.
I don't doubt you've come across some Anglicans who'd think of Baptists and others as somehow sub-standard ... but then, we've all come across some Baptist and other Free or new Church types who feel the same way about Anglicans ... which doesn't justify either position of course ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
The majority view of Sydney Anglicans is that Roman Catholics aren't Christians so I don't think they'd view the RCC as part of the body of Christ. The former Dean of the Cathedral in Sydney said Roman Catholics were "sub-Christian at best."
Yes, the full article is worth reading.
I might have expected this kind of thing at the extremes of evangelicalism, not from inside Anglicanism. I wonder how widespread these views are.
What an absolute stinker that man Jensen is.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I have never, ever, ever met a single Anglican who believes that being a Christian and being an Anglican are synonymous in a way that, being a Baptist, say, and being a Christian aren't.
I certainly don't believe it, but I also learned a long time ago that it is never a good idea to make bold statements about what Anglicans do or do not "believe" as a group, because you usually don't have to look too far for the exception.
I like that I can go to an Episcopal church anywhere in the country (or even an Anglican church anywhere in the world) and know what to expect. Certainly there is some value in that which is worth keeping?
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
The majority view of Sydney Anglicans is that Roman Catholics aren't Christians so I don't think they'd view the RCC as part of the body of Christ. The former Dean of the Cathedral in Sydney said Roman Catholics were "sub-Christian at best."
Yes, the full article is worth reading.
I might have expected this kind of thing at the extremes of evangelicalism, not from inside Anglicanism. I wonder how widespread these views are.
What an absolute stinker that man Jensen is.
That was not the worst that he did, by any stretch of the imagination. His resignation as Dean was mourned by few.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The other quibble depends on the region. In some parts of Canada, Lutherans are thin on the ground, and so the agreement is not terribly relevant.
Most RC clergy regularly communicate non-RCs, using a most generous interpretation of Canon 844. There are a few exceptions, where parishes are under the (let's call it) guardianship of the Companions of the Cross or the Legionaries of Christ, but they are happily rare.
Thanks for the clarification. Interestingly, Anglicans are thin and Lutherans are much thicker in some parts of the west. Merely a result of original immigration patterns I think.
Thanks also for the info re the RC canon.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
My attendance at my local Anglican church has been sporadic over the past year. Every now and then, about once a month I suppose, I attend a RC city church during the week, before I meet a friend for lunch.
Denomination isn't important for me, but communion and bible readings are, especially communion. There was quite a while when I went to the Uniting Church weekly, quite a long while really, but the communion just didn't do it for me. It was only once a month, so if you missed that week, you went as much as 7 weeks without communion. I was studying theology for alot of this time, and they had a magnificent service every Friday with proper (for me) bread and wine and extremely good preaching.
That type of service is it and a bit for me. I was in spiritual bliss the whole time, but I knew that other students and some staff found the whole thing irksome and false.
I need frequent communication, I know this on a deep level, even when I'm not attending church. So however bursting at the seams and full of harmonious song a reformed church is, I won't be happy. A church I occasionally take some clients to is like this. They are the real deal. Their preaching is great, their theology spot on, their music beautiful, their outreach superb, they have babies and children and an active youth program, but they are not for me. I need the actual bread of life, be it a metaphor or otherwise.
Obviously, Catholicism has marked me good. I'm a crucifix boy, smelling and belling away. I hate how they've changed the creed but, another Catholic legacy no doubt. How come they can de-gender our prayers but not our priests?
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
LeRoc has it right in part: ecumenism. The other part is agreement among denominations and direct sharing.
Canada is perhaps rather a distance ahead (or away from) some of the Old World. The United Church of Canada, created in 1925, was made of nearly all of the Methodists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists. These denominations don't exist except in isolated and rare ways. The differences in ethnicity that were Old World-relevant just aren't here.
The Anglican Church of Canada and Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada have an agreement which means that an ordained Anglican or Lutheran are completely exchangeable. Thus, a Lutheran pastor can serve as an Anglican priest, and they do. No discrimination between the two. I don't know if this will ultimately mean that we'll have an Anglican-Lutheran Church of Canada, but it will probably function over time like that.
I know in most places the Roman Catholics function as if they have a fence around them. But not here. RC churches relatively frequently provide communion to non-Roman Catholics. Shared chaplaincy. It is priest dependent it seems, and no one seems to quibble much about it. Which apparently would horrify some, in some places. It is common for RC, Anglicans and Lutherans to go to each others' churches, share ministries and services, these quibbling issues just don't come up much.
So the boundaries will be eroded further, over time, here, and if not there, that's okay too.
I wonder what it is about Canada that has made this work so well? Maybe it's just that you're just such nice, unargumentative people!
I've looked up the United Church of Canada and it seems like a solidly moderate, more or less liberal religious entity. Also, it seems to be numerically larger than the Anglican Church in Canada.
In the UK the Anglican churches would still be bigger than the moderate Nonconformist denominations would be if they merged into one group. This perhaps ties into the issue, mentioned above, of (occasional) CofE arrogance; the CofE has numbers, relatively speaking, as well as an embedded status in the culture. (I don't know about attitudes and exactly percentages in the rest of the UK, but the populations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are so much smaller in any case.)
The unequal size issue impinges on talk of union. I come from the Methodist tradition, and I've heard it said several times by more senior Methodists than myself that the impetus for the oft-discussed CofE-Methodist union is mostly from the Methodist end, that the Anglicans aren't all that interested. And TBH, I'm not surprised. Apart from the virtuous feeling of having achieved a degree of unity, what would the CofE get out of it?
In essence the CofE is too diverse. The Anglo-Catholics wouldn't directly benefit from such a union (plus, there's concern, so I understand, that merging with the Methodists would problematise closer relations with the RCs), and the evangelicals, only to a limited degree.
As for the MOTR congregations from different denominations, they're already merging with each other at a rapid rate, but nowadays this is often experienced as a result of weakness rather than ecumenical zeal, I'm afraid. It's rare to hear of large, lively congregations choosing to merge, although they may be outward-looking and friendly with other churches.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I wonder what it is about Canada that has made this work so well? Maybe it's just that you're just such nice, unargumentative people!
I don't think it is about being nice. I think it is about the realities of living in a harsh climate, immigration from everywhere, and being very spread out. Consider: you're on a highway between a two large cities in the south (or what is considered large) in western Canada). One city has about 200 thousand, the next big city has 50,000, and they are 500 km apart. The largest town between them has 15,000, and all the rest of the settlements have 50 to 500 people, and they are 10 to 50 km apart. It is -35°C and your car quits working, or there's a blizzard and you are stranded in one of the little towns. Someone in the bar or cafe offers to boost your car (hooking up their battery to your's) or offers that you can come home and stay in their house. Does this happen everywhere else? Your ancestry is completely different, perhaps you are Scottish-Ukrainian and they are German-Finnish. The circumstances throw you together.
or consider, 50 or 100 years ago (you can't go much further than 120 years). You left England as one of the younger kids of a large family, and you apply for a homestead and it is between a Russian and an Italian. You marry one of their kids, and your brother or sister marries the other. You just combined Orthodox, Ukrainian Catholic, Anglican. You get the picture? Then someone has an illness, and the neighbours have to get together and take the crop off (wheat probably). The differences among religious and cultural background just don't play and you cannot stick with your own.
Now it's 1948 and there's no decent insurance for automobile accidents or house fire. So you get together with others, talk about it, and the gov't decides to start and insurance company that is publicly owned. The retail stores say it is uneconomic to have stores in every town, so you found co-op stores for groceries, and then everything else. Then telephones, electric, and eventually TV cable, and internet. Uneconomic you say? We'll do it ourselves we say.
It's not a far leap to do the same things with churches I think.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
In addition, very small settlements of under 1,000 ended up with a number of churches. There are plenty of spots in eastern Ontario where the main intersection features UCC, Anglican, Presbyterian, and RC churches, the Baptists being a little down the track, and the Pentecostalists near the interchange. As long as the initial tribal allegiances held, so would the divisions... but with intermarriage and time, when one or two closed down, those congregants would just move to a neighbouring church or go nowhere.
But as prophet notes, nothing beats a Canadian winter for teaching solidarity. You might not like each other, but you pull together or it just can't work.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
And TBH, I'm not surprised. Apart from the virtuous feeling of having achieved a degree of unity, what would the CofE get out of it?
We're supposed to be one holy, catholic and apostolic church. Finding ways to heal our divisions is in the job description.
I don't see how the Methodists could merge with the C of E without episcopal ordination of Methodist ministers, though, and the Ribena's
got to go ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've come across various figures as to when certain denominations in Britain, e.g. the CofE, the CinW, the Methodists, etc. could cease to exist as the century progresses. Are there people out there who are concerned about this? Is the solution simply more and more denominational mergers?
On this point; I'd hazard a guess that there are not many cases where two denominations that were both shrinking started to grow once they merged.
On denominational survival more generally; the CofE have the challenge both of maintaining themselves internally from division (which may not be possible) as well as retaining their notion of being a church for the nation - which again is going to be increasingly harder to do.
In general, I suspect that 'networks' (defining themselves via an inner core of belief) will take on a more important function than denominations (patrolling the outer edges of belief), and to borrow from a point that Eutychus made in the New Wine thread, a lot of these have been set up by people who have a good deal of training to draw on in terms of business management and so on, and so they are generally better run and resourced than historical denominations of similar size. Even the denominations that survive will increasingly take on this model.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I think you may well be right. But that raises another "spectre" in my mind as, although I agree that Christian organisations should be efficient and business-like, I become worried when they too uncritically adopt "management" models and structures.
To take a railway example (sorry!), Beeching was right in saying that the network was run expensively and inefficiently. But, in trying to make it "pay" (which was the brief he was given), the notion of public service was ignored. In church terms, that would mean that only "successful" churches would survive, while many churches and chapels in rural or inner-city areas would close.
Now I do not deny that it is silly to have a Parish Church, a Methodist Chapel and a Baptist Conventicle almost cheek-by-jowl in a small community and each struggling to keep the roof on with a handful of congregants. Nor do I deny that the machinations in turning them into an official Ecumenical Church are ponderous beyond belief.
Clearly neither "traditional" nor management" solutions will fit the bill if Christian witness is to be maintained in such situations - and Fresh Expressions aren't the answer to everything, either.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes - and that's the tricky thing ...
I can think of several churches/congregations around here that really 'ought' to merge as there's not a cigarette-paper's width of difference between them to all intents and purposes ... in terms of style and theology.
How that would or could happen, I have no idea.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
It'll happen when the money's pretty much run out.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
