Thread: The future of denominations? 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=029636
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
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.
Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
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...
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Ecumenism!
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
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
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
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.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
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.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
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."
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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".
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@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 ...
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@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 ...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
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?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
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?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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)
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
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.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
It'll happen when the money's pretty much run out.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I think that's true.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It'll happen when the money's pretty much run out.
Unless the major cause of the current financial woes are related to upkeep of buildings, then even the merged entity will be no more viable.
A number of the joint community centre+church approaches seem to end with the church dying off.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I agree with you that merged churches generally continue to decline. But the fact remains that decline is often what encourages them to merge in the first place. They're able to pool resources and buy some time.
Regarding buildings, when congregations or denominations are merged the financial pressure is lightened because not so many churches are needed. They can be sold off and hence cease to be a burden. Unfortunately, other problems often present themselves.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Regarding buildings, when congregations or denominations are merged the financial pressure is lightened because not so many churches are needed. They can be sold off and hence cease to be a burden. Unfortunately, other problems often present themselves.
Well yes, that was just a re-wording of what I said above.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Ah, I misunderstood you, then. In my world there's no 'unless'; churches close and merge due to a lack of money for building maintenance. There are many underlying problems in such churches, of course, but it's the lack of money that pushes them towards the final decision.
Are you saying that closures for other reasons would automatically lead to the merged entities being unviable? I don't have much awareness of such cases, except that IME church+community centre ventures are often driven in the first place by financial concerns besetting the parent churches, and often have the same underlying problems that you see in other mergers.
BTW, if anyone is interested, yesterday I found an interesting essay online about a group of Methodist churches that closed and merged into one large church (plus community space) on a single site. The remarkable thing is that this new church grew. As has been said by others above, many of the new people it attracted were post-denominational; they were primarily looking for a church that suited them, not a Methodist church in particular.
[ 06. February 2016, 01:24: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
If you merge two congregations of fifty usually the result is that in ten years you have one congregation of fifty instead of perhaps two congregations of forty.
Two reasons for this:
1) Members are often congregationalist in loyalty and the merger is seen as the closure of their congregation; so there is a break and their loyalty does not automatically transfer to the newly merged congregation.
2) Merger hides their decline, so congregations feel they can survive for longer as they are. This allows them to become more entrenched in they way things are done and less open to other people.
Jengie
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
If you merge two congregations of fifty usually the result is that in ten years you have one congregation of fifty instead of perhaps two congregations of forty.
Two reasons for this:
Potential third reason: these are people who feel most comfortable in a congregation of about 50 people. When the place got too big, they went to some smaller church, until the equilibrium was reëstablished.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
I surprised there isn't more discussion about Christian denominations in the US in here, especially Mainline ones (which means being relatively liberal theologically while often including a conservative minority). The Episcopal (TEC), Presbyterian (PCUSA), and Evangelical Lutheran (ELCA) denominations have serious issues of declining membership and graying congregations. I don't know much about the United Church of Christ (UCC) (which is mostly the successor to the Congregational Church that grew out of New England), but I would suspect it faces similar challenges. The United Methodist Church (UMC) is a little bigger and healthier, although because more and more of its own members are in conservative countries outside the US it has its own problems with staying together. The American Baptists USA (basically the northern mostly-white Baptist denomination), Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and Reformed Church in America (basically Dutch Reformed) are also sometimes included in the label Mainline, and do not know much about those groups, but the stereotype is that all Mainline denominations are in decline.
Are Church mergers like the United Church of Canada or Uniting Church of Australia the future for at least some US Mainline churches? I do see a lot of overlap already between MOTR and progressive elements of TEC and the ELCA. As in Canada, these denominations are in full communion and have basically interchangeable clergy. Outside of denominational merger, how common will building-sharing be among churches of different denominations going forward? What more radical changes might happen in the US context that alter the traditional definition of what a denomination is or does?
Feel free to discuss non-Mainline denominations in the US, too.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
stonespring
There's obviously a reluctance to explore these questions in the American context. This may be because, as Bibaculus has said, the topic appears somewhat pessimistic. Unity is supposedly desirable, but unity as a last resort is hard to get enthusiastic about.
AFAICS, the structural differences between the Episcopalians and many of the of the other American mainline denominations (especially the congregationalist ones) make national mergers including the Episcopalians unlikely. But maybe the rate of local church mergers will increase as belts tighten.
What I find interesting is the challenge of keeping different churches of the same denomination aligned with each other across the globe. I think this is increasingly a challenge, because local conditions make it very difficult to pursue a single worldwide theology. American Episcopalianism exists in a very different religious and social context from the CofE, as does Anglicanism in various parts of the developing world.
The RCC allows for a certain leeway depending on local circumstances. It seems able to keep the fractiousness at a lower level than the Anglican Communion can manage.
[ 10. February 2016, 12:00: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What I find interesting is the challenge of keeping different churches of the same denomination aligned with each other across the globe. I think this is increasingly a challenge, because local conditions make it very difficult to pursue a single worldwide theology.
Certainly true for Baptists, too (and you'd know about the Methodists). Quite apart from moral and other DH debates over Biblical interpretation, the British churches still mostly cling to the centrality of congregationalism and the Church Meeting, while Baptist churches elsewhere may have more of an authoritarian leadership structure (whether any have Bishops I do not know). I suspect that, in practice, church government often follows secular norms.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Ah, I misunderstood you, then. In my world there's no 'unless'; churches close and merge due to a lack of money for building maintenance. There are many underlying problems in such churches, of course
and that is the issue I was commenting on. I have seen a few (very few) churches which were sustainable as congregations in and of themselves - though small, but obviously saddled with an impractical building. In such cases a merger of sorts did work.
Generally as you say, the building issue is just a pressure point for overall unsustainability of the congregation.
quote:
The RCC allows for a certain leeway depending on local circumstances. It seems able to keep the fractiousness at a lower level than the Anglican Communion can manage
Well, that's what being united around (core) belief rather than merely governance and practice gets you.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
The RCC allows for a certain leeway depending on local circumstances. It seems able to keep the fractiousness at a lower level than the Anglican Communion can manage
Well, that's what being united around (core) belief rather than merely governance and practice gets you.
True, of course; but I think there's more to it. I think that there are many people (even those who may never attend church!) who regard themselves as "Catholics" and wouldn't conceive of going elsewhere. In other words, they stick with their "brand" even though they may disagree profoundly with it. That mindset is far less prevalent in much of the Protestant world these days.
Why this is, I'm not sure. Does it go back to an underlying belief - perhaps residual rather than articulated - that the RCC is the only "proper" Church or Ark of Salvation and that other denominations are, spiritually speaking, "below the salt"? Or is it due to the Papacy, a far stronger unifying factor than ++Cantuar.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, if you believe your Church to be The One True Holy and Apostolic Church it doesn't leave a lot of options open ...
On Baptist Bishops. They have bishops among Baptists in Eastern Europe. I once met a Baptist bishop from Georgia.
Google the Georgia Baptists - not the US Georgia - and you'll see. They look like something out of a Lord of The Rings convention.
The guy I met looked like an Orthodox bishop only with less bling.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Baptist Trainfan
Regarding Methodism, my impression is that the circuit system has reduced in importance around the world, except in the British Isles. The United Methodists in the USA don't bother with it, although of course they're a different denomination.
The Methodist President of Conference holds a post that's practically designed to prevent one person exercising control over British Methodism, let alone its daughter churches around the world. Conference can make decisions that affect British Methodist churches, but it's not experienced as an authoritarian body.
chris stiles
ISTM that the Anglican Communion needs to be a much looser organisation. If it's not designed to be united by theology then the notion of censure and punishment over DH issues or anything else of a theological bent makes very little sense.
As for different national circumstances, the CofE in particular seems to be in a very awkward position. On the one hand it has to contend with a high rate of national indifference to religion and religious strictures, but on the other, it sees the strength of more conservative Christian groups over the moderate alternatives. Tolerance creates good PR but doesn't seem to build strong churches; a dose of strictness creates stronger churches but generates worse PR. It's impossible for the CofE to satisfy all sides but as the established church it feels it has to try.
There doesn't seem to be a way out of the problem because the CofE is unwilling to give up any of the strings to its bow.
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
What Mousethief said. People gravitate to particular churches for many reasons. The size of the congregation is an important factor for many people. Location is another, especially if your transport options are limited. Demographics. Friendliness. Time and length of service. The actual denomination isn't vital for everyone.
I'm not expecting my church to close, but am now contemplating with interest what I would do if it did. Probably not what people would expect me to do...
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
We had an old gentleman in our prayer group who said that the architecture was very important. He did not want to meet in a meeting hall. He wanted to meet in a building with stained glass window (or at least windows with a pointed arch) and a steeple on the roof.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
.
On Baptist Bishops. They have bishops among Baptists in Eastern Europe. I once met a Baptist bishop from Georgia.
Google the Georgia Baptists - not the US Georgia - and you'll see. They look like something out of a Lord of The Rings convention.
The guy I met looked like an Orthodox bishop only with less bling.
And what a fascinating story that is, thanks for mentioning it.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
stonespring
There's obviously a reluctance to explore these questions in the American context. This may be because, as Bibaculus has said, the topic appears somewhat pessimistic. Unity is supposedly desirable, but unity as a last resort is hard to get enthusiastic about.
AFAICS, the structural differences between the Episcopalians and many of the of the other American mainline denominations (especially the congregationalist ones) make national mergers including the Episcopalians unlikely. But maybe the rate of local church mergers will increase as belts tighten.
What I find interesting is the challenge of keeping different churches of the same denomination aligned with each other across the globe. I think this is increasingly a challenge, because local conditions make it very difficult to pursue a single worldwide theology. American Episcopalianism exists in a very different religious and social context from the CofE, as does Anglicanism in various parts of the developing world.
The RCC allows for a certain leeway depending on local circumstances. It seems able to keep the fractiousness at a lower level than the Anglican Communion can manage.
It seems to me that the part of TEC that is growing is pretty flexible on issues of doctrine, apostolic succession, etc. - it seems to be interested in socially progressive but not overly political preaching and social engagement, a family-focused parish atmosphere that does not get hung up on liturgical formalities, and a worship style that is identifiably Christian, progressive, socially relevant, liturgical in a way that is engaging to the senses, and not so catholic that it would seem foreign to the more liturgical side of the Mainline Protestant mainstream. This makes me think that TEC and ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America - which from my limited experience also seems to have all these trends in its areas of growth) will come closer and closer together even if they do not actually merge. The full communion and clergy sharing agreement has already resulted in merged TEC-ELCA parishes, and where the trends I have mentioned above are present they seem to function quite nicely. All this is a little concerning to someone person like me who is super-super-catholic in his worship preferences, but I understand everything that is at work and respect it.
The UMC (United Methodists) are too big at the moment to feel compelled to merge with anyone else.
As for the other mainline denominations in the US, I agree that there are issues of polity (congregational vs presbyterian) and doctrine (at least in the case of baptism re: the otherwise moderately-progressive American Baptists) that make merger more difficult, but since many of these denominations are largely in agreement on many other issues I would not be surprised to see them join their charitable bodies and perhaps other aspects of their bureaucracies, in addition to considering sharing church buildings in even more cases than already exist. And as time passes, I do not think future generations are going to care that much about ecclesiastical polity or even historical/cultural issues such as Dutch vs. English/Scottish/Scotch-Irish Reformed Christianity so perhaps we may see mergers of PCUSA, Reformed Church in America, UCC, etc. I am also curious how the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) fit into all this, because despite their Restorationist origins are increasingly considered to be a Mainline denomination.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
stonespring, I think that's an astute assessment of the situation and what it could bring in the near future.
About the Disciples of Christ: they and the United Church of Christ have an official partnership and are in full communion with each other, including mutual recognition of ordination. UCC ministers may serve DoC churches and vice versa, and there are some churches with standing in both denominations.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
What Mousethief said. People gravitate to particular churches for many reasons. The size of the congregation is an important factor for many people. Location is another, especially if your transport options are limited. Demographics. Friendliness. Time and length of service. The actual denomination isn't vital for everyone.
I'm not expecting my church to close, but am now contemplating with interest what I would do if it did. Probably not what people would expect me to do...
Most plans for church mergers factor in the assumption that people will move on.
People will look at the new church and (prayerfully) consider whether or not this is the kind of church they want to go to. In a merged congregation there will be changes in leadership, worship styles, premises etc. For some, those will be deal breakers. So they leave.
For others, they might been thinking of moving on anyway and the changes give them an opportunity to do without too many awkward questions.
I’m not sure it’s as negative as being loyal to one particular congregation or a merger hiding a decline. I’m sure Mousethief is right about size being a factor. Some people don’t like big churches.
Tubbs
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
This makes me think that TEC and ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America - which from my limited experience also seems to have all these trends in its areas of growth) will come closer and closer together even if they do not actually merge. The full communion and clergy sharing agreement has already resulted in merged TEC-ELCA parishes, and where the trends I have mentioned above are present they seem to function quite nicely.
.... I do not think future generations are going to care that much about ecclesiastical polity or even historical/cultural issues such as Dutch vs. English/Scottish/Scotch-Irish Reformed Christianity so perhaps we may see mergers of PCUSA, Reformed Church in America, UCC, etc.
FWIW, while I'd agree that the PC(USA), the RCA and the UCC already have clear historic and contemporary connections that might make merger among them more likely than with some other groups, I'd note that the ELCA has been in full communion with all three of these Reformed denominations since 1997 (two years longer than the full communion with TEC).
While there are a number of congregations that are both PC(USA) and UCC, I'm also aware of some, both dual-affiliated congregations and federated congregations, that are both PC(USA) and ELCA. As far as that goes, I've run across a few congregations (federated, I think) that are both PC(USA) and TEC.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
FWIW, while I'd agree that the PC(USA), the RCA and the UCC already have clear historic and contemporary connections that might make merger among them more likely than with some other groups, I'd note that the ELCA has been in full communion with all three of these Reformed denominations since 1997 (two years longer than the full communion with TEC).
While there are a number of congregations that are both PC(USA) and UCC, I'm also aware of some, both dual-affiliated congregations and federated congregations, that are both PC(USA) and ELCA. As far as that goes, I've run across a few congregations (federated, I think) that are both PC(USA) and TEC.
What is a federated congregation?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
What is a federated congregation?
Two (or more) congregations, each of which is affiliated with a different denomination, that do not formally merge but that function essentially as a single church.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
If demographic trends in US Mainline Protestantism continue and congregations continue to get smaller, older, and financially unsustainable, what do people think is a possible result of the next hundred years or so? Large-scale church mergers? The end of mainline denominations altogether? A transition from denominations into loose church networks that are much less tied to doctrine, ecclesiastical polity, or worship style, if at all?
I think it is worth noting, although it is quite apparent that the US is quite different from England in that there never was a national Established Church and that even parts of the country that started out with an official denomination (or an overwhelming majority in one denomination) changed so that by the 20th century no one denomination anywhere had a monopoly on followers or on big pretty church buildings. This might make it harder for mainline denominations to merge, because they always felt more able to stand on their own and never had to deal with (and never were themselves) one big Established Church or one single church of the rich and powerful. But Canada had a huge church merger (the United Church of Canada) and its religious history is not that different, outside of Quebec at least. But as someone mentioned earlier, the vast distances between cities and smaller population overall of Canada might have facilitated church mergers. I can't comment on what made the Uniting Church of Australia succeed where a large scale church merger has not in the US, other than by guessing that this might be because Presbyterian, Methodist, and Congregational denominations in Australia were smaller in size and power in comparison to the Anglican and Catholic churches in ways that were not the case in the US.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
In Scotland, where I live there are Presbyterians and Episcopalians.
James sixth, needed bishops as he saw himself as anointed by God (hence bishops).
The weakness of the Presbies is they quarrel and then go off in a huff to build yet another church.
They sometimes kiss and make up!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, James VI of Scotland (1st of England) famously said, 'No Bishops, no King ...'
I get the impression that his interest in Bishops grew after he became King of England as well as of Scotland. After he moved south, he all but lost interest in the Scottish Kirk.
Be all that as it may - there are, of course, lots of other denominations operating in Scotland as well as the Presbyterians and Episcopalians. There are Baptists, Pentecostals, independent evangelicals, Roman Catholics ...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
The weakness of the Presbies is they quarrel and then go off in a huff to build yet another church.
They sometimes kiss and make up!
Yes and no ... hence the continued existence of the United Free Church of Scotland (Continuing).
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
When my late father in law lived in Blackburn, Lancashire, there were three non conformist churches
Who exchanged abuse.
In the name of Christian fellowship.
This is surely the problem.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
They weren't all different brands of Methodism, were they?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
My father-in-law, a strict baptist with a church in Lancashire, once went to an even stricter baptist church in Loveclough, not far from there, and knocked on the (locked) door during one of their services. It was reluctantly opened and he asked if he could come in. "I dunno, I'll 'ave to ask t'pastor" was the reply. I can't remember whether he ever made it in or not.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
The weakness of the Presbies is they quarrel and then go off in a huff to build yet another church.
They sometimes kiss and make up!
Yes and no ... hence the continued existence of the United Free Church of Scotland (Continuing).
The Free Church of Scotland came about in 1843 when a third of the clergy walked out of the assembly.
It was a break from the 'established' church on a matter of patronage.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, James VI of Scotland (1st of England) famously said, 'No Bishops, no King ...'
I get the impression that his interest in Bishops grew after he became King of England as well as of Scotland. After he moved south, he all but lost interest in the Scottish Kirk.
Be all that as it may - there are, of course, lots of other denominations operating in Scotland as well as the Presbyterians and Episcopalians. There are Baptists, Pentecostals, independent evangelicals, Roman Catholics ...
The aftermath of 1560 (the break with Rome by Act of Paliament) was the Presbyterian and Epicopalian churches. The other denominations had not come into existence.
Wikipedia: 1584 James appointed two bishops.
James was invited south in 1601(?).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I didn't say the other denominations existed at the time of James VI/1st ...
I know full well that there were only Episcopalians and Presbyterians then. And yes, James did appoint Bishops before he moved south ... but it's often been observed that his interest in Episcopacy grew after he moved south ... I'm not suggesting he wasn't already interested in Bishops ... but he did seem to lose interest in Scottish church affairs - as well as Scotland itself - when he moved to London.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Oi! There were Dissenters by the time of James I/VI. The first English Baptist church was formed in 1611/12, for instance.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
The fact that there are so many denominations is telling.
The creation of yet another breakaway body suggests a dissatifaction with what was available before.
Hence the non conformists and Methodists broke away from the C of E.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
Matthew:
A house divided will not stand.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Matthew:
A house divided will not stand.
The house is not divided. Grown-ups have decided to organise themselves in different houses because they can't live with each other. Despite various names being slung around at each other over the years, the majority of these groups today recognise each other as Christian.
There is a peculiar attitude amongst some RCs and some Anglicans that things will all be fine-and-dandy once all of these groups return to (their) fold - which usually would require the repudiation of some of the theology these groups have held for hundreds of years. Why they think this is likely - much less desirable - I have absolutely no idea.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Matthew:
A house divided will not stand.
The house is not divided. Grown-ups have decided to organise themselves in different houses because they can't live with each other. Despite various names being slung around at each other over the years, the majority of these groups today recognise each other as Christian.
There is a peculiar attitude amongst some RCs and some Anglicans that things will all be fine-and-dandy once all of these groups return to (their) fold - which usually would require the repudiation of some of the theology these groups have held for hundreds of years. Why they think this is likely - much less desirable - I have absolutely no idea.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Matthew:
A house divided will not stand.
The house is not divided. Grown-ups have decided to organise themselves in different houses because they can't live with each other. Despite various names being slung around at each other over the years, the majority of these groups today recognise each other as Christian.
There is a peculiar attitude amongst some RCs and some Anglicans that things will all be fine-and-dandy once all of these groups return to (their) fold - which usually would require the repudiation of some of the theology these groups have held for hundreds of years. Why they think this is likely - much less desirable - I have absolutely no idea.
If the Grown Ups think this satisfactory why should I a child interfere.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
John 17-21
That they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22"The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;…"
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Matthew:
A house divided will not stand.
The house is not divided. Grown-ups have decided to organise themselves in different houses because they can't live with each other. Despite various names being slung around at each other over the years, the majority of these groups today recognise each other as Christian.
There is a peculiar attitude amongst some RCs and some Anglicans that things will all be fine-and-dandy once all of these groups return to (their) fold - which usually would require the repudiation of some of the theology these groups have held for hundreds of years. Why they think this is likely - much less desirable - I have absolutely no idea.
The House is not divided but the family will not pray together.
I very much doubt that things will be fine-and-dandy as long as Christians continue to see division as a good thing.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
I very much doubt that things will be fine-and-dandy as long as Christians continue to see division as a good thing.
Each to their own. I see the different expressions of church as only a good thing.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Not in Scotland there weren't, Baptist Trainfan.
Yes, there were small groups of dissenters - including (Ana)Baptists in London from around 1612 but there weren't any in Scotland until much later as far as I'm aware.
There were around 40 Baptist churches around the London area by about 1640, I think ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
On the divisions thing ... deep down, the Orthodox would like everyone to ditch their own way of doing things and become Orthodox - including RCs, the other non-Chalcedonian Orthodox churches, non-RC episcopal churches such as the Anglicans and also the various Protestant 'free churches'.
The RCs would like the same, with the Orthodox and all the varieties of Protestant acknowledging the Pope as universal Pontiff.
How's that going to happen?
I'm not sure the proliferation of denominations is a good thing ... but what do we do about it?
It's where we are.
Here, where I live there are six churches and you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between some of them ... the Methodists and the URC should have merged years ago - you can hardly tell them apart.
The liberal catholic Anglican parish and the RC parish 'look' very similar - at least in outward form (although the liberal catholic Anglican parish has a woman priest).
The evangelical Anglican parish and the Community Church (AoG), probably have more in common with one another than they do with the others - although there are close links between the Community Church and the Methodists - at least at a leadership level ...
I'm not sure there's anything that we 'gain' here by having six buildings with six congregations doing pretty much the same sort of things by and large ...
But then, if they were all to join together in some way I'm not sure what that would achieve either.
Someone observed to me on Sunday that the two Anglican parishes should really merge into one town-wide parish ... but how would that work? They're like chalk and cheese. They may as well be in different denominations.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
which usually would require the repudiation of some of the theology these groups have held for hundreds of years. Why they think this is likely - much less desirable - I have absolutely no idea.
Why it is desirable is obvious - if you and I believe contradictory things about God, at least one of us is wrong.
In principle, we all desire to do God's will (usually with the "but just don't make it too onerous" caveats), which must include believing correct things about God, and we desire other people to come closer to Christ, which includes believing correct things about God.
Everybody wants everyone to believe correct things about God, and everybody believes that those things are the things that they currently believe. (People differ quite a lot in how strongly they hold to their current beliefs, though.)
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
In England,Henry viii broke with Rome and made himself head of the church in England.
Any dinominations created after that time, non conformists, Methodists, Baptists etc were a break not from Rome but from the C of E.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Not actually both Baptists and URC in England have congregations that claim to never have had a connection with the CofE being founded as Separatists; only part of our roots are Puritanical*.
Jengie
*For those who are fussy, Puritan - one who seeks to purify the Worship and Theology of the Church of England. Yes, some of our predecessors were kicked out in 1662, but some had never been in.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
In England,Henry viii broke with Rome and made himself head of the church in England.
Any dinominations created after that time, non conformists, Methodists, Baptists etc were a break not from Rome but from the C of E.
The Catholic Apostolics - basically an English denomination - were, to a degree, a break from the Church of Scotland!
The early Pentecostals in Britain came from a variety of sources. Although two Anglicans were prominent at the very start, other leaders came from other traditions.
And, of course, many of the "New Churches" draw from several roots - some come from the Baptists or Brethren, others are more Anglican.
[ 02. March 2016, 16:14: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
In England,Henry viii broke with Rome and made himself head of the church in England.
Actually 'supreme governor'
Jesus is the head of the Church!
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
I suppose if Frankenstein is going to argue that we are breaks away from CofE then the Scottish Episcopal Church is a breakaway from the CofS. Actually such is the Churches of Christ contingent within the URC as well, but boy is that a circuitous route.
Jengie
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I suppose if Frankenstein is going to argue that we are breaks away from CofE then the Scottish Episcopal Church is a breakaway from the CofS. Actually such is the Churches of Christ contingent within the URC as well, but boy is that a circuitous route.
Jengie
In Scotland the break with Rome was by acts of parliament in 1560. Thanks to St Andrew's University, these can be viewed on the internet.
The Presbyterian and Episcopalian churches were formed at the same time. The Scott's preferred the
Presbyterian Church.
King James sixth required bishops.
As he said,"No bishop no king"
Hence the Episcopalian Church.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I suppose if Frankenstein is going to argue that we are breaks away from CofE then the Scottish Episcopal Church is a breakaway from the CofS. Actually such is the Churches of Christ contingent within the URC as well, but boy is that a circuitous route.
Jengie
In Scotland the break with Rome was by acts of parliament in 1560. Thanks to St Andrew's University, these can be viewed on the internet.
The Presbyterian and Episcopalian churches were formed at the same time. The Scott's preferred the
Presbyterian Church.
King James sixth required bishops.
As he said,"No bishop no king"
Hence the Episcopalian Church.
These are historical facts.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
The creation of the C of E took several years for the acts of parliament to be introduced.
Starting 1532 and going onto 1536.
All this data can be found on the internet or history books covering the period.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
The creation of the C of E took several years for the acts of parliament to be introduced.
Starting 1532 and going onto 1536.
All this data can be found on the internet or any history books covering the period.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
It follows logically that any dinomination which was created after 1536 broke away from the C of E and not Rome.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
No, that's too simple. (a) Some denominations broke away from other break-away denominations; (b) many denominations contain elements from several others.
And, if a denomination is formed of new converts with no previous affiliation (unlikely, I grant you), then it isn't a breakaway from anything.
[ 02. March 2016, 18:01: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
In Scotland the break with Rome was by acts of parliament in 1560. Thanks to St Andrew's University, these can be viewed on the internet.
The Presbyterian and Episcopalian churches were formed at the same time. The Scott's preferred the
Presbyterian Church.
King James sixth required bishops.
As he said,"No bishop no king"
Hence the Episcopalian Church.
Not quite. After the break with Rome the Church of Scotland went back and forth between presbyterian and episcopal forms of polity. Regardless of whether presbyterian or episcopal polity had the day, it was still the Church of Scotland.
When presbyterianism was finally established for good in the late 17th Century, the episcopal contingent of the Church of Scotland organized as a separate body, the Scottish Episcopal Church.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
In Scotland the break with Rome was by acts of parliament in 1560. Thanks to St Andrew's University, these can be viewed on the internet.
The Presbyterian and Episcopalian churches were formed at the same time. The Scott's preferred the
Presbyterian Church.
King James sixth required bishops.
As he said,"No bishop no king"
Hence the Episcopalian Church.
Not quite. After the break with Rome the Church of Scotland went back and forth between presbyterian and episcopal forms of polity. Regardless of whether presbyterian or episcopal polity had the day, it was still the Church of Scotland.
When presbyterianism was finally established for good in the late 17th Century, the episcopal contingent of the Church of Scotland organized as a separate body, the Scottish Episcopal Church.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
In Scotland the break with Rome was by acts of parliament in 1560. Thanks to St Andrew's University, these can be viewed on the internet.
The Presbyterian and Episcopalian churches were formed at the same time. The Scott's preferred the
Presbyterian Church.
King James sixth required bishops.
As he said,"No bishop no king"
Hence the Episcopalian Church.
Not quite. After the break with Rome the Church of Scotland went back and forth between presbyterian and episcopal forms of polity. Regardless of whether presbyterian or episcopal polity had the day, it was still the Church of Scotland.
When presbyterianism was finally established for good in the late 17th Century, the episcopal contingent of the Church of Scotland organized as a separate body, the Scottish Episcopal Church.
I accept what you say, both Presbyterian and Episcopalian churches see themselves as the Church of Scotland.
The Episcopalians lost ground when they refused to recognise the Hanoverians. Hence the Stuart uprisings of 1715 and 1745.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I thought most of the Scottish Jacobites were Catholics rather than Episcopalians.
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I thought most of the Scottish Jacobites were Catholics rather than Episcopalians.
You are right, The Episcopalians did not take part in the Jacobite ridings. They did however want to see the return of the Stuart line.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0