Ship of Fools: People who attend more than one church

Thread: People who attend more than one church 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=030214

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

On the sermon thread, SvitlanaV2 pondered whether increasing numbers if people attend more than one church.

I tend to flit a bit these days but was solidly based in one congregation back in the day.

I'm not sure how common this is, but it may be more true of the untrustful ...

What do Shipmates think. Is it common?

There are people who whose partners may belong to a different church or denomination or whose work patterns mean they can't regularly attend one single church - or there may be those who feel they need a more varied diet - or variations or combinations of all these.

Is it any more apparent now than it used to be?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I once read that 10% of regular church goers are involved in more than one church. Of course I have no idea how many actually. The people I know who mention it don't want their regular church to find out, they fear people - especially pastors - will get mad at them. (Churches can be very tribal - you are fully our tribe or you are, in your words, "the untrustful.)

Common reasons I've run into range from practical to theological. An elderly woman who no longer drives at night attends a bible study walking distance from her at a different church. Neighbor teens attend a week night youth group where their friends are. Some parents send their kiddies to multiple vacation Bible schools to get them something to do out of mom's hair. The women's Bible study at one church has no babysitting so a dozen women go to a different church's group that does offer free babysitting.

Several (including a pastor) have told me they go to a different church about once a month for balance - one example, a baptist church offers the sense of immediacy and approachability of God, an Episcopalian church offers a sense of awe; takes both to have a balanced view. It's easy to think of other dualities a second church would help balance.

There talent and service opportunity limits in any church. One may need a second church to be able to work in a soup kitchen, use their musical talents, learn to run the sound system control board, or just sit on a non Sunday in quiet prayer (most churches stay locked).

There are probably 100 more reasons including taking grandma to her church before going to yours.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

We started attending a large Pentecostal mega-church about 20 years ago when I was working at a mid-size Presby church. We had 3 miscarriages in a short period of time, and the very caring congregation was surrounding us with love and support-- which felt great to me but was just too raw for hubby. He (like many) needed a space where he could grieve w/o having to tell his story over and over again. A big anonymous mega-church where no one knew him did the trick, and was large enough to have evening services I could attend that didn't conflict with my Sunday obligations.

I'm serving at a different church now but we still attend the large Pentecostal mega church, in large part because on Sunday mornings at the church I serve I'm spending so much time running around putting out fires (mostly metaphorically) and dealing w/ stuff I don't really get the worship I want and need. I notice a lot of other pastors from other churches at their Sat. evening services.

I do try and support my "2nd church" financially and with some volunteering to some degree. Not as much as the church where I'm on staff, but still something so it's not all just taking.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I attend a second "church". My childhood church is now a ministry center with outreach to the homeless and people in transition. I volunteer there and also pretty regularly attend their Thursday Eucharist and dinner plus the Wednesday evening Bible study. My home church is across town where I used to live and where I sing in the choir and help in the office. And I help both churches financially. And my friends at both churches are perfectly happy to share me.

I find the situation satisfying. The churches address following the Gospel in complimentary ways for me.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Interesting this should come up just now. When our child was nearly murdered the church were attending was shit for us theologically. As if, because we had most terrible misfortune, we offended the premise that God takes care of faithful people.

The bishop closed it due to the buildings being beyond financing repairs and put it together with another church. We did try to go there, but stopped. Too much pain, too much wrong with us, too much wrong with them. After a year with nothing, we started at a different Anglican church. It is a more formal and less personally engaging, but liturgically pleasing and comforting. But our discussion is now to possibly re-try the prior church. To see, though what exactly to see is hard to discern. I am nervous about what to say to people we know if asked. But I guess we will be attending 2 churches alternate weeks after tomorrow. That's our deal. Try it until after Xmas.

Posted by RainbowGirl (# 18543) on :

I attend three churches... All are aware of my attendance at the others. I live in the inner city and the parishes are quite geographically small and share various ministries. I have a church I attend every Sunday morning and serve at the altar, this is the only service a week this church has, though it has a once a month Messy church I also volunteer at. Then I attend a second church every Sunday evening to volunteer with their youth group, and I pop in and out of their morning services (they don't clash with the first church's times, so it just depends if I'm out of bed early enough). I also do some volunteer work at our Cathedral, and when youth group isn't running I go to Evensong there.

It's mainly because I have a particular interest in learning about ministry and there is no one church that has it all. Given that all churches are within 2km from each other I pop about. I have one parish I regard as 'home base' and thats where I am registered with, but all the priests know I go to the other church's and it doesn't seem to bother them, though there's been a lot of teasing threats about what would happen if one of the priests 'pinched me' and I stopped doing the volunteer work. I think I'm just a serial volunteer and I'm enjoying the diversity of opportunities that comes from living in the inner city.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Interesting. The inner city example is a striking one.

I meant to type 'unrestful' but either I had a brainstorm in a Freudian slip kind of way or my autocorrect on my phone changed it to 'untrustful'

Both might apply.

I have heard of people who attend a particular church regularly but who also meet with other Christians for ecumenical Bible studies and so in - which sounds good to me.

Back in the day, many Methodists used to continue attending communion services at their Anglican parish years after they'd seceded, a state of affairs that continued well into the 19th century in some rural areas.

My mother-in-law was involved with her evangelical Anglican parish but would go to the Pentecostals every now and again for what she called a 'top-up'.

I'm not so sure this 'trend', if 'trend' it is, has to be regarded as a recent thing.

Posted by leftfieldlover (# 13467) on :

I attended the same church (apart from baptisms, weddings and funerals) for over 30 years, until after lots of angst and prayer, I decided to move to a different benefice. There are seven churches in the benefice but I try to stick to two which are within reasonable driving distance. My previous church was a 5-minute walk. So, it could be said that I attend more than one church, but the clergy are the same and some of the congregation move from church to church. If things had been different. I would have stayed at my 'home' church. I still attend the Home Group I went to before, but since I moved on, there are many people who I do not see anymore. I think sometimes that it would have been easier to move house than move church!

[ 04. September 2016, 08:58: Message edited by: leftfieldlover ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I regularly attend the local Church of Scotland (it's either that or the Baptists), but whenever I get the chance I attend Episcopalian services, which usually means the Cathedral in Oban, and that's where my daughter will be baptised. In a sense my day-to-day engagement with the local church has become detached from my engagement with the wider church and my own personal practice. It's an ongoing problem that I don't yet know how to resolve. I can't commit fully to the Church of Scotland, too many differences in both theology, polity and style for me to be comfortable, and yet there seems no prospect of there being regular worship in any Anglican tradition here in the foreseeable future.

[ 04. September 2016, 09:25: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

I did for a time - the other church I attended didn't have their own building, so always met in the afternoon - which meant there wasn't much of a scheduling clash.

Not sure I'd necessarily want to these days. I think it may be easier when you are less busy, when getting to know your peers outside the main meetings can be done in a more informal and less programmatic way.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Reading the above posts, I am thinking the responses show a sense of consumerism. When we can't get something we want at a small store on Main St, we will go to the Big Box Store to find it. Deal of it is (and I work at a Big Box Store) is many times the Mega store doesn't have what we want either, so we hunt for another store (maybe go on line for it).

Not that this is wrong. It is true for many people that one brand or one store will not give us everything we think we need.

But there is a problem, in my mind, if there is no such thing as brand loyalty anymore, the small store is at a disadvantage. It does not have the resources to make changes in order to stay competitive.

Another problem I see is that bigger or improved or innovative is not always better. Take for instance the recent FDA (US) ruling that antibacterial soaps are really not that good and, in fact may be detrimental to our health. They have come out and said just plain soap and water is the best cleansing solution.

I am old enough to remember with antibacterial soaps first came out. It started rather slowly at first, and then all of the sudden everyone was doing it. Just saw a report of a mother who thought she was doing the right thing making her kids use the antibacterial soaps and now she is conflicted that she may have actually harmed her kids. I almost screamed at the report: Lady, let your kids play in the dirt. Let them get exposed to common germs, it will actually help their immune systems.

I know I am speaking in parables here, but my question is, using a cost benefit analysis model, what do we give up when we do not stay with one congregation, v what do we gain when we go congregational hopping or mixing?

Now, I grant you, based on the testimony above, for some, it has been beneficial and even necessary. All I am asking is before you take that step is to ask yourself do you really need to do it.

No prophet, I can see how mixing your communities have helped you deal with your struggle. It is something that will stay with you for the rest of your life. Thank you for sharing it, though. Peace be with you.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

I guess the interesting question is can you 'belong' to more than one church? When I lived in London I went to one parish church regularly on a Sunday, but might also go to midweek masses nearer my office, and Evensong as Westminster Abbey from time to time. But that, I suspect, is a city thing.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I do know of expats (eg Indian Christians living in Britain) who go to a British church on Sunday mornings and then a language-group church later on. Typically IME the latter draw from a wide geographical area and may only meet monthly.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the sermon thread, SvitlanaV2 pondered whether increasing numbers if people attend more than one church.

There's one church (which I consider my "home" church) at which I regularly worship, and where I serve in various capacities. It's close to my house.

There's another church, which is close to my place of employment, where I will attend a lunchtime service from time to time. I don't have any involvement in that church beyond that, but I go regularly enough that I know a few of the people there.

But this isn't quite what you're getting at, I think. I don't attend that church because it provides some kind of worship experience that my regular shack doesn't, in some kind of ecclesiastical pick'n'mix arrangement - I go because it's the place I can get to from work at lunchtime.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I am thinking the responses show a sense of consumerism. When we can't get something we want at a small store on Main St, we will go to the Big Box Store to find it... many times the Mega store doesn't have what we want either, so we hunt for another store...

Of course if you need a shirt and the nearest store doesn't carry your size you try elsewhere. Should one be cold and naked just because the local place is not set up to meet your legitimate needs? And then after buying the right sized shirt elsewhere you come back to the local store, why is that a problem?

After a family member dies is a bereaved wrong, "consumerist," to go to a grief group at a different church when his is too small to offer similar?

To say they should be "loyal" to "one and only one church" is to treat people like serfs, it disses the mandate that independent moral agents should seek to grow and use their talents, not bury them. Often growing requires using talents outside the local church.

I wish churches would more freely advertise things going on in other churches, help people know where to go for the programs they would like to participate in, instead of pretending "anything *we* don't do isn't worth doing at all."

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

I currently attend two churches, but basically one is definitely my regular church, the other more a case of the regular church currently doesn't have regular evening services, and the other church - also Baptist - is convenient to attend in the evening. Everybody is happy with the situation and friendly, and it gives me a broader view of things than sticking to only one church might.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I remember that I once visited my grandparents in Maryland to attend the wedding of some friends. If I remember correctly, the wedding was on a Sunday, and they took me to two church services before dropping me off at the wedding chapel, and then they went on to a third service. I think it was essentially a hobby. They were originally Quakers but joined a Methodist church when they could not find a meeting.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

This is not new, not where I come from, anyway. My mum and aunties talk about going to morning worship at their Presbyterian church, then to Evensong at the local Anglican. This was back in the 1940s, and earlier generations had done it too. In a small town, the draw seems to have been socially driven (and perhaps a bit musically).

It wasn't until the late 40s that a new Anglican priest got up in arms about it and forbade it, thus making a blow against church unity and cooperation.

A while later, when I was a child in the 1970s, the same Anglican church (a new vicar) developed a close relationship with the Marist Seminary up the road, the choirs singing with each other for various services through the year. That got knocked on the head by the NZ Catholic Archbishop after about 7 years. I remember it very fondly - we were possibly the only Anglican parish in the country where members regularly had trainee Catholic priests over for dinner.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I was amused when I saw a friend resident in a nursing home had joined a second church. Each church visits the nursing home once a month, by belonging to two churches he gets invited to two worship gatherings a month instead of just one.

Life in those places is so sterile and an invitation to a worship gathering so welcome, I'm surprised more people don't do that, but it seems socially ingrained that you supposedly can belong to only one church.

It's not a marriage, there's no "forsaking all others" clause when joining a church, and if someone wants to do more God-oriented activities than one church offers, how is that harming anyone?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Gramps49:

quote:
Reading the above posts, I am thinking the responses show a sense of consumerism. When we can't get something we want at a small store on Main St, we will go to the Big Box Store to find it. Deal of it is (and I work at a Big Box Store) is many times the Mega store doesn't have what we want either, so we hunt for another store (maybe go on line for it).......

But there is a problem, in my mind, if there is no such thing as brand loyalty anymore, the small store is at a disadvantage. It does not have the resources to make changes in order to stay competitive.

I started my faith journey over fifty years ago at what is now a ministry center to the poor. I joined my Sunday church about twenty years ago. I like the opportunity to be useful to and break bread with the disadvantaged at the ministry center. I like the quiet worship and friendships I have found at my Sunday church. I contribute to both communities weekly. I hardly think this makes me a cafeteria Christian who is out only for my taste, my comfort and convenience. My brand is Christianity and I am loyal to it.

I don't see "consumerism" in most of the responses on this thread. Just people making the best decisions they may to regularly worship God in community.

Posted by Japes (# 5358) on :

I've always done this - had one church which is my main church, but gone elsewhere for what is not available at my church. (At the moment that's Evensong and Eucharists for major feasts not done at my church.)

For the most part, I prefer being at a smaller church as an organist, (keeps me out of mischief allegedly...) and where I can contribute to the life of that church usefully, but I do need to go to services from time to time where I have no responsibility whatsoever. I learnt after a very necessary period of time of no responsibility whatsoever at a couple of churches which I found impossible to settle that I needed a good balance of involvement and no responsibility which I've now found - and that is by going to other churches occasionally.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

But there is a problem, in my mind, if there is no such thing as brand loyalty anymore, the small store is at a disadvantage. It does not have the resources to make changes in order to stay competitive.

Sure, and I have much sympathy with the idea that the church consists of more than just an outlet for a set of services for consumption, community has to be a large part of it.

But there is an equal and opposite issue exposed by the fact that churches can be described in terms of brands to which one has to be loyal.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I don't like the idea of us treating churches as a "consumers" who need to be satisfied; nor do I like the concept of "brand loyalty". However both those terms do reflect the reality of today's world, and many churches do seem to "market" themselves in terms of "You'll like what we're offering" - whether that be "vibrant" worship, high-quality music, good children's activities or whatever.

Now this poses a problem as people will look for "excellence" or "experience" with the result that the churches with a god reputation will do well, while others will fall by the wayside. Although sociologists will argue that that has long been the case in the USA, it is not to my mind the traditional approach in Britain (and, probably, elsewhere in Europe).

To my mind there are two issues here. One is the insidious idea that church is basically about "what we get out of it" and the other is to forget that Christians need to be prepared to "sacrifice" if mission and witness are to continue.

So let's think of Little Slapbury-in-the-Marsh Methodist Chapel" (average attendance 7). It's hardly going to be seen as attractive by someone moving into the village who regularly attends "Spring Harvest". Yet said chapel may be providing the only viable Christian witness in the village (sorry, Anglicans, we'll just have to assume that the Parish Church has already been declared Redundant!) and they could desperately do with the energy and companionship of these new folk.

So perhaps their best solution is to ally themselves with the Methodists each Sunday morning but, once a month, go to the Evening Gathering at the Baptist church in the town 10 miles away. I can't say that I'm uber-keen on such a solution, but it may be the only way of keeping these folks "inspired" enough to keep going in the more humdrum environment of the village chapel.

Does that make any sense?

[ 05. September 2016, 10:19: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I do know of expats (eg Indian Christians living in Britain) who go to a British church on Sunday mornings and then a language-group church later on. Typically IME the latter draw from a wide geographical area and may only meet monthly.

That's true of a number of people in our congregation. Indian and Nepali.

We also have a few people (10 yesterday morning) who joined us from the Portugese speaking Church (mainly Brazilians) who meet at our place on a Saturday evening.

They like to practice their English.

The one issue we do have is a couple of people who want to be members here and elsewhere. So far we have not considered it appropriate as one's major contribution should always be to one church.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I was amused when I saw a friend resident in a nursing home had joined a second church. Each church visits the nursing home once a month, by belonging to two churches he gets invited to two worship gatherings a month instead of just one.

Life in those places is so sterile and an invitation to a worship gathering so welcome, I'm surprised more people don't do that, but it seems socially ingrained that you supposedly can belong to only one church.

It seems to me that anyone conducting worship services in a nursing home should invite anyone who wants to come.

Moo

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Absolutely. There can be issues if the service is Eucharistic, but that needn't stop anyone from attending even if they can't "commune".

(Mind you, I believe that any Christian should be able to take Communion in any church).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, Baptist Trainfan, that does make sense - and also what EM says makes sense too - perhaps it's a residual congregational streak in my make-up, but whilst I don't have much difficulty with the idea of people attending more than one type of church, the idea of someone being a 'member' of more than one does rankle with me to some extent.

That's not just an RC and Orthodox thing - although they tend to take a dim view of 'dual citizenship' - it can be found among non-conformists too. It's fair enough, in my view, provided it doesn't spill over into exclusivity - but then we run up against the hoary old issue (a Dead Horse one?) of open or closed communion and so on.

It's one thing, to my mind, for someone to worship with a particular congregation on a Sunday, say, but to attend a mid-week communion service close to where they work. But if someone were volunteering their time and energies across multiple congregations I would question whether they were diluting effort that might be assigned more effectively in one or two places.

I found the inner-city example interesting, though and that might be an exception to the general rule - I don't know. As someone who has a tendency to spread themselves too thinly - freelance work, town council activities, voluntary arts and community activities - I can see the problems this might pose.

But then again, some people might be able to juggle priorities and make a valuable contribution across several fronts.

On the consumerism thing - no, that doesn't sit well with me but it's increasingly part of the territory these days. Perhaps it's always been like that to some extent in cities or places where access and transportation was easy. I think it was Mousethief who observed that in 19th century Moscow, even, people didn't necessarily attend their nearest Orthodox parish church but would nip across town to attend the service of their choice - either because they preferred the priest, liked the choir or for whatever other reason.

One person's consumerism is someone else's way of preserving their spiritual sanity ...

So we perhaps shouldn't be too prescriptive or quick to judge.

Whilst I do detect some consumerist notes on this thread, I'm not sure I'd want to start pointing the finger - because, for all I know, I might be consumerist in a different kind of way.

One person's consumerism is another person's way of acquiring depth and clarity.

So, it all depends on the context, I suspect.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Then we run up against the hoary old issue (a Dead Horse one?) of open or closed communion and so on.

Tangent:// I know of at least one Baptist Church which would like to offer Open Communion but their building's Trust Deed stipulates Closed. If they went ahead and did what they wanted to, they could be subject to legal challenge. Amazingly, they'd need to promote a private Act of Parliament to get this changed!!! //: Tangent ends, stable door bolted.

[ 05. September 2016, 12:14: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

It often depends on location (availability) and on someone's reasons.

What I regard as my home church (that which I go to most Sundays) is neither near my office nor does it run lunchtime services in the middle of the week. But I know a Methodist church that is near me and does run a lunchtime service, so I pop in there when I haven't got meetings or tight deadlines (I haven't been lately).

Plus, it's good to get a different perspective that that offered by one's own tradition/denomination.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure - I suppose a lot of it depends on how tightly, or otherwise, we want to draw our lines.

I mean, if someone is of a particularly 'exotic' or 'minority' persuasion then it makes sense for them to travel or seek out their church of choice - be they Seventh Day Adventist, say, or an Anabaptist here in the UK - or an RC in some areas even or an Orthodox living away from the main conurbations where churches of their own tradition may be few and far between.

I've probably visited the services of almost every conceivable mainstream denomination active here in the UK - with the exception of the Copts, Eastern Catholics (Melkites) and what might be regarded as some of the more fringe elements within Protestantism - such as the Seventh Day Adventists.

So I've visited Anglican, Methodist, URC, Church of Scotland, independent evangelical, charismatic, Pentecostal, Salvation Army, Brethren and so on ... as well as to RC and Orthodox services.

I'm not talking about visiting other people's services now and again but people who seem to 'belong' to several congregations at one and the same time - and I suppose I'm using the term 'belong' somewhat loosely here, but I'm implying more than simply visiting another church a few times a year.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I was amused when I saw a friend resident in a nursing home had joined a second church. Each church visits the nursing home once a month, by belonging to two churches he gets invited to two worship gatherings a month instead of just one.
It seems to me that anyone conducting worship services in a nursing home should invite anyone who wants to come.

I've seen several sides to this. In one sense anyone who walks in or sitting near the room entrance before starting time is invited to join, but also churches are there not to evangelise but to serve members who can't get to regular church, and don't want to be accused of "sheep stealing" by actively inviting people not previously part of that denomination.

Also, any gathering is more work for the staff, they have to wheel people to the gathering (and bring their medications), so staff aren't going to advertise broadly, they take the list of names the church brings and wheel in those people only.

And unfortunately church culture has a strong tradition that a person can be part of only one church, so people feel they are supposed to stay away from a gathering of a different church.

Do we really intend to teach people its better to not worship than join a different group's event? I think its fine to say you should have a primary church, but not fine to say you should never be involved in a secondary church too. But some families protest if grandma is attending a different church instead of staying isolated in her room.

Lots of societal issues.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Then we run up against the hoary old issue (a Dead Horse one?) of open or closed communion and so on.
Tangent:// I know of at least one Baptist Church which would like to offer Open Communion but their building's Trust Deed stipulates Closed. If they went ahead and did what they wanted to, they could be subject to legal challenge. Amazingly, they'd need to promote a private Act of Parliament to get this changed!!! //: Tangent ends, stable door bolted.

Solution is dead easy. Close the church as is and reopen with a new Constitution.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
whilst I don't have much difficulty with the idea of people attending more than one type of church, the idea of someone being a 'member' of more than one does rankle with me to some extent.
...
It's one thing... to attend a mid-week communion service close to where they work. But if someone were volunteering their time and energies across multiple congregations I would question whether they were diluting effort that might be assigned more effectively in one or two places.

I expect the widespread use of phone numbers not listed in any public directory might be a driver for some to join a second church. If you want to be part of a weekly Bible study but your church offers none, you may need to get into the directory to be called when it's cancelled this week.

As to the idea it's wrong to be involved in more than one church, is it also wrong to be involved in civic activities? Is helping at a charity food pantry OK but not a church's food pantry? Why? (One mainstream clergy is annoyed some members volunteer at the public library.)

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not talking about visiting other people's services now and again but people who seem to 'belong' to several congregations at one and the same time - and I suppose I'm using the term 'belong' somewhat loosely here, but I'm implying more than simply visiting another church a few times a year.

It depends what you mean by "belong." A lot of people feel they belong if they turn up or even if they say they belong but never attend (the CofE model for example).

I wonder whether belonging is really more than attendance and what level of commitment/belief has to be there for you to be considered as "belonging?" Can you "belong" without affirming the key elements of the group?

Some may say "belong" others might prefer the term "connected to" (loosely or otherwise)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I remember reading a well-known Baptist theologian saying that, when he was a child, it was quite specifically the Baptist chapel that his family belonged to, even though they never went! [Cool]

More seriously, I think there is great virtue in committing oneself to a particular congregation rather than "church-hopping" (which doesn't rule out the attendance at an "ethnic" congregation on some Sunday afternoons or of a church close to one's office at weekday lunchtimes). I believe that Christians are supposed to be part of a "community" or "fellowship" in which they can serve and worship.

[ 05. September 2016, 15:36: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, that was the sort of thing I had in mind, Baptist Trainfan.

@ExclamationMark - in practice though, even with what you describe as 'the CofE model', most Anglican parishes I know - of whatever stripe - draw some kind of distinction between regulars and those who only attend at Christmas and Easter, if at all.

The same seems to apply with the Orthodox and RCs. The Orthodox seem to use the term 'the faithful' to apply to those who regularly attend services or work out their faith in a more visible or committed kind of way.

So, wherever we look we see some kind of spoken or unspoken measures of 'commitment' and engagement.

@Belle Ringer - I didn't say it was 'wrong' to attend more than one church, still less to support both a civic 'food pantry' or a church-run one at one and the same time ...

I'm not seeing 'right' or 'wrong' as the issue in this case - it's entirely up to people what they do and to their individual consciences what they do in this kind of context - provided it doesn't do any harm to anyone else or to themselves.

Ideally - and this is an ideal that might not always work for everyone of course, I would go along with Baptist Trainfan in suggesting that - where possible - we should 'belong' (however we define that) to one main or particular context whilst remaining free or able to dip in and out of others if that's helpful or feasible.

What wouldn't do anyone any good would be if all churches contained rolling-stones and individuals who were circulating round the whole time going hither and yon and not getting anything done.

I don't have an issue with RainbowGirl's 'serial volunteering' but from my own experience - as I've said - of someone involved with lots of different activities - it can be possible to spread oneself far too thinly.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I believe that Christians are supposed to be part of a "community" or "fellowship" in which they can serve and worship.

Yes, community should be part of church 'membership'. I think some of the corner cases above came down to the need some people may have of services that were not offered by their own church (counselling of some kind being the obvious example).

Fortunately it seems that some churches are well aware of this and this has led to inclusive kinds of co-operation of most churches in a given area - though this is by no means the rule.

In fact; in the case of churches aimed at particular ethnicities, I've seen plenty of cases where people ewho attended both a 'regular' and 'ethnic' church served as fairly useful bridges between different communities of Christians.

[ 05. September 2016, 16:13: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That's an interesting point in terms of the ethnicity issue, Chris Stiles.

I'm wondering whether the same can apply to people acting as 'bridges' between different Christian traditions too - but that might be a rather naive hope or thought ...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

On a slightly tangential point. I recognise that Christians of particular (minority) ethnicities may well feel the need to worship together from time to time, especially if they can do so in their first language. This applies as much to (say) Swiss or Danish as it does to (say) Cantonese Chinese or Brazilians; it also applies to folk who may only short-term residents (e.g. contract workers, members of Forces or Diplomatic Corps).

Nevertheless I also believe (videGalatians 3:28) that churches should be "melting-pots" in which diversity can and should be celebrated. This is especially true in divided communities where they can not only be a wonderful witness to Christ but be a catalyst in breaking down divisions and creating a sense of oneness.

If occasionally meeting together in language/cultural groups helps Christians from various backgrounds to normally worship and serve in "ordinary" and "mixed" local churches, then this must be a Good Thing.

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

I find this thread interesting as at the moment I am church shopping. There is no local Episcopal church in my area and as my driving is now limited I need to find a new church home. My choices are limited. Only the local Roman Catholic church offers a liturgical service which very much appeals to me. I feel at home there but theology is not mine. The other churches while warm and friendly are hymn sandwich services. They do offer some outreach opportunities which appeal to me. So an ideal would be do outreach and Bible study with one church and Sunday worship with the Catholic church. Or attend midweek mass and Sunday service with another. I do not yet know what I will be doing. True Middle of the roader here.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I can understand that, Graven Image.

Where I am, I find myself able to applaud and to some extent support our evangelical Anglican parish in its outreach activities but find it increasingly hard to actually sit through the services.

Not that I've got any big problem with evangelicalism per se - at least not in its more 'reflective' forms ...

But I dunno - it's just not where I'm 'at' these days. I find the liberal-catholic Anglican parish more conducive in terms of liturgical style and so on but find the theology somewhat 'thin' and insipid - 'What do they actually believe?!'

I don't mind the occasional hymn-sandwich but - no disrespect to anyone here intended - I find standard non-conformist style services (URC/Methodist) to be singularly uninspiring as a regular diet. They feel like a lecture with songs. I do like a good non-conformist style sermon, though.

But that's me sliding into consumerism, perhaps ...

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Ideally a church offers a community of mutual caring. Truth is, many or perhaps most don't. Maybe back in olden days when the church community was the neighborhood community too?

People commonly report (to books about dropping out of church) that no matter how active they were, the minute they dropped out of project work they become invisible, as if churches and members see people only as sources of money and labor, not as people.

One friend who worked several years as unpaid church secretary, husband got long term sick, she gave a month's notice of need to quit to take care of him, was scolded by clergy for abandoning her "duty" to the church, no one from that church ever asked after his (or her) wellbeing. Where's the community in that?

At one church old timers said it was warm and cozy, more than one newcomer told me it was cold and rejecting - it was a community church for those who grew up there, not for "outsiders."

I expect many people would put a church that actually is community for them ahead of other interests such as a church in their language or a Bible study. But realistically many churches do not offer community (even while claiming to be "a church family").

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I've probably visited the services of almost every conceivable mainstream denomination active here in the UK - with the exception of the Copts, Eastern Catholics (Melkites) and what might be regarded as some of the more fringe elements within Protestantism - such as the Seventh Day Adventists.

If you attended a SDA service you might not find it all that way-out. IME the style is fairly restrained rather than charismatic, and mainstream hymns rather than worship songs are preferred (although a more contemporary worship style is apparently making inroads in some places). Derek Tidball claims Adventism as kind of evangelical Christianity, and there are features of an evangelical subculture that you might recognise. The relationship between Adventists and other evangelicals is complicated, but there's been a growth in ecumenicalism.

Also, at least in terms of numbers and involvement in secular activities such as education the SDA Church is becoming more mainstream. Seventh Day Adventism apparently represents the 'fifth largest Christian communion in the world'.

With regard to this thread, the denomination is obviously useful to those seeking a double church affiliation, because you can worship with the SDAs on Saturday and then find a more normative church to attend on Sunday!

This may not be as ridiculous as it sounds, because the SDA Church is now the largest denomination in Jamaica, and the Caribbean in general is particularly interesting as a region where double church belonging has historically been a feature. It was relatively common for people to go to a mainstream church in the morning, in order to maintain status, and then attend a sectarian worship service in the evening for more spiritual reasons. I don't know to what extent this still goes on, but it's been a significant practice within living memory.

In the UK the barriers between, say, Methodist and black-majority Pentecostal churches were more rigid so such double belonging became less common among Caribbean immigrants.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

There's quite a bit of crossover between the four Anglican churches in downtown Montreal. It doesn't make sense for each parish to replicate all the others' offerings, so it's natural to find oneself making stations over the course of a full liturgical year.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I wasn't intending any 'slight' against SDA's as such. I've known SDA's and have a friend who belongs to a small Adventist congregation which, as far as I know, isn't affiliated to the main SDA body here but does have some kind of loose association with them.

And whilst I've not been to any of their services, my impression is as you describe. I was simply listing them as a group whose services I've not visited and noting that they tend to be regarded bad somewhat 'fringe' - although that has changed to some extent.

I wasn't listing them alongside 'marginal' groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Christadelphians.

The fact that I'd listed them alongside more 'standard' non-conformist grips like the Brethren and Pentecostals surely suggests that I was including them 'within the fold' in some way, problematic though that might be to some extent.

The SDA chap I know here is a good guy but quite fundamentalist and prone to idiosyncratic ideas of one form or other - but no more, perhaps, than some people I've met in Brethren assemblies or Pentecostal churches.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

A few years ago I was worshipping at an Anglican Cathedral, participating in a study group run by Methodists and volunteering at a Catholic Primary school.

Now the Cathedral is in ruins ( although there is a Transitional one), I worship at a Presbyterian church and still volunteer at the school.

I am also considering visiting the Quakers as they're now easier to get to on Sundays now.

I don't see any problem with this. I left the Cathedral because it stopped being a safe place for me (before it was damaged in the quakes), and ended up with the Presbys because as soon as I walked in the door I felt at home*. I don't think of myself as Presbyterian, but rather someone who worships at that church and is part of that community. I don't actually find denominational labels very helpful.

I volunteer at the Catholic school because I love working in a school and, having a teaching background, can be of use in a way I enjoy. I could volunteer at a state school, but the Catholic one is close by, has less than 200 pupils and a caring staff.

* Feeling at home there doesn't mean I'm not challenged. My taken-for-granted world view has been challenged more there than any other place I've worshipped, which is part of what I like about the place.

Huia

[ 06. September 2016, 08:43: Message edited by: Huia ]

Posted by RainbowGirl (# 18543) on :

Just to give a bit more explanation to three inner city churches example:

I'm not committed to the Cathedral, I provide manpower for my particular interests (community kitchen and youth work) because I enjoy it and I go to services when I can because it allows me to keep abreast with changes in the diocese. I in turn can take that information and knowledge back into the two churches I am committed too. Volunteering somewhere where I have no position of leadership and am just a general dogsbody keeps me sane and it keeps me humble.

Of the other two churches, one is down to just a single Sunday service with ten congregants, whatever I can do there, I do. I'm assisting with steadily expanding the ministry again but realistically there is only so much work available to me and were I to commit solely to it I would find my spiritual life sorely lacking and unless I became the minister there I doubt I could actually do much more than I am already doing. They have a small (three hours per month) youth ministry that I fully participate in, they don't have a community kitchen.

At the third church I am leading the youth ministry, I attend all the weekly services and often two services on Sunday's, the lions share of my free time is spent at this church. All told my commitment would be in the 20-30 hours a week range. They also don't have a community kitchen.

For me it's more of a case of having a lot of hours I'd like to be able to commit to a church, but outside of a Cathedral, not being able to spend that much time at one church. It also allows diversity since I can bring ideas between the churches, and I've also managed to build new connections between the churches that has allowed the growth of new ministries.

All churches belong to the same diocese, the same denomination and the same geographical area. This is the diocese I was baptised and confirmed in, so there is no issue in regards to the Eucharist. I'm part of a community at each one, I know everyone well, and they know me.

I believe I serve God first and foremost, not the particular church building or an arbitrary geographical boundary. At one I guess you could say I'm a consumer, I go to fulfil my own needs, of easy volunteering, learning new forms of ministry and to keep abreast with diocesan news. The other two I go to, to serve God and to take the gifts I receive from Him and use them to the benefit of the church here on earth.

It just seems to me that if we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, why does it matter how many churches you attend, as long as you are making a commitment and giving of your gifts, whatever they may be?

Thinking about it though, I suppose I 'technically' belong to a fourth church, I have full time employment at a completely separate denomination's diocesan office, a girls gotta eat after all. This one is purely self-interest and for a salary, so I wouldn't really say I belong. My work is administration, so belief in the denomination is not necessary.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wasn't intending any 'slight' against SDA's as such.

I was responding in particular to your use of the word 'fringe', which seems ever more problematic a concept, and likely to continue so. Fundamentalism is arguably more 'mainstream' in some of its content than its nemesis liberalism, even though the latter exists more often in historical church settings. We may need new terminology at some point soon.

But to get back on topic, double belonging might in theory be attractive these days because of:

mixed marriages

the rise of ecumenicalism

greater autonomy in spiritual matters rather than loyalty to denomination or priest

the post-modern pick 'n' mix approach to orthodox religion

the inability of individual, hard-pressed but friendly congregations to provide enough programmes and variety for all-comers

the ease of modern travel

evangelical churches appearing to meet certain needs while more moderate churches may meet others

immigration; as others have said, some immigrants may attend certain churches due to cultural familiarity and networks, and attend others in order to maintain a desirable connection to a historical denomination.

These are just a few ideas off the top of my head. No doubt we could also think of reasons as to why double affiliation might be less common than in the past.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wasn't intending any 'slight' against SDA's as such.
I was responding in particular to your use of the word 'fringe', which seems ever more problematic a concept, and likely to continue so.

Well, if you don't want to use the word 'fringe' then you'll have to find another word that accurately describes the difference. IME SDA churches tend have their own variations in terms of ethnicities and beliefs (somme synonymous with small 'o' orthodox, some less so), but whatever their stripe they tend to shy away from any form of co-operation/ecumenicalism with other churches in the area, though individuals are far more flexible. So whether or not their beliefs would consign them to a 'fringe' in theory, in practice their relative exclusivity has the same effect.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure how common this is, but it may be more true of the untrustful ...

What do Shipmates think. Is it common?

I'd like to turn this around a little - in the light of some of the posts in this thread.

I think we are going to have to go beyond anecdote - by it's very nature, this forum will self select for people who are likely to dwell more deeply on their faith.

It seems that most people here are attending multiple churches due to contingent reasons; work, or the need to balance service with community, or service with refreshment.

So if there is a general consumerist trend, then you aren't likely to pick up on it from the experiences of people here.

FWIW the only figures I ever saw (sadly not online in any linkable way) suggested that multiple church attendance was less of an issue than sporadic church attendance. So the person who is in church every other week, is more likely to be doing something else other than church in the off weeks.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

With regard to the SDAs, the link I posted previously suggests that their churches are becoming more ecumenical, at least in the USA, but I suppose it's a question of degree.

Some scholars see aspects of ecumenicalism as a symptom of church decline. Since the SDAs are not yet plateauing or declining in the UK it's probably unsurprising that ecumenical engagements aren't a huge priority for them. But perhaps such engagements could provide a way for British SDAs to improve their status and visibility in the future.

On your other point, I agree that increasingly sporadic church attendance is likely to be more common than double belonging. Talking of church decline, though, in many cases double belonging and sporadic attendance could spring from the same source, i.e. dissatisfaction with church life. Both could indicate a limited involvement with the churches in question, although many churches would rather have a limited involvement from some attenders than no involvement at all.

[ 06. September 2016, 12:49: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Also, at least in terms of numbers and involvement in secular activities such as education the SDA Church is becoming more mainstream. Seventh Day Adventism apparently represents the 'fifth largest Christian communion in the world'.

What definition of "communion" is Christianity Today using? I can't think of one where this statement is accurate. Per the linked article (most of which is behind a pay wall):

quote:
In 2014, for the 10th year in a row, more than 1 million people became Adventists, hitting a record 18.1 million members. Adventism is now the fifth-largest Christian communion worldwide, after Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and the Assemblies of God.

Do they mean "denomination"? If so, then that's not the right word to describe Anglicanism or Eastern Orthodoxy. (And it's not really the right word for autocephalous Orthodox churches or the Catholic Church, either.) And what about Oriental Orthodoxy, at around 86 million (per Wikipedia)? The Evangelical Church in Germany (24.5 million)?

Do they mean religious groups/denominations having a common heritage, theology and/or polity, such as the Anglican Communion? If that's the case, then, there are more Baptists just in the US than there are SDAs worldwide. And what about the Methodists and the Reformed (both around 80 million) or the Lutherans (around 72 million)?

Either way, I think the assertion is off-base.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I did wonder what they meant by 'communion', I admit. It would be interesting to know how the figures have been generated.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think the most that can be said is that the SDA's represent a sizeable constituency.

I think we'd all agree on that.

In worldwide terms they are an important and substantial group.

On the links between ecumenism and general decline, yes, I'm aware of that point of view but would argue that it doesn't always hold. Some of the least ecumenically inclined groups I know of tend to keep themselves to themselves and not interact with anyone else that regularly. Some of these groups are tiny. It's not because they are on a roll or numerically packing a punch - but because they see themselves as some kind of faithful remnant ...

I suppose it depends on whether we mean ecumenical collaboration whilst retaining one's own base - or some kind of ecumenical merger on the grounds of incipient decline.

Probably both things are going on at the same time in some cases.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@SvitlanaV2 and Chris Stiles, all fair comments and my use of the word 'fringe' was somewhat short-hand and ill-considered. What I meant, of course, was that the SDA's would be considered to be somewhat 'non-standard' from both a mainstream evangelical perspective or a mainstream liberal one - with all the caveats that should be put around each of those.

So, from a standard evangelical perspective the SDAs might be considered within the bounds of accepted small o orthodoxy - whereas avowedly non-Trinitarian groups such as the JWs and Mormons wouldn't be.

@RainbowGirl - that's interesting but with 20-30 hours a week voluntary church activities on top of your day job - also in a church capacity - I'm surprised you're not all churched-out.

I think if I were engaged in that amount of churchy activity a week I'd want to find something in my spare time that had nothing whatsoever to do with religion - I dunno, Paintballing or something ... [Biased]

Ok, we're all different, but the idea of attending as many services as you do or getting involved with as much admin and general helping out sends my head into a spin ...

If I worked in a diocesan office or similar I'd want to run as far away as possible from church the rest of the time ...

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Talking of church decline, though, in many cases double belonging and sporadic attendance could spring from the same source, i.e. dissatisfaction with church life. Both could indicate a limited involvement with the churches in question, although many churches would rather have a limited involvement from some attenders than no involvement at all.

But at least those who are attending multiple churches are admitting the possibility of attending church regularly - however unrealistic their expectations actually prove to be.

Are they more likely to stick with something should they find something that works?

[I'm excluding those who are attending multiple churches clearly worked out reasons as above]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

On the links between ecumenism and general decline, yes, I'm aware of that point of view but would argue that it doesn't always hold. Some of the least ecumenically inclined groups I know of tend to keep themselves to themselves and not interact with anyone else that regularly. Some of these groups are tiny. It's not because they are on a roll or numerically packing a punch - but because they see themselves as some kind of faithful remnant ...

Of course, ecumenicalism might be a sign of church decline, but anti-ecumenicalism is not necessarily a sign of growth!!

I also suspect that many otherwise ecumenical groups would rather not have too much to do with those they consider to be heterodox. I know a female vicar who was willing for a small non-trinitarian Pentecostal group to rent the church hall, but was resolute that they should not be invited to ecumenical meetings. So it goes both ways.

The extent to which this all impinges on double belonging is interesting. For some people it's a step on the road to switching over entirely. The Pentecostals and SDAs I know see Methodism (and no doubt Anglicanism) as a kind of half-way house, so they would encourage double affiliation as part of the process - although I don't know at what point you would be expected to pick one or the other.

One story that's always fascinated me relates how a Methodist minister in the Caribbean led his congregation to a neighbouring non-Trinitarian Pentecostal church to be re-baptised... but he and his congregation 'officially' remained Methodist. The blurring of doctrinal boundaries is a symptom of postmodernity (and some argue that the Caribbean was the first workshop of postmodernity) but I would be very interested to know if there's any truth to the story. It's hard to imagine something similar happening in the UK!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I know a female vicar who was willing for a small non-trinitarian Pentecostal group to rent the church hall, but was resolute that they should not be invited to ecumenical meetings. So it goes both ways.

Slight tangent (but I say this to my wife too); why did you feel the need to say "female" vicar?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I attend two churches (two languages) and used to go to three, but in the third I got screamed at by someone who thought my son's tics were disrespectful to the preacher (though the preacher was fine with them, he said). She was backed up by three other people. We don't go there anymore.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I know a female vicar who was willing for a small non-trinitarian Pentecostal group to rent the church hall, but was resolute that they should not be invited to ecumenical meetings. So it goes both ways.
Slight tangent (but I say this to my wife too); why did you feel the need to say "female" vicar?

For added detail, but I did wonder whether I should have rephrased my sentence before writing it. I don't know if women in ministry take a stricter line on such things than men.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, it does go both ways, but generally speaking, I've found that ecumenism only extends to Trinitarian groups. Nobody invites the JWs and Mormons to Churches Together events as far as I know.

The Quakers tend to be invited to such things in those places where there are meeting houses, despite many of them being non-Trinitarian or even non-theist ...

I suspect this is partly due to their having been around longer and also because non-Trinitarianism isn't an article of faith for them as it would be for non-Trinitarian Pentecostals.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So, from a standard evangelical perspective the SDAs might be considered within the bounds of accepted small o orthodoxy - whereas avowedly non-Trinitarian groups such as the JWs and Mormons wouldn't be.

Where does that put the Quakers then who are non credal and (mostly) non Trinitarian?

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

@RainbowGirl - that's interesting but with 20-30 hours a week voluntary church activities on top of your day job - also in a church capacity - I'm surprised you're not all churched-out.

I think if I were engaged in that amount of churchy activity a week I'd want to find something in my spare time that had nothing whatsoever to do with religion - I dunno, Paintballing or something ...
If I worked in a diocesan office or similar I'd want to run as far away as possible from church the rest of the time ...

Which reminds me of a line i've frequently quoted (can't remember who said it first -- sounds like Wilde or Dorothy Parker, neither of which is likely) -- 'I used to be religious until I went into church work.'

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I mentioned the Quakers in a subsequent post, EM and suggested reasons why they might get invited to ecumenical activities whereas some of these other groups wouldn't.

There are anomalies.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So, from a standard evangelical perspective the SDAs might be considered within the bounds of accepted small o orthodoxy - whereas avowedly non-Trinitarian groups such as the JWs and Mormons wouldn't be.
Where does that put the Quakers then who are non credal and (mostly) non Trinitarian?

I get the impression that the Quakers are acceptable because they disbelieve in stuff (as do many Christians in 'orthodox' denominations) rather than believing in something somewhat different.

The impression this gives, however, is that Christianity is a religion of form rather than content. So long as one affiliates to an institution that has historical and/or 'mainstream' heft what one actually (dis)believes is less important.

This may be relevant to the issue of double belonging. Fewer people are wedded to theological particularities than used to be the case, so other factors are more important in making a church appealing. There's no need for loyalty to a 'doctrine', so people are free to move around in a hunt for atmosphere, friendliness, the kind of music they like, etc. If one church doesn't suffice, you can pick two.

Mind you, I think this thread has thrown up more examples of North American and Australian double belonging than British, so there are surely other factors at play that we haven't mentioned yet.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

The Quakers are members of Churches Together in England (while Unitarians aren't). I find this a bit strange as CTE does have an explicit Trinitarian statement of faith. I have raised this discrepancy at the highest level and been told that they basically "came over" from the old British Council of Churches when things changed about 20 years. I don't know whether this was deliberate, an oversight or whether no-one had the guts to question it.

Locally this caused problems as some of the Trinitarian churches refused to be part of a group which includes Quakers and, in our case, Unitarians too - the latter here are very keen to do ecumenical (and interfaith) stuff. Ultimately we closed down our formal Churches Together group and started a mote informal and unaffiliated grouping centred on the Apostles' Creed.

Posted by RainbowGirl (# 18543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

@RainbowGirl - that's interesting but with 20-30 hours a week voluntary church activities on top of your day job - also in a church capacity - I'm surprised you're not all churched-out.

I think if I were engaged in that amount of churchy activity a week I'd want to find something in my spare time that had nothing whatsoever to do with religion - I dunno, Paintballing or something ...

Ok, we're all different, but the idea of attending as many services as you do or getting involved with as much admin and general helping out sends my head into a spin ...

If I worked in a diocesan office or similar I'd want to run as far away as possible from church the rest of the time ...

It helps that my diocesan office work is the opposite of churchy. Despite the great hulking gothic church outside my office window all I do is move paperwork around. Since it's not my denomination its easy to separate it from 'church', though we do have a weekly staff liturgy which is always a bit interesting. I love church, and I enjoy it. I also am studying a Masters in Theology, I do still have downtime and I compete in dog sports (agility and obedience) with my greyhound, it's not quite paintball but does the same thing [Razz]

I don't expect to have the capacity for it all forever, but right now I do, so I figure why not? It does raise a few eyebrows though...

I found the ecumenical examples interesting, I know the fury that is incited here when someone is a regular at say... Hillsong and the local Anglo-Catholic church, the further apart the general theology/attitudes are the grumpier people get about it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I know the Ship probably isn't representative, but I don't detect much sense of 'disbelieving' things in the examples we've received here, SvitlanaV2.

Ok, most are Australian or North American rather than British, although you've provided some interesting Caribbean examples.

I'd have though that 'disbelief' in stuff would reduce the likelihood of 'double-attendance' rather than enhancing or encouraging such a thing. I

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@RainbowGirl. Fury? Really?

I've known instances of 'double-attendance' being discouraged by pastors/church leaders, but I've never seen 'fury' expressed in any way.

If anything, most settings are more laid-back about these things than once they were. A few years ago, the daughter of a prominent couple in our old restorationist 'new church' set-up decided she wanted to become High Anglican. The parents were fully supportive, as were the congregation, many of whom turned up to her confirmation and to see her serve as an altar-girl, even though they didn't particularly 'get' it.

I know that's more a change of affiliation rather than double attendance, but even so ...

Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :

"Where do you worship these days?" Is a question often asked of me and it has no simple answer, because I feel called into an ecumenical ministry where I have received more training and more discipling than I ever got (or was ever on offer) in my cradle faith.

The presumption is that, while working in ecumenical ministry, we will be supported by our individual churches. The truth is that my local baptismal church is not at all interested in ecumenical ministry, or in discipling me, or in using the gifts given to me. But I serve this church anyway, in four different ways - once a month as an altar server at a very early service (so I can still do things "proper"), once a month in a food pantry at a housing complex many members of the congregation find too scary, and twice a month assisting to run services at an aged care facility in our parish.

This for me is "church each week", though what I do is largely unseen by the clergy and most other congregants. Whenever I meet others who attend the same church they always express surprise that I consider myself part of this parish, even though I have lived in it for over 30 years.

Welcome to my "community." But if you want to know where I worship, the answer is really everywhere, every minute, and wherever I find other Christ-followers. I think we are transitioning into a 21st century way of worship that will eventually look very different from the the small community models of the last two centuries. We just have to get our heads around it.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
Which reminds me of a line i've frequently quoted (can't remember who said it first -- sounds like Wilde or Dorothy Parker, neither of which is likely) -- 'I used to be religious until I went into church work.'

I have a version I've wanted to put on a bumper sticker for years but have been too chicken shit to do so in my denomination--"I used to be such a nice girl till I got into ministry."

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The Quakers are members of Churches Together in England (while Unitarians aren't). I find this a bit strange as CTE does have an explicit Trinitarian statement of faith. I have raised this discrepancy at the highest level and been told that they basically "came over" from the old British Council of Churches when things changed about 20 years. I don't know whether this was deliberate, an oversight or whether no-one had the guts to question it.

Locally this caused problems as some of the Trinitarian churches refused to be part of a group which includes Quakers and, in our case, Unitarians too - the latter here are very keen to do ecumenical (and interfaith) stuff. Ultimately we closed down our formal Churches Together group and started a mote informal and unaffiliated grouping centred on the Apostles' Creed.

Thanks BT - that's very interesting and helpful.

Both in my current and, in my previous ministry, the Quakers took/take a full part in the Churches' Together group. In both instances they punch way above their weight and, currently are influential on policy as well as practice. They tend to be disproportionately represented at meetings despite being a small group.

Their involvement causes issues with those churches who struggle to understand how Quakers can belong to a group - and have a big influence - when they repudiate (or at least don't believe in), one of the fundamental beliefs. I have a lot of sympathy with them and it now means that the larger, more active churches - which tend to be other more evangelical and charismatic ones - have nothing to do with Churches' Together.

CT is now highly unrepresentative in a location with nearly 100 churches but is still the "go to" point of contact.

To what extent can you belong to something when you don't buy in to a generally accepted set of core beliefs?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I get the impression that the Quakers are acceptable because they disbelieve in stuff (as do many Christians in 'orthodox' denominations) rather than believing in something somewhat different.[/QB]

I think that's a bit naive. To disbelieve is to believe something else - in this case, for example, the Quakers reject Credal belief and in the process repudiate the generally accepted understanding across the church universal of what we can know about God.

You've repeated a bit of Quaker spin here - they are always at pains to be "on side" but dig deep enough and you soon find that they do not recognise the uniqueness of Christ either - surely in itself, a very clear reason why we cannot work with them with any kind of common ground.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

The extent to which this all impinges on double belonging is interesting. For some people it's a step on the road to switching over entirely. The Pentecostals and SDAs I know see Methodism (and no doubt Anglicanism) as a kind of half-way house, so they would encourage double affiliation as part of the process - although I don't know at what point you would be expected to pick one or the other.

One story that's always fascinated me relates how a Methodist minister in the Caribbean led his congregation to a neighbouring non-Trinitarian Pentecostal church to be re-baptised... but he and his congregation 'officially' remained Methodist. The blurring of doctrinal boundaries is a symptom of postmodernity (and some argue that the Caribbean was the first workshop of postmodernity) but I would be very interested to know if there's any truth to the story. It's hard to imagine something similar happening in the UK!

Interesting point - I wonder how much that goes also for doing things *outside* Christianity. I know it avowedly claims not to be a religion, but I'm thinking in particular in the UK of Christian Freemasons.

Freemasonry isn't a religion, but it does offer universal non-specific prayers as part of its meetings which implies you'd have to be able to square your attendance at church with praying in a room where you're all potentially praying to different Gods, and different understanding of God - particularly where you've got a Christian mason next to a Hindu one next to a Muslim one.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I have a lot of sympathy with that view, EM, but if the Quakers were excluded - for whatever reason - I'd be very surprised if the lively, evangelical and charismatic churches would re-engage with Churches Together.

I don't doubt your account but in my experience it's often been the evangelical-charismatic churches which have insisted on things being done 'their' way in ecumenical gatherings - and in one instance I was present at and cringed at - even down to an appallingly manipulative presentation in the centre of a major city involving emotional appeals and sphincter-tighteningly embarrassing appeals for funds. A URC minister friend, who was accompanying the mayor and the civic entourage at this event spent ages afterwards trying to calm the mayor down, repair the damage and convince him that Christians weren't all a bunch of crass, manipulative, money-grubbing and soul-scalp hunting screwballs.

That's not to let your local Quakers off the hook, but it is to strike a note of caution.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I get the impression that the Quakers are acceptable because they disbelieve in stuff (as do many Christians in 'orthodox' denominations) rather than believing in something somewhat different.

quote:
I think that's a bit naive. To disbelieve is to believe something else - in this case, for example, the Quakers reject Credal belief and in the process repudiate the generally accepted understanding across the church universal of what we can know about God.

You've repeated a bit of Quaker spin here - they are always at pains to be "on side" but dig deep enough and you soon find that they do not recognise the uniqueness of Christ either - surely in itself, a very clear reason why we cannot work with them with any kind of common ground.

I think you've misunderstood me. I do recognise that to disbelieve one thing is to believe in something else, but in mainstream Christian circles it's usually mere disbelief that's emphasised (e.g. not believing in the virgin birth).

My comment wasn't an attempt to be pro-Quaker. Indeed, my initial point was that it seems unfair that Quakers can belong to CT but non-Trinitarian Pentecostals can't. These Pentecostals are arguably more theologically mainstream than the Quakers in their understanding of Christ, but the problem seems to be that they're less culturally mainstream.

I should add that I have some non-Trinitarian Pentecostal relatives. Strict and sectarian though some of them are the implication that they're not real Christians rankles somewhat.

As it happens, I know a non-Trinitarian Pentecostal preacher who attended an ecumenical 'training the trainers' event that I was helping to deliver some years ago, so some kinds of engagement are possible for them.

I do think it's reasonable for all churches to consider the potential pros and cons for themselves before deciding on how to engage with ecumenicalism, especially since some forms of it haven't proved to be very fruitful. As we've seen on this thread, some groups really don't work together very well on a formal basis, so more informal networks and personal relationships may be better.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I know the Ship probably isn't representative, but I don't detect much sense of 'disbelieving' things in the examples we've received here, SvitlanaV2.

[...]

I'd have though that 'disbelief' in stuff would reduce the likelihood of 'double-attendance' rather than enhancing or encouraging such a thing.

Ah, I wasn't focusing particularly on the Ship with that comment.

My thinking was that not being hung up on particular doctrines would make it easier to have a double affiliation (if any advantage were to be gained thereby), but obviously, if you can't believe in the core teachings of Christianity you're unlikely to be attending any church, let alone two.

[ 07. September 2016, 11:25: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok - I get that.

I suspect in many cases it's a case of 'style' or where people feel comfortable rather than doctrinal issues as such.

I share your concern about the 'fairness' angle when it comes to admitting 'right-on', well-behaved, middle-class Quakers to some kind of ecumenical activity but not those noisy and potentially disruptive non-Trinitarian Pentecostals down the road ...

I'm sure that socio-cultural issues and prejudice come into it.

I've only come across non-Trinitarian Pentecostals once in real-life, a predominantly Afro-Caribbean group - but friends and relatives by marriage in white, working-class South Walian Pentecostalism were always concerned about the lure and 'danger' of non-Trinitarian Pentecostal groups that existed on the 'fringe' of the movement ie. independent groups that weren't affiliated to the three main UK Pentecostal denominations, Elim, the AoG and the Apostolic Church.

They were certainly aware of black-led groups such as the New Testament Church of God, Church of God in Christ and so on, but didn't know a great deal about them. That said, my brother-in-law's parents did run a multi-cultural Pentecostal mission in the docklands of Cardiff for some time.

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

I don't know whose post to quote here since there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about Quakers on this thread.

The first would be that Quakers (as a whole) "disbelieve" or "believe." Each Friend has a relationship with God which leads him or her to a spiritual understanding. So, to talk about Quakers as a whole is to try to put us in the creedal box that we seek to avoid.

Statements that we do not recognize the "uniqueness" of Christ are very misinformed (individuals may not recognize, but Quakers as a whole have no position statements other than our Testimonies, which we recognize will be understood differently by different people based on their personal relationship with God). Our founder, George Fox famously said: There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition" Autobiography of George Fox and most of the Quakers world-wide identify as Christians.

As for "repudiating," the understood beliefs of others, this also is a misunderstanding of the Quaker way. We accept to the possibility that each one's relationship with God can lead to a variety spiritual truths, but none of us has the spiritual authority to tell another person that his/her understanding of God is wrong. Any Friend who does so is really acting outside of the ideal that we are all equal before God.

Meanwhile, back to the thread topic . . . For about 10 years now, I have been attending a Mennonite Church, and two years ago, I became an associate member of that congregation (with permission of my Quaker Meeting). I did not seek this out, but rather, it came to me, and I am quite happy as an active member in both places. In some ways they overlap, in other ways the compliment each other. I do not share as much theologically with my Mennonite brothers and sisters as I do with my Quaker ones, but I find that both communities seek to live their faith radically in the world, and that leads to many forms of overlap. Each groups knows about my affiliation with the other, and no one has ever expressed dismay. I am quite happy and feel spiritually nourished.

Further, I don't think that God cares at all which dotted lines I (or others) have signed. God, alone, knows the full measure of our faith.

sabine

[ 07. September 2016, 14:40: Message edited by: sabine ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Vaguely thinking about this thread, maybe we need to be gently encouraging people to visit other churches, participate in other program? It could help counter the arrogant pride in the assumed superiority of "my" denomination I hear so often.

Wouldn't getting some people more active across churches get them more involved in Christianity in general? But I hear people and not just clergy express fear that if someone sets foot in a different church they might leave ours. It's common to try to attract others with public events but refuse to advertise another church's public event.

Church secretary said when they find out a person is involved elsewhere they take that person off the membership list. They don't even ask questions first.

There seems to be a strong tribalism "you are one of us or you are out" in many churches, as if the focus is exclusive membership not growth of the people, which for some might work best in one place but for others better developed through multiple.

Interesting that clergy and musical leaders regularly change church and participate in multi church events but members are suppose to sit in one place.

[ 07. September 2016, 15:13: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, I get that, Sabine but you may remember a thread a while back where I asked a question about some Anglican women I heard about who were refused full membership of a Quaker Meeting because they continued to receive communion at an Anglican church.

Some Quaker Shipmates explained that this was entirely in order and that if these women had truly or fully embraced the Quaker way they wouldn't have wanted to continue receiving communion as it represented the kind of 'outward form' that the Quakers aim to avoid as far as possible.

I'm not sure how that applies to you in your US instance and context nor whether the Friends would consider the Mennonites 'closer' in some way than they might the Anglicans or whoever else - although my understanding is that Quakers wouldn't approach the issue in that kind of way.

As far as tribalism goes, I might be wrong, but as far as Protestant groups go, my impression is that there is more tribalism in the US than there is here ... at least, that's what US contacts tell me (and I'm not thinking of Shipmates here, but more broadly).

So, for instance, one US contact I have expressed surprise that I'd attended a joint Anglican-RC-Orthodox conference recently and also surprise that evangelical denominations tend to collaborate here. I got the impression that where she is the various Protestant churches jealousy guarded their territory and weren't keen on joint-efforts of any kind.

I don't know how typical that is, but I get the impression that 'closed communion' (Dead Horse alert ...) is more common among Protestant groups in the US than it is here - where it tends to be restricted to a small number of independent Baptist churches or some Baptist Union of GB and Ireland churches which haven't followed the overall trend among British and Irish Baptists more generally.

I'm not saying that there isn't room for ecumenical improvement here in the UK - far from it - but I don't see the degree of tribalism that some US Shipmates - and other US contacts - mention.

I suspect that there might be a greater level of 'competition' in certain parts of the US where church-attendance is way, way, way higher than anything we have over here.

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Sure, I get that, Sabine but you may remember a thread a while back where I asked a question about some Anglican women I heard about who were refused full membership of a Quaker Meeting because they continued to receive communion at an Anglican church.

Some Quaker Shipmates explained that this was entirely in order and that if these women had truly or fully embraced the Quaker way they wouldn't have wanted to continue receiving communion as it represented the kind of 'outward form' that the Quakers aim to avoid as far as possible.

I'm not sure how that applies to you in your US instance and context nor whether the Friends would consider the Mennonites 'closer' in some way than they might the Anglicans or whoever else - although my understanding is that Quakers wouldn't approach the issue in that kind of way.

I remember that thread, and I would add that I did not agree with those Quakers, and made the point that this sort of rigid interpretation of taking Communion when visiting other churches is not universally held by all Friends (i.e., it's an outward form we avoid, but no one has the spiritual authority to say it is wrong in general for others in all occasions).

Individual Meetings have the right to approve or not approve membership, and some Meetings have a stricter set of guidelines for what they want in a new member than other Meetings do. That does not extrapolate to the wider Quaker world, however, since each Meeting is responsible for its own membership guidelines.

Meanwhile, at least here in the US, The Quakers, Mennonite, and Brethren are referred to as Historical Peace Churches because of their stance on avoiding war, military service, etc. But for many reasons, the comparison doesn't go much further. Meanwhile, I am not the only person in my Meeting who has received permission to be an associate member somewhere else, and that "somewhere else" is not necessarily with the Mennonites.

quote:
As far as tribalism goes, I might be wrong, but as far as Protestant groups go, my impression is that there is more tribalism in the US than there is here ...

At least as far as Quaker, Mennos, and Brethren go, we have quite a few denominations of each here in the US, the result of numerous spits over the years. One of the downsides of having a heavily UK-centric discussion board is that people form opinions based on their experience of, say, Quakers in the UK, and are unaware that the UK Quakers are a minority of Quakers world-wide.

Tribalism in the US: iN OUR entire nation of millions of people and many cultural subgroups. I suspect we would find different levels of it in different locations, socio-econimic groups, etc.

When you started this thread, Gamaliel, you asked if attending more than one church is common? I'm not sure if you meant common among Shipmates or common, in general. I'm not sure we can answer the second question without lots of sociological research, but I would be interested to hear more about the individual stories of Shipmates who are in a good dual-relationship.

sabine

[ 07. September 2016, 16:11: Message edited by: sabine ]

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I suspect that there might be a greater level of 'competition' in certain parts of the US where church-attendance is way, way, way higher than anything we have over here.

Yes, there may be some competition, in part because more people here report a religious affiliation than actually attend church. Mainline Churches seem to be losing ground, although I'm not sure if they are losing more ground than churches in the UK.

Pew Research: US Public becoming less religious

I suppose that if one is concerned with filling the pews, then being open to congregants attending other churches is fraught with potential difficulties.

It's a pity, really, since so much good can come from going outside the gates to meet and worship with one's neighbors.

sabine

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure. I'm aware of the Pew Research and the decline of 'mainstream' church attendance in the USA and also that the South and Mid-West have a much higher level of religious observance than New England, say, or the Pacific North West.

Generally speaking, we tend to follow US trends rather than t'other way round but in broad terms I suspect the UK - and Europe in general - is far more secularised than even the most secularised parts of the US have yet become - but I might be wrong.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Generally speaking, we tend to follow US trends rather than t'other way round but in broad terms I suspect the UK - and Europe in general - is far more secularised than even the most secularised parts of the US have yet become - but I might be wrong.

Almost certainly true. When we say "the US has become less religious" remember that it had a high bar to fall from, relative to other Western nations.

[ 07. September 2016, 17:48: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

And we can't discount the Nones (spiritual-but-not-religious), a rising group in developed countries north of the equater. I wonder how much visitation among established faith traitions they do? Does anyone on the Ship identify as a None? If so, what light can you shed?

Further on the tribalism issue--unfortunately, being with people "just like us" has been a feature of organized religion for a long time, and not in a good way.

sabine

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Backing up a bit - I'm not talking about occasionally visiting other churches or worshipping with one's neighbours now and again - a fair bit of that goes on in my experience - I'm thinking more in terms of people who have some kind of more 'formal' dual-affiliation or spend substantial amounts of time being involved with more than one congregation or expression.

Where I am, the churches all get on well and you do find people with feet in more than one camp, but there's not much by way of formal co-ordination. But then, that's true of the voluntary sector here in general - and with the various sports, arts and crafts and other community groups. It's a town where lots of people are doing good stuff but there's not a great deal of collaboration.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
One of the downsides of having a heavily UK-centric discussion board is that people form opinions based on their experience of, say, Quakers in the UK, and are unaware that the UK Quakers are a minority of Quakers world-wide.

I think the important thing here is context.

The conversation above was clearly about the British ecumenical environment (e.g. note the reference to 'Churches Together', which is a network of churches in Britain). In that sense the beliefs and attitudes of American, Kenyan, Uruguayan, or Polynesian, etc. Quakers were not the issue at hand, and no one was referring to them.

Also, the fact is that from now on any type of Christian in the UK is almost always going to be a 'minority' when compared to the numbers in their denomination worldwide. Every group with at least a few decades of overseas mission under its belt is going to have a greater presence elsewhere.

That being the case, I imagine that anyone with the vaguest awareness of global Christianity and British secularisation will know that British Quakerism doesn't represent the be-all and end-all of Quakerism.

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

Thank you for posting this, Svitlana, In retrospect, I see that my words seemed more like a criticism than an observation. I apologize for that. I also think I may have misunderstood the scope of the discussion, or perhaps I perceived an indictment of Quakers when none was intended.

Even if we confine ourselves to British Friends, I think it leads to misunderstandings when we try to describe as if there is only one way that Friends looking at things. ThaT can hardly be done if two Friends in a room [Smile]

let alone an entire country.

You've given me an idea, though. Somedag, I really would like to experience the Quaker way in Polynesia. [Smile]

sabine

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Backing up a bit - I'm not talking about occasionally visiting other churches or worshipping with one's neighbours now and again - a fair bit of that goes on in my experience - I'm thinking more in terms of people who have some kind of more 'formal' dual-affiliation or spend substantial amounts of time being involved with more than one congregation or expression.

When I was a kid you did NOT set foot in a different denomination's church. An Episcopalian visiting a Lutheran church was visiting "a different religion." My childhood Catholic friends were taught just setting foot in a non-RCC church was a sin. (Whether that was taught locally or centrally I don't know.)

We live in less rigid times. I suppose multi-culturalism could have something to do with it? When the closest thing to a foreign religion was the Methodists, they seemed totally different from "us." With people more different living down the block, the Methodists no longer seem foreign?

I do run into a lot of assumption one must be a member of one and only on church and have nothing to do with others. None on my friends involved in more than one church want it pubic knowledge because some people would scold and they don't want unnecessary strife. But maybe small towns are different?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[QB None on my friends involved in more than one church want it pubic knowledge because some people would scold and they don't want unnecessary strife. But maybe small towns are different? [/QB]

I don't know if its because of or in spite of being a pastor, but I've always been very up front about attending two churches (one of which I work at). L.A. is definitely not a small town, so I could probably have gotten away with hiding it, but that's really not my style.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Thank you for posting this, Svitlana, In retrospect, I see that my words seemed more like a criticism than an observation.

They didn't seem to be a criticism, they were a criticism.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
I don't know whose post to quote here since there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about Quakers on this thread.

The first would be that Quakers (as a whole) "disbelieve" or "believe." Each Friend has a relationship with God which leads him or her to a spiritual understanding. So, to talk about Quakers as a whole is to try to put us in the creedal box that we seek to avoid.

Statements that we do not recognize the "uniqueness" of Christ are very misinformed (individuals may not recognize, but Quakers as a whole have no position statements other than our Testimonies, which we recognize will be understood differently by different people based on their personal relationship with God). Our founder, George Fox famously said: There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition" Autobiography of George Fox and most of the Quakers world-wide identify as Christians.

As for "repudiating," the understood beliefs of others, this also is a misunderstanding of the Quaker way. We accept to the possibility that each one's relationship with God can lead to a variety spiritual truths, but none of us has the spiritual authority to tell another person that his/her understanding of God is wrong. Any Friend who does so is really acting outside of the ideal that we are all equal before God.

My views on Quakers are based on UK experience of almost 2 decades and in a variety of circumstances. Here, Quakers are generally ell off, middle class, professionals. I accept that this is not representative internationally or perhaps, even nationally. I recognise and affirm the character and works of the Quakers I've encountered - they are all zealous in the cause of justice.

But there's another side to the coin IME. The substance of your reply confirms some of the reservations I have about including UK Quakers alongside Trinitarian Denominations. I accept this is critical but it is based on observation and experience, albeit from my perspective. I know of many others in ecumenical circles in the UK who share the same concerns.

1. Quakers (or Friends) are a denomination, whatever they may claim. There is a structure and shared values.

2. Quakers have a creed - even if it's an individual one. At a recent meeting a Quaker stood up and said "Quakers believe ..." that's a credal statement. You make seek to avoid it but as soon as you express an opinion about the nature of God and/or faith, you are making a credal statement either as an individual or as a group. I don't really buy the idea that there is no Quaker Creed - you state the distinctiveness you feel you hold on "Peace" - is that not a credal belief?

3. Not believing in something which mainstream Christianity accepts as a given (The Trinity), is disbelief when viewed from the other side. I'd respectfully point out that you seem to be trying to "wriggle" here. I know I'm using binary categories but the world often needs definition and distinction to "work."

4. What George Fox may or may not have believed isn't relevant to modern Quakers, if as you say, everyone is at liberty to accept or reject any or all aspects of the divine. Fox isn't prescriptive for Quakers today.

In the USA the position may be very different but in the UK there's no other way of describing Quakers than as theologically liberal. Arguably with many not recognising the uniqueness of Christ in salvation, that puts them beyond the traditional boundaries of the biblical faith. That position makes it hard to accommodate them within "Christians Together" groups if they don't share the same core beliefs about God, however much we may agree on aspects of peace, compassion and social justice.

5. In holding to one view, can you not see that this by definition repudiates the views of others? A view that says there are many paths to God repudiates the view that there is one path to God.

However much you wish to avoid conflict by holding to any view (whether individually or corporately) you will still cause or create it by expressing a view contrary to the understanding of others.

I feel that here, like in many of the dealings I have had with Quakers on contentious issues, you are sitting on the fence. Sometimes greater division is created by sitting there and trying to be all things to all people, than by coming down and taking a view, however unacceptable that might be for some. There tends to be more respect for those who say what they feel/mean that or those who try to dissemble and fudge things.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Belle Ringer, no, I don't think it's just a small town thing here in the UK. I used to live in a large city and by and large, the churches tended to get along well, particularly at a local level within various neighbourhoods.

The exceptions were particular forms of more exclusive evangelical on the one hand and the long-standing Protestant/RC divide.

That doesn't mean there wasn't room for improvement nor that, a generation or so earlier, relationships between churches were more strained or stand-offish - but I don't recognise the situation you describe of people keeping quiet about attending other churches lest clergy or church leaders 'scold' them. Other than in some of the more conservative or fundamentalist groups here, in anyone were 'scold' by a clergy-person or church leader, they'd probably either vote with their feet or tell the clergy person where to get off.

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Thank you for posting this, Svitlana, In retrospect, I see that my words seemed more like a criticism than an observation.
They didn't seem to be a criticism, they were a criticism.

I apologized because these words could be read two different wHs. You and Svitlana read them one way. I meant them another. That's the problem when there is no voice find to be heard. It was my fault for not being more clear. I'm sorry for allowing g people on this thread to feel attacked.

Sabine

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think it's just a small town thing here in the UK. I used to live in a large city and by and large, the churches tended to get along well, particularly at a local level within various neighbourhoods.

Well, not necessarily ...

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't recognise the situation you describe of people keeping quiet about attending other churches lest clergy or church leaders 'scold' them.

It's people as much as clergy who view any straying as unacceptable. I've been surprised how eager some people are to get others off the membership list. The black and white "You are one of us or you aren't" is as often lay as clergy attitude.

Apparently in times past the denomination charged a per member tax to the local church, which meant any "Christmas and Easter" member was resented by those aware of budget, and a dual church member would be resented for costing the church money while failing to commit all their church-based money and labor to one church.

Although the couple of denominations I'm familiar have changed the dues method (it's now based on percentage of the church budget, which leads to endless appeals for off-budget contributions for food projects, supplies, and mission donations, anything not essential to institutional survival), the resentment of inactive or non-exclusive members remains common, at least where I live.

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

There might be two (or more?) issues at play with a person worshipping at two places. The spiritual nourishment of the person and the needs of the main community ($$ or committee participation, sense of denominational cohesion, etc.). I can see that in some cases, the two might conflict and lead to some judgment.

And, organized religion is a humanly constructed thing and subject to all the human foibles,including a suspicion of those who seek to investigate outside the bounds.

It's nice to hear about folks (pastors, even) who find spiritual good in what different groups might have to offer and who are not wary of being with folks who are different. One drawback of never being with "the other" is not being able to see God at work in all of God's creative ways.

I just hope there aren't too many congregations whose collective ministry is held back when someone, is absent now and then for sincere spiritual reasons.

sabine

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

There was an article in the New York Times some years ago, about a church on Long Island. The pastor was fed up with the Easter-and-Xmas-only crowd. And so he decreed that the palms on Palm Sunday (which do cost money) were to be distributed only to the regular congregants. The reaction at the service was so vehement that it made the paper. They were meeting in the parking lot after the service to denounce him and petition for his removal. The policy immediately went to the wall and has never returned.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Of course organised religion is a humanly constructed thing - as is unorganised religion.

There's no such thing as a disembodied religion. We aren't disembodied spirits floating around on fluffy clouds.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

Just reflecting on the last few posts - specifically around people who are keen to get others off the list.

I'm sure this is in part a cultural artefact, where there is still a belief that some kind of advantage is accrued by being a member.

In the evangelical world where formal membership is held more lightly, I suspect it can come down to a misplaced sense of mission/residual exclusivism. It's a variant on the kinds of extreme thought that can't see why one would want to do <activity> when one could be at a prayer meeting instead, in this case 'why would you want to meet with those people over there, when God is blessing us here'. Certainly, I've seen and experienced the latter.

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course organised religion is a humanly constructed thing - as is unorganised religion.

There's no such thing as a disembodied religion. We aren't disembodied spirits floating around on fluffy clouds.

Who said anything about fluffy clouds? My point is that perhaps we humans care more about who worships within which structure, with whom, with what degree of exclusiveness than God does.

Most of us look to scripture or discernment, or spiritual leaders for clues about things, but in the end God knows the truth about our faith most profoundly.

For some, God may speak most clearly through a lifelong commitment to one way, while for others, God's voice may be heard in a variety of contexts. I imagine the Holy Spirit has a way of getting around and isn't surprised when someone wants to follow.

There is a lot to be said for basic organizational structure, but it would be a shame if someone missed the opportunity to be in a place to know God more deeply because he or she felt uncomfortable going outside the established framework.

Not everyone who worships in more than one place is on this kind of spiritual quest, but I hope all who are feel supported by their spiritual brothers and sisters.

Further up the thread I wondered about those who identify as "None" (spiritual but not religious). It's a rising demographic, and I wonder what wisdom they have for those of us who prefer organized religion.

sabine

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm not sure the Nones are relevant to the OP, which was about people who are actively involved in some way with more than one congregation.

It's not about whether God 'prefers' people to attend Methodist churches or Catholic churches or Quaker meetings or whatever else - that's not what I'm getting at. What I'm interested in is why people might 'belong' or be affiliated to more than one expression of the Christian faith and what the practical outworking of that might be either in beneficial or detrimental terms.

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure the Nones are relevant to the OP, which was about people who are actively involved in some way with more than one congregation.

It's not about whether God 'prefers' people to attend Methodist churches or Catholic churches or Quaker meetings or whatever else - that's not what I'm getting at. What I'm interested in is why people might 'belong' or be affiliated to more than one expression of the Christian faith and what the practical outworking of that might be either in beneficial or detrimental terms.

I'm not sure who on this thread feels that God prefers people to attend a specific church. I can say that I attend more than one church because I have grown in faith by experiencing my encounters with God in.more than one context. This practice places a bit of a burden on me in terms of being involved. But I have found that the things that seem best for me to do at my Quaker meeting are not the things that i feel led to do at my Mennonite Church. So it has worked out for me this way. I contribute momentarily to both. And, an added benefit for my situation is the Wednesday Meeting for Worship at the Meeting. Not everyone will want to engage in the kind of calendar planning that I do, but it works for me. Also important for me is the fact that I don't share a total theology with the Mennonites. I'm not a traditional Christian and they are. So I find myself learning a lot. It has been very enriching. And until I started attending the Mennonite congregation, I didn't realize how uplifted I feel when I join in the four-part acapella singing.

sabine

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, so you have articulated what you feel some of the benefits and challenges are in your particular case, which is interesting and the sort of thing I was hoping to tease out.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Further up the thread I wondered about those who identify as "None" (spiritual but not religious). It's a rising demographic, and I wonder what wisdom they have for those of us who prefer organized religion. sabine

The category of "spiritual but not religious" doesn't actually equate to none: they are two distinct categories despite their common protestations to the contrary.

"Spiritual but not " reflects a set of beliefs that may (in their particular expression) be unique to that person. That description is, to me, a kind of cop out: those who use it of themselves are trying to distance themselves from religion by inventing or using a new category which isn't really there.

I admire the "Nones." They have way more faith than I do. Disingenuity aside, the "nones" aren't actually "Nones" as they have soem core beliefs, even if it that is simply in humanity. They just don't believe in "our systems" but have recreated "otherness" in their own image in their own systems.

Both "nones" and "spiritual but not ..." have a lot to teach those who find their direction in "organised" religion. On the one hand they remind us of the freshness of new discovery, on the other they warn us where we can go when e make ourselves the centre of our universe.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
When I was a kid you did NOT set foot in a different denomination's church. An Episcopalian visiting a Lutheran church was visiting "a different religion." My childhood Catholic friends were taught just setting foot in a non-RCC church was a sin. (Whether that was taught locally or centrally I don't know.)

We live in less rigid times. I suppose multi-culturalism could have something to do with it? When the closest thing to a foreign religion was the Methodists, they seemed totally different from "us." With people more different living down the block, the Methodists no longer seem foreign?

FWIW, this was not my experience at all in small town North Carolina in the 60s and 70s. (Granted, we had few Catholics and no Lutherans.).

I went to church with non-Presbyterian friends from time to time, particularly my Episcopal friends. This wasn't unusual. And churches did formal and informal things together, including vacation Bible school, youth events (it was not unusual to go to the youth group of a different church) and sharing choir members to make sure there was a good-sized choir for a funeral. For years, the Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Methodists did the Liturgy of the Palms together.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
When I was a kid you did NOT set foot in a different denomination's church.
FWIW, this was not my experience at all in small town North Carolina in the 60s and 70s. ...And churches did formal and informal things together, including vacation Bible school

FWIW, My 50s and 60s Midwest experience was a culturally different time than your 70s. Midwest was years behind the coast on the cultural change. I never saw inter-denominational cooperation until the 70s, and then only at the management level, not the people level, while back east had long been experimenting with ecumenical services.

I hear on the Ship about joint VBS or youth groups. I've never seen it. Maybe everyone feels overworked and the thought of coordinating with another church is just more work? But I have heard church leaders say "we don't want our kids going to there and being attracted away from us."

A decade ago two churches did Messiah selections together, the choirs were thrilled but the two music directors squabbled over whether the soloists would be all from the bigger church (as that director insisted) or some from each church (as the smaller church wanted). Then the next year the bigger church director refused to alternate churches as originally planned saying he works for his church and won't help someone else's church. The smaller one refused to be taken advantage of a second time.

How do churches that do joint VBS get past the assumption users of the program see it as the program of the church whose grounds it is located on?

One year I did the music sessions at two different VBSs, different weeks, one block apart, zero crossover of children (they all rotate through music). I don't know all the "why?"s. (I got to do two VBSs instead of one because I accidentally landed in two membership rosters so got called on by both, yea for dual membership even if accidental.)

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
I guess the interesting question is can you 'belong' to more than one church? When I lived in London I went to one parish church regularly on a Sunday, but might also go to midweek masses nearer my office, and Evensong as Westminster Abbey from time to time. But that, I suspect, is a city thing.

I used to do that when I worked in Central London. At one point my Sunday church was an MOTR gaff in South London, my midweek church was St. Magnus the Martyr (Nosebleed high Wren Church in the City) and I would also, occasionally, attend my wife's church, which was (and is) Methodist. You can imagine how my hopes were raised and dashed when the Methodist order of service ended with 'The Benediction'! [Biased]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

When I was a child the Baptists had VBS on the week after the Methodists had had theirs. Many of us went to both, regardless of our denomination.

Moo

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I do agree with Belle Ringer that, over all, increasing ecumenical interaction has been a feature of the 1970s onwards and perhaps wasn't so apparent in the 1950s and 1960s ... but even so, I'm not sure that was universal. My mother and her sisters attended the Sunday school run by the Plymouth Brethren when they were kids but went to the services at the Anglican parish. Nobody found this unusual and it was fairly pragmatic as the long-serving vicar was notably eccentric and incapable of making provision for a Sunday school ...

Mind you, my Gran' soon put a stop to it when my eldest aunt came home one day saying that she'd 'been saved' ...

[Biased]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

The extent to which this all impinges on double belonging is interesting. For some people it's a step on the road to switching over entirely. The Pentecostals and SDAs I know see Methodism (and no doubt Anglicanism) as a kind of half-way house, so they would encourage double affiliation as part of the process - although I don't know at what point you would be expected to pick one or the other.

One story that's always fascinated me relates how a Methodist minister in the Caribbean led his congregation to a neighbouring non-Trinitarian Pentecostal church to be re-baptised... but he and his congregation 'officially' remained Methodist. The blurring of doctrinal boundaries is a symptom of postmodernity (and some argue that the Caribbean was the first workshop of postmodernity) but I would be very interested to know if there's any truth to the story. It's hard to imagine something similar happening in the UK!
Interesting point - I wonder how much that goes also for doing things *outside* Christianity. I know it avowedly claims not to be a religion, but I'm thinking in particular in the UK of Christian Freemasons.

Freemasonry isn't a religion, but it does offer universal non-specific prayers as part of its meetings which implies you'd have to be able to square your attendance at church with praying in a room where you're all potentially praying to different Gods, and different understanding of God - particularly where you've got a Christian mason next to a Hindu one next to a Muslim one.

I don't know much about the Masons, but I think many of them are also Christians. (There are also conspiracy theories which claim that the RCC has some foundational relationship with them.)

Some people are able maintain a connection with two (or more) different religions, to varying degrees, sometimes involving conversion, sometimes not. There always appears to be some spiritual benefit from being with the 'other' faith group, which may make more orthodox believers nervous.

The interfaith worship tendency seems more of a thing with moderate Christians (especially among the clergy and intellectual folk) than with more evangelical types, although the evangelicals are perhaps more successful at drawing Muslims in to Christian worship. YMMV, though.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

There are conspiracy theories connecting the Masons with just about anything you can think of, SvitlanaV2.£

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0