|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: In which he invites discourse on the demerits of MoTR churches
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
In this neck of the woods there are a few MOTR churches (about 50% of all local churches). They are numerically weak but punch way above their weight in inter church matters - a function of their numerical strength in the past.
They are all declining in size - some very rapidly. They have a good focus on social justice but are often very embarrassed and non committal of anything that has a missional edge. Problem is they just don't see that their position is analogous to that of other churches: there are one or two strong personalities who have dominated things for a while but are stuck in an 1989 timewarp (the date is significant).
The big growth in church life locally is in new churches - often one national or ethnic grouping. They will have absolutely nothing to do with the existing set up whilst it's dominated by MOTR churches and agendas.
It's a very unhappy future for everyone.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I wonder what has changed about Methodism.
There were 4 large Methodist churches within walk of 20 minutes of here - two Primitive (for sure), two Wesleyan (I think).
Gamaliel tells me that these were never really filled, and yet I'm not sure if that can be true - I saw a survey from the 1930-40s where 80% of people in this part of Wales said that they attended church at least once on a Sunday.
It'd be interesting to see if there was any more granular information at any point - and there are also various other churches within the same distance (2 Anglican, Baptist, Congregationalist.. possibly others). But the Methodist were a lot bigger, so it seems possible that they were a big part of the local culture after they were built (around 1890-1900, I think).
I wonder what changed.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
A lot changed for Methodism, as I tried explain above. But you're talking about Wales, aren't you? Gamaliel will probably have a lot to say about that.
My understanding (as per this essay, but it's not available online) is that the contributory factors were the decline of the chapels' role in maintaining the Welsh language, the disaffection of the working classes as Welsh religion was Anglicised and professionalised, the damage caused by economic and industrial decline in Wales, and the rise of the unions and then the welfare state, which took over the caring role that the church had previously maintained.
Wales now has a lower church attendance than England, which I imagine is still shocking for many English Non-conformists to hear. But it's said that the Welsh churches that remain could still have an important social role, especially as social services struggle.
[ 26. May 2017, 17:16: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
A lot changed for Methodism, as I tried explain above. But you're talking about Wales, aren't you? Gamaliel will probably have a lot to say about that.
Yes, I suppose I was musing that at some point Methodism changed from being something that attracted a lot of people around here to be something that was a minor sport. The one of the big Methodists chapels closed in the 1960s, so that process of decline has been going on for a long time.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
mr cheesy
It took a long time, but in the Welsh context it might be easier to track the process than in England, since the contributory factors appear to be much clearer. And Wales is a smaller country, after all.
Emigration must surely be a factor too. I've read that Irish Methodism suffered a lot from that. English Methodism too, although we hear less about it. The youngish, ambitious, upper-working class and lower-middle class Methodist was surely attracted by the possibilities of good employment elsewhere.
When my church closed, a whole flock of elderly former members turned up from far flung suburbs and small towns to share in the commemorations. The ones who went to Oz, NZ, Canada or elsewhere in the 60s and 70s were unlikely ever to return, certainly not to the church.
[ 26. May 2017, 17:37: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's a very unhappy future for everyone.
Can you explain why you think the new churches in your area will have an unhappy future?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Never usually one to be lost for words, something I share with a former close neighbour of yours, mr cheesy, 'Welsh wind-bag' Neil Kinnock - I have little to add to SvitlanaV2's excellent analysis of what went on in Wales.
On the issue of whether chapels were ever as full as popular legend maintains - I'll meet you half way there. If my memory serves I was thinking more of Yorkshire than Wales where it was certainly the case that chapels were built to an excessive size in anticipation of growth that never materialised.
It wouldn't surprise me if attendance stood at around 80% in the Welsh Valleys until around the 1930s.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That sounds about right, Enoch - though I suspect the fund-raising thermometer is a bit apocryphal!
One word which is definitely "not on" is "evangelism". Well, all nice people are Christians, aren't they? - even if they don't come to church, and we don't want to offend them by talking about religion,
It's the whole bloody *niceness* thing. I have only very rarely wondered whether I should join the RCC but one of the things I find attractive about it is that it doesn't, on the whole, seem to confuse being Christian with being nice.
I don't know whether MOTR always equalled 'nice'. My great hero ++Fisher was probably the last Central Churchman to be ABC and I don't think anyone ever accused him of being *nice*, warm and friendly though he could be.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's a very unhappy future for everyone.
Can you explain why you think the new churches in your area will have an unhappy future?
The reason they will have an unhappy future is that, fundamentally, they are just the same as all the others that are already there and/or have gone before. There's more and more fragmentation and division amongst them: they flourish and then fade very quickly.
First generation migrants are founding their own churches, second generations are either moving out to mainline denominations or moving out altogether.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That sounds about right, Enoch - though I suspect the fund-raising thermometer is a bit apocryphal!
One word which is definitely "not on" is "evangelism". Well, all nice people are Christians, aren't they? - even if they don't come to church, and we don't want to offend them by talking about religion,
It's the whole bloody *niceness* thing. I have only very rarely wondered whether I should join the RCC but one of the things I find attractive about it is that it doesn't, on the whole, seem to confuse being Christian with being nice.
I don't know whether MOTR always equalled 'nice'. My great hero ++Fisher was probably the last Central Churchman to be ABC and I don't think anyone ever accused him of being *nice*, warm and friendly though he could be.
Around here they are nice being the public face of the church (Radiuo, TV, papers), until you express a contrary view. Niceness is very superficial and it is quickly extinguished when certain shibboleths are questioned (both DH matters and local issues).
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's a very unhappy future for everyone.
Can you explain why you think the new churches in your area will have an unhappy future?
The reason they will have an unhappy future is that, fundamentally, they are just the same as all the others that are already there and/or have gone before. There's more and more fragmentation and division amongst them: they flourish and then fade very quickly.
First generation migrants are founding their own churches, second generations are either moving out to mainline denominations or moving out altogether.
Ah, I see.
Unfortunately, traditional ecumenicalism has very little to do with keeping hold of the younger generations. I was the secretary of a Churches Together network, and it was very difficult for the churches to get their young people interested in coming to (boring?) meetings. I think this is something that the headquarters of the movement need to think about.
What did seem to work was joint activities between the youth groups from different churches. Of course, if the mainstream churches have few or no youth of their own then this isn't going to involve them anyway.
[ 26. May 2017, 23:33: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Unfortunately, traditional ecumenicalism has very little to do with keeping hold of the younger generations. I was the secretary of a Churches Together network, and it was very difficult for the churches to get their young people interested in coming to (boring?) meetings. I think this is something that the headquarters of the movement need to think about.
What did seem to work was joint activities between the youth groups from different churches. Of course, if the mainstream churches have few or no youth of their own then this isn't going to involve them anyway.
Churches Together isn't really operating any more. When it did, it appealed to the lowest common denominator (ie we're churches) and lived off its history. Very few church leaders, let alone young people, attended. It wasn't and isn't relevant to most people and, as I say, it was dominated by pressure groups from the MOTR camp.
The young people do meet but there have been comments from the liberal/motr camp that it's too overtly "church" and evangelistic. I just get the feeling we can't win!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Ecumenism works when it majors on getting churches to share in local projects which fire the imagination and cannot be run simply by one congregation - eg Street Pastors, Night Shelters, area litter-picks, combined public open-air celebration service and witness.
It doesn't work when it majors on boring committee meetings, structures and constitutions or dutiful and worthy lowest-common-denominator services. Nor if the clergy aren't willing to get to know each other, or if those from some denominations regard others as "below the salt".
As you say, ecumenism tends to be the province of MoTR church, possibly because they are broader (or woolier!) in their theology than the "new" churches - though this is changing. Sadly, the enthusiastic folk organising the interchurch projects which do "take off" tend to forget that they do need some structure for these to work properly, and that they are unconsciously building on the labours of the ecumenical movement over the last 60 years which have served to break down the barriers between denominations.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Niceness is very superficial and it is quickly extinguished when certain shibboleths are questioned (both DH matters and local issues).
Ah, the illiberality of Liberalism!
Been there, got the T-shirt (and the bruises).
[ 27. May 2017, 10:59: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The young people do meet but there have been comments from the liberal/motr camp that it's too overtly "church" and evangelistic. I just get the feeling we can't win!
Then just invite them to social events. Don't you have any purely social events?
Obviously, if the others don't share your theology on evangelism then joint effort on that score won't work, and might actually be quite confusing for your young people. So be grateful for small mercies!
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
As you say, ecumenism tends to be the province of MoTR church, possibly because they are broader (or woolier!) in their theology than the "new" churches - though this is changing.
Sociologists tend to argue that ecumenicalism is a symptom of church decline and marginalisation, which is a plausible reason why it would appeal to MOTR churches rather than evangelicals.
Of course, the former also make a virtue out of a necessity by emphasising unity. But I suspect that the specific benefits of church unity depend very much on where a church is in its life cycle, and on its precise goals.
As it happens, I note with interest that a new book has been published about the ecumenical movement from a URC perspective. It's the sort of thing I'd like to read, not least because books about MOTR/liberal church culture and engagement seem quite rare. If anyone else has read it a review on this thread might be relevant.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[I note with interest that a new book has been published about the ecumenical movement from a URC perspective. It's the sort of thing I'd like to read, not least because books about MOTR/liberal church culture and engagement seem quite rare. If anyone else has read it a review on this thread might be relevant.
Yup, I've read it (I know the author). But I borrowed my copy from another Minister so no longer have it ... I'll try and see my way to making some comments. I seem to remember thinking that it was good (if possibly a bit dismissive of evangelicals), depressing and - quit rightly - of particular interest to URCers but hopefully saying some things to the wider Church.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I am commenting from Cliff College chapel, which feels very appropriate (volunteering at Cliff College Festival for SCM)! I'm not sure I've ever seen so many Methodists before.
Where I live, our local Churches Together is thriving and the local Pentecostal pastor is one of the most enthusiastic members. I realise it may be unusually successful though!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Re. that book! The author certainly knows what he is talking about, not only having been a URC minister for many years but also one who has traced its history and studied its statistics very carefully and from them drawn uncomfortable conclusions.
I found it informative, interesting and easy to read. I was particularly taken with the section on LEPs and their relative failure, with its observation that these may be formed from several denominations but usually embrace a single theological position.
One slight “gripe” is that the book does appears to make an underlying assumption that “liberal = good” and “evangelical = bad”; which to my mind is unduly simplistic and groups all evangelicals into one group whereas they are very diverse.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Where I live, our local Churches Together is thriving and the local Pentecostal pastor is one of the most enthusiastic members.
Here we have a "new (ish)" Evangelical church running a joint Alpha course with the Catholic church ... neither though are officially members of the local ecumenical grouping!
[ 27. May 2017, 16:40: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
If we are considering the 'demerits' of more liberal or MoTR churches - however defined - then I think that 'illiberal liberalism' can certainly be included.
The mileage varies, but I've sometimes encountered a greater generosity of spirit among people from more 'hard-line' or entrenched church traditions than I have among those traditions that make a big deal out of espousing tolerance and respect.
That's one of the conumdrums (conumdra?) we have to live with, I think ...
The mileage varies of course and there are always exceptions to any rule ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I found it informative, interesting and easy to read. I was particularly taken with the section on LEPs and their relative failure, with its observation that these may be formed from several denominations but usually embrace a single theological position.
That's interesting, I've often wondered what happens to the churches as they age and develop.
One doesn't hear much about the church in Milton Keynes, I wonder whether there each congregation retains something of the dominant "former" (I know it is more complicated than this, but it feels more like the churches have joined to make a new denom than anything else) denomination or whether there is any consistency across the area.
[ 28. May 2017, 08:51: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
BaptistTrainfan
Interesting stuff about the book, thanks. Perhaps the author never met the kinds of evangelicals who were willing to be serious fellow travellers, and he resents that - especially since he's obviously disappointed with how the ecumenical movement turned out.
But I want to go back to MOTR 'niceness': I think it has fairly practical reasons in the Methodist case.
- With closure such a real possibility for many churches, a Methodist minister will be loathe to drive away committed members (and their money), no matter how troublesome.
- The lack of clergy and funds means ministers have several churches in their care, which reduces the amount of disruptive energy you can expend on one place.
- Most sermons are given by lay preachers, so if you're a minister it's hard to control a congregation and make unwelcome changes if you're not around.
- Due to the stationing system, if you turn the congregation against you you'll be leaving in 5 years anyway.
The above is mostly due to the circuit , and I think the circuit as an organising structure for Methodism has helped to create a MOTR identity overall for the denomination.
For a start, with so many local preachers passing through the pulpit you're not going to get preaching closely targeted at your church's particular mission or needs, so it's not easy for a single congregation in a circuit to develop a different worshipping persona from all the rest.
Local preachers aren't expected (and nor do they expect) to deviate significantly from their usual practice when they go to a church. And AFAIK they receive no updated training from the circuit on how to construct or deliver contemporary and/or alternative forms of worship services. It's all about the 15 min. monologue sermon in the middle of a hymn sandwich.
Only well-attended, well-resourced and self-confident congregations that can produce their own preachers have any chance of circumventing this uniformity - and to do so is inevitably to defy the circuit system to some extent.
Apart from that, it's back to money. The circuit assessment (financial contribution) is very challenging for congregations. The assessment has to be paid on top of building maintenance costs, and even relatively well-attended churches can find it overwhelming.
The assessment is based on how many members a church has, and largely disregards their level of income. Unfortunately, this means that the making of new members may be detrimental to a church's finances unless the newcomers are well-off and generous. I'm sure this discourages evangelism, especially if the local economic situation has declined.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Ecumenism- oh Lord, yes. Six months working for Churches Together in Wales got rid of any illusions I might have had about that. And then Week of Prayer for Christian Unity joint services- just, no. Lowest common denominator is the politest thing I can say about all that. I have been in places where there were excellent ecumenical relationships but that was about local people getting on with each other. I'd take my local RCs/ Baptists/ Presbyterians/ Quakers/ whatever as I find them and that's how I'd expect them to take me. Get on as neighbours, do our stuff in parallel, do things (study, social action, public witness, social events) together if it makes sense or is enjoable- but saints preserve us from the annual Sunday evening mishmash, just in the interests of showing we can be nice to one another. A sort of ecclesiastical National Brotherhood Week.
[ 30. May 2017, 18:05: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I found it informative, interesting and easy to read. I was particularly taken with the section on LEPs and their relative failure, with its observation that these may be formed from several denominations but usually embrace a single theological position.
That's interesting, I've often wondered what happens to the churches as they age and develop.
One doesn't hear much about the church in Milton Keynes, I wonder whether there each congregation retains something of the dominant "former" (I know it is more complicated than this, but it feels more like the churches have joined to make a new denom than anything else) denomination or whether there is any consistency across the area.
I lived fairly close to Milton Keynes some years ago - the churches were in our local association as well as being in the local diocese etc. From what I recall, Ecumenism was seen pretty much as an embarrassing mess. Lots of "new" churches were springing up, meeting in community halls as I think the Local Council would only let a church be built if it was ecumenical. One or two later joined the BU, others NFI I think.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If we are considering the 'demerits' of more liberal or MoTR churches - however defined - then I think that 'illiberal liberalism' can certainly be included.
The mileage varies, but I've sometimes encountered a greater generosity of spirit among people from more 'hard-line' or entrenched church traditions than I have among those traditions that make a big deal out of espousing tolerance and respect.
That's one of the conumdrums (conumdra?) we have to live with, I think ...
The mileage varies of course and there are always exceptions to any rule ...
I agree with you on that one ... if a MOTR set up is crossed, watch the fur fly
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Especially, perhaps, if the group prides itself on its "tolerance" and finds it hard to accept that others actually have definite views ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) ... or else if the forms of the faith (eg liturgy, ritual) have become more important than its fundamental common "esse" or beliefs.
By the way, I suspect that the question about MK was specifically about the Church of Christ the Cornerstone which is a 5-way ecumenical church in the centre of town. Perhaps someone here can comment?
[ 31. May 2017, 10:39: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I lived fairly close to Milton Keynes some years ago - the churches were in our local association as well as being in the local diocese etc. From what I recall, Ecumenism was seen pretty much as an embarrassing mess. Lots of "new" churches were springing up, meeting in community halls as I think the Local Council would only let a church be built if it was ecumenical.
This gives the impression that it was the appearance of the new churches that made the rest worry that ecumenism was an 'embarrassing mess'. I find that sensibility a bit problematic.
I assume that the ecumenists wanted to project an image of total unity and compliance, and resented outsiders coming in who undermined that image. That's understandable, but the best ecumenical partners are surely those who are completely committed to the ideology. By definition, those churches with a different theology and a different history are going to have other priorities. And since this is a free country, the new groups have a right to set up where they will and take their own approach. Their time usually comes in the end.
Moreover, if ecumenism evolves then the version that the Methodists/Anglicans/URC bought into 20-odd years ago probably isn't the version that'll be of much use to most British churches in 20-odd years' time. (And how much use is it today, one might ask?)
For example, many Methodists and a few Anglicans have been working for years towards a merger of their respective denominations. Maybe we're closer than ever. But some now say that this kind of unity isn't really where it's at any more. Perhaps the people involved need to take a step back and ask themselves how the ecumenical project can be reinvented in a way that's meaningful to our future.
[ 31. May 2017, 20:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But some now say that this kind of unity isn't really where it's at any more. Perhaps the people involved need to take a step back and ask themselves how the ecumenical project can be reinvented in a way that's meaningful to our future.
Which is what I am trying to say to our collapsing ecumenism here.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Especially, perhaps, if the group prides itself on its "tolerance" and finds it hard to accept that others actually have definite views ... or else if the forms of the faith (eg liturgy, ritual) have become more important than its fundamental common "esse" or beliefs.
By the way, I suspect that the question about MK was specifically about the Church of Christ the Cornerstone which is a 5-way ecumenical church in the centre of town. Perhaps someone here can comment?
You're right on the money there. The LEP's in MK usually had a Minister of a specific denomination, the upshot being that they tended to be more "interested" in their denomination than in others. After a few years the music stopped, the leader changed and another denomination stood up to the plate.. Christ the King had a large congregation, mostly Anglican. It was an Anglican church in reality which no amount of ecumenism could hide.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I lived fairly close to Milton Keynes some years ago - the churches were in our local association as well as being in the local diocese etc. From what I recall, Ecumenism was seen pretty much as an embarrassing mess. Lots of "new" churches were springing up, meeting in community halls as I think the Local Council would only let a church be built if it was ecumenical.
This gives the impression that it was the appearance of the new churches that made the rest worry that ecumenism was an 'embarrassing mess'. I find that sensibility a bit problematic.
I assume that the ecumenists wanted to project an image of total unity and compliance, and resented outsiders coming in who undermined that image. That's understandable, but the best ecumenical partners are surely those who are completely committed to the ideology. By definition, those churches with a different theology and a different history are going to have other priorities. And since this is a free country, the new groups have a right to set up where they will and take their own approach. Their time usually comes in the end.
Moreover, if ecumenism evolves then the version that the Methodists/Anglicans/URC bought into 20-odd years ago probably isn't the version that'll be of much use to most British churches in 20-odd years' time. (And how much use is it today, one might ask?)
For example, many Methodists and a few Anglicans have been working for years towards a merger of their respective denominations. Maybe we're closer than ever. But some now say that this kind of unity isn't really where it's at any more. Perhaps the people involved need to take a step back and ask themselves how the ecumenical project can be reinvented in a way that's meaningful to our future.
Sorry - my post was poorly worded. The LEP set up was a mess before the new churches came on the scene, they didn't cause it.
Time wise I'm referring to the late 1990's by which time the love affair with LEP's was really over. Christians weren't looking to share someone else's praxis on a revolving weekly basis - they were looking for continuity.
The expectation for places like Milton Keynes and Swindon were that people would attend their local church whatever their denominational origins - hence the view that LEP's would thrive. In practice people began to be happy to travel to church, to a place that met their denominational expectations and/or the way they liked their church to be "done." It didn't help either that the traditionalist/motr/liberal theology adopted by most LEP's to enable the whole thing to operate, alienated those of a more charismatic or evangelical persuasion who found churches to their liking outside their immediate community.
I understand that both Swindon and Milton Keynes now have denominational and other churches on the doorsteps of LEP's.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But some now say that this kind of unity isn't really where it's at any more. Perhaps the people involved need to take a step back and ask themselves how the ecumenical project can be reinvented in a way that's meaningful to our future.
Which is what I am trying to say to our collapsing ecumenism here.
Locally that's just the situation we face here. A 1980's model with 1980's assumptions. It just doesn't wash nearly 30 years later with a town 3 times the size and way more diverse than it was then
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]
I assume that the ecumenists wanted to project an image of total unity and compliance, and resented outsiders coming in who undermined that image. That's understandable, but the best ecumenical partners are surely those who are completely committed to the ideology. By definition, those churches with a different theology and a different history are going to have other priorities. And since this is a free country, the new groups have a right to set up where they will and take their own approach. Their time usually comes in the end.
Moreover, if ecumenism evolves then the version that the Methodists/Anglicans/URC bought into 20-odd years ago probably isn't the version that'll be of much use to most British churches in 20-odd years' time. (And how much use is it today, one might ask?)
For example, many Methodists and a few Anglicans have been working for years towards a merger of their respective denominations. Maybe we're closer than ever. But some now say that this kind of unity isn't really where it's at any more. Perhaps the people involved need to take a step back and ask themselves how the ecumenical project can be reinvented in a way that's meaningful to our future.
Ecumenism is not about lowest common denominators. about presenting an image of total unity and compliance, or about merger. Ecumenism - and St Sanity is in a covenant with the local Catholic, Baptist and 2 Uniting churches - is recognising that while we come from different traditions, valuing those other traditions as valuable contributors to Christ's church on Earth, we do have most points in common and sharing those between ourselves . So on Palm Sunday, for example, we have a joint procession through the streets. The Catholics and we have our crucifers and thurifers, the Uniting have neither but are happy to join in giving this public witness to our faith.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I don't have an issue with ecumenical walks at Eastertime (although I think I find Easter walks of witness a bit embarrassing, which is my own problem). What I'm saying, I suppose, is that ecumenism often seems grander in theory than in practice.
But your post reminds me that parts of the Anglophone world have moved quite far along the ecumenical route. Australia doesn't just have ecumenical congregations, but has a Uniting Church, which has perhaps influenced attitudes towards ecumenism among Australian Christians in general.
I must add that the RCC doesn't seem to be the problematic element in English ecumenism today. (I can't speak for other parts of Britain.) MOTR Anglicans, Methodists and others usually admire the RCC's spirituality, and respect its ancient traditions of worship and theology. The denomination is further away from changing its teachings on DH issues than many smaller evangelical groups, but the fact that many RCs at grassroots level are quite moderate helps to make their denomination more acceptable, so it seems.
No, the challenge today is what to do about the evangelicals. Do they participate in your Palm Sunday walks?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
There are Evangelicals and Evangelicals! So no real generalisations can be made. There's a world of difference between your average Baptist Union church, New Frontiers congregation, Christian Brethren and FIEC - for instance.
I have found (most of) them happy to take part on Easter Walks of Witness, though they may hanker for more overt evangelism within that.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd second what Baptist Trainfan says. In my experience, most evangelicals are more than happy to take part in such things, even if it's only to fly the flag for evangelicalism and use it as a platform in some way.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Yes, I've known evangelicals who've participated in various ecumenical ventures. My point wasn't that all evangelicals are the same!
Gee D's post emphasised that Uniting Christians and RCs happily engaged in a joint witness this Easter. Nothing was said about the participation of anyone else. But it seems to be the case that when people (such as ExclamationMark above) on this website and elsewhere talk about denominational difficulties with ecumenicalism these days, they usually refer to problems between MOTR churches and certain evangelical groups - not between the MOTR churches and the RCC.
[ 02. June 2017, 18:00: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, it varies. The local Pentecostals here get on very well with everyone, including the RCs. In other places, such as my wife's home town, the Penties were very much out on a limb - or were until very recently.
But yes, as a general rule of thumb I'd say that MoTR churches tend to get on better with the RCs than they do with full-on evangelical congregations.
This isn't necessarily a Free Church thing either, I know evangelical Anglicans who tend to remain aloof from ecumenical activity.
As to where any 'blame' attaches - whether on the MoTR side or the evangelical side when it comes to local tensions, it tends to be the case, in my experience, that it's a case of either side 'talking past' the other - although some MoTR outfits can be awkward and difficult in a way that belies their apparent emphasis on tolerance and respecting difference etc.
In a similar way to how many Quakers can be awkward and belligerent so and so's despite their emphasis on peace-maker and tolerance.
It's one of life's conundrums. In the same way, some people who sit under hell-fire and damnation sermons and blood and thunder week by week don't seem to carry those attitudes with them into the rest of their week ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
In my local area's Churches Together (which does include all the local churches - there aren't many!) I'd say the Pentecostals, RCs, more evangelical Anglicans (not Evangelical per se, just moreso than the other Anglicans who are still pretty MOTR), and Salvation Army soldiers are the most active. The local Pentecostal church is in a very conservative denomination (not Vineyard or NFI) but the lead pastor is a very nice man who is involved in Benedictine spirituality and is making some waves in a progressive direction on some Dead Horses within his denomination - there are more branches in the local big town which are decidedly more frosty with MOTR/liberal/Catholic churches.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yes, I've known evangelicals who've participated in various ecumenical ventures. My point wasn't that all evangelicals are the same!
Gee D's post emphasised that Uniting Christians and RCs happily engaged in a joint witness this Easter. Nothing was said about the participation of anyone else. But it seems to be the case that when people (such as ExclamationMark above) on this website and elsewhere talk about denominational difficulties with ecumenicalism these days, they usually refer to problems between MOTR churches and certain evangelical groups - not between the MOTR churches and the RCC.
As to participation of anyone else, St Sanity is an Anglican church, so our Palm Sunday procession (not Easter) is one of 3 traditions; more if you count the 3 strands that combined in the Uniting Church, plus the traditions that the Uniting Church is building for itself. The Baptist church is member of the covenant and shares in the covenant's Lenten, Pentecost and Advent services - indeed, membership of the covenant introduced Advent to the local Baptists and it is becoming a part of their tradition. The Baptists have yet to join the Palm Sunday procession though.
I would not say that the formation of the Uniting Church contributed much to ecumenism here, but rather the reverse. That, plus economics.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I would not say that the formation of the Uniting Church contributed much to ecumenism here, but rather the reverse.
Interesting point - could you elucidate, please?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The formation of the Uniting Church removed 3 churches (or most of 2 plus all of 1*) from the field of ecumenical discussion. Those uniting then had to spend quite a lot of effort in their unification and could not contribute much out of that for a long time. Those that remained out of the new church have become more and more isolated. Does that help?
*All of the Congregational Church, nearly all of the Methodist, and much of the Presbyterian.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Pomona
A Pentecostal pastor turning his conservative denomination progressive? If it can be done without the whole thing morphing into well-meaning MOTR irrelevance after a few decades that'll be impressive.
I do think ecumenicalism is important today, particularly for ordinary churches in an challenging, secular environment. But it's hard not to see it as yet another step on the congregational or denominational route towards respectability and assimilation. And once that goal has been achieved, where else is there to go but down?
Of course, other outcomes are possible, depending on circumstances (ongoing Christian immigration, a very middle class surrounding suburb, a local legacy of high churchgoing rates, etc.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The formation of the Uniting Church removed 3 churches (or most of 2 plus all of 1*) from the field of ecumenical discussion.... Does that help?
Yes, thanks. In Britain the URC initially saw itself as only the first step towards a pan-ecumenical "superchurch", but that never happened. What it has done is (a) make the URC more likely to enter into formal ecumenical partnerships than other denominations; (b) make them struggle to find their distinctive identity; and (c) occasionally make some of them a bit smug about their ecumenical credentials.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Pomona
A Pentecostal pastor turning his conservative denomination progressive? If it can be done without the whole thing morphing into well-meaning MOTR irrelevance after a few decades that'll be impressive.
I do think ecumenicalism is important today, particularly for ordinary churches in an challenging, secular environment. But it's hard not to see it as yet another step on the congregational or denominational route towards respectability and assimilation. And once that goal has been achieved, where else is there to go but down?
Of course, other outcomes are possible, depending on circumstances (ongoing Christian immigration, a very middle class surrounding suburb, a local legacy of high churchgoing rates, etc.)
Actually the denomination is likely to split over women leadership, by 'making waves' I meant 'making a fuss' I guess?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
A Pentecostal pastor turning his conservative denomination progressive?
Historically a lot of Pentecostal groups have been a lot more progressive on some issues than their Conservative counterparts in other denominations.
That said, my own feeling is that Pentecostalism as such is declining in the West - not for reasons of progressivism, but because the communities they were typically strong within are disappearing.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I'm aware that all Christian groups, including Pentecostals, tend to become more 'progressive' over time, if by that we mean they reduce at least some of the tensions between themselves and the wider society.
The more interesting question regarding Pentecostals, as I implied, is whether they can go down this route, and how far, without ending up with the very same problems as the MOTR churches before them. (Of course, secularisation is a huge challenge for all Christian groups - although for some of them it also presents an opportunity.)
Whether Pentecostalism is declining in the West is highly debatable. In the UK, there's clearly been a reduction in white working class Pentecostalism, but a rise in non-white Pentecostal immigrants.
In British terms Pentecostals now outnumber Methodists. By 2020 it's projected that the number of Pentecostals will have grown by 25%, and there'll be 541,954 Pentecostals to 176,160 Methodists in the UK (see p. 4). This will make the latter a more, not a less significant presence in the British Christian community.
Elsewhere in Europe I understand that the number of Pentecostals has always been very small, so any increase in one constituency has probably cancelled out the decline in another.
[ 04. June 2017, 15:15: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
'This will make the latter a more, not a less significant presence in the British Christian community.'
I obviously mean former. I.e. Pentecostals will become a very significant group in British Christianity. This is already becoming apparent. In the cities some of the mainstream churches, evangelical ecumenical networks and theological colleges are keen to create connections with majority black Pentecostal churches, and to recognise their leaders and scholars. This wasn't always the case.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm aware that all Christian groups, including Pentecostals, tend to become more 'progressive' over time
That is not what I was talking about at all, please read what I wrote. Historically there has been a progressive side to Pentecostalism, even when this went against the grain of the particular society they were in.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Perhaps it would be easier to understand what you're getting at if you gave some examples.
From my own perspective, I'm aware, for example, that many Pentecostal groups have had women pastors for quite some time. I'm also aware that the early Azusa Street movement incorporated a kind of equality among people of all races and classes.
I've also heard it said that black Pentecostalism is somewhat separate from fundamentalism for various reasons. African American Pentecostals don't have the same right wing focus on DH issues that many other American evangelicals do.
But perhaps you have something else in mind.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
