|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is there a future for any church in the UK?
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...the good old secular BBC - which rarely has a good word to say about religion, especially christianity, yet seems to let the crackpot loony-tune fringe's views have free reign.
Thank you. I'll certainly bear that opinion in mind during Songs Of Praise, or when the next BBC news producer wants a broadly 'moral' slant on something and defaults as ever to asking a CoE bishop.
Coming late to this thread, I'm wondering where the OP intended it to go...
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
This is no swipe at religion, but such matters are a private affair, and spiritual leaders – for all the authority they may have among their own – have no business in mainstream politics. That bishops still sit in the House of Lords is an anachronism that makes a mockery of British democracy...
...Does the church, any church, not just the Church of England, have a future in Britain when anti-religious views are being expressed as mainstream?
There doesn't seem to be much of a challenge to churches' having a future chatting among themselves. In that respect, churches will survive alongside all the other special interest groups in an increasingly diverse society. But the cited radio programme seems to be more concerned with the ongoing assumption that titled Christians should opine within secular government on behalf of What God Thinks.
Such luminaries as MLK and William Wilberforce were cited upthread in defence of religion being involved with politics. But these figures weren't assuming a right to be heard simply because they were good Christian folk with good Christian titles attached to their names. In fact, they were on 'maverick' missions to dismantle social evils that had long been endorsed by the 'Christian' establishment.
[ 03. August 2013, 15:52: Message edited by: kankucho ]
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Seekingsister's idea of a shared church building is a good one. In Canada, because of fierce religious divides, we have many small towns with a surfeit of buildings, with congregations now struggling under the burden-- the United Church of Canada was formed, in great part, by prairie farmers who could not see the point of having 3-4 churches at a crossroads. Their common sense could be examined sympathetically.
There are several different possibilities here. If you're talking about denominations merging, then there's a longish history of this now in England. The Methodists split into different groups in the 19th c., but then mostly came back together, over time. The Congregationalists and Presbyterians mostly joined together in the 70s and became the URC.
Secondly, you have the practice of congregations from younger denominations renting church space from older congregations, with each congregation worshipping at a different time. Caribbean congregations from mostly American denominations used to rent from the established English churches, but they generally have their own buildings now. Some of the newer African churches seem to have a strategy whereby they avoid renting a space that's still in use by other churches. Christians from other ethnic groups still mostly rent.
Thirdly, among the mainstream churches you now see a growing number of Local Ecumenical Partnerships. These involve congregations from 2 or 3 denominations merging and using only one building. The parties involved are usually Anglicans, Methodists, URC and Baptists.
I also know of cases where two congregations worship in the same building at the same time, but in a different room.
[ 03. August 2013, 22:36: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I live in quite a rural area. In two Creamtealand villages near me, there is now only one open church building. In the first, the Methodists and Anglicans share the Methodist church, in the other the Methodists and Anglicans share the CofE church. Apparently it is working well.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
Coming late to this thread, I'm wondering where the OP intended it to go...
The thought was the way that churches and religions (generally) are seen in the community is negatively, and because they are hypocritical and judgemental. Pretty much as Justinian was expressing here
quote:
quote:
quote:
Independent newspaper: This is no swipe at religion, but such matters are a private affair, and spiritual leaders – for all the authority they may have among their own – have no business in mainstream politics. That bishops still sit in the House of Lords is an anachronism that makes a mockery of British democracy...
clipped quotation from my response...Does the church, any church, not just the Church of England, have a future in Britain when anti-religious views are being expressed as mainstream?
part of kankucho's response: There doesn't seem to be much of a challenge to churches' having a future chatting among themselves. In that respect, churches will survive alongside all the other special interest groups in an increasingly diverse society. But the cited radio programme seems to be more concerned with the ongoing assumption that titled Christians should opine within secular government on behalf of What God Thinks.<snip>
That quotation was from The Independent not the comedy show - just to make sure I'm not putting words into the wrong peoples' mouths.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
