|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Disestablishment of C of E
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed, South Coast Kevin, but on a daily level and on the ground, I doubt if most Anglicans give the 'privileged' status a second thought. Nor does it particularly bother those who don't bother with church in any way, shape or form.
It tends to be seen as more of an issue by those who don't have that 'Established' status.
Mmm, you may well be right. Mind you, perhaps this is simply because us 'non-established' Christians (clumsy phrase, sorry!) (a) notice the classification of established and non-established, and (b) don't take for granted the establishment of the C of E. On point (b), is it not the case that those in a privileged position (due to race, gender, education level, religious affiliation or whatever) tend not to notice their favourable situation? What's the phrase, 'check your privilege'?
SCK, agree with you here. Also surely Anglicans are aware of their established status in terms of church schools, the church's role in marriage, the church being so present at Royal and state occasions etc?
--------------------
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
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Gamaliel didn't say that Anglicans were unaware of establishment, but that he didn't think it made a day to day difference. My experience of church is probably much like South Coast Kevin's, sing some hymns or songs, listen to a sermon, receive communion, pray, go to a bible study, take part in a community project. What difference does it make to me that I have met a vicar, who has met a bishop, who has met an archbishop, who has met the Queen ?
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
It's not with the normal services it will make a difference but that large chunk of work to do with the pastoral services - the funerals, baptisms (and weddings, or more likely blessings and renewals of wedding vows). But as ordinary church goers, you won't be aware of how many other pastoral services happen during a normal week in a CofE church, and/or how many funerals the minister is attending at local crematoria.
Church schools have been mentioned. In a lot of cases they are just the local village schools, with governors from the church community. It depends where you are in the country as to whether being a church school makes a difference or not. (I attended a village church primary school as did my daughter. There wasn't an option, it was just the village school, two different villages, different ends of the country.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Please don't misunderstand me, South Coast Kevin, I agree with a lot of what you're saying here - and don't forget I've been part of new-church restorationist congregations and Baptist churches as well as CofE involvement ...
Yes, your point is well made.
All I'm saying is that on this side of the fence, the 'Establishment' side if you like - things don't look that much different on a daily basis than they ever did when I was in the new-churches or the Free Churches ...
I suspect the difference lies in the areas that CK has highlighted - as well as, and I don't doubt that this has happened - the impression given to those 'outside' (such as ExclamationMark) that they're all either Johnny-Come-Latelys or exotic species who are tolerated but not embraced.
I suspect many Anglicans regard Establishment as a mixed-blessing. There's certainly an element of what I call Vineyard-envy or NFI-envy or even Bethel-envy among some of the New Wine crowd.
This works both ways. I've certainly come across URC and other Free Church ministers who, when asked to lead services at Anglican churches as part of some ecumenical initiative, have come away thinking, 'Wow! this makes life so much easier! I wish I could have it all written down in advance!'
Whereas I've known New Wine-y type Anglican clerics who feel strait-jacketed by the litanies and lectionaries and liturgy and want the apparent freedom of the Vineyarders and so on.
The freedom to go, 'Lord we really just ...' comes at a price, it seems to me ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All I'm saying is that on this side of the fence, the 'Establishment' side if you like - things don't look that much different on a daily basis than they ever did when I was in the new-churches or the Free Churches ...
Oh yes, I expect you're right. But my problems with establishment are nothing to do with what things look like on a daily basis!
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This works both ways. I've certainly come across URC and other Free Church ministers who, when asked to lead services at Anglican churches as part of some ecumenical initiative, have come away thinking, 'Wow! this makes life so much easier! I wish I could have it all written down in advance!'
What's this got to do with disestablishment of the C of E? In the event of disestablishment, the C of E would be perfectly at liberty to retain written liturgies, would it not? And, correspondingly, non-established churches can take whatever decision they wish on whether or not to use written liturgies, can't they?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, that's a different issue to Establishment ... I was simply letting my mind wander and thinking discursively ...
I agree with you that the issue with Establishment is to do with other issues than what happens or doesn't happen on a daily basis.
On balance, I'm opposed to Establishment but I wouldn't die in a ditch over it. We are so far down the road towards a post-Christendom society that whether the CofE is Established or not probably doesn't make a great deal of difference.
On the liturgical aspect again, though, I suspect that as Christendom dissolves and crumbles these aspects could acquire a more sustaining and transforming power than they might currently possess. But that's just a hunch and a suggestion. I could very well be wrong.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On balance, I'm opposed to Establishment but I wouldn't die in a ditch over it. We are so far down the road towards a post-Christendom society that whether the CofE is Established or not probably doesn't make a great deal of difference.
An undeniably paradoxical idea - that we're in a post-Christendom age, therefore it doesn't matter if we have a state church or not.
Well, I suspect the CofE and the country at large will continue to keep things as they are until some crisis pops up to create havoc. Probably something to do with the royal family.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You seem to be saying that because this priest was a member of the government's officially endorsed sect, his actions have a different meaning than if they were undertaken by someone without that endorsement. If that's not your meaning, what did you mean?
No, I'm not saying that either. What I'm saying is what I said. Find out what 'establishment' means. It doesn't mean the Prime Minister likes you. A priest from a church whose ostensible role is to represent the spiritual life of the nation getting arrested precisely because he acted against the established order has a particular kind of impact.
So an Anglican priest is in essence a government official defying orders? If we take this construction then one would have to hold that Anglican clergy are therefore less trustworthy when supporting the status quo, since that's their job.
I'm still not sure why it's the government's job to define what constitutes the proper "spiritual life" for its citizens, or why it's a good thing to hold that those outside the official sect are either improperly spiritual or less English than adherents.
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
It's also vital for democracy that unpopular sentiments are heard.
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Anglican priests are expected to pay attention to the mood of 'the people', and this allows a spectrum of intervention.
You're getting into kettle logic here. You can't argue that the purpose (or at least one purpose) of having an established church is to give voice to unpopular opinions and that its purpose is to reflect popular opinion (i.e. "the mood of 'the people'").
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
The question is really whether or not you're British. If you are, I can't imagine why you're talking about a 'royal seal of approval' as though the preferences of the royal family had anything to do with the constitutional mechanism.
Which is why I deliberately avoided the term "royal" in my argument, instead referring to "the Crown", a legal term-of-art which is not synonymous with either the monarch or the monarchy, though obviously those things are interrelated in the current order.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
An additional large chunk of the work in local parishes is the baptisms, funerals and weddings of those who want these services to be religious. This is over and above the services everyone thinks the churches are about. Baptisms are free, funerals are charged on set fees, which aren't huge and when I was booking them were assigned (went to the diocese) and didn't cover costs, although the fee structure changed this year. Weddings are not really that common nowadays unless it's a chocolate box church in a sought after area - too many other places to get married.
The local parish church is expected to find a minister to preside at any funeral of a parishioner when requested, believer or not, crematorium funeral or church, the deceased just has to live in the parish. Now, if the CofE was practising such a cynical attitude as you're expressing, they wouldn't be willingly engaging with families over funerals. CofE churches do this because it's part of being a parish church and part of serving the local community. In comparison, the non-conformist minister I worked with wouldn't continue with initiatives that he didn't see as bringing countable converts, albeit children's work or Alpha courses.
Luckily we don't have to speculate about this, since the non-English parts of the U.K. lack an established church. Is there a dearth of baptism or funeral services in Scotland and Wales relative to England and, if so, does this represent a difference in supply or a difference in demand for those services?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
I understand that other Christian denominations and other religions (I refuse to use that ghastly politically correct term "faith groups") would oppose disestablishment because they consider that an established C of E gives a voice to religious concerns at the highest level.
Um... Not all of us...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Croesos - a minister of the Church of England is not a government employee. S/he would be effectively an employee of the Church of England, paid from the monies coming in from the people in the pews and from the revenue of investments (rents or whatever), endowments or other income. There is no income from the Government. The Government does not have any say in which priest is appointed where either. That is usually agreed between the parish and the local deanery/diocesan adviser.
There is some Government say in the appointment of bishops:
quote:
Archbishops and bishops are appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, who considers the names selected by a Church Commission. They take an oath of allegiance to The Queen on appointment and may not resign without Royal authority.
but the names put forward are selected by Vacancy in See committees which are made up of church goers and officials within the appropriate diocese.
And baptisms - that boat has already sailed
The established Church of England really isn't the powerful organisation you're imagining.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Croesos - a minister of the Church of England is not a government employee.
I realize this, but the contrary position taken by Plique-à-jour, who holds that because of official establishment an Anglican priest holds an "insider status" when commenting on government policy, a status presumably not held by clergy of other sects. I was questioning this position, which is why the first sentence in my previous post ended in a question mark.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Unlike Wales, where it was about 'which church?', under modern conditions, in England, it would be about corporate national apostasy, the state throwing off any sense that it is accountable to God.
That may have been the intention in Wales, but if the Church Uniting in Wales ever did work out (i.e. us and the Methodists and the URC and the Calvinist Methodists/Welsh Presbyterians and whoever I've forgotten), we wouldn't get reëstablished. The national apostasy has been realized by accident.
Do you mean Covenanting Churches ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
The amusing thing about the most recent report on governance and discipline, would see the non-conformists finding themselves conforming to the pre-disestablished Church in that they would be accepting Bishop's...
The CinW is a strange case, as several people have mentioned, we still have our Civic Service every year, play host to all the military engagements (with the County big-wigs etc.) including the Remembrance service, and the incumbent of the parish is the Mayor's Chaplain (despite the Mayor being a big Chapel goer.)
As Harris and Startup wrote back in 1999 after the 1990's review the CiW is not so much dis-established as "post-established"
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pulsator Organorum Ineptus
Shipmate
# 2515
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Croesos - a minister of the Church of England is not a government employee.
I realize this, but the contrary position taken by Plique-à-jour, who holds that because of official establishment an Anglican priest holds an "insider status" when commenting on government policy, a status presumably not held by clergy of other sects. I was questioning this position, which is why the first sentence in my previous post ended in a question mark.
C of E clergy are no more insiders when it comes to government policy than clergy of any other church. The government doesn't give a toss what C of E clergy think.
Posts: 695 | From: Bronteland | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So an Anglican priest is in essence a government official defying orders? If we take this construction then one would have to hold that Anglican clergy are therefore less trustworthy when supporting the status quo, since that's their job.
No, that's not what I'm saying. No, that isn't their job.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm still not sure why it's the government's job to define what constitutes the proper "spiritual life" for its citizens, or why it's a good thing to hold that those outside the official sect are either improperly spiritual or less English than adherents.
But that ISN'T WHAT HAPPENS, THAT ISN'T THE CASE. If you won't listen to the testimony of the people who actually have experience of the thing you're trying to understand, you're not going to understand it.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're getting into kettle logic here. You can't argue that the purpose (or at least one purpose) of having an established church is to give voice to unpopular opinions and that its purpose is to reflect popular opinion (i.e. "the mood of 'the people'").
I haven't done that. Its ostensible role is to reflect the mood of the people. This permits a level of social involvement nobody would countenance or care about from other denominations, because their province is everyone in England, not just the people who have the same beliefs as they do.
The ostensible responsibility for even people outside the Church allows a kind of intervention, and an attitude to intervention, which would not be possible in a denomination without that role.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I realize this, but the contrary position taken by Plique-à-jour, who holds that because of official establishment an Anglican priest holds an "insider status" when commenting on government policy
I never said this, or anything like this. You're forcing everything that's being explained to you through the round hole of your ignorance of the organisation you've decided that you oppose. I don't see how anyone will profit by this.
[ 08. September 2013, 22:59: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To an extent, all churches are becoming 'gathered churches' as Christendom crumbles.
Pretty much all of the churches in the US are gathered churches, and we've got a higher church attendance than the UK, so I don't see a need to wring hands over disestablishment on that score.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm still not sure why it's the government's job to define what constitutes the proper "spiritual life" for its citizens, or why it's a good thing to hold that those outside the official sect are either improperly spiritual or less English than adherents.
But that ISN'T WHAT HAPPENS, THAT ISN'T THE CASE. If you won't listen to the testimony of the people who actually have experience of the thing you're trying to understand, you're not going to understand it.
I'm listening. You just don't like hearing your position stated baldly and without euphemism. Your stated position is that at least one of the purposes of establishment (i.e. a government grant of authority) is "to represent the spiritual life of the nation". If the Anglican Church "represent[s] the spiritual life of the [English] nation", it follows that any exercise of spirituality that's not Anglican is either deficiently spiritual or deficiently English.
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're getting into kettle logic here. You can't argue that the purpose (or at least one purpose) of having an established church is to give voice to unpopular opinions and that its purpose is to reflect popular opinion (i.e. "the mood of 'the people'").
I haven't done that. Its ostensible role is to reflect the mood of the people.
If the purpose of the established church is to reflect popular opinion (a.k.a. "the mood of the people"), what was that earlier rigamarole about how an established church was important to reflect "unpopular sentiments"?
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
This permits a level of social involvement nobody would countenance or care about from other denominations, because their province is everyone in England, not just the people who have the same beliefs as they do.
The ostensible responsibility for even people outside the Church allows a kind of intervention, and an attitude to intervention, which would not be possible in a denomination without that role.
And the only for the state to address social issues is to pick (or create) its favorite sect and give it preferential treatment? I don't buy it. Once again, this is something that's fairly easy to test. Are social problems left unaddressed in the non-English parts of the U.K. more often than in England and, if so, can this be definitively linked to the established church?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Ruth W - on the link between Establishment and church attendance ... yes, but I don't think that Disestablishment would somehow reverse any trends in the decline in church attendance in the UK.
It hasn't in Wales.
Although in some areas the CinW is picking up people from the non-conformist chapels which are declining at an even faster rate.
I also expect to see a dramatic decline in church attendance in the US over the next few decades.
--------------------
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
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
That may have been the intention in Wales, but if the Church Uniting in Wales ever did work out (i.e. us and the Methodists and the URC and the Calvinist Methodists/Welsh Presbyterians and whoever I've forgotten), we wouldn't get reëstablished. The national apostasy has been realized by accident.
Do you mean Covenanting Churches
The amusing thing about the most recent report on governance and discipline, would see the non-conformists finding themselves conforming to the pre-disestablished Church in that they would be accepting Bishop's...
Yeah, well there is the issue of what to call it if it went beyond being Covenanted Churches: CUiW was one of the options IIRC. (And "whoever I've forgotten" was the Covenanted Baptist Churches of course.)
And it does strike me as faintly amusing that in a small country that already has seven bishops (six diocesans plus the Assistant Bishop of Llandaff), the answer appears to be even more bishops. But the serious point is that this is quite a large step for the CinW as well: it would be the end of monepiscopacy — the result would be that there were churches whose ordinary was not the geographical diocesan bishop.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
it would be the end of monepiscopacy — the result would be that there were churches whose ordinary was not the geographical diocesan bishop.
For now...
If (and I think it is a big IF, since there is a lot of minutia to sort out, it wont solve problems by just consecrating Bishops and saying 'there you go', at the most obvious there will be the issues of deficiency in intention to start with) it goes ahead then eventually it will develop to a point where non-conformists do just end up conforming and coming in from the cold (congregation numbers/up keep of buildings/clergy costs/etc. will most likely force it to that point) and the structure abandoned.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To an extent, all churches are becoming 'gathered churches' as Christendom crumbles.
Pretty much all of the churches in the US are gathered churches, and we've got a higher church attendance than the UK, so I don't see a need to wring hands over disestablishment on that score.
But is the church there to attract new members or to speak truth to power?
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
it would be the end of monepiscopacy — the result would be that there were churches whose ordinary was not the geographical diocesan bishop.
For now...
If (and I think it is a big IF, since there is a lot of minutia to sort out, it wont solve problems by just consecrating Bishops and saying 'there you go', at the most obvious there will be the issues of deficiency in intention to start with) it goes ahead then eventually it will develop to a point where non-conformists do just end up conforming and coming in from the cold (congregation numbers/up keep of buildings/clergy costs/etc. will most likely force it to that point) and the structure abandoned.
Who is to judge intention? It's not as if we'd be completely reinventing the wheel, as both Indian provinces have been through similar mergers. And is the language of "conforming" even relevant any more? It's not as if we're forcing everyone else to use the 1662 Prayer Book.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To an extent, all churches are becoming 'gathered churches' as Christendom crumbles.
Pretty much all of the churches in the US are gathered churches, and we've got a higher church attendance than the UK, so I don't see a need to wring hands over disestablishment on that score.
But is the church there to attract new members or to speak truth to power?
Some US churches do one, some do the other, some do both, some do neither. Seems to me a church that isn't a part of a country's power structure is more likely to be able to speak truth to power than one that is.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But is the church there to attract new members or to speak truth to power?
Small denominations have sometimes had social and perhaps even political influence out of proportion to their numbers. The Quakers are the most obvious example. But does the CofE fit into this sort of pattern? I'm not so sure.
As for the CinW, on a positive note, it could actually be used as a good example of why disestablishment is a good thing. It's become more important to Welsh church life, not less, since it was disestablished!
On the other hand, of course, Wales has experienced its own very rapid brand of secularisation. The decline of the Welsh language (due to a changing economy) and consequently of Welsh-language chapels is something that the disestablishment of the Anglicised CinW would have done little to address.
Interestingly, the CinW has apparently retained the 'mission' of an established church, trying to cater for the whole population of Wales and being seen as the general go-to church. In this respect, the supply-side theorists would say that the CinW still has a religious monopoly. In fact, the loss of the Welsh language has presumably exacerbated the sense of monopoly, because the language difference allowed for a degree of cultural autonomy for the other churches that would be much harder to establish now.
The supply-side theorists do say that state churches retain their psychologically and socially pre-eminent position for quite some time after disestablishment. It seems to be the case in Sweden, where the Lutheran Church was disestablished in 2000. And the French still seem to feel that the RCC is the only reasonable and authentically French expression of Christianity, even after two centuries of trying to break their formal ties with this church!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Seems to me a church that isn't a part of a country's power structure is more likely to be able to speak truth to power than one that is.
My church is not part of the country's power structure. Some men with pointy hats who happen to be members of the same denomination as us are part of the power structure. Things would probably be better if they weren't.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
[QUOTE]Some US churches do one, some do the other, some do both, some do neither. Seems to me a church that isn't a part of a country's power structure is more likely to be able to speak truth to power than one that is.
National power structures don't take much notice anyway. But is it anyone's experience that a country's power structure takes any notice at all of religious bodies that segregate themselves from the system? I don't observe ours taking much notice of the Brethren, say.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
National power structures don't take much notice anyway. But is it anyone's experience that a country's power structure takes any notice at all of religious bodies that segregate themselves from the system? I don't observe ours taking much notice of the Brethren, say.
But Ruth spoke of churches that '[aren't] a part of a country's power structure', not that 'segregate themselves from the system'. ISTM there's much space between these two positions.
On the wider point, I think power structures very much do take notice of non-established Christian groups, if we start doing remarkable things. I remember hearing of a town (can't think where, sorry!) in which many of the churches got together and asked the local police to keep them updated on what was going on, so they could pray. Apparently, the crime rate dropped significantly.
And round my way now, there's a campaign for Christians (of all 'flavours') to put themselves forward as adoptive parents in order to address a severe shortfall. This is all being done in collaboration with the local council and they're loving it - Christians are making a difference and the people in power are noticing. AIUI this is being led by a free charismatic church and all sorts of churches are involved; it's not at all dependent on establishment status.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If the purpose of the established church is to reflect popular opinion
Look up the word ostensible. Look up the word pragmatism while you're at it. Re-read my post. Ask some other English people who are more patient than I am if you still don't get it.
I'm done with this.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
This might be a new topic but I cannot help but wonder whether an unlooked for consequence would be increased clericalisation of the CofE?
At the moment clerical power is balanced by the Sovereign, Parliament and to some extent Patrons, Synods, Churchwardens and PCCs.
Losing ultimate lay control from the Sovereign and Parliament concentrates even more control in the clergy.
Patrons have gradually lost power and/or patronage has been taken over by the Bishops. Synod does not seem representative. Churchwardens seem to exercise less and less power and PCSs are have the right to be consulted and have responsibilities but little power i.e. they are not the same as Vestries in the US.
So if we disestablish should be not at least re-address consequent governance issues? At the moment ultimate control is, at last theoretically, lay. If we remove the authority of the Sovereign and Parliament should we not strengthen other lay authority. My suggestion might be that PCCs have the power of US Vestries.
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
