|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Lay knowledge of the CofE?
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Cara - only the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is licensed for use in the CoE, which may explain why it's not used that much. The archaic language is a problem for many. IME 'prayer book evangelicals' generally have at least one service using it, as do cathedrals of course, plus some conservative catholics. It tends to be a marker of conservatism.
Round these parts, it's used quite a lot by MOR churches, as well as the local cathedral, and sundry college chapels for choral evensong - I'm not sure what you mean when you say it is a marker of conservatism - it's certainly not a marker of theological conservatism, of either protestant or catholic hue - perhaps you mean BCP services are popular with those folk who are more socially conservative on DH issues (or perhaps who come from other parts of the Anglican communion where different social attitudes prevail) ?
Also, it is my impression that the 'archaic language' is principally a problem for those people who never attend church, or for those who are more conservative in their theology, rather than for the average church-goer in general, who rather enjoys the sense of the liturgy being set apart from everyday language, rather than being banalized and dumbed-down into modern English.
Most places in England don't have college chapels - they are going to be rather different. The only non-cathedral churches I have come across that have BCP services are theologically conservative. And actually the archaic language is a big problem for regular churchgoers....especially those for whom English is not their first language. Unless of course you think only native English speakers should attend church? I am a native English speaker and regular churchgoer and still struggle with the 1662!
Also to speak of modern English as 'dumbed-down' is ridiculous to anyone who knows anything about language. The language of the 1662 was the contemporary language of the time - so is that dumbed-down? Jesus spoke to His followers in the local vernacular, there is no reason why modern churches shouldn't do the same. To keep the liturgy set apart from everyday language is the opposite of what Jesus did.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Stephen Langton.
Join a New Testament type church?!
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Now which one would that be?
I've been in churches which claimed to be 'New Testament.'
I can show you the bruises if you like ...
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Cara - only the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is licensed for use in the CoE, which may explain why it's not used that much. The archaic language is a problem for many. IME 'prayer book evangelicals' generally have at least one service using it, as do cathedrals of course, plus some conservative catholics. It tends to be a marker of conservatism.
Jade-thanks, yes, I knew that only this old version of the Book of Common Prayer was licensed for use in the C of E. I simply don't understand it. Why didn't the C of E do as the Episcopal Church and write a more modern version that still keeps much of the poetry, dignity and beauty of the original? Isn't the Book of Common Prayer a most precious part of the heritage of the C of E?
but this may be a bit of a tangent.....makes me want even more to live in a cathedral city, though.
I agree to an extent (that modern versions should have been commissioned), but to me Common Worship does the job perfectly well so I'm not really bothered. Sorry! I don't mind keeping the 1662 as a piece of history and using CW for everyday worship.
--------------------
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
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Cara - only the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is licensed for use in the CoE, which may explain why it's not used that much. The archaic language is a problem for many. IME 'prayer book evangelicals' generally have at least one service using it, as do cathedrals of course, plus some conservative catholics. It tends to be a marker of conservatism.
Round these parts, it's used quite a lot by MOR churches, as well as the local cathedral, and sundry college chapels for choral evensong - I'm not sure what you mean when you say it is a marker of conservatism - it's certainly not a marker of theological conservatism, of either protestant or catholic hue - perhaps you mean BCP services are popular with those folk who are more socially conservative on DH issues (or perhaps who come from other parts of the Anglican communion where different social attitudes prevail) ?
Also, it is my impression that the 'archaic language' is principally a problem for those people who never attend church, or for those who are more conservative in their theology, rather than for the average church-goer in general, who rather enjoys the sense of the liturgy being set apart from everyday language, rather than being banalized and dumbed-down into modern English.
Most places in England don't have college chapels - they are going to be rather different. The only non-cathedral churches I have come across that have BCP services are theologically conservative.
My parish got a grant from the Prayer Book Society for new copies of the BCP, which I thought was a little absurd given that we only use it twice a week (Sunday Evensong and the early said Sunday Communion). My previous parish used the BCP for the Office and Common Worship for the Eucharist, which I quite like. Both probably wouldn't mind being called theologically conservative, although some soi disant conservatives might dispute that! Round here, though, there are at least a three parish churches that use the BCP for their main services and give every impression of being ultra-liberal (certainly on dead horse issues, but also in terms of espousing a sort of old-fashioned liberal Protestant theology that can venture into 'Honest to God' territory). In my experience, almost every CofE parish has at least one BCP service on its rota (not necessarily every week), and that's true for every churchmanship except the most markedly Anglo-Papalist, but it's quite rare for this to be the main service. I often attend BCP services when traveling in strange cities, as it means I'm likely to be spared anything too strange.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Why didn't the C of E do as the Episcopal Church and write a more modern version that still keeps much of the poetry, dignity and beauty of the original?
They did, in 1928. It's just not legal to use and never has been.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
Common Worship includes all the parts of BCP that are still in common use, including the full set of collects so there is no need to have two sets of books. However, many churches (including my own) don't actually trust the congregation to have a bound copy of CW on Sunday morning and hand out photocopied service booklets.
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
S. Bacchus - there are NO BCP services in the parish I live in, nor the one I worship in (both AffCath). Maybe AffCath places are just the least likely to have BCP services? Interestingly most evangelical churches I come across have a midweek BCP service.
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The churches around here have Sunday 8am BCP services at least once a month. It's usually the Sunday that there's a family lay-led service of the word in the main service slot so there is still a communion in that church that Sunday.
In the biggest town church the 8am BCP is weekly and there is also a midweek (actually Friday lunchtime) BCP service plus monthly choral Evensong using the BCP - and it's MOR. (The other midweek services vary from pram services, prayer groups and the Wednesday Eucharist is Common Worship.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Cara - only the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is licensed for use in the CoE, which may explain why it's not used that much. The archaic language is a problem for many. IME 'prayer book evangelicals' generally have at least one service using it, as do cathedrals of course, plus some conservative catholics. It tends to be a marker of conservatism.
Round these parts, it's used quite a lot by MOR churches, as well as the local cathedral, and sundry college chapels for choral evensong - I'm not sure what you mean when you say it is a marker of conservatism - it's certainly not a marker of theological conservatism, of either protestant or catholic hue - perhaps you mean BCP services are popular with those folk who are more socially conservative on DH issues (or perhaps who come from other parts of the Anglican communion where different social attitudes prevail) ?
Also, it is my impression that the 'archaic language' is principally a problem for those people who never attend church, or for those who are more conservative in their theology, rather than for the average church-goer in general, who rather enjoys the sense of the liturgy being set apart from everyday language, rather than being banalized and dumbed-down into modern English.
Ah, Holy Smoke, "used quite a lot," --this is encouraging news.
And I quite agree that many people prefer it when the liturgy is set apart from everyday language. Even young people sometimes say this--one of my children as a teenager said he preferred church when it was a bit more ceremonial and had different language and seemed something different, richer, and more serious than the world outside.
Of course what one would hope for is a language for our time that parallels the language of Cranmer in his. With the same degree of everydayness, or not. I think his language was probably (experts will know) quite well understood even by people who did not have a prolonged education, because everyone was exposed to more complex oral language then.
I think the TEC's 1979 BCP is, tho far from perfect, a pretty good modern adaptation. And it keeps much of the original phraseology and feeling. That's not available in the UK, so if the only other option is banal and dumbed-down, far better to stick to the BCP.
I for one enjoy the archaic language although I am not at all conservative theologically or re DH matters.
I don't know Common Worship well but I have certainly heard some banal and dumbed-down prayers in C of E churches, wherever they came from.
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Cara, there are certainly parts of CW that are dumbed-down and banal but not all of it - there's lots of room for churches' individual styles. So dumbed-down and banal churches can use dumbed-down and banal liturgy ![[Biased]](wink.gif) My own church uses Eucharistic Prayer B and there's not much difference between it and the Roman Missal. I do think that keeping liturgy 'separate' goes against the equality amongst Christians that should exist in the church - it makes things so much harder for those with English language issues or other speech/language issues. Making liturgy understandable by everyone does not equate to dumbing-down, but democratising. Christianity should be inherently democratic IMO.
--------------------
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
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Cara, there are certainly parts of CW that are dumbed-down and banal but not all of it - there's lots of room for churches' individual styles. So dumbed-down and banal churches can use dumbed-down and banal liturgy My own church uses Eucharistic Prayer B and there's not much difference between it and the Roman Missal. I do think that keeping liturgy 'separate' goes against the equality amongst Christians that should exist in the church - it makes things so much harder for those with English language issues or other speech/language issues. Making liturgy understandable by everyone does not equate to dumbing-down, but democratising. Christianity should be inherently democratic IMO.
Well, I'm glad to hear this, jade, and look forward to finding out more about this and about the different styles--and how to avoid the d-d and b!!
I do see what you mean about about Christianity's being "democratic" in the sense that we shouldn't make things harder than necessary for those with language issues. But in reducing archaism one doesn't need to get rid of elegance and beauty in the language...but many modern prayers and translations do.
Well, in the end, what's important is that there's something available for those who want the modern language and for those who want the "archaic," and also that the Book of Common Prayer's language is not forgotten as it's such a treasure of the C of E's heritage.
I imagine that after what's been said you'll agree that a preference for the BCP isn't necessarily a marker of "conservatism" ? Except inasmuch as one might want to conserve something precious....
edited to add that of Christianity from its very beginning was made up of mostly working people like fishermen and artisans, hence (many think) their preference for the codex over the scroll, and the fact that outsiders like Celsus could call it the religion of "silly women and slaves," ie the lowest of the low in his view. And we should certainly bear this in mind, and make it accessible to anyone regardless of educational background. But then we shouldn't spurn all the high art and beauty and difficult writing and philosophy and high-falutin' language that the faith has inspired, either.
Also, religious worship in every society has become somewhat formalized, ritualized etc...isn't that part of human nature, part of what we need? So surely it's ok to keep some ancient prayers in their words, even if old-fashioned, as a sort of tribute to the Christians of the past? At the same time, our sermons, outreach, prayers of the people, etc etc can be as vernacular as we like.
I'm not really arguing with you, Jade--just mulling.
[ 22. November 2013, 12:29: Message edited by: Cara ]
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
No worries Cara, I appreciate the mulling ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I am A-C in terms of theology and I do like a service that's more structured than not (although more informal/less structured services like Vineyard type churches and Quaker meetings are perfectly valid), but then I see a difference between structured and separate/set apart. At my church our services are structured in terms of following a set liturgy, but everyone can understand it. I think the current set-up of CW and the 1662 is good because churches can adapt to their own congregations, which I think is really the best thing. Different congregations have different needs and I think having a choice is better than imposing one option for everyone, whether that option is traditional language or modern language.
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
We have weekly BCP 8am said communion on a Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday.
BCP Matins 3rd Sunday of the month is the main sung service and is very well attended.
CW - with eucharistic prayer for children at Family service on 2nd Sunday.
Ordinary CW on 1st and 4th Sundays.
Toddler & Mum service is Family Eucharist on a Thursday.
All evening services are BCP, sung, and well-attended.
Over the past 10 years we have found that people who are new to church tend to come either to the evening service or to Matins at first: perhaps they feel less conspicuous because there is no communion?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Ever since Jesus said 'My kingdom is not of this world' it has simply been wrong to try to have an established national church.
Very true. But my church is not in any real sense "established" we have no legal powers others don't have, no particular privileges not available to others. Nor do most CofE churches. When Establishment is finally gone, we'll likely carry on as before. No-one much cares about it.
What is established is "The Church of England" which is of course not a church at all in the New Testament sense, but at best a connexion of churches, at worst a bureaucracy imposed upon churches by government in a rather futile attempt to control them.
Denominations and dioceses are not churches. They are connexions, alliances of churches.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
We have weekly BCP 8am said communion on a Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday.
BCP Matins 3rd Sunday of the month is the main sung service and is very well attended.
CW - with eucharistic prayer for children at Family service on 2nd Sunday.
Ordinary CW on 1st and 4th Sundays.
Toddler & Mum service is Family Eucharist on a Thursday.
All evening services are BCP, sung, and well-attended.
Over the past 10 years we have found that people who are new to church tend to come either to the evening service or to Matins at first: perhaps they feel less conspicuous because there is no communion?
I think you're right re Communion. I don't know the age of the people who are new to church at your church, but perhaps they grew up when it was normal for only confirmed people to receive at Communion?
I certainly find that non-regular churchgoers are fine with BCP, it's just seen as 'what church is like'.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
the one distinctive thing in Anglicanism is its position as an established church; and despite supposedly following the teaching of the Bible according to the 39 Articles, just about everything else is a compromise in order to hang on to the influence of being a national church.
Ever since Jesus said 'My kingdom is not of this world' it has simply been wrong to try to have an established national church. The New Testament depicts a church which is international and composed of the 'born again' throughout the world, and lives in the states of the world not as an established arm of government but as 'resident aliens'. Anglicanism is a body which started out wrongly trying to impose conformity on all after the style of the Catholic Inquisition or Islamic Sharia, and is now rightly in decline. leave it be and go join a New Testament type church....
What an appallingly smug posting this is.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
And full of misunderstanding and half-truths.
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I never did take to Stockport...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
He's not come back to defend it, either.
Perhaps we ought to remind him that Browne, the founder of the 'Brownists' - one of the first English Independents later returned to the CofE and became a vicar ...
I'm not against nonconformists and independents and so on, far from it, I've been on that side of things in the past and it has much to commend it.
Just so long as it doesn't become smug and Puritanical.
These things cut both ways, as Richard Baxter recognised way, way back.
--------------------
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 L'organist:
Over the past 10 years we have found that people who are new to church tend to come either to the evening service or to Matins at first: perhaps they feel less conspicuous because there is no communion?
As a non-CofE person I find the CofE evening services easier to deal with. I feel I'll be left to my own devices there. In my experience, people make a bit too much of a fuss of visitors at main services, which isn't what I'm looking for.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
He's not come back to defend it, either.
In all fairness, he hasn't had much time to, yet.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
It must be the hectic life they lead up there...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Just popped by to point out that the reason I haven't been back to defend my post is because I don't have web access at home and my access elsewhere is limited at the best of times; and the last week has not been the best! Not 'smug', just plain-speaking and stating the rather obvious - I'm afraid 'Aspies' like me are tactless like that! The Anglican church is indeed distinctive in being 'state established' originally for the political purposes of English monarchs, and the New Testament does reject just about every necessary idea for an established church and does very much teach an alternative. That being so discussing the 'lay knowledge of the C of E' is pretty irrelevant, surely. I agree with Gamaliel that just to claim to be an NT church doesn't guarantee perfection - often the problem is precisely over-reaction to the obvious problems of Anglicanism and other 'Christendom-style' churches, or that the supposedly NT church is, like many 'Protestants' in Ulster, still trying to be Christendom-style, hasn't realised we are meant to be otherwise...
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Just popped by to point out that the reason I haven't been back to defend my post is because I don't have web access at home and my access elsewhere is limited at the best of times; and the last week has not been the best! Not 'smug', just plain-speaking and stating the rather obvious - I'm afraid 'Aspies' like me are tactless like that! The Anglican church is indeed distinctive in being 'state established' originally for the political purposes of English monarchs, and the New Testament does reject just about every necessary idea for an established church and does very much teach an alternative. That being so discussing the 'lay knowledge of the C of E' is pretty irrelevant, surely. I agree with Gamaliel that just to claim to be an NT church doesn't guarantee perfection - often the problem is precisely over-reaction to the obvious problems of Anglicanism and other 'Christendom-style' churches, or that the supposedly NT church is, like many 'Protestants' in Ulster, still trying to be Christendom-style, hasn't realised we are meant to be otherwise...
But....how is lay knowledge of the CoE irrelevant if there are lots of people in the CoE? All modern churches are unlike the NT church in some way (and I don't think the NT should be a blueprint for all churches in any case). Anyway, plenty of Anglicans in the CoE would prefer disestablishment, but it's a political pain in the arse so we're stuck with it - and for many of us, especially at the higher end, no other denomination in the UK is really suitable.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - but the thing is, Stephen, all you end up with if you repudiate or reject the traditional 'Christendom' churches as you call them is a whole set of different problems.
Sure, I would fully accept that the CofE and other traditional or 'established' churches are going to have to change, adapt and evolve in an increasingly post-Christian/Post-Christendom era.
Sure. Fully accept that.
All I'm saying is that whatever merits the alternatives might have - and I'm sure they have lots of merits - they'll be subject to their own set of problems.
As I've said, Robert Browne, one of the first of the English Separatists eventually returned to the Anglican fold. Why? Well, one of the reasons was he became sick and tired of all the dissensions and fallings out among the independent groups.
Not that there aren't dissensions and fallings out in the traditional churches, of course ... but this idea that we can somehow create a purer, apparently NT form of Christianity is moonshine.
I can't see anyone who has done it. I know plenty who've had a go ...
The NT doesn't have anything to say about whether there should or shouldn't be 'established' churches. It's not a NT concern.
My own view is that Establishment has always had its problems and my personal preference would be for disestablishment ... but I wouldn't die in a ditch over the issue.
By the same token, all the other alternatives available have their problems too - not the same problems but a different set of problems. It's swings and roundabouts.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... but this idea that we can somehow create a purer, apparently NT form of Christianity is moonshine.
I can't see anyone who has done it. I know plenty who've had a go ...
As so often Gamaliel, you are bang on.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Schism doesn't seem to be all that fashionable in the UK these days, but I have heard of the odd fairly recent CofE and Methodist congregations that have decided to break away. It seems more likely to happen with church plants. Perhaps archbishops and Presidents of Conference should be wary of promoting them for this reason - too much 'lay knowledge' clearly has its downsides!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
So those CofE and Methodist hybrids broke away because of increased levels of lay-knowledge ...
Yeah, right ...
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, I know you're teasing, but on a more serious note, I've been involved with 'new churches' - independent charismatic evangelical streams and networks - with non-conformist churches (a wee bit of Methodist for a few months and 6 years as a Baptist) and with evangelical Anglican parishes.
Each will have had their upsides and downsides.
On a congregational level, the Baptist one will have been the one where there was the most 'lay-involvement' on the ground in terms of how things were done - but only at a congregational level. We didn't a clue what was going on at Baptist Union level nor were we that interested.
I don't see anyone posting here about those nefarious Baptists, discouraging everyone from getting involved with denominational committees and so on at a national level.
I suspect most Baptist ministers would have the devil's own job trying to drum up any support whatsoever for the slightest bit of interest in whatever happens or doesn't happen down at the Baptist Union HQ in Didcot.
So why is the poor old, or dear old, CofE seen as such an anomaly in terms of lay-people's knowledge expectations, involvement with whatever-it-is that happens at Synod level, Diocesan level or whatever.
Perhaps it's a Methodist thing. I don't know. My impression of Methodism is that it has more committees than it has adherents.
Who gives a flying fart?
If I were a Methodist I don't think I'd have the least bit of interest in Conference and all the rest of it. I'd join the Labour Party if I wanted that sort of thing.
![[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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I suspect most Baptist ministers would have the devil's own job trying to drum up any support whatsoever for the slightest bit of interest in whatever happens or doesn't happen down at the Baptist Union HQ in Didcot.
You're right ... that is, until they need help or support from them (or, in many cases, from their local Association).
IME the members of URC churches are quite interested at what goes on at national or regional level.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, that wouldn't surprise me ... nor Methodists either.
That's not to knock it. None of this is good or bad ... simply different.
Given the way that Methodism is structured/organised it's no more surprising that they are more interested in what goes on at a national and organisational level.
I don't see anything nefarious, though, in the opposite tendency. It's not as if the CofE is up to no good with a 'mwa ha ha ha ... we'll keep those lay-people in the dark so they don't know what's going on ... then we can pull a fast one on them! They'll wake up tomorrow morning to find that they've been captured by Lizard-men from the Planet Zarg!'
At least, I don't think that's what's happening ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Just thinking again I suspect there is something important to say here. My guess is that Baptist and Congregationalism are "We" traditions. This is due to the fact that the prime example of the tradition is the local church and therefore when referencing the tradition that is what they reference and so it is how "We do it". These people do not say "As Baptist" or "As Congregationalists" the way English Presbyterians say "As Presbyterians" or Methodist say "As Methodist".
This has implications, the way that Congregationalists and Baptists approach something is that the way they do it is the natural way to do it and if you do it differently then you are weird.
I have heard this used in cases where it was very clearly the wider tradition that was being discussed not the local church.
In other words despite being a minority tradition they behave as a dominant one. The CofE is of course the dominant tradition in England. It is quite natural that it should use "we" language to reference its tradition and not consciously think of itself as Anglican.
Jengie
[eta: that dominant "we" traditions often have a struggle to articulate themselves in ways that satisfy those who are used to minority traditions as such they can be written off as weak. They are not]
[ 29. November 2013, 15:55: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, that wouldn't surprise me ... nor Methodists either.
That's not to knock it. None of this is good or bad ... simply different.
Given the way that Methodism is structured/organised it's no more surprising that they are more interested in what goes on at a national and organisational level.
I don't see anything nefarious, though, in the opposite tendency. It's not as if the CofE is up to no good with a 'mwa ha ha ha ... we'll keep those lay-people in the dark so they don't know what's going on ... then we can pull a fast one on them! They'll wake up tomorrow morning to find that they've been captured by Lizard-men from the Planet Zarg!'
At least, I don't think that's what's happening ...
Also, Anglican churches where the clergy and congregation both hold a minority view within the CoE as a whole (eg conservative evangelicals on Dead Horses) tend to educate the laity very well on the issues - in my experience anyway.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
To Jade Constable; OK, number of lay people in the CoE makes their knowledge important in a way. But in the bigger picture, because of the contradictions of its political entanglement, the church is a mess with no really clear knowledge to be had. And if that political entanglement is a mistake according to the New Testament, the CoE itself is relevant only as a problem.
To Gamaliel;I don't agree with your suggestion that 'the NT doesn't have anything to say about whether there should or shouldn't be 'established' churches. It's not a NT concern'. I agree entirely that the NT says nothing about established churches as such. This is not because it has nothing to say either way - it's because it has a great deal to say about 'state and church' issues and it actually presents a very solid anti-establishment view. Given the position of the church in the Empire those early years it would be highly improbable that it would disregard the issue. Instead of the idea of 'Christian states' the NT states positively the idea of the Church itself as God's holy nation throughout the world, citizens of the kingdom of heaven living as peaceable 'resident aliens' among their pagan neighbours.
A detailed exactly like the NT church would be impractical and far too narrow, and anyway one of the lessons of the NT is precisely to be flexible. However, a church which positively contradicts a clear NT teaching such as that on church and state is a different matter, I would have thought!
You 'wouldn't die in a ditch over the issue' - fine, but be aware that having an Anglican established church is part of the problem we all face with extreme Muslims, and be aware that about 3000 people have died in Ulster in troubles not yet over in which a form of establishment/ Christendom (albeit not Anglican) underlies the violence - violence which wouldn't be necessary if people (on both sides) weren't disobeying the NT by trying to have a 'Christian country'. This is a life and death issue to many even in the UK and complacent Anglican establishment isn't helping.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Steve Langton, I recognise the persuasive force of your views, but if you regard the Bible as authoritative and read the whole of it, the Old Testament has very different implications on this whole subject, which start to chip in as soon as one gets to a situation where Christians become involved with the state and the power that goes with it.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Steve Langton, you rather undermine your case by trying to blame everything from Islamic extremism to Ulster squabbles (almost entirely between non-established churches, I should point out, at least half of which would claim to be "new testament churches" of the kind your are so fond). There are good things about establishment and bad things. One of the good things is having an incentive to try and keep the church together rather than fragmenting into a million pieces. It's perhaps telling that establishment has made Anglicanism the largest protestant(in the broadest sense of the term) church on the planet, closely followed by the (widely established) Lutherans. Numbers aren't everything, but they do tell part of the story.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My impression of Methodism is that it has more committees than it has adherents.
It's probably truer to say that almost every Methodist is a member of some committee or other. It's not unusual for one person to hold several posts in their church. This isn't considered to be a sign of geekish or unreasonable enthusiasm - it's necessary because the posts have to be filled. This is either due to Methodist regulations or simply in order to carry out the work that's deemed to be normative for a Methodist congregation. Whether it's all worthwhile is another matter, of course.
quote:
If I were a Methodist I don't think I'd have the least bit of interest in Conference and all the rest of it. I'd join the Labour Party if I wanted that sort of thing.
Well, plenty of Methodists are in the Labour Party too, I imagine!
I could've gone to Conference one year but didn't, and now I regret it, as you can imagine. Obviously, many Methodists won't be especially interested, but they will all know at least a couple of laypeople who've been, and these days there seems to be more encouragement for young Methodists to go. There's also the Conference 'fringe', the idea of which is to draw in ordinary laypeople. The fact that Conference is held in a different town every year must help to maintain interest among layfolk, which is presumably the very reason why it's done. I don't know how long this practice has been in place.
Arethosemyfeet
I wonder if establishment really has prevented schism. After all, there are plenty of movements and individual churches that have broken away from the CofE over the centuries. I was surprised to discover fairly recently that the biggest charismatic church in the vicinity is a breakaway from the CofE church I often attend!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course, SvitlanaV2.
I do tease you to a certain extent but I don't regard people who get involved with conferences and committees as being geeks - we need people who engage with these things.
And yes, sure, there'll be plenty of Methodists who're involved with Labour Party committees and conferences and so on as well as their own denominational issues.
Fine.
I really don't have a problem with any of that and I can see how it derives from the way that Methodism is run. Fine.
Equally, I agree with the observation that Jengie Jon has made about the way that congregational style churches regard their way of doing things as being the natural and default one.
I don't think we're at cross-purposes particularly.
All I'm saying is that whilst the kind of 'lay knowledge' that you're talking about here is part of the warp and woof of Methodism, it is less so within the CofE and there are historic, organisational and theological reasons for that on both sides.
I ain't saying that either are right or wrong. Just that they are different.
It would be unreasonable to expect Methodists to act like Anglicans just as it would be unreasonable to expect CofE 'lay-people' to act as Methodists.
@Steven Langton - the religious dimension to the Troubles in Northern Ireland have nothing to do with Establishment/disestablishment.
I can see what you're getting at about the NT advocating a stance that is against the status quo. Sure. 'My kingdom is not of this world.'
What I don't see is how any of us - whether we are in a so-called NT style church or in an Established church such as the CofE, in a congregational one like the Baptists or a congregational/presbyterian one like the URC are individually or collectively any more 'not of this world' than anyone else.
We might bemoan that fact but I can only speak as I find.
I think there's a lot of truth and much to admire in the radical Anabaptist style approach, for instance ... but in sociological terms there are dangers on both sides of the Church/sect divide - if we want to think in those terms.
Established churches do indeed suffer for nominalism but 'gathered' churches can run to the opposite tendency and become insular, intense and irrelevant to anyone except their own members.
There's a balance somewhere.
I'd certainly agree that churches should be 'intentional' but there are different ways of achieving and maintaining that.
--------------------
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
Gamaliel
You've mentioned your teasing thing several times now. Not much I can do or say about that; you have your ways and I have mine. Be that as it may, I agree that every church should do as it sees best.
This thread suggests that the CofE laity is pretty well at ease with itself, which is a positive message to take from the discussion.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Fair do's.
At the risk of carping or splitting hairs, I'm not sure, for the reasons that have been outlined on this thread, both serious and tongue-in-cheek, that it's possible to generalised about CofE laity at all ...
So I'm not sure it would make any sense to say that the CofE laity collectively are 'at ease with itself' than it would be to say that all male residents of Durham over the age of 37 are looking forward to receiving socks for Christmas ...
I really don't think we can generalise to this extent - even though I often post here in very broad-brush terms. It'll vary from place to place, from churchmanship to churchmanship and no doubt between individual parishes.
I'm not out to find fault or carp - far from it.
I can understand, for instance, why you might be surprised to find that the large-ish independent charismatic church in your area resulted from a split from an Anglican church you sometimes attend. I must admit, I was slightly surprised when you said that this particular parish is liberal catholic.
I wouldn't have been at all surprised if you'd said that the independent offshoot had split off from an evangelical charismatic Anglican parish ... although the rate at which that sort of thing happens has slowed due to New Wine and renewed self-confidence across the Anglican charismatic spectrum.
The key thing with the CofE, of course, is that it's the CofE. Things are broad.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Enoch; the Old Testament tells the story of God using the 'established church'of Israel to prepare for the wider revelation in Jesus. Once the gospel 'goes global' and is clearly based on the concept of being 'born again' spiritually rather than born only into a conventional nation, a different concept is needed and is clearly stated in the NT whereby God's people are now the international community of believers rather than nationally limited.
Arethosemyfeet; I'm not simplistically trying to blame everything on establishment. I do actually believe that the bad example of the 'establishment' of the Church in the Roman Empire did play a role of 'bad example' which contributed to Islam being founded as an 'established-type' religion with such concepts as Sharia law, Jihad, etc. One problem created by English establishment is that with a state church whose supreme governor on earth is our head of state, it is all too easy for Muslims to interpret the presence of our armies in their lands as a renewed 'Christian crusade'; this not only makes life lethally difficult for our troops, it also means that native Christians in those lands face persecution as 'allies' of the 'crusaders'. Establishment is not just a cosy snug internal issue for us English.
Ulster is complicated. the problem there is not the specific establishment but the general 'Christian country' idea - I'm saying that a church not expecting a privileged position in the state would not feel the need to fight, riot, throw bombs, etc. Having an established church in England is not helping Ulster's Protestants to get out of the 'Christendom' mindset which in any denomination leads to the possibility of warfare in Jesus' name, contrary to the NT.
Yes 'establishment' offers a particular kind of 'togetherness' - but not, I suggest, a biblical kind.
Gamaliel; see the last para on why Ulster issues are in fact connected to the issues of establishment.
Of course there are problems in disestablishment too, and I am not taking a 'rose-tinted spectacles' view of how isolated Anabaptist groups like Amish and Hutterites can become. But in terms of 'a kingdom of this world' a church tangled with the state is very clearly 'of this world' in a questionable way. Remember that the context of that phrase is Jesus defending himself before Pilate - had Jesus said he was aiming to set up established churches which by that fact might be a military threat to Rome, Pilate could not have declared him innocent; which potentially compromises the atonement itself....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
Throughout this thread I've been told that most layfolk aren't all that fussed about the wider church, and that this is generally considered to be perfectly okay. This implies that certain things are more or less constant amidst all the breadth.
Every church will have its exceptions and its concerned individuals, but I wasn't particularly focusing on them, interesting though they are.
[ 01. December 2013, 12:12: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Steve Langton - just wanted to say I agree with you 100% on the disaster that Christian / church engagement with 'empire' has been throughout history. Jesus' message, continued in the rest of the New Testament, is - ISTM - that Christians should not seek political power or influence on some kind of Christian 'ticket' (I'm not saying Christians shouldn't get involved in politics at all).
The whole enmeshing of church with state that establishment entails seems like an absolute travesty of the New Testament message, frankly.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Steve Langton - so why not join the RCC? They're not Established
SCK - saying church and state mixing is a bad idea is quite different to saying the CoE existing is a disaster and we're not a 'real church'.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Steven Langton - get your facts straight.
The Establishment or otherwise of the CofE - and I would favour disestablishment as it happens - has absolutely nothing to do with Ulster Protestants and the Troubles.
Most Ulster Protestants are Presbyterians so they aren't part of the Established Church.
How many Anglicans were involved in the Protestant paramilitaries?
You are not comparing like with like. In fact, you don't know what you're talking about at all.
@South Coast Kevin ... I can agree that church-state collusion isn't particularly healthy - witness the Erastianism of the 18th century Church of England, witness the Erastianism of 19th century Russian Orthodoxy, which the current Patriarch seems to be trying to revive ...
'Dis-established' churches can be guilty of the same sort of things - witness Puritan New England.
Christendom is crumbling ... whether we like it or not. But I don't think it's fair to say that the concept of it wasn't a mixed blessing and capable of much good ...
I think it's a very black-and-white and simplistic view to say Christendom = bad; disestablished, sectarian-style (in the sociological sense) = good.
The whole process, background and inter-related factors are far more complex than that - and certainly far more complex than anything Stephen Langton can apparently conceive of with his wide of the mark generalisations.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
I'm not simplistically trying to blame everything on establishment
Yes you are. You may be trying to backfill rationalisations for it but that's what you're doing.
The perception of the invading forces in Iraq and Afghanistan had lots to do with Bush's rhetoric and nothing to do with the CofE. Besides, I have a brilliant solution to the problem: let's not invade Muslim, or indeed any other, countries on flimsy pretexts, murdering civilians and destroying their infrastructure. No chance of being seen as crusaders then.
You've got a bee in your bonnet about establishment and you're seeing it everywhere you look, even when it has naff all to do with the situation.
There are serious questions about whether the church should have got involved with the state in the first place, but that doesn't mean that trying to pretend that it didn't is the best way to move forward from where we are. Better to use the existing situation to further the Gospel, and if that results in conflict with secular authorities then take disestablishment on the chin.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Going back to my last post, I was just reminded of a phrase I used to hear or read about: 'empowering the laity'. Taking the broad church into account, how have different congregations and people in the CofE understood this term, and has it had much traction at grass-roots level? Or was it just a faddish phrase that never really resonated beyond a few congregations or a few official documents?
I'm assuming that the phrase has CofE origins, but maybe not! I've never heard it used on the Ship.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The person who lead us into Iraq and Afghanistan this time was Tony Blair and he was not admitting to his RC preferences on the advice of Alistair Campbell.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'll tread carefully here, but Steve Langton describes himself as an 'aspie' ... I don't know a lot about Asperger's Syndrome and could easily get myself into hot water on that account ... I have done so here in the past.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the features of Asperger's is the tendency to take a rather binary/literal approach to things ... not to be able to detect irony and nuance at times. Would that be fair to say?
It doesn't mean that people with Asperger's aren't bright and so on - of course they are.
I stand to be corrected and rebuked if I have engaged in stereotyping here, but might this not explain elements of Steven's position which seems to locate all the CofE's ills on a particular source?
I'm not particularly in favour of Establishment, but that's what we have and we need to work with that or else move away from it in some way.
I think Erastianism is a problem and have cited examples of where I think it has been particularly damaging.
I would submit that this can be as much a feature of Steven's beloved 'Bible-believing' and 'born-again' churches - witness some of the US Tea Party types - as it can of state-churches of various kinds.
Are we really saying that the CofE's established status is on a par with the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth 6-Day-Creationist-fundagelicalism of some of the US Bible-Belt churches and their reactionary and unacceptably right-wing (IMHO) approach to politics?
If you're wanting to draw comparisons with Islamic fundementalists and strident No Popery Protestants in Northern Ireland, I suggest you look to the independent apparently NT-style churches of the US Bible Belt rather than to the CofE or any other established church that we could mention on mainland Europe.
--------------------
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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Steve Langton - just wanted to say I agree with you 100% on the disaster that Christian / church engagement with 'empire' has been throughout history. Jesus' message, continued in the rest of the New Testament, is - ISTM - that Christians should not seek political power or influence on some kind of Christian 'ticket' (I'm not saying Christians shouldn't get involved in politics at all).
The whole enmeshing of church with state that establishment entails seems like an absolute travesty of the New Testament message, frankly.
I wonder about this. Surely it's a good aim to bring Christian values into politics? And it would be a good thing to be a member of a political party which aimed to bring Christian values into its governance and legislation? What would be the problem with it if this party were to be voted into power, given that those within it would be Christians?
And if some Christians were invited into the House of Lords due to their wide experience of spiritual matters and how they impacted upon the reality of legislation, should they refuse?
How is this so different from the C of E having a lobbying voice like any other organisation, and a small number of bishops sitting in the House of Lords?
How would any of this become a travesty of the New Testament?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
