|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Church decline and the Bishop of Blackburn
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think it's helpful to imply that a church will renew itself without any effort
Nor do I. Sorry if that wasn't clear. What is important is that any effort must be directed to the right object. That means, being true to its identity (not trying to pretend to be something different in order to attract people) and focusing on worshipping God and serving neighbour. Not on mounting increasingly neurotic recruitment campaigns. People will be drawn to a genuinely Christian community.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
1. Interesting, I hadn't realised that you could be a leader in a BUGB church without being baptised in any form.
2. Are there any Baptist ministers - ie. paid clergy as it were - who haven't been baptised? I'd be surprised if there were.
I'd be less surprised to find house-group leaders and others who hadn't been baptised as believers ... but I'd be surprised to find people who hadn't been baptised - or christened if you'd prefer to call it that - at all.
3. You mention this as if it is some kind of preferable state of affairs to the CofE one.
4. One could argue that it simply reveals the lack of theological discipline and regularity there ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
It all depends on where you stand, of course.
1. Yep - that's the case. Recognition by the church meeting is sufficient and on the understanding that you are a believer.
2. I don't know of any myself - but who checks up on these things??? It's required (I think) that a minister be a baptised (by immersion) believer unless there's a health reason for sprinkling.
It's perfectly possible to be a house group leader and, in some churches (this one included) a deacon without being baptised in any form. A statement of belief is considered adequate - and since Baptist churches hold membership relatively tightly (visitors and all that), it's discussed at several levels.
3. No I don't think I do. It's just different and it seems to work. I don't doubt - indeed I know that the CofE system works as well: I wouldn't knock it all apart from a weeny bit of reservation about the implication that there's regeneration through the baptism. A minor quibble that doesn't invalidate the CofE baptism but further than I'd go theologically.
The theology and belief bit is always addressed in Baptist churches - and the norm would be believers baptism or a recognition that you have had some rite of passage to initiate you into the universal church. If you haven't spoken about your faith before, they why, you can do it now!
4. Or it demonstrates a lack of legalism and a lot of grace and generosity. The theological discipline comes through the wider process of accepting the individual into the body, not necessarily through any event.
Picking holes in your argument for a moment, which of the CofE, Methodist, URC discuss membership or the qualifications for being on a church "roll"? generally none - and in the CofE case the main qualification is residence and at the Annual parish meeting anyone can attend (from the parish) and vote for the churchwardens even if you go to another church. Hardly a massive example of theological rigour methinks!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Which of the CofE, Methodist, URC discuss membership or the qualifications for being on a church "roll"? generally none - and in the CofE case the main qualification is residence and at the Annual parish meeting anyone can attend (from the parish) and vote for the churchwardens even if you go to another church. Hardly a massive example of theological rigour methinks!
Re Methodism, confirmation into membership (for those having been baptised as babies, or for those coming to Methodism as adult Christians from another denomination) assumes that the candidate has been baptised.
Membership matters in Methodism, because only members have an official vote at church council meetings, and the official lay posts in the church (e.g. church steward, pastoral visitor) are only open to members, hence to baptised people. Unofficial posts (e.g. prayer group leader) could in theory be held by non-baptised folk, but Methodist churches have a high number of official posts to fill, so anyone who is otherwise active in the church will eventually be encouraged to become a member (though they could refuse).
There's no way of hiding your lack of membership, because membership generates regular paperwork. No paper trail means you're not a member. (Or not a member of the congregation where you're worshipping.)
Interestingly, checks aren't routinely carried out to prove that a candidate from elsewhere actually has been baptised, or that their baptism was sound....
As for the 'cradle roll', this is just a list of all the infants who've been baptised, and their families. Churches have cradle roll secretaries to manage this list, so that local families who have this church connection but don't normally attend church can be invited to special events, etc. Baptised infants aren't classed as 'members', regardless of whether their parents attend the church.
I understand that Baptist churches normally have more non-members than members in attendance, whereas the opposite is true for Methodist ones.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
As for the 'cradle roll', this is just a list of all the infants who've been baptised....'
Just to be clear, the cradle roll of a particular church will only include the infants who've been baptised at that church, not every church in the area, or every church in the circuit, etc.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
1. Interesting, I hadn't realised that you could be a leader in a BUGB church without being baptised in any form.
1. Yep - that's the case. Recognition by the church meeting is sufficient and on the understanding that you are a believer.
Not always the case. I was a member of a Baptist Church whose rules said that Deacons had to have been baptised by immersion.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...assumes that the candidate has been baptised.
There's no way of hiding your lack of membership, because membership generates regular paperwork. No paper trail means you're not a member. (Or not a member of the congregation where you're worshipping.)
Interestingly, checks aren't routinely carried out to prove that a candidate from elsewhere actually has been baptised, or that their baptism was sound....
I understand that Baptist churches normally have more non-members than members in attendance, whereas the opposite is true for Methodist ones.
There's a flaw in your argument: the paper trail only applies for those who have been in one church. Moving around, there's no record of baptism.
Baptist churches often have a lot of non members attending (we're about 75:25 in proportion) but not always.
[code]
[ 09. November 2014, 05:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Not always the case. I was a member of a Baptist Church whose rules said that Deacons had to have been baptised by immersion.
Agreed - but it's becoming less common s churches adopt the new standard trust documents. Interestingly a lot of older trust deeds were not so prescriptive as our earlier 20th century ones
[edited code: please stop putting a superfluous [quote] tag at the start of your post; preview post is your friend, as is edit post]
[ 09. November 2014, 05:53: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes - and I was actually a member of the group which drew up said Trust Documents. However, the requirement for Deacons to have been baptised by immersion - or, sometimes, for "a majority" of them to have been baptised - isn't always in the Trust Document but in the Church Rules which, of course, can be amended by the local Church Meeting without any legal implications.
I once acted, around 1990, as Interim Moderator for a church which wanted to appoint a Deacon who had ben baptised and confirmed as an Anglican and definitely did not want to be rebaptised. Church Meeting wanted her to be a Deacon but many people felt that she was ineligible. Eventually the Church Secretary rummaged in a cupboard and found a set of the Rules, which proved that she could, in fact, be appointed.
One lady who had ben a member for years insisted that that could not be the case, that the Church Rules had obviously been changed at some point. "Well," said the Secretary, "these are the most recent Rules we've got - and they are dated 1899!"
She was appointed.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
womanspeak
Shipmate
# 15394
|
Posted
I was in a parish where a meeting was called to address the rapid loss in attendance which had occurred since the new Rector (an Archdeacon) had been installed. The Archdeacon even used a business / financial adviser with vague connections to the church ( went to an Anglican School / parents' funerals in our church) to lead our discussion.
I upset said Archdeacon when, after a brainstorming of solutions, I suggested that perhaps prayer should be on the top of the list for we were not a business or a social club with financial problems but a gathering of the people of God.
Not too long after I was sacked by this Archdeacon (as Vicar General after our Bishop left) from my position as Diocesan Education Officer and from my involvement in parish children and family ministry.
This Anglican church has had to be amalgamated with a 70 km distant parish but with a new encumbent attendance is slowly regrowing.
I brushed the dust off my feet and journeyed up the street to a more prayerful, musical and committed church which is founded on solid preaching by lay and ordained, hospitality, home groups, bible studies, prayer groups and community service.
Having been an Anglican for 65 years I do miss regular communion, but not watching my former parish shrivel though a fear of evangelism and a lack of Christian witness and prayer.
--------------------
from the bush
Posts: 62 | From: rural australia | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There's no way of hiding your lack of membership, because membership generates regular paperwork. No paper trail means you're not a member. (Or not a member of the congregation where you're worshipping.)
Interestingly, checks aren't routinely carried out to prove that a candidate from elsewhere actually has been baptised, or that their baptism was sound....
There's a flaw in your argument: the paper trail only applies for those who have been in one church. Moving around, there's no record of baptism.
[code]
Members who've been active in one Methodist church may be reminded that they can transfer their membership to another if they move. Most practising Methodists should be familiar with the concept.
The problem nowadays is that denominational affiliation is weaker than it was, and if you don't like the Methodist church in your new area, you might just find some other church. Also, moving house is apparently quite risky for churchgoing in general; people are likely to stop going altogether, for various reasons.
Admittedly, membership lists are often out of date because movers haven't formally requested a transfer, and those who've simply stopped attending don't always ask for their names to be removed. Methodist churches don't like to cancel someone's membership simply for non-attendance, as this can cause offence. It's a delicate matter.
As for the lack of proof of someone's baptism, people who start attending a Methodist church without transferring from another one don't normally ask to become members straight away, so the lack of proof isn't urgent. Over time, a bond of trust will develop, so if the person claims to have been baptised, they will be believed, and membership can proceed. Sometimes they come with letters of introduction from their home church, especially if they're new immigrants.
The cradle roll is a more tenuous connection; there's no way of transferring from one cradle roll to another. I don't think families would want to do this anyway, because their sense of connection is often with a particular church, not with the whole of Methodism.
[ 09. November 2014, 13:32: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
