|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: People who attend more than one church
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
With regard to the SDAs, the link I posted previously suggests that their churches are becoming more ecumenical, at least in the USA, but I suppose it's a question of degree.
Some scholars see aspects of ecumenicalism as a symptom of church decline. Since the SDAs are not yet plateauing or declining in the UK it's probably unsurprising that ecumenical engagements aren't a huge priority for them. But perhaps such engagements could provide a way for British SDAs to improve their status and visibility in the future.
On your other point, I agree that increasingly sporadic church attendance is likely to be more common than double belonging. Talking of church decline, though, in many cases double belonging and sporadic attendance could spring from the same source, i.e. dissatisfaction with church life. Both could indicate a limited involvement with the churches in question, although many churches would rather have a limited involvement from some attenders than no involvement at all.
[ 06. September 2016, 12:49: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Also, at least in terms of numbers and involvement in secular activities such as education the SDA Church is becoming more mainstream. Seventh Day Adventism apparently represents the 'fifth largest Christian communion in the world'.
What definition of "communion" is Christianity Today using? I can't think of one where this statement is accurate. Per the linked article (most of which is behind a pay wall):
quote:
In 2014, for the 10th year in a row, more than 1 million people became Adventists, hitting a record 18.1 million members. Adventism is now the fifth-largest Christian communion worldwide, after Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and the Assemblies of God.
Do they mean "denomination"? If so, then that's not the right word to describe Anglicanism or Eastern Orthodoxy. (And it's not really the right word for autocephalous Orthodox churches or the Catholic Church, either.) And what about Oriental Orthodoxy, at around 86 million (per Wikipedia)? The Evangelical Church in Germany (24.5 million)?
Do they mean religious groups/denominations having a common heritage, theology and/or polity, such as the Anglican Communion? If that's the case, then, there are more Baptists just in the US than there are SDAs worldwide. And what about the Methodists and the Reformed (both around 80 million) or the Lutherans (around 72 million)?
Either way, I think the assertion is off-base.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I did wonder what they meant by 'communion', I admit. It would be interesting to know how the figures have been generated.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think the most that can be said is that the SDA's represent a sizeable constituency.
I think we'd all agree on that.
In worldwide terms they are an important and substantial group.
On the links between ecumenism and general decline, yes, I'm aware of that point of view but would argue that it doesn't always hold. Some of the least ecumenically inclined groups I know of tend to keep themselves to themselves and not interact with anyone else that regularly. Some of these groups are tiny. It's not because they are on a roll or numerically packing a punch - but because they see themselves as some kind of faithful remnant ...
I suppose it depends on whether we mean ecumenical collaboration whilst retaining one's own base - or some kind of ecumenical merger on the grounds of incipient decline.
Probably both things are going on at the same time in some cases.
--------------------
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
@SvitlanaV2 and Chris Stiles, all fair comments and my use of the word 'fringe' was somewhat short-hand and ill-considered. What I meant, of course, was that the SDA's would be considered to be somewhat 'non-standard' from both a mainstream evangelical perspective or a mainstream liberal one - with all the caveats that should be put around each of those.
So, from a standard evangelical perspective the SDAs might be considered within the bounds of accepted small o orthodoxy - whereas avowedly non-Trinitarian groups such as the JWs and Mormons wouldn't be.
@RainbowGirl - that's interesting but with 20-30 hours a week voluntary church activities on top of your day job - also in a church capacity - I'm surprised you're not all churched-out.
I think if I were engaged in that amount of churchy activity a week I'd want to find something in my spare time that had nothing whatsoever to do with religion - I dunno, Paintballing or something ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Ok, we're all different, but the idea of attending as many services as you do or getting involved with as much admin and general helping out sends my head into a spin ...
If I worked in a diocesan office or similar I'd want to run as far away as possible from church the rest of the time ...
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Talking of church decline, though, in many cases double belonging and sporadic attendance could spring from the same source, i.e. dissatisfaction with church life. Both could indicate a limited involvement with the churches in question, although many churches would rather have a limited involvement from some attenders than no involvement at all.
But at least those who are attending multiple churches are admitting the possibility of attending church regularly - however unrealistic their expectations actually prove to be.
Are they more likely to stick with something should they find something that works?
[I'm excluding those who are attending multiple churches clearly worked out reasons as above]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the links between ecumenism and general decline, yes, I'm aware of that point of view but would argue that it doesn't always hold. Some of the least ecumenically inclined groups I know of tend to keep themselves to themselves and not interact with anyone else that regularly. Some of these groups are tiny. It's not because they are on a roll or numerically packing a punch - but because they see themselves as some kind of faithful remnant ...
Of course, ecumenicalism might be a sign of church decline, but anti-ecumenicalism is not necessarily a sign of growth!!
I also suspect that many otherwise ecumenical groups would rather not have too much to do with those they consider to be heterodox. I know a female vicar who was willing for a small non-trinitarian Pentecostal group to rent the church hall, but was resolute that they should not be invited to ecumenical meetings. So it goes both ways.
The extent to which this all impinges on double belonging is interesting. For some people it's a step on the road to switching over entirely. The Pentecostals and SDAs I know see Methodism (and no doubt Anglicanism) as a kind of half-way house, so they would encourage double affiliation as part of the process - although I don't know at what point you would be expected to pick one or the other.
One story that's always fascinated me relates how a Methodist minister in the Caribbean led his congregation to a neighbouring non-Trinitarian Pentecostal church to be re-baptised... but he and his congregation 'officially' remained Methodist. The blurring of doctrinal boundaries is a symptom of postmodernity (and some argue that the Caribbean was the first workshop of postmodernity) but I would be very interested to know if there's any truth to the story. It's hard to imagine something similar happening in the UK!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I know a female vicar who was willing for a small non-trinitarian Pentecostal group to rent the church hall, but was resolute that they should not be invited to ecumenical meetings. So it goes both ways.
Slight tangent (but I say this to my wife too); why did you feel the need to say "female" vicar?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I attend two churches (two languages) and used to go to three, but in the third I got screamed at by someone who thought my son's tics were disrespectful to the preacher (though the preacher was fine with them, he said). She was backed up by three other people. We don't go there anymore.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I know a female vicar who was willing for a small non-trinitarian Pentecostal group to rent the church hall, but was resolute that they should not be invited to ecumenical meetings. So it goes both ways.
Slight tangent (but I say this to my wife too); why did you feel the need to say "female" vicar?
For added detail, but I did wonder whether I should have rephrased my sentence before writing it. I don't know if women in ministry take a stricter line on such things than men.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, it does go both ways, but generally speaking, I've found that ecumenism only extends to Trinitarian groups. Nobody invites the JWs and Mormons to Churches Together events as far as I know.
The Quakers tend to be invited to such things in those places where there are meeting houses, despite many of them being non-Trinitarian or even non-theist ...
I suspect this is partly due to their having been around longer and also because non-Trinitarianism isn't an article of faith for them as it would be for non-Trinitarian Pentecostals.
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So, from a standard evangelical perspective the SDAs might be considered within the bounds of accepted small o orthodoxy - whereas avowedly non-Trinitarian groups such as the JWs and Mormons wouldn't be.
Where does that put the Quakers then who are non credal and (mostly) non Trinitarian?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@RainbowGirl - that's interesting but with 20-30 hours a week voluntary church activities on top of your day job - also in a church capacity - I'm surprised you're not all churched-out.
I think if I were engaged in that amount of churchy activity a week I'd want to find something in my spare time that had nothing whatsoever to do with religion - I dunno, Paintballing or something ...
If I worked in a diocesan office or similar I'd want to run as far away as possible from church the rest of the time ...
Which reminds me of a line i've frequently quoted (can't remember who said it first -- sounds like Wilde or Dorothy Parker, neither of which is likely) -- 'I used to be religious until I went into church work.'
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I mentioned the Quakers in a subsequent post, EM and suggested reasons why they might get invited to ecumenical activities whereas some of these other groups wouldn't.
There are anomalies.
--------------------
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 ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So, from a standard evangelical perspective the SDAs might be considered within the bounds of accepted small o orthodoxy - whereas avowedly non-Trinitarian groups such as the JWs and Mormons wouldn't be.
Where does that put the Quakers then who are non credal and (mostly) non Trinitarian?
I get the impression that the Quakers are acceptable because they disbelieve in stuff (as do many Christians in 'orthodox' denominations) rather than believing in something somewhat different.
The impression this gives, however, is that Christianity is a religion of form rather than content. So long as one affiliates to an institution that has historical and/or 'mainstream' heft what one actually (dis)believes is less important.
This may be relevant to the issue of double belonging. Fewer people are wedded to theological particularities than used to be the case, so other factors are more important in making a church appealing. There's no need for loyalty to a 'doctrine', so people are free to move around in a hunt for atmosphere, friendliness, the kind of music they like, etc. If one church doesn't suffice, you can pick two.
Mind you, I think this thread has thrown up more examples of North American and Australian double belonging than British, so there are surely other factors at play that we haven't mentioned yet.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
The Quakers are members of Churches Together in England (while Unitarians aren't). I find this a bit strange as CTE does have an explicit Trinitarian statement of faith. I have raised this discrepancy at the highest level and been told that they basically "came over" from the old British Council of Churches when things changed about 20 years. I don't know whether this was deliberate, an oversight or whether no-one had the guts to question it.
Locally this caused problems as some of the Trinitarian churches refused to be part of a group which includes Quakers and, in our case, Unitarians too - the latter here are very keen to do ecumenical (and interfaith) stuff. Ultimately we closed down our formal Churches Together group and started a mote informal and unaffiliated grouping centred on the Apostles' Creed.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
RainbowGirl
Apprentice
# 18543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@RainbowGirl - that's interesting but with 20-30 hours a week voluntary church activities on top of your day job - also in a church capacity - I'm surprised you're not all churched-out.
I think if I were engaged in that amount of churchy activity a week I'd want to find something in my spare time that had nothing whatsoever to do with religion - I dunno, Paintballing or something ...
Ok, we're all different, but the idea of attending as many services as you do or getting involved with as much admin and general helping out sends my head into a spin ...
If I worked in a diocesan office or similar I'd want to run as far away as possible from church the rest of the time ...
It helps that my diocesan office work is the opposite of churchy. Despite the great hulking gothic church outside my office window all I do is move paperwork around. Since it's not my denomination its easy to separate it from 'church', though we do have a weekly staff liturgy which is always a bit interesting. I love church, and I enjoy it. I also am studying a Masters in Theology, I do still have downtime and I compete in dog sports (agility and obedience) with my greyhound, it's not quite paintball but does the same thing I don't expect to have the capacity for it all forever, but right now I do, so I figure why not? It does raise a few eyebrows though...
I found the ecumenical examples interesting, I know the fury that is incited here when someone is a regular at say... Hillsong and the local Anglo-Catholic church, the further apart the general theology/attitudes are the grumpier people get about it.
Posts: 32 | From: Australia | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I know the Ship probably isn't representative, but I don't detect much sense of 'disbelieving' things in the examples we've received here, SvitlanaV2.
Ok, most are Australian or North American rather than British, although you've provided some interesting Caribbean examples.
I'd have though that 'disbelief' in stuff would reduce the likelihood of 'double-attendance' rather than enhancing or encouraging such a thing. I
--------------------
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
@RainbowGirl. Fury? Really?
I've known instances of 'double-attendance' being discouraged by pastors/church leaders, but I've never seen 'fury' expressed in any way.
If anything, most settings are more laid-back about these things than once they were. A few years ago, the daughter of a prominent couple in our old restorationist 'new church' set-up decided she wanted to become High Anglican. The parents were fully supportive, as were the congregation, many of whom turned up to her confirmation and to see her serve as an altar-girl, even though they didn't particularly 'get' it.
I know that's more a change of affiliation rather than double attendance, but even so ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Banner Lady
Ship's Ensign
# 10505
|
Posted
"Where do you worship these days?" Is a question often asked of me and it has no simple answer, because I feel called into an ecumenical ministry where I have received more training and more discipling than I ever got (or was ever on offer) in my cradle faith.
The presumption is that, while working in ecumenical ministry, we will be supported by our individual churches. The truth is that my local baptismal church is not at all interested in ecumenical ministry, or in discipling me, or in using the gifts given to me. But I serve this church anyway, in four different ways - once a month as an altar server at a very early service (so I can still do things "proper"), once a month in a food pantry at a housing complex many members of the congregation find too scary, and twice a month assisting to run services at an aged care facility in our parish.
This for me is "church each week", though what I do is largely unseen by the clergy and most other congregants. Whenever I meet others who attend the same church they always express surprise that I consider myself part of this parish, even though I have lived in it for over 30 years.
Welcome to my "community." But if you want to know where I worship, the answer is really everywhere, every minute, and wherever I find other Christ-followers. I think we are transitioning into a 21st century way of worship that will eventually look very different from the the small community models of the last two centuries. We just have to get our heads around it.
--------------------
Women in the church are not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be enjoyed.
Posts: 7080 | From: Canberra Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
Which reminds me of a line i've frequently quoted (can't remember who said it first -- sounds like Wilde or Dorothy Parker, neither of which is likely) -- 'I used to be religious until I went into church work.'
I have a version I've wanted to put on a bumper sticker for years but have been too chicken shit to do so in my denomination--"I used to be such a nice girl till I got into ministry."
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The Quakers are members of Churches Together in England (while Unitarians aren't). I find this a bit strange as CTE does have an explicit Trinitarian statement of faith. I have raised this discrepancy at the highest level and been told that they basically "came over" from the old British Council of Churches when things changed about 20 years. I don't know whether this was deliberate, an oversight or whether no-one had the guts to question it.
Locally this caused problems as some of the Trinitarian churches refused to be part of a group which includes Quakers and, in our case, Unitarians too - the latter here are very keen to do ecumenical (and interfaith) stuff. Ultimately we closed down our formal Churches Together group and started a mote informal and unaffiliated grouping centred on the Apostles' Creed.
Thanks BT - that's very interesting and helpful.
Both in my current and, in my previous ministry, the Quakers took/take a full part in the Churches' Together group. In both instances they punch way above their weight and, currently are influential on policy as well as practice. They tend to be disproportionately represented at meetings despite being a small group.
Their involvement causes issues with those churches who struggle to understand how Quakers can belong to a group - and have a big influence - when they repudiate (or at least don't believe in), one of the fundamental beliefs. I have a lot of sympathy with them and it now means that the larger, more active churches - which tend to be other more evangelical and charismatic ones - have nothing to do with Churches' Together.
CT is now highly unrepresentative in a location with nearly 100 churches but is still the "go to" point of contact.
To what extent can you belong to something when you don't buy in to a generally accepted set of core beliefs?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I get the impression that the Quakers are acceptable because they disbelieve in stuff (as do many Christians in 'orthodox' denominations) rather than believing in something somewhat different.[/QB]
I think that's a bit naive. To disbelieve is to believe something else - in this case, for example, the Quakers reject Credal belief and in the process repudiate the generally accepted understanding across the church universal of what we can know about God.
You've repeated a bit of Quaker spin here - they are always at pains to be "on side" but dig deep enough and you soon find that they do not recognise the uniqueness of Christ either - surely in itself, a very clear reason why we cannot work with them with any kind of common ground.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The extent to which this all impinges on double belonging is interesting. For some people it's a step on the road to switching over entirely. The Pentecostals and SDAs I know see Methodism (and no doubt Anglicanism) as a kind of half-way house, so they would encourage double affiliation as part of the process - although I don't know at what point you would be expected to pick one or the other.
One story that's always fascinated me relates how a Methodist minister in the Caribbean led his congregation to a neighbouring non-Trinitarian Pentecostal church to be re-baptised... but he and his congregation 'officially' remained Methodist. The blurring of doctrinal boundaries is a symptom of postmodernity (and some argue that the Caribbean was the first workshop of postmodernity) but I would be very interested to know if there's any truth to the story. It's hard to imagine something similar happening in the UK!
Interesting point - I wonder how much that goes also for doing things *outside* Christianity. I know it avowedly claims not to be a religion, but I'm thinking in particular in the UK of Christian Freemasons.
Freemasonry isn't a religion, but it does offer universal non-specific prayers as part of its meetings which implies you'd have to be able to square your attendance at church with praying in a room where you're all potentially praying to different Gods, and different understanding of God - particularly where you've got a Christian mason next to a Hindu one next to a Muslim one.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I have a lot of sympathy with that view, EM, but if the Quakers were excluded - for whatever reason - I'd be very surprised if the lively, evangelical and charismatic churches would re-engage with Churches Together.
I don't doubt your account but in my experience it's often been the evangelical-charismatic churches which have insisted on things being done 'their' way in ecumenical gatherings - and in one instance I was present at and cringed at - even down to an appallingly manipulative presentation in the centre of a major city involving emotional appeals and sphincter-tighteningly embarrassing appeals for funds. A URC minister friend, who was accompanying the mayor and the civic entourage at this event spent ages afterwards trying to calm the mayor down, repair the damage and convince him that Christians weren't all a bunch of crass, manipulative, money-grubbing and soul-scalp hunting screwballs.
That's not to let your local Quakers off the hook, but it is to strike a note of caution.
--------------------
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 ExclamationMark:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I get the impression that the Quakers are acceptable because they disbelieve in stuff (as do many Christians in 'orthodox' denominations) rather than believing in something somewhat different.
quote:
I think that's a bit naive. To disbelieve is to believe something else - in this case, for example, the Quakers reject Credal belief and in the process repudiate the generally accepted understanding across the church universal of what we can know about God.
You've repeated a bit of Quaker spin here - they are always at pains to be "on side" but dig deep enough and you soon find that they do not recognise the uniqueness of Christ either - surely in itself, a very clear reason why we cannot work with them with any kind of common ground.
I think you've misunderstood me. I do recognise that to disbelieve one thing is to believe in something else, but in mainstream Christian circles it's usually mere disbelief that's emphasised (e.g. not believing in the virgin birth).
My comment wasn't an attempt to be pro-Quaker. Indeed, my initial point was that it seems unfair that Quakers can belong to CT but non-Trinitarian Pentecostals can't. These Pentecostals are arguably more theologically mainstream than the Quakers in their understanding of Christ, but the problem seems to be that they're less culturally mainstream.
I should add that I have some non-Trinitarian Pentecostal relatives. Strict and sectarian though some of them are the implication that they're not real Christians rankles somewhat.
As it happens, I know a non-Trinitarian Pentecostal preacher who attended an ecumenical 'training the trainers' event that I was helping to deliver some years ago, so some kinds of engagement are possible for them.
I do think it's reasonable for all churches to consider the potential pros and cons for themselves before deciding on how to engage with ecumenicalism, especially since some forms of it haven't proved to be very fruitful. As we've seen on this thread, some groups really don't work together very well on a formal basis, so more informal networks and personal relationships may be better.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I know the Ship probably isn't representative, but I don't detect much sense of 'disbelieving' things in the examples we've received here, SvitlanaV2.
[...]
I'd have though that 'disbelief' in stuff would reduce the likelihood of 'double-attendance' rather than enhancing or encouraging such a thing.
Ah, I wasn't focusing particularly on the Ship with that comment.
My thinking was that not being hung up on particular doctrines would make it easier to have a double affiliation (if any advantage were to be gained thereby), but obviously, if you can't believe in the core teachings of Christianity you're unlikely to be attending any church, let alone two.
[ 07. September 2016, 11:25: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - I get that.
I suspect in many cases it's a case of 'style' or where people feel comfortable rather than doctrinal issues as such.
I share your concern about the 'fairness' angle when it comes to admitting 'right-on', well-behaved, middle-class Quakers to some kind of ecumenical activity but not those noisy and potentially disruptive non-Trinitarian Pentecostals down the road ...
I'm sure that socio-cultural issues and prejudice come into it.
I've only come across non-Trinitarian Pentecostals once in real-life, a predominantly Afro-Caribbean group - but friends and relatives by marriage in white, working-class South Walian Pentecostalism were always concerned about the lure and 'danger' of non-Trinitarian Pentecostal groups that existed on the 'fringe' of the movement ie. independent groups that weren't affiliated to the three main UK Pentecostal denominations, Elim, the AoG and the Apostolic Church.
They were certainly aware of black-led groups such as the New Testament Church of God, Church of God in Christ and so on, but didn't know a great deal about them. That said, my brother-in-law's parents did run a multi-cultural Pentecostal mission in the docklands of Cardiff for some time.
--------------------
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
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
I don't know whose post to quote here since there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about Quakers on this thread.
The first would be that Quakers (as a whole) "disbelieve" or "believe." Each Friend has a relationship with God which leads him or her to a spiritual understanding. So, to talk about Quakers as a whole is to try to put us in the creedal box that we seek to avoid.
Statements that we do not recognize the "uniqueness" of Christ are very misinformed (individuals may not recognize, but Quakers as a whole have no position statements other than our Testimonies, which we recognize will be understood differently by different people based on their personal relationship with God). Our founder, George Fox famously said: There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition" Autobiography of George Fox and most of the Quakers world-wide identify as Christians.
As for "repudiating," the understood beliefs of others, this also is a misunderstanding of the Quaker way. We accept to the possibility that each one's relationship with God can lead to a variety spiritual truths, but none of us has the spiritual authority to tell another person that his/her understanding of God is wrong. Any Friend who does so is really acting outside of the ideal that we are all equal before God.
Meanwhile, back to the thread topic . . . For about 10 years now, I have been attending a Mennonite Church, and two years ago, I became an associate member of that congregation (with permission of my Quaker Meeting). I did not seek this out, but rather, it came to me, and I am quite happy as an active member in both places. In some ways they overlap, in other ways the compliment each other. I do not share as much theologically with my Mennonite brothers and sisters as I do with my Quaker ones, but I find that both communities seek to live their faith radically in the world, and that leads to many forms of overlap. Each groups knows about my affiliation with the other, and no one has ever expressed dismay. I am quite happy and feel spiritually nourished.
Further, I don't think that God cares at all which dotted lines I (or others) have signed. God, alone, knows the full measure of our faith.
sabine
[ 07. September 2016, 14:40: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Vaguely thinking about this thread, maybe we need to be gently encouraging people to visit other churches, participate in other program? It could help counter the arrogant pride in the assumed superiority of "my" denomination I hear so often.
Wouldn't getting some people more active across churches get them more involved in Christianity in general? But I hear people and not just clergy express fear that if someone sets foot in a different church they might leave ours. It's common to try to attract others with public events but refuse to advertise another church's public event.
Church secretary said when they find out a person is involved elsewhere they take that person off the membership list. They don't even ask questions first.
There seems to be a strong tribalism "you are one of us or you are out" in many churches, as if the focus is exclusive membership not growth of the people, which for some might work best in one place but for others better developed through multiple.
Interesting that clergy and musical leaders regularly change church and participate in multi church events but members are suppose to sit in one place.
[ 07. September 2016, 15:13: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I get that, Sabine but you may remember a thread a while back where I asked a question about some Anglican women I heard about who were refused full membership of a Quaker Meeting because they continued to receive communion at an Anglican church.
Some Quaker Shipmates explained that this was entirely in order and that if these women had truly or fully embraced the Quaker way they wouldn't have wanted to continue receiving communion as it represented the kind of 'outward form' that the Quakers aim to avoid as far as possible.
I'm not sure how that applies to you in your US instance and context nor whether the Friends would consider the Mennonites 'closer' in some way than they might the Anglicans or whoever else - although my understanding is that Quakers wouldn't approach the issue in that kind of way.
As far as tribalism goes, I might be wrong, but as far as Protestant groups go, my impression is that there is more tribalism in the US than there is here ... at least, that's what US contacts tell me (and I'm not thinking of Shipmates here, but more broadly).
So, for instance, one US contact I have expressed surprise that I'd attended a joint Anglican-RC-Orthodox conference recently and also surprise that evangelical denominations tend to collaborate here. I got the impression that where she is the various Protestant churches jealousy guarded their territory and weren't keen on joint-efforts of any kind.
I don't know how typical that is, but I get the impression that 'closed communion' (Dead Horse alert ...) is more common among Protestant groups in the US than it is here - where it tends to be restricted to a small number of independent Baptist churches or some Baptist Union of GB and Ireland churches which haven't followed the overall trend among British and Irish Baptists more generally.
I'm not saying that there isn't room for ecumenical improvement here in the UK - far from it - but I don't see the degree of tribalism that some US Shipmates - and other US contacts - mention.
I suspect that there might be a greater level of 'competition' in certain parts of the US where church-attendance is way, way, way higher than anything we have over here.
--------------------
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
Sure, I get that, Sabine but you may remember a thread a while back where I asked a question about some Anglican women I heard about who were refused full membership of a Quaker Meeting because they continued to receive communion at an Anglican church.
Some Quaker Shipmates explained that this was entirely in order and that if these women had truly or fully embraced the Quaker way they wouldn't have wanted to continue receiving communion as it represented the kind of 'outward form' that the Quakers aim to avoid as far as possible.
I'm not sure how that applies to you in your US instance and context nor whether the Friends would consider the Mennonites 'closer' in some way than they might the Anglicans or whoever else - although my understanding is that Quakers wouldn't approach the issue in that kind of way.
As far as tribalism goes, I might be wrong, but as far as Protestant groups go, my impression is that there is more tribalism in the US than there is here ... at least, that's what US contacts tell me (and I'm not thinking of Shipmates here, but more broadly).
So, for instance, one US contact I have expressed surprise that I'd attended a joint Anglican-RC-Orthodox conference recently and also surprise that evangelical denominations tend to collaborate here. I got the impression that where she is the various Protestant churches jealousy guarded their territory and weren't keen on joint-efforts of any kind.
I don't know how typical that is, but I get the impression that 'closed communion' (Dead Horse alert ...) is more common among Protestant groups in the US than it is here - where it tends to be restricted to a small number of independent Baptist churches or some Baptist Union of GB and Ireland churches which haven't followed the overall trend among British and Irish Baptists more generally.
I'm not saying that there isn't room for ecumenical improvement here in the UK - far from it - but I don't see the degree of tribalism that some US Shipmates - and other US contacts - mention.
I suspect that there might be a greater level of 'competition' in certain parts of the US where church-attendance is way, way, way higher than anything we have over here.
--------------------
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
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I get that, Sabine but you may remember a thread a while back where I asked a question about some Anglican women I heard about who were refused full membership of a Quaker Meeting because they continued to receive communion at an Anglican church.
Some Quaker Shipmates explained that this was entirely in order and that if these women had truly or fully embraced the Quaker way they wouldn't have wanted to continue receiving communion as it represented the kind of 'outward form' that the Quakers aim to avoid as far as possible.
I'm not sure how that applies to you in your US instance and context nor whether the Friends would consider the Mennonites 'closer' in some way than they might the Anglicans or whoever else - although my understanding is that Quakers wouldn't approach the issue in that kind of way.
I remember that thread, and I would add that I did not agree with those Quakers, and made the point that this sort of rigid interpretation of taking Communion when visiting other churches is not universally held by all Friends (i.e., it's an outward form we avoid, but no one has the spiritual authority to say it is wrong in general for others in all occasions).
Individual Meetings have the right to approve or not approve membership, and some Meetings have a stricter set of guidelines for what they want in a new member than other Meetings do. That does not extrapolate to the wider Quaker world, however, since each Meeting is responsible for its own membership guidelines.
Meanwhile, at least here in the US, The Quakers, Mennonite, and Brethren are referred to as Historical Peace Churches because of their stance on avoiding war, military service, etc. But for many reasons, the comparison doesn't go much further. Meanwhile, I am not the only person in my Meeting who has received permission to be an associate member somewhere else, and that "somewhere else" is not necessarily with the Mennonites.
quote:
As far as tribalism goes, I might be wrong, but as far as Protestant groups go, my impression is that there is more tribalism in the US than there is here ...
At least as far as Quaker, Mennos, and Brethren go, we have quite a few denominations of each here in the US, the result of numerous spits over the years. One of the downsides of having a heavily UK-centric discussion board is that people form opinions based on their experience of, say, Quakers in the UK, and are unaware that the UK Quakers are a minority of Quakers world-wide.
Tribalism in the US: iN OUR entire nation of millions of people and many cultural subgroups. I suspect we would find different levels of it in different locations, socio-econimic groups, etc.
When you started this thread, Gamaliel, you asked if attending more than one church is common? I'm not sure if you meant common among Shipmates or common, in general. I'm not sure we can answer the second question without lots of sociological research, but I would be interested to hear more about the individual stories of Shipmates who are in a good dual-relationship.
sabine
[ 07. September 2016, 16:11: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I suspect that there might be a greater level of 'competition' in certain parts of the US where church-attendance is way, way, way higher than anything we have over here.
Yes, there may be some competition, in part because more people here report a religious affiliation than actually attend church. Mainline Churches seem to be losing ground, although I'm not sure if they are losing more ground than churches in the UK.
Pew Research: US Public becoming less religious
I suppose that if one is concerned with filling the pews, then being open to congregants attending other churches is fraught with potential difficulties.
It's a pity, really, since so much good can come from going outside the gates to meet and worship with one's neighbors.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure. I'm aware of the Pew Research and the decline of 'mainstream' church attendance in the USA and also that the South and Mid-West have a much higher level of religious observance than New England, say, or the Pacific North West.
Generally speaking, we tend to follow US trends rather than t'other way round but in broad terms I suspect the UK - and Europe in general - is far more secularised than even the most secularised parts of the US have yet become - but I might 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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Generally speaking, we tend to follow US trends rather than t'other way round but in broad terms I suspect the UK - and Europe in general - is far more secularised than even the most secularised parts of the US have yet become - but I might be wrong.
Almost certainly true. When we say "the US has become less religious" remember that it had a high bar to fall from, relative to other Western nations.
[ 07. September 2016, 17:48: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
And we can't discount the Nones (spiritual-but-not-religious), a rising group in developed countries north of the equater. I wonder how much visitation among established faith traitions they do? Does anyone on the Ship identify as a None? If so, what light can you shed?
Further on the tribalism issue--unfortunately, being with people "just like us" has been a feature of organized religion for a long time, and not in a good way.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Backing up a bit - I'm not talking about occasionally visiting other churches or worshipping with one's neighbours now and again - a fair bit of that goes on in my experience - I'm thinking more in terms of people who have some kind of more 'formal' dual-affiliation or spend substantial amounts of time being involved with more than one congregation or expression.
Where I am, the churches all get on well and you do find people with feet in more than one camp, but there's not much by way of formal co-ordination. But then, that's true of the voluntary sector here in general - and with the various sports, arts and crafts and other community groups. It's a town where lots of people are doing good stuff but there's not a great deal of collaboration.
--------------------
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 sabine:
One of the downsides of having a heavily UK-centric discussion board is that people form opinions based on their experience of, say, Quakers in the UK, and are unaware that the UK Quakers are a minority of Quakers world-wide.
I think the important thing here is context.
The conversation above was clearly about the British ecumenical environment (e.g. note the reference to 'Churches Together', which is a network of churches in Britain). In that sense the beliefs and attitudes of American, Kenyan, Uruguayan, or Polynesian, etc. Quakers were not the issue at hand, and no one was referring to them.
Also, the fact is that from now on any type of Christian in the UK is almost always going to be a 'minority' when compared to the numbers in their denomination worldwide. Every group with at least a few decades of overseas mission under its belt is going to have a greater presence elsewhere.
That being the case, I imagine that anyone with the vaguest awareness of global Christianity and British secularisation will know that British Quakerism doesn't represent the be-all and end-all of Quakerism.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
Thank you for posting this, Svitlana, In retrospect, I see that my words seemed more like a criticism than an observation. I apologize for that. I also think I may have misunderstood the scope of the discussion, or perhaps I perceived an indictment of Quakers when none was intended.
Even if we confine ourselves to British Friends, I think it leads to misunderstandings when we try to describe as if there is only one way that Friends looking at things. ThaT can hardly be done if two Friends in a room ![[Smile]](smile.gif) let alone an entire country.
You've given me an idea, though. Somedag, I really would like to experience the Quaker way in Polynesia.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Backing up a bit - I'm not talking about occasionally visiting other churches or worshipping with one's neighbours now and again - a fair bit of that goes on in my experience - I'm thinking more in terms of people who have some kind of more 'formal' dual-affiliation or spend substantial amounts of time being involved with more than one congregation or expression.
When I was a kid you did NOT set foot in a different denomination's church. An Episcopalian visiting a Lutheran church was visiting "a different religion." My childhood Catholic friends were taught just setting foot in a non-RCC church was a sin. (Whether that was taught locally or centrally I don't know.)
We live in less rigid times. I suppose multi-culturalism could have something to do with it? When the closest thing to a foreign religion was the Methodists, they seemed totally different from "us." With people more different living down the block, the Methodists no longer seem foreign?
I do run into a lot of assumption one must be a member of one and only on church and have nothing to do with others. None on my friends involved in more than one church want it pubic knowledge because some people would scold and they don't want unnecessary strife. But maybe small towns are different?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[QB None on my friends involved in more than one church want it pubic knowledge because some people would scold and they don't want unnecessary strife. But maybe small towns are different? [/QB]
I don't know if its because of or in spite of being a pastor, but I've always been very up front about attending two churches (one of which I work at). L.A. is definitely not a small town, so I could probably have gotten away with hiding it, but that's really not my style.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Thank you for posting this, Svitlana, In retrospect, I see that my words seemed more like a criticism than an observation.
They didn't seem to be a criticism, they were a criticism.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
I don't know whose post to quote here since there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about Quakers on this thread.
The first would be that Quakers (as a whole) "disbelieve" or "believe." Each Friend has a relationship with God which leads him or her to a spiritual understanding. So, to talk about Quakers as a whole is to try to put us in the creedal box that we seek to avoid.
Statements that we do not recognize the "uniqueness" of Christ are very misinformed (individuals may not recognize, but Quakers as a whole have no position statements other than our Testimonies, which we recognize will be understood differently by different people based on their personal relationship with God). Our founder, George Fox famously said: There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition" Autobiography of George Fox and most of the Quakers world-wide identify as Christians.
As for "repudiating," the understood beliefs of others, this also is a misunderstanding of the Quaker way. We accept to the possibility that each one's relationship with God can lead to a variety spiritual truths, but none of us has the spiritual authority to tell another person that his/her understanding of God is wrong. Any Friend who does so is really acting outside of the ideal that we are all equal before God.
My views on Quakers are based on UK experience of almost 2 decades and in a variety of circumstances. Here, Quakers are generally ell off, middle class, professionals. I accept that this is not representative internationally or perhaps, even nationally. I recognise and affirm the character and works of the Quakers I've encountered - they are all zealous in the cause of justice.
But there's another side to the coin IME. The substance of your reply confirms some of the reservations I have about including UK Quakers alongside Trinitarian Denominations. I accept this is critical but it is based on observation and experience, albeit from my perspective. I know of many others in ecumenical circles in the UK who share the same concerns.
1. Quakers (or Friends) are a denomination, whatever they may claim. There is a structure and shared values.
2. Quakers have a creed - even if it's an individual one. At a recent meeting a Quaker stood up and said "Quakers believe ..." that's a credal statement. You make seek to avoid it but as soon as you express an opinion about the nature of God and/or faith, you are making a credal statement either as an individual or as a group. I don't really buy the idea that there is no Quaker Creed - you state the distinctiveness you feel you hold on "Peace" - is that not a credal belief?
3. Not believing in something which mainstream Christianity accepts as a given (The Trinity), is disbelief when viewed from the other side. I'd respectfully point out that you seem to be trying to "wriggle" here. I know I'm using binary categories but the world often needs definition and distinction to "work."
4. What George Fox may or may not have believed isn't relevant to modern Quakers, if as you say, everyone is at liberty to accept or reject any or all aspects of the divine. Fox isn't prescriptive for Quakers today.
In the USA the position may be very different but in the UK there's no other way of describing Quakers than as theologically liberal. Arguably with many not recognising the uniqueness of Christ in salvation, that puts them beyond the traditional boundaries of the biblical faith. That position makes it hard to accommodate them within "Christians Together" groups if they don't share the same core beliefs about God, however much we may agree on aspects of peace, compassion and social justice.
5. In holding to one view, can you not see that this by definition repudiates the views of others? A view that says there are many paths to God repudiates the view that there is one path to God.
However much you wish to avoid conflict by holding to any view (whether individually or corporately) you will still cause or create it by expressing a view contrary to the understanding of others.
I feel that here, like in many of the dealings I have had with Quakers on contentious issues, you are sitting on the fence. Sometimes greater division is created by sitting there and trying to be all things to all people, than by coming down and taking a view, however unacceptable that might be for some. There tends to be more respect for those who say what they feel/mean that or those who try to dissemble and fudge things.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Belle Ringer, no, I don't think it's just a small town thing here in the UK. I used to live in a large city and by and large, the churches tended to get along well, particularly at a local level within various neighbourhoods.
The exceptions were particular forms of more exclusive evangelical on the one hand and the long-standing Protestant/RC divide.
That doesn't mean there wasn't room for improvement nor that, a generation or so earlier, relationships between churches were more strained or stand-offish - but I don't recognise the situation you describe of people keeping quiet about attending other churches lest clergy or church leaders 'scold' them. Other than in some of the more conservative or fundamentalist groups here, in anyone were 'scold' by a clergy-person or church leader, they'd probably either vote with their feet or tell the clergy person where to get off.
--------------------
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
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Thank you for posting this, Svitlana, In retrospect, I see that my words seemed more like a criticism than an observation.
They didn't seem to be a criticism, they were a criticism.
I apologized because these words could be read two different wHs. You and Svitlana read them one way. I meant them another. That's the problem when there is no voice find to be heard. It was my fault for not being more clear. I'm sorry for allowing g people on this thread to feel attacked.
Sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think it's just a small town thing here in the UK. I used to live in a large city and by and large, the churches tended to get along well, particularly at a local level within various neighbourhoods.
Well, not necessarily ...
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't recognise the situation you describe of people keeping quiet about attending other churches lest clergy or church leaders 'scold' them.
It's people as much as clergy who view any straying as unacceptable. I've been surprised how eager some people are to get others off the membership list. The black and white "You are one of us or you aren't" is as often lay as clergy attitude.
Apparently in times past the denomination charged a per member tax to the local church, which meant any "Christmas and Easter" member was resented by those aware of budget, and a dual church member would be resented for costing the church money while failing to commit all their church-based money and labor to one church.
Although the couple of denominations I'm familiar have changed the dues method (it's now based on percentage of the church budget, which leads to endless appeals for off-budget contributions for food projects, supplies, and mission donations, anything not essential to institutional survival), the resentment of inactive or non-exclusive members remains common, at least where I live.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
There might be two (or more?) issues at play with a person worshipping at two places. The spiritual nourishment of the person and the needs of the main community ($$ or committee participation, sense of denominational cohesion, etc.). I can see that in some cases, the two might conflict and lead to some judgment.
And, organized religion is a humanly constructed thing and subject to all the human foibles,including a suspicion of those who seek to investigate outside the bounds.
It's nice to hear about folks (pastors, even) who find spiritual good in what different groups might have to offer and who are not wary of being with folks who are different. One drawback of never being with "the other" is not being able to see God at work in all of God's creative ways.
I just hope there aren't too many congregations whose collective ministry is held back when someone, is absent now and then for sincere spiritual reasons.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
There was an article in the New York Times some years ago, about a church on Long Island. The pastor was fed up with the Easter-and-Xmas-only crowd. And so he decreed that the palms on Palm Sunday (which do cost money) were to be distributed only to the regular congregants. The reaction at the service was so vehement that it made the paper. They were meeting in the parking lot after the service to denounce him and petition for his removal. The policy immediately went to the wall and has never returned.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course organised religion is a humanly constructed thing - as is unorganised religion.
There's no such thing as a disembodied religion. We aren't disembodied spirits floating around on fluffy clouds.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
