|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Denominations and class
|
Lord Clonk
Shipmate
# 13205
|
Posted
It is a frustration that Quakers seem to be pretty middle class from what I am aware. What about other denominations?
Posts: 267 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Lord Clonk:
Could you, or somebody, please define middle class in sufficient details to enable me to decide whether a person is middle class?
E.g. me. I always like to think of myself as working class, but others may not agree. How should I determine this important issue?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Lord Clonk:
Could you, or somebody, please define middle class in sufficient details to enable me to decide whether a person is middle class?
E.g. me. I always like to think of myself as working class, but others may not agree. How should I determine this important issue?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Broadly, I'd suggest that most denominations in the UK are middle-class ... and that even traditionally working class groups like the Pentecostals are less working class than they used to be ...
The only exceptions, it seems to me, are migrant churches in the large cities - African churches and the like.
How would we classify Gypsy Pentecostal churches though? They're sort of 'outside' conventional society to an extent ...
I'm not so sure the class thing is as stratified as it used to be but when I was growing up in South Wales you could have categorised the various churches in sociological terms as follows:
1. Church in Wales (Anglican) - predominantly middle-class and quite 'Anglo'.
2. Methodists - largely middle-class, but 'new money' not 'old'.
3. Baptists/Salvationists/independent evangelicals - predominantly middle-class by that time but with roots in lower middle-class/working class social strata - and still some working class members and converts.
4. Pentecostals - largely working class but moving more towards 3.
5. Roman Catholics - predominantly working class and Irish with some Polish and Italian families. One or two posher Catholic families.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lord Clonk
Shipmate
# 13205
|
Posted
*shrugs, gesturing vaguely at something in the distance that presumably has a satisfactory answer*
Posts: 267 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Why is it a 'frustration'? The Quakers were less and less likely to be from the lower classes from the late 17th c. onwards, so it's not a new thing. Their meeting houses are mostly in middle class areas as well. (I've noticed that their buildings in more humble areas are likely to be rented by other organisations, but I suppose the majority of them have already been demolished.)
Churchgoing is a mostly middle class business in the UK these days. That's what we'd expect in terms of church-sect theory. But different denominations have a slightly different class mixture.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Offeiriad
Ship's Arboriculturalist
# 14031
|
Posted
We have family portraits and hunting trophies, but we didn't inherit our silver. I'm told that makes us middle class? According to a recent test on the BBC website we are firmly 'Traditional Working Class'.....
I believe Church of England clergy were traditionally classed as social Class A, so my wife moved up two classes when she said 'I will' at the altar. Presumably on retirement I tumbled from Class A to Class E in one moment.
It's all a bit arbitrary, and bonkers in a terribly English kind of way......
Posts: 1426 | From: La France profonde | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Broadly, I'd suggest that most denominations in the UK are middle-class ... and that even traditionally working class groups like the Pentecostals are less working class than they used to be ...
The only exceptions, it seems to me, are migrant churches in the large cities - African churches and the like.
Even the African churches are probably more likely to involve and retain the most upwardly mobile members of the community. This was the case for the Caribbean Pentecostal churches before them.
I find it hard to imagine that it would be different for the other migrant churches.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
It is a frustration that Quakers seem to be pretty middle class from what I am aware. What about other denominations?
I'm with Svitlana in wondering why this is a source of frustration. (Although cross-pond differences in the use of term "middle class" may have something to do with it).
One could, I suppose, reasonably be concerned that your church/denomination wasn't doing more to reach out to lower-income persons. But making that a goal might have some bad fruit, where folks have to pass some doctrinal purity test or sit through (often schmaltzy, poorly given) evangelistic messages in order to get aid.
It would be interesting to see if there's any studies to support the ecclesiastical legends that religious conversion leads to increase in socio-economic standing among the poor, which could be another explanation-- if true. Even better would be if religious conversion led to demotion of socio-economic class among the wealthy because they gave so much of their $$ away.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Lord Clonk
Shipmate
# 13205
|
Posted
It is frustrating because it's pretty ominous. Something that appeals predominantly to the middle classes seems like it runs the danger of, like, not being very challenging towards people's relation to their money and possessions.
I am also curious to know whether people think that other denominations tend to look down more on denominations that are more working class than ones which are predominantly middle class.
Posts: 267 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I've never quite understood the British distinction between Working Class and Middle Class. OTOH in the States, class is largely a mere function of income/wealth.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've never quite understood the British distinction between Working Class and Middle Class. OTOH in the States, class is largely a mere function of income/wealth.
Class is a very British thing. At the extreme for example the aristocracy may be divided into those who have the land (which may be a county or two) and those who do not. Those who do will often have an enormous country house, the land to provide a income to keep the house and more besides and possibly some more properties. Those who are not "landed" may, if they are lucky, have an allowance from their landed relation plus a more modest house. They will still have a title (usually "Hon"ourable), but a pretty junior man in the City will have more property and a higher income.
Yes, that's it. Titles and family.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Lord Clonk
Interestingly, I think mainstream, moderate churches are often quite uneasy with the concept of 'wealth'. They don't promote wealth acquisition as a 'good thing' in itself. They're often into promoting justice for the poor, raising money for underprivileged people abroad, etc.
In modern Methodism (and also in Quakerism, I believe), there's a closer connection with the caring professions than with industry, trade, commerce, etc. The problem is that though these churches are for the poor, they're not usually of the poor.
The reasons for this are cultural and sociological, and it would be hard to change the class make-up of these churches without causing a considerable disruption to church culture. The process would also require a lot of work and probably money, and many mainstream congregations have limited resources and manpower.
Regarding snobbing attitudes from the more mainstream, middle class British churches, I think this used to be a bigger problem, but these churches are more humble now because they know they face serious challenges themselves. Also, many of the 'poorer' churches are now developing habits that are drawing them closer to the mainstream; e.g. their clergy are getting more education, and ecumenicalism is bringing out shared agendas. Ethnic Pentecostal churches used to be a bit beyond the pale, but inner city CofE vicars now approve of their 'vibrancy', and declare that there's no competition between them. Disapproval is more likely to be voiced in relation another church's theology. This is my experience, anyway.
I also suspect that increasing social segregation means that poor churches and rich churches are less likely to be in physical proximity anyway, so they might not have to deal with each other very much. It's more likely to be a case of growing churches in proximity to struggling churches. The difference between the two might have little to do with the social background of the church leaders.
[ 19. December 2015, 18:57: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Well according to the Class Calculator I'm Elite!!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But it didn't ask the really important questions like what your favourite TV sitcoms are (any Peter Kay, Royle Family).
Or whether you have been reliant, all your life on your own work, which is what I thought defined working class.
I think we are going the American Way and Middle Class more or less equals fairly prosperous.
Maybe my assumed working class persona is a fraud. But if you polled by Dearly Beloved I don't think Elite would be first to mind.
BTW I'm Anglican. JWs are probably one of the most working class denominations in the UK. So you could always . . .
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:
...
I believe Church of England clergy were traditionally classed as social Class A,......
Middle class people in upper class houses on working class incomes (once upon a time).
I think the RCs are probably the church that most consistently cross class divisions. IM (limited) E Quakers do tend to be middle class, often intellectuals, which is why they tend to be disproportionately high-profile in ecumenical things, just as (in the UK) Bahais and Buddhists are in interfaith things.
[ 19. December 2015, 19:24: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Mousethief's comment about the difference between working class and middle-class in a UK context is an interesting one - yet most responses have concentrated on the landed gentry rather than the traditional division between middle-class and working class ..
My only suggestion to aid MT's understanding is for him to watch hours of British sit-coms, read lots of British novels and come and live here for 5 years or so.
I think we have been moving in a more US-style direction for some years - the traditional categories apply less and less - but there are still discernible.
--------------------
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 cliffdweller:
One could, I suppose, reasonably be concerned that your church/denomination wasn't doing more to reach out to lower-income persons. But making that a goal might have some bad fruit, where folks have to pass some doctrinal purity test or sit through (often schmaltzy, poorly given) evangelistic messages in order to get aid.
My sense is that church food banks and other charitable activities are more about generating and maintaining good PR for the church rather than getting more bums on pews. And most people in difficulty don't require such basic care from the church anyway. Their needs are probably more challenging or more subtle.
quote:
It would be interesting to see if there's any studies to support the ecclesiastical legends that religious conversion leads to increase in socio-economic standing among the poor, which could be another explanation-- if true. Even better would be if religious conversion led to demotion of socio-economic class among the wealthy because they gave so much of their $$ away.
I don't think conversion itself increases socio-economic standing. The idea is rather that socialisation into the expectations of the church is likely to suppress the kinds of habits that can be detrimental to advancement, if you're starting from a low point. So(depending on the type of church) gambling, drunkenness, frequent changes in sexual partner, domestic violence, adultery, laziness, use of profane language, etc. may be deemed immoral in themselves - but they're also risky activities that can prevent you from getting on in life if you're not already cushioned by money or social capital.
Once you cut these behaviours out of your life, you'll be wasting less money, will have a calmer home, will be more employable, etc. and probably be better respected by your peers. Your progress is life will be more likely, and your children, if they inherit your new attitudes, will already be at an advantage.
We don't hear so much about how churchgoing reduces the disposable income of the wealthy. I suppose this is because wealthy people keep on making money; they don't give it all away and then stop working (or stop investing, etc.).
[ 19. December 2015, 19:48: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Actually in church attendance, there are subtle differences within the English middle class. I know this due to my Ph.D. The Presbyterian Church of England was on average socially higher in the middle class than the Congregational Church of England and Wales at the time of the URC merger. You can find still see this in some congregations. Basically, the Presbyterian Church of England was dominated by professionals and senior managers, while the Congregational Church of England and Wales was dominated by middle managers and white collared workers. If you like, when Presbyterians were Doctors and then Congregationalists were senior nurses. That said it is also true that Congregationalists came from a broader cross-section of the population than the Presbyterians did. There certainly were upper-class Congregationalists and working class Congregationalists, sometimes within the same congregation. The Presbyterians being dominated by the educated Scots diaspora did not find it easy to reach out beyond their own social niche.
Equally, it is not simply that more middle-class type people stayed in the church, but the act of participating in church fellowship makes people more middle class due to the social norms of the group. I have known over the years a number of people who due to involvement have become socially neither fish, nor fowl, nor good red herring with respect to social class. They started out working class, but the involvement with the congregation has meant different emphasises brought out and now they are between working class and middle class.
Jengie
--------------------
"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
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mousethief's comment about the difference between working class and middle-class in a UK context is an interesting one - yet most responses have concentrated on the landed gentry rather than the traditional division between middle-class and working class ..
My only suggestion to aid MT's understanding is for him to watch hours of British sit-coms, read lots of British novels and come and live here for 5 years or so.
I think we have been moving in a more US-style direction for some years - the traditional categories apply less and less - but there are still discernible.
If you want to discern a difference between the working class and the middle class then I would concentrate on the lower-middles and upper/respectable end of the working class.
A major shared character is that they own, or are at any rate buying, their home. A difference is that the working class will be more likely to be buying an ex-council home while the lower-middles will buy on an estate. The other #1 difference is the job: lower-middles work in offices and may be minor professionals while working-class have trades. One has a dress code, the other has a uniform. They probably have about the same amount of income although the working-class may have a higher disposable income.
That is just some of it but my Dad was middle-class, my mum a working-class Tory (through and through!) but we never knew what class we were as a family until he left the RAF and joined the lower-middle class as a technical author, which is pretty much my level too.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Or you could come to Canada where church has naught to do with class, and everything to do with tribe.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Or you could come to Canada where church has naught to do with class, and everything to do with tribe.
That might be true when you're talking about RCC, United, Anglican etc, but I'm not sure if it applies to groups like Pentecostals etc.
The Pentecostal family I knew best in Edmonton were Ukrainians, but when their daughter got married, it was to another Penetecostal named Smith. Other members of generally low-on-the-candle denominations didn't really seem to fit into any consistent "tribal" pattern. But if I had to guess, I'd say they were mostly blue-collar, probably, like my Ukrainian neighbours, one generation away from the farm.
And I've known old-line UCCers whose kids strayed, and ended up in outfits like Messianic Judaism!
[ 19. December 2015, 20:26: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
It is a frustration that Quakers seem to be pretty middle class from what I am aware. What about other denominations?
Surely it depends where you live. The Quakers where I live are more working class, because it's more of a working class area. The Quakers in the rather upper middle class town where certain family members of mine live are more middle class. And the same, to some extent, with all denominations. There are Catholic and Anglican churches throughout the city I live - the social class of the people attending will largely be based on what area of the city it is - whether it's on a council estate or in more of a 'posh' area.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In modern Methodism (and also in Quakerism, I believe), there's a closer connection with the caring professions than with industry, trade, commerce, etc. The problem is that though these churches are for the poor, they're not usually of the poor.
I'm neither Methodist nor Quaker, but this describes my church to a T. I'm not sure I'd agree that it has to be a problem, although I'd agree there are real dangers inherent to this niche. But the educated "caring class" is all about reading/ studying an issue, so they're open to correction (altho one of the dangers is studying an issue to death rather than, you know, doing something). At the same time, you're avoiding some of the other dangers-- social justice as thinly veiled mode of evangelism, manipulative giving etc. So it's a mixed bag.
--------------------
"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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
One could, I suppose, reasonably be concerned that your church/denomination wasn't doing more to reach out to lower-income persons. But making that a goal might have some bad fruit, where folks have to pass some doctrinal purity test or sit through (often schmaltzy, poorly given) evangelistic messages in order to get aid.
My sense is that church food banks and other charitable activities are more about generating and maintaining good PR for the church rather than getting more bums on pews.
Either or both are possible. I think different churches and different individuals have different motives and approaches to their charitable activities, with a variety of success. To some degree, pretty much everything we do has mixed motives-- none of us are as purely altruistic as we'd like to think we are. Which should not become an excuse to do nothing, but should cause us to be thoughtful about ongoing evaluation and reflection about both motives and means.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[b]. And most people in difficulty don't require such basic care from the church anyway. Their needs are probably more challenging or more subtle.
Perhaps it's a cross-pond different, but here in the US, it's both. Very much both.
When it comes to say, the bigger issues of homelessness, there are some "big picture" factors that need to be approached on multiple levels. Our church is partnering with both local and federal agencies, as well as other local churches, to address that thru the new "housing first" initiative. But while the "housing first" paradigm shows great promise, it is new, and expensive, and will take years-- or decades-- to house the more than 4000 homeless in our community. In the meantime, there's a lot that's needed in emergency aid-- the old-school stuff: food banks, bad weather shelters, showers, soup kitchen, etc. Very much "basic care" but still very much essential-- even while the more challenging and "subtle" aspects of holistic aid is slowly working.
--------------------
"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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It would be interesting to see if there's any studies to support the ecclesiastical legends that religious conversion leads to increase in socio-economic standing among the poor, which could be another explanation-- if true.
I don't think conversion itself increases socio-economic standing. The idea is rather that socialisation into the expectations of the church is likely to suppress the kinds of habits that can be detrimental to advancement, if you're starting from a low point. So(depending on the type of church) gambling, drunkenness, frequent changes in sexual partner, domestic violence, adultery, laziness, use of profane language, etc. may be deemed immoral in themselves - but they're also risky activities that can prevent you from getting on in life if you're not already cushioned by money or social capital.
Once you cut these behaviours out of your life, you'll be wasting less money, will have a calmer home, will be more employable, etc. and probably be better respected by your peers. Your progress is life will be more likely, and your children, if they inherit your new attitudes, will already be at an advantage.
That's exactly what I was referring to.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've never quite understood the British distinction between Working Class and Middle Class. OTOH in the States, class is largely a mere function of income/wealth.
I disagree strongly.
I think of my mother-in-law, who was born into a middle-class family. Her parents were missionaries in Japan, and she was born there. She married in this country and eventually gave birth to six sons. During the Depression life was somewhat of a struggle, but she and her husband managed. Then her husband was killed in an accident. She did not receive any insurance money. She did receive $26 a month from AFDC. They also received surplus food from the Agriculture Department.
At that time the oldest boy was sixteen and the two youngest were two and three. Her health was not good, and in any case there were no jobs available. Her parents could help a little, but only a little.
As soon as each of the boys was old enough, he took a part-time job to help support the family. They all did well in school, and all graduated from college (with scholarships). Several of them got graduate degrees.
I am convinced that her sons all succeeded because of the middle-class attitudes she had learned when growing up.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It would be interesting to see if there's any studies to support the ecclesiastical legends that religious conversion leads to increase in socio-economic standing among the poor, which could be another explanation-- if true.
I don't think conversion itself increases socio-economic standing. The idea is rather that socialisation into the expectations of the church is likely to suppress the kinds of habits that can be detrimental to advancement, if you're starting from a low point. So(depending on the type of church) gambling, drunkenness, frequent changes in sexual partner, domestic violence, adultery, laziness, use of profane language, etc. may be deemed immoral in themselves - but they're also risky activities that can prevent you from getting on in life if you're not already cushioned by money or social capital.
Once you cut these behaviours out of your life, you'll be wasting less money, will have a calmer home, will be more employable, etc. and probably be better respected by your peers. Your progress is life will be more likely, and your children, if they inherit your new attitudes, will already be at an advantage.
That's exactly what I was referring to.
In what sense do you think this scenario is likely to be simply an 'ecclesiastical legend'?
I would say it's a rare scenario only because British churches are hardly converting anyone from a poor background. British 'ecclesiastics' don't refer to upward mobility at all, even as legend, because it's been generations since it was part of church life. The mainstream clergy don't really expect Christianity to draw in and transform the lives of working class people, and the successful evangelical churches here tend to attract people who are already middle class - and I don't think anyone would claim that upward mobility somehow propels middle class converts into the aristocracy!!
The exception to this might be with regard to ethnic minority converts in, say, black-led churches; for example a young Rastaman from a tough background who ends up as a Pentecostal pastor and does his PhD in theology. But on the whole, the upwardly mobile trajectory is something I'm more likely to come across in a text on the sociology of religion, or in a book on church history.
(BTW, I fully recognise that your reference point is the USA. The USA is a special case with regards to religion and class, and it wouldn't surprise me to hear that things are rather different there.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It would be interesting to see if there's any studies to support the ecclesiastical legends that religious conversion leads to increase in socio-economic standing among the poor, which could be another explanation-- if true.
I don't think conversion itself increases socio-economic standing. The idea is rather that socialisation into the expectations of the church is likely to suppress the kinds of habits that can be detrimental to advancement, if you're starting from a low point. So(depending on the type of church) gambling, drunkenness, frequent changes in sexual partner, domestic violence, adultery, laziness, use of profane language, etc. may be deemed immoral in themselves - but they're also risky activities that can prevent you from getting on in life if you're not already cushioned by money or social capital.
Once you cut these behaviours out of your life, you'll be wasting less money, will have a calmer home, will be more employable, etc. and probably be better respected by your peers. Your progress is life will be more likely, and your children, if they inherit your new attitudes, will already be at an advantage.
That's exactly what I was referring to.
In what sense do you think this scenario is likely to be simply an 'ecclesiastical legend'?
If you'll refer to the original reference, you'll see I was wondering aloud if there was any research to support the legend. iow, this is the sort of thing I have often heard reported, but usually by church people (like me) who do have something to gain from the notion. So I was genuinely wondering if any research supports it. So it's "legend" for me at this point only because I don't know one way or the other if it's true.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I am convinced that her sons all succeeded because of the middle-class attitudes she had learned when growing up.
So what are these "middle class attitudes" and what would have happened to her if she didn't have them?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
cliffdweller
I didn't realise initially that you were looking for someone to post some links. I was going to look for some after your latest message, but I've stopped to think about your experience, as you've described it. Have you found that many of the Protestant churches and denominations in your setting have always seemed pretty middle class, except for these legends that appear to have no connection to the present? If so, that's very interesting.
The theory of the Protestant work ethnic, the experience of British Nonconformity (especially the history of British Methodism), and the development of Pentecostalism all seem to speak of the gradual upward mobility of Protestant church members and congregations. This is something that I've seen signs of and felt and read about in various texts. But your posts indicate that not all Protestants in non-established churches can see signs of this heritage. Maybe it indicates that some churches in some places have been so consumed by their middle class present that nothing else seems possible.
Yours is a very different experience from mine, and on reflection I don't know if links about the kinds of churches I have in mind would be particularly meaningful or relevant to your context. I'd be interested to see if anyone else can find something suitable.
[ 20. December 2015, 01:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Was it Dorothy Parker who said "Methodist ain't chic, Episcopalian is". And of course the much older saying (of which there are many variations) that the carriage drives past the chapel door by the second generation. The latter of course owed a lot to the C of E's status as established, but given the rapid growth of Methodism in the 13 colonies, the lower status of Methodism is harder to understand.
Anglicanism in Sydney shows another pattern. The traditional old-fashioned low church group remains much better established in the better-off suburbs, and most of the stole parishes are in similar locations. The Moore College group tend to be in the newer or less comfortable suburbs. They are where the so-called community churches are located lso.Then, CCSL, the bastion of AngloCatholicism in Sydney, has a long and honourable tradition of outreach to the poor and fringes of society. The soup kitchens it operated in the Depression were a great work.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
My Anglo Catholic church is very much the province of the university educated brigade although we happily accept all and don't discriminate. I think there is much less of a class system in Australia than some other countries.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
cliffdweller
I didn't realise initially that you were looking for someone to post some links. I was going to look for some after your latest message, but I've stopped to think about your experience, as you've described it. Have you found that many of the Protestant churches and denominations in your setting have always seemed pretty middle class, except for these legends that appear to have no connection to the present? If so, that's very interesting.
The theory of the Protestant work ethnic, the experience of British Nonconformity (especially the history of British Methodism), and the development of Pentecostalism all seem to speak of the gradual upward mobility of Protestant church members and congregations. This is something that I've seen signs of and felt and read about in various texts. But your posts indicate that not all Protestants in non-established churches can see signs of this heritage. Maybe it indicates that some churches in some places have been so consumed by their middle class present that nothing else seems possible.
Yours is a very different experience from mine, and on reflection I don't know if links about the kinds of churches I have in mind would be particularly meaningful or relevant to your context. I'd be interested to see if anyone else can find something suitable.
You're taking my pondering waaay more seriously than I intended it. Really, it was just a "wondering aloud". I
think it's true, but don't want to claim it's so without having some basis of research behind it. I certainly know individuals who fit the pattern-- but I also know counter-examples. So it would take a true sociological study to determine if it's more than just observation effect. I'm not really trying to get us sidetracked one way or the other, just curious if anyone knew of any such research.
--------------------
"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 Lord Clonk:
It is a frustration that Quakers seem to be pretty middle class from what I am aware. What about other denominations?
I haven't come across a Quaker who wasn't middle class. Teachers and Lectutrers feature prominently.
Again, IME they do have a tendancy to forget that church meetings aren't the classroom and they don't need to try and treat everyone like small children .... it's quite a passive/aggressive presentation, in fact, with one Meeting "forcing" the local Church Together to rewrite the Constitution to fit in with their views. .
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On broad terms I think Svitlana's observations about the 'legend' fit the UK situation well.
We'd have to go back to the early 1900s and with a slight stretch into the 1920s and '30s to find mant examples of the 'upward mobility' effect on the 'indigeneous' urban poor ... although I've seen it suggested that the 'labouring poor' had become largely disenfranchised from the churched by at least the early 1700s.
If that's the case, it's not a new phenomenon.
As for Quakers being middle-class - of course they are? How could they be otherwise? The reason so many Quaker families excelled in 'trade' was because they were barred from the usual routes into the 'professions'.
It's only in recent years that the Society of Friends has expanded beyond its 'dynastic', Quaker-family base. The movement has changed almost beyond recognition since around 1950 - and most Quakers now aren't of Quaker heritage, as it were.
By and large, these days - any group that attracts principled participants from outside is likely to be middle-class or 'professional' in feel.
The exceptions tend to be the Pentecostals.
Back in the day, of course, The Salvation Army attracted large numbers of working-class converts - but we're looking at close-knit industrial communities - pit villages, docklands, mill-towns - of a kind that no longer exist - or which only exist in pockets.
--------------------
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
On broad terms I think Svitlana's observations about the 'legend' fit the UK situation well.
We'd have to go back to the early 1900s and with a slight stretch into the 1920s and '30s to find mant examples of the 'upward mobility' effect on the 'indigeneous' urban poor ... although I've seen it suggested that the 'labouring poor' had become largely disenfranchised from the churched by at least the early 1700s.
If that's the case, it's not a new phenomenon.
As for Quakers being middle-class - of course they are? How could they be otherwise? The reason so many Quaker families excelled in 'trade' was because they were barred from the usual routes into the 'professions'.
It's only in recent years that the Society of Friends has expanded beyond its 'dynastic', Quaker-family base. The movement has changed almost beyond recognition since around 1950 - and most Quakers now aren't of Quaker heritage, as it were.
By and large, these days - any group that attracts principled participants from outside is likely to be middle-class or 'professional' in feel.
The exceptions tend to be the Pentecostals.
Back in the day, of course, The Salvation Army attracted large numbers of working-class converts - but we're looking at close-knit industrial communities - pit villages, docklands, mill-towns - of a kind that no longer exist - or which only exist in pockets.
--------------------
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 Gamaliel:
We'd have to go back to the early 1900s and with a slight stretch into the 1920s and '30s to find mant examples of the 'upward mobility' effect on the 'indigeneous' urban poor ... although I've seen it suggested that the 'labouring poor' had become largely disenfranchised from the churched by at least the early 1700s.
To a large extent this was dependent on a set of historical contingencies that largely no longer exist (mass labor and so on), after all the flip side to the working class religious autodidact, was the kind of philosophies which in the secular world led to things like the WEA.
To that extent we are more likely to see it's effect abroad - and indeed there are examples of this phenomena in places like Brazil and so on.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Well, the great age of education has gone. That was the generation born before World War II. In them, you can find examples of deputy-VCs whose fathers worked on the factory floor having left school at 12 (I am thinking of a specific case). They got into secondary school because of one of the school act that made it compulsory and got into university because of local council grants. They were bright. I suspect that in today climate every single one of them would be Oxbridge as the total university size was so much smaller, pre 1960s expansion and many gained places despite the priority being ex-service men. No, we are not going to see that again today. It would be unreasonable too.
However, please do not tell me I am the only person who has been in congregations where a person from a working class background has found a home and gained some middle-class form? If that is the case then it is clear that the poor old URC is doing less badly than so many others who pride themselves on their inclusiveness. We have them, usually not many, about 1% of a congregation but they are there.
Jengie
--------------------
"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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And the Lord just gave me a picture of an ever diminishing swirl going down the plug-hole with three distinct shades of black, white and grey.
10,000 years.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The exceptions tend to be the Pentecostals.
As you know, Andrew Walker
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) who was originally a Welsh Apostolic claims that Charismatics are basically middle-class Pentecostals (and without their "nous" for charlatanism).
I have been told that I sound "too posh" to be a Baptist minister.
[ 20. December 2015, 12:07: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Please do not tell me I am the only person who has been in congregations where a person from a working class background has found a home and gained some middle-class form? If that is the case then it is clear that the poor old URC is doing less badly than so many others who pride themselves on their inclusiveness. We have them, usually not many, about 1% of a congregation but they are there.
Jengie
The only church I know where I suspect that's happening is a Baptist church. The congregation is seriously committed to evangelism, and particularly to youth work. Since it's an inner city area, the people they work with are not well off. But there are some well-paid professionals in the congregation. And the minister is a former public school boy.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Plenty of working-class RC and Anglo-Catholic priests, if that counts Jengie.
I agree that the RCC crosses class boundaries more successfully than other denominations - one Dead Horse in particular is behind that I suppose - and in many places in the UK it is still very much an immigrant church, just now Polish rather than Irish.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My sense is that church food banks and other charitable activities are more about generating and maintaining good PR for the church rather than getting more bums on pews.
The trouble is that churches doing this are DOING GOOD FOR the poor rather than being churches OF the poor.
We are called to do good for the poor. That's not trouble that's being true to our calling as Christians.
Creating a church OF the poor implies we can do something to make them come to church, or make them coalesce into a church of their own creating. If you can find a way to do that, more power to you, although it seems rather a patronizing attitude from the get-go. We can preach the gospel, but if a poor person (not "the poor" which is an arm's-length abstraction, but a poor person, and then another poor person, and then another) doesn't want to be associated with church, or go to one, or even check out what it's like (so many probably know all too well), that's their do's and not ours.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The point is that church is seen by many working class as a bunch of do-gooders who want to 'kelp' the poor but who don't crusade to change the system so that there are no 'poor'.
Running food banks exhonerates the Tories' austerity agenda.
This doesn't have to necessarily be true, but agree that it can too often be the case.
The churches in the town I live in run the local food bank - actual organisation against austerity is done by a community group which I suspect not many Christians are either familiar with (they run a cafe/bar among other things in the centre of town so are reasonably visible) or regard with suspicion.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I was also suspicious of food banks, initially. But I think that the amount of data that they have collected about food hunger, and the petulant response that they have provoked from IDS etc when they publish it, shows that they can also be an agent of political change.
I also now see them as an expression of solidarity and sharing, which is in stark contrast to the economic actor model so beloved of our neo-liberal rulers.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thing is, Lord Clonk, if the Quakers where you are tend to be more middle class, what are you going to do about it?
I presume you are a Friend, otherwise you wouldn't have highlighted the Quakers rather than, say, the Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, RCs or any other church or denomination ...
I'm reminded of something I heard Grayson Perry, the Turner Prize-winning artist say on Radio 4 one time ... he was observing how many art galleries and other arty organisations sometimes employ people specifically to attract punters from lower socio-economic groups ... or put grant bids together for that purpose.
He thought this was daft.
'How often,' he said, 'Do we hear about the local Stock Car Racing ground or Greyhound Racing stadium getting together to see how they can attract more middle class people?'
I can see his point. I'm not sure what the answer is, though ...
Should churches 'target' particular groups or should they just whatever good they can, whenever they can - as John Wesley advocated - irrespective of any anticipated outcome - whether in PR terms, the assuasion of bourgeois guilt or whatever else ... ?
How would you go about broadening the demography of your local Friends' Meeting Houses, Lord Clonk?
--------------------
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
