Ship of Fools: How are evangelical Anglicans different?

Thread: How are evangelical Anglicans different? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020076

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Over on the 'Bash Camp' assault and battery thread, Sipech asserts that the term 'evangelical' is understood differently among evangelical Anglicans than it is among evangelicals of other persuasions.

I was intrigued by this as I've been around evangelical circles since 1981 and other than the shape or pattern of services - and that's less pronounced these days - I can't say I've ever detected any substantial difference between evangelical Anglicans and evangelical Baptists or evangelical Methodists or evangelicals in any other setting I've encountered.

I'd be interested if Sipech could specify what these differences are from his perspective and how he believes Anglicans 'do' define evangelicalism.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

As an adult Christian my initial formation was with Icthus and being solidly, Middle Middle Class, I fitted right in, socially at least. I recently, for various complicated reasons, spent a weekend with a bunch of Anglican evangelicals who were very lovely but my posh-dar was off the scale. Doctrinally that makes no difference whatsoever. I'm guessing that it does make a difference in praxis but an evangelical, who didn't flee shrieking from the scene in the 1990s, would have to explain how that works in practice. I think it might explain why Anglican evangelicals don't join the Baptists, or whoever, rather than the C of E. It isn't unvarying rule, I hasten to add, the last but one evangelical ABC hailed from London's glamorous east end. And I don't set forth any of this as a criticism - none of us get to choose our parents - just an observation. If you put me in a room with a bunch of evangelicals who were all sworn to keep their denomination from me over the course of an evening I would guess the posh ones were C of E and I would probably be 80% right.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

As I have related before, I (professional middle-class and public school background) have been told that I "sounded too posh to be a Baptist"!

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I think it depends on exactly how one defines the term Evangelical and the niche one finds oneself within in the CofE. There are at least 3 sizable Evangelical factions in the CofE. Very broadly they might be defined as Kewswick, Spring Harvest and New Wine churches.

We might broadly say that the first is closer to more conservative forms of Presbyterian and stricter Reformed Baptist. The second might be more comfortable amongst many Methodists and BU Baptists, the third closer to Vineyard and Pentecoastal churches.

Of course, it is more complex than this oversimplified characterisation and there is now considerable overlap between Anglicans who take cues from New Wine, Spring Harvest, HTB etc.

On one level there is necessarily a difference between the strictest Presbyterian and/or Reformed Baptists and Anglicans, if only because the former rarely recognise the Anglican structures as legitimate. Some Evangelicals exist who believe that there is only one Biblical form of government and the Episcopate isn't it.

But if you've only ever hung around with SH Anglicans and friends, you wouldn't have ever experienced this tension.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
As I have related before, I (professional middle-class and public school background) have been told that I "sounded too posh to be a Baptist"!

Out of interest, do you ever feel that from a class perspective (rather than a theological or personal one, etc.) you'd fit better into an evangelical Anglican setting rather than a Baptist one?

Talking of posh Anglicans, I worshipped at a Methodist FE the other night, and the preacher was a smooth-tongued lawyer, waxing lyrical about what he learnt on a monastic retreat. I immediately thought he must be CofE, although he wasn't introduced as such. Evangelical too? I don't know, but he certainly didn't have the normal MOTR preacher vibe that I'm used to.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

My experience of the Baptists is that they generally are posher than they think they are ... but all these things are relative.

I don't particularly want to focus on the class thing, and yes, that does come into it of course ...

I grew up in South Wales and at that time the denominations were fairly stratified in terms of social class, although to be frank, there wasn't a great deal of demographic difference between the Anglicans and Baptists.

It tended to go as follows:

Anglicans
Methodists
Baptists
Salvation Army
Pentecostals

But I'm talking a good while back now ...

Now, I think mr cheesy is right that when it comes to the Spring Harvest axis there ain't a great deal of difference between Anglican evangelicals and Baptist ones, for instance ...

You do get posh public school types in HTB and other charismatic Anglican circles, but to be fair, we also used to get some of those in the restorationist churches even - mainly the scions of missionary families who'd sent their kids home to the UK to public schools ...

We also had a smattering of former Anglican charismatics. On the whole, though, the demographic was fairly lower-middle class/upper working class and there were discernible north/south differences.

The class issue is interesting in and of itself, but it's not the issue I'm trying to address here.

I'm wondering why Sipech believes Anglican evangelicalism to be a somewhat different species to the evangelicalism found elsewhere.

Of course, there are different tribes within Anglican evangelicalism - 'Prayer Book Evangelicals' (in decline), the Reform type of Anglican evangelical, the Spring Harvest type, the New Wine type and so on ...

So no, it's not monolithic ...

But I'm wondering why Sipech believes it to be so distinct. I've never noticed and I'm pretty good on picking up nuances and differences.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

There's also a praxis distinction, or at least I think there is.

As evangelicals, none of them go for things like English use or baroque ceremonial. However there are those that really do prefer the ways of conducting services that go with the lower end of MotR. They are most comfortable expressing their day to day faith that way. They find it nourishing. Then there are those who think liturgy is all a bit of a nuisance. They think it quenches peoples' spirits rather than nourishes them. It gets in the way of reaching the unreached. These people would really rather get rid of it if they thought they could get away with it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, I've come across that a fair bit from evangelical Anglicans in the New Wine stable ...

When I tell them that as a former 'new church' dude and non-conformist, I have a soft-spot for liturgy they look at me daft ... as we used to say in South Wales.

They really can't see the attraction - or they can, if pushed, but they grudgingly accept it ...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
As I have related before, I (professional middle-class and public school background) have been told that I "sounded too posh to be a Baptist"!
Out of interest, do you ever feel that from a class perspective (rather than a theological or personal one, etc.) you'd fit better into an evangelical Anglican setting rather than a Baptist one?

In some ways, yes - though I am "broader" these days than out-and-out Evangelical. I actually more akin to most URC folk than Baptist, and I like good liturgy.

However my theological position is for Believers@ Baptism, Congregational church government and non-Establishment. Having said that, if in my old age I found myself living in a village where the only church was Anglican, I'd support it.

[ 07. February 2017, 17:14: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I can see that, Baptist Trainfan and SvitlanaV2 ... although part of me wants to very much guard against identifying particular denominations with particular social classes and so on ...

The question from SvitlanaV2 - and please correct me if I'm wrong - rather suggestions that being Anglican or being a Baptist are conditional on particular class-positions as it were ...

Why the heck should Baptist Trainfan be Anglican rather than Baptist given that he went to public school ...

Heck, I went to a bog-standard comprehensive school in South Wales. Does that mean I shouldn't be Anglican but a Baptist instead? Or any other church or denomination we might care to mention?

[Ultra confused]

There are a whole range of factors involved in issues like this and class/demography is just one among many.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You do get posh public school types in HTB and other charismatic Anglican circles, but to be fair, we also used to get some of those in the restorationist churches even - mainly the scions of missionary families who'd sent their kids home to the UK to public schools ...

You will, I'm sure, know that there is an interesting observation to be made about English (I use the word advisedly) Pentecostalism and social class. Two of the men who first promulgated it (Cecil Polhill-Turner and Alexander Boddy) were Anglican. The former was "landed gentry", Cambridge educated and an ex-missionary while the latter, although less posh, was a son of the Vicarage in a day when difference to the clergy was still strong. There is an argument to be made that they got "frozen out" of the movement by folk from humbler backgrounds such as Smith Wigglesworth.

[ 07. February 2017, 17:21: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

@ Gamaliel - I was brought up Anglican and became a Baptist by conviction when I was about 18. My father definitely thought I was going down-market!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

The question from SvitlanaV2 - and please correct me if I'm wrong - rather suggestions that being Anglican or being a Baptist are conditional on particular class-positions as it were ...

Why the heck should Baptist Trainfan be Anglican rather than Baptist given that he went to public school ...

IF you read my post again you'll see I took the trouble in my post above to acknowledge that there are theological and personal reasons for becoming a member of a particular denomination.

FWIW, my impression is that the CofE is actually more mixed class wise than many of the various Nonconformist churches.

[ 07. February 2017, 17:57: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

So no, it's not monolithic ...

No it's not monolithic, on the other hand there is a general difference that isn't one of these 'both and' type of conclusions.

I think you are correct that baptists in certain parts of the country are a lot posher than they realise - often because they come from backgrounds that have become gentrified over time without realising it.

OTOH, you aren't going to have Iwerne mk II coming from the Baptist Union, I suspect.

I grew up in the inner city (before it became fancy as per up thread), and while I attended a charismatic church I mixed with a group of people from the local CofE, including the then vicars kids - and while there weren't always class differences there was a sense in which you were socialised into a different set of assumptions about life.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

.. and to continue on that theme, there is a certain amount of cross over among conevo anglicans, certain independent Baptist churches and small Reformed/Presbyterian churches around the country which generally end up recruiting with much the same people.

Reading Fraser's piece I'd just like to pick out a couple of things:

"”. This ideal of manly Christian decency, all side partings and blazers, survives. It’s why the evangelical Alpha Course uses someone like Bear Grylls as its advertising poster boy."

Certainly rings true if you have ever been to the London Men's Convention or associated events.

"And this is why the Church of England hierarchy remains obsessed with maintaining the Anglican communion (ie what’s left of the empire) "

Which is an interesting point to be made alongside the observation that conevos generally tend to be very skeptical of hierarchy, unless it's some Bishop/Arch Bishop from the developing world.

[ 07. February 2017, 18:27: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Then again there are Anglican Evangelicals in the North of the UK.....and Anglican Evangelicals in the South of the UK......

[ 07. February 2017, 18:52: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

OK maybe this is easier (albeit probably overgeneralised) to do the other way around. Anglican churches which have a particular affinity to HTB tend to be middle-class professionals. In London they tend to include a lot of lawyers, barristers etc. Leaders often seem to be ex-lawyers or ex-barristers.

Anglican churches which have a close affinity to New Wine might arguably fit a lower social strata. Often is attractive to students and young vicars, and those vicars often arrived from lower-status middle-management jobs.

Conservative Evangelical Anglicans I know less about, but I suspect congregations are probably middle-aged and largely public sector jobs. Vicars probably older and maybe have less of a professional background.

I know that's a wild generalisation. I think there is also quite a large group of Anglican churches who are not the "closest" group to New Wine or Spring Harvest who might be more "standard" parish churches who maybe aspire to be in one of the other groups but never quite make it.

I'm not sure that those social distinctions (if they're in any sense real) are hard to overlay onto other kinds of Evangelical church.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

Conservative Evangelical Anglicans I know less about, but I suspect congregations are probably middle-aged and largely public sector jobs. Vicars probably older and maybe have less of a professional background.

You are forgetting that a lot of them take their cue from St Helens/All Souls etc, which are in some ways as professional as the HTB crowd - if not sometimes more so.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
You are forgetting that a lot of them take their cue from St Helens/All Souls etc, which are in some ways as professional as the HTB crowd - if not sometimes more so.

I'm less familiar with this tribe. The only conservative evangelical congregations I've known (vicars wearing suits, no vestments, limited liturgy, PSA sermons) seemed to have much weaker links to central London churches than the HTB churches have with HTB. I'm not sure the dynammic is quite the same.

Posted by wabale (# 18715) on :

Although I might be fairly described as a 'Conservative Evangelical', I have always preferred the term Christian as I think it's the only one that really matters. I became a Christian through the ministry of a man called Patrick at the place of work where I was doing a summer job. He preached at an independent Evangelical church, but was not attached to it.
Shortly afterwards I went to a University where my history tutor was also the college chaplain. That said, I think the reason I got confirmed in the C of E was probably simply that many of my friends belonged to it, not out of any particular conviction.
So when some years later I married a Baptist, I would have been quite happy to have attended a Baptist Church, though probably not to 'become a Baptist'. My wife did eventually get confirmed. At one point, when we had a particularly dictatorial vicar, we did contemplate defecting to a Baptist church, but the vicar left just as we were about to run.
My point is that as long as you don't have very strong views on ecclesiology there are some brands of evangelicalism which are pretty much interchangeable. One of the division lines is probably class, and because we are not in a posh area Alpha talks have always been done by the vicar rather than via the Nicky Gumbel DVD. Although my own C of E church regards itself as Evangelical, it is basically a village church, sadly now pretty much the village church. It therefore features fewer Evangelical tribal features than an Evangelical church in a city or suburb.
The fault-line within evangelicalism which I have become increasingly aware of, even living in the Styx, or perhaps because of living in the Styx, is I suspect, to do with American evangelical influence. I find myself increasingly at odds with those evangelicals, particularly those in preaching or other leadership roles, to whom Creationism and resisting the 'myth' of climate change are articles of faith. For example I recently wrote to my local 'Christian Bookshop', ie Evangelical Bookshop, suggesting that their Science shelf might have at least one book setting out the case that you could believe in both Creation and Evolution without having to make a choice between the two. I got a sharp letter back pointing out that their books on Creation gave the 'scientific' reasons why Creationism alone was true, that the book that I suggested was 'unfair', and that I was not an Evangelical and I shouldn't believe in atheistic philosophy!

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm less familiar with this tribe. The only conservative evangelical congregations I've known (vicars wearing suits, no vestments, limited liturgy, PSA sermons) seemed to have much weaker links to central London churches than the HTB churches have with HTB. I'm not sure the dynammic is quite the same.

I agree that the dynamic isn't quite the same, though I'd disagree that this makes it any less weak.

The links just happen at a slightly different level (Christianity Explored, Word Alive, some pastors conferences, the same mix of authors books pushed and so on). If for 'HTB church' you read 'Reform linked church' the similarities become more pronounced.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Interesting observations, Wabale.

I'm on the periphery of evangelicalism these days, but I have noticed an increasing emphasis on Creationism and various other US influences - less so among Anglican evangelicals ... So perhaps that's a difference ...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
... The fault-line within evangelicalism which I have become increasingly aware of, even living in the Styx, or perhaps because of living in the Styx, is I suspect, to do with American evangelical influence. I find myself increasingly at odds with those evangelicals, particularly those in preaching or other leadership roles, to whom Creationism and resisting the 'myth' of climate change are articles of faith. For example I recently wrote to my local 'Christian Bookshop', ie Evangelical Bookshop, suggesting that their Science shelf might have at least one book setting out the case that you could believe in both Creation and Evolution without having to make a choice between the two. I got a sharp letter back pointing out that their books on Creation gave the 'scientific' reasons why Creationism alone was true, that the book that I suggested was 'unfair', and that I was not an Evangelical and I shouldn't believe in atheistic philosophy!

It may be that I live in a part of the country that is regionally more idiosyncratic than I realise, or it may be that nobody talks about this and so I've never noticed, but I can only think of one evangelical CofE person I know who I suspect is a creationist, and they aren't in any position of authority. I don't get the impression there are many creationists round here at all. I would strongly suspect those that are will not be CofE.

Going back to social stratification by denomination, there used to be regional differences which go back to whether there is a tradition of Old Dissent. In parts of the country where Old Dissent was strong (e.g. much of the East Midlands) I got the impression when I was young that in towns, there were sometimes two parallel establishments, one CofE and the other, Old Dissent, usually Congregationalist, i.e. now URC. If a town had a Congregationalist establishment, they pecked above the Baptists. If it didn't, the parallel establishment could be Baptist.

In parts of the country where dissent came later, e.g. much of the north, dissent was usually Methodist. There might well be a parallel establishment that was Methodist. But in areas where there was an Old Dissent establishment, Methodists tended to peck below both Congregationalists and Baptists.

Outside towns, since the Civil War, it has been very unusual for gentry to be anything other than CofE or occasionally recusant.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

There are also different strands within Baptist circles. There's the Grace vs General (BUGB) divide, with the former being Calvinistic and more hard line.

Within BUGB there are a range of tribes from reformed across to Pentecostal and all shades in between. That will have an expression in style and approach from Keswick to Spring Harvest across to New Wine (and every shade in between).

Me? I'm a crossover of the latter two with aspects of the former (the holiness bit).

IME most baptist churches are middle class but again there's a range. A lot of BUGB churches reflect their immediate geographical context and community which can lead to some wide variations - from Gold Hill (Amersham commuter land) to churches on council estates or working with refugees.

There's still a residual poshness in some Baptist circles but it's more reflective of "connections" to well known Baptist families as opposed to a class driven thing. I've only heard the odd comment that I'm not as thick as I look or sound, being from a working class background on a council estate hasn't caused too many problems. Then again ...perhaps it's the degrees from a Fenland University which change some people's perception.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
In parts of the country where Old Dissent was strong (e.g. much of the East Midlands) I got the impression when I was young that in towns, there were sometimes two parallel establishments, one CofE and the other, Old Dissent, usually Congregationalist, i.e. now URC. If a town had a Congregationalist establishment, they pecked above the Baptists. If it didn't, the parallel establishment could be Baptist.

Exactly. In our town centre, the CofE has always been the "civic church" for "county" people, while the church I serve (Old Dissent Congregationalist going back to the 17th century, now merged with a later Baptist church) served the posher "trades" people. It has been hard for either congregation to realise that "times have changed".

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

To be honest, if we take the more obviously elitist 'Bash Camp's type evangelicals out of the equation - I'd say there is very, very little difference between Anglican evangelicals and mainstream Baptist evangelicals these days.

This applies particularly at the Spring Harvest and New Wine end of things.

What the Baptist evangelicals don't tend to have, of course, is a 'High church' element to define themselves against and the liberal wing within the BUGB is smaller than it is in the CofE.

I use 'High Church' in the Anglo-Catholic sense here.

Consequently, I think it's fair to say that many Baptist evangelicals are less 'self-conscious' about their evangelicalism than some Anglican evangelicals, who feel the need to wear their evangelicalism on their sleeve a bit more. With Baptist evangelicals they are pretty much surrounded by other evangelicals and so don't feel so much of a need to trumpet their evangelicalism to members of their own denomination - although that does happen.

Other than that relatively minor characteristic, I don't think there's a great deal of difference. They attend the same conferences, read the same books, sing the same songs ...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
With Baptist evangelicals they are pretty much surrounded by other evangelicals and so don't feel so much of a need to trumpet their evangelicalism to members of their own denomination - although that does happen.

Indeed: it's the more "liberal" and "high church" Baptists who wave flags saying, "Don't forget us! We're here!"

[ 08. February 2017, 07:25: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be honest, if we take the more obviously elitist 'Bash Camp's type evangelicals out of the equation - I'd say there is very, very little difference between Anglican evangelicals and mainstream Baptist evangelicals these days.

This applies particularly at the Spring Harvest and New Wine end of things.

I think there *may* be a difference in the direction to whom these groups look for resources. What I mean by that is that Evangelical Anglicans of different types have access to resources by Evangelical Anglicans - and generally look to themselves for leadership (not forgetting that both New Wine and HTB are fundamentally Anglican Evangelical structures).

Baptists and Independent Evangelicals (who are in the same track) often use the Anglican Evangelical resources but seem less tied to them, and might look elsewhere for additional input. So an Anglican church might be a member of the Evangelical Alliance, but a Baptist or Independent Evangelical church might be more inclined to promote the Christian Institute and might more regularly have speakers from those organisations.

Baptists and Independent Evangelicals (and other evangelicals, charismatics etc) who are steps divorced from the Anglical Evangelicals have their own resources and conferences and might not interact with Anglicans at all.

quote:
What the Baptist evangelicals don't tend to have, of course, is a 'High church' element to define themselves against and the liberal wing within the BUGB is smaller than it is in the CofE.

I use 'High Church' in the Anglo-Catholic sense here.

Kinda hard to see what a High Church Baptist might look like in reality. I suppose that's basically the uncomfortable ground where I stand - attracted to many things about Higher-than-Middle Anglicanism but disagree with many of the theology that goes with it. Liturgically I'm Anglican, theologically I'm baptist.

But generally speaking the spread of people (theology and practice) in a Baptist church is going to be different to those in an Evangelical Anglican church, albeit with a significant overlap. Anglo-Catholics don't exist so much in the Baptist church but then Reformed believers-baptism Evangelicals don't tend to exist so much in the Anglican church. I've known both, but they tend to keep their heads down.

quote:
Consequently, I think it's fair to say that many Baptist evangelicals are less 'self-conscious' about their evangelicalism than some Anglican evangelicals, who feel the need to wear their evangelicalism on their sleeve a bit more. With Baptist evangelicals they are pretty much surrounded by other evangelicals and so don't feel so much of a need to trumpet their evangelicalism to members of their own denomination - although that does happen.

Not sure what you are meaning here. There certainly exist Conservative Anglican congregations whose Evangelicalism is something they wear prominently.

quote:
Other than that relatively minor characteristic, I don't think there's a great deal of difference. They attend the same conferences, read the same books, sing the same songs ...

There certainly is convergence across denominations (as we've agreed before) but I'm not sure there is so much overlap between Conservative Evangelical Anglicans and (let's say) hymnbook Baptists (inside the BU and out). The further one goes in a Reformed direction, the less convergence there is and the differences become bigger.

I do think those extremes are gradually shrinking within the BU and the Anglican church - and other types of church are taking up the slack.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

It was quite a number of years ago that David Coffey (former Baptist Union General Secretary) wrote his book outlining the "tribes of Evangelicalism" and pleading for more unity between them.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Kinda hard to see what a High Church Baptist might look like in reality.

Something like this - although this was extreme and, of course, Congregational!

But we (admittedly URC as well as Baptist) have pews, an organ, a gowned minister and choir, responsive psalms (but no candles or incense!) - we are considered quite unusual by the other Baptist churches in town.

There is also the example of the Catholic Apostolic Church to consider - originally a charismatic offshoot of Presbyterianism, it ended up with an elaborate liturgy which, I suspect, I would have rather liked.

[ 08. February 2017, 08:14: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Huh, that's quite a thing. I have heard that various groups have been experimenting with Evensong and more formal service styles (it feels like we've had this conversation before, apologies if so..)

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

It's always helpful to look at an evangelical church's website.
Head for the Links section and all of a sudden one can tell exactly what's what.
[Biased]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ha - yes, that's right Ethne Alba ...

But I'm still waiting for Sipech to make an appearance and to tell us why evangelical Anglicans are so very different from other evangelicals in his view ...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I think that most churches' websites say a lot about them - intentionally or not!

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
There is also the example of the Catholic Apostolic Church to consider - originally a charismatic offshoot of Presbyterianism, it ended up with an elaborate liturgy which, I suspect, I would have rather liked.

I used to know two charming elderly maiden ladies who had been brought up among the Catholic Apostolics. They made the transition to Anglo-Catholicism quite seamlessly.

Tangentially, they were always good for one priceless dropped brick per pastoral visit. I once took great pleasure in informing Mrs Callan, who is a Methodist, that Methodism arose from Christianity. I was later informed - I was a NSM at the time - that it was years since the parish had had a proper curate. I mentioned this to a very holy and charming parishioner who responded "from now on Father, I shall think of you as the improper Curate". May their memories be eternal. I think the alternative space time continuum where the Catholic Apostolics survive into the 21st century would be an interesting one to visit.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by wabale:

quote:
it is basically a village church, sadly now pretty much the village church. It therefore features fewer Evangelical tribal features than an Evangelical church in a city or suburb.

Village religion is one of the most attractive features of the Church of England, IMO, inasmuch as you are obliged to get along with people who would otherwise worship somewhere else because there is nowhere else to go. I spent five very happy years looking after a village church which was basically small c and large C conservative and MOTR despite the fact that my churchpersonship is nose bleed high and my list of greatest Prime Ministers we never had includes Ed Miliband and Roy Jenkins. My two abiding memories are trying to get a PCC meeting, which was supposed to be discussing women bishops off the subject of Rowan Williams' guest editorship of the New Statesman, when he had a go at the coalition - I was sorely tempted to tell Deanery Synod that we were in favour of women bishops who voted Tory - and remarking to the PCC Secretary that dragging parishes up or down the candle was a waste of time before adding - what am I saying, I've just made you all sing Ye Who Own The Faith of Jesus. She thought it was quite funny but I suspect that if I had introduced incense or worn a white poppy I would have been dragged out and burned at the stake.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I once took great pleasure in informing Mrs Callan, who is a Methodist, that Methodism arose from Christianity.

I have been told more than once, "I used to be a Catholic, but now I'm a Christian" (well, we know what they mean); or asked, "Is this a Christian church?" (i.e. not Anglican, Catholic or whatever - less easy to suss out!)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

It happens the other way too. I once had a French Catholic ask me if Methodists were Christians....

[ 08. February 2017, 11:45: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It happens the other way too. I once had a French Catholic ask me if Methodists were Christians....

Methodism here had a very strong wowser element, so there's a lot of doubt.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

[Confused]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Do you not know wowsers? Those who think it wrong to have a cold beer after a game of cricket on a hot Saturday afternoon, think a glass of red at a bbq the work of the devil etc. How can such people really be Christians?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Cold beer?

Cold beer?!!

What is this cold beer of which you speak?

How can beer be beer if it is cold? *

* Actually, of course beer can be cold, but in some countries they chill the life out of it ...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

But some of us don't like beer. Does that mean that we are not among the Elect?

Good cider and wine, however ...

[ 08. February 2017, 19:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But some of us don't like beer. Does that mean that we are not among the Elect?

Good cider and wine, however ...

As I said, a glass of red at a bbq, and so forth is normal behaviour; it's the rejection of wholesome beverages mentioned in the Bible (and their close cousins, such as Scotch) that makes the wowser. Very strong in Methodism here - and dare I say it, the Baptists as well.

Gamaliel, nothing at all wrong with a good cold beer. Originally after a game on Saturday afternoon, as you grow into family life, after cutting the lawns on a Saturday afternoon etc.

[ 08. February 2017, 20:17: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

There's everything wrong with a cold beer if you chill any semblance of taste out of it. Not that many Aussie beers taste of anything in the first place, although in fairness, things seem to have improved from what I've heard. Cooper's is ok and there are others alongside that from what I've heard ...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Unless intentionally mulled, beer should be served at cellar temperature. That is neither 'ice-cold' the way people drink it in Australia, nor room temperature as in the reprehensible faux-nostalgia of having a row of barrels on a shelf behind the bar. 53°F is about right.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

53F? Translation required!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

This thread seems to have taken an unanticipated turn ...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It happens the other way too. I once had a French Catholic ask me if Methodists were Christians....
Methodism here had a very strong wowser element, so there's a lot of doubt.

Your comment was a joke, but I should make it clear that the lady in question was very unlikely to have been thinking about beer. She was simply ignorant about Methodism, as very many French people would be.

As for Australian Methodists, it surprises me to hear that they're teetotal. British Methodists were never entirely dry. In fact the Wesleyans, who were in the majority, mostly looked askance at the practice. And British Methodists today mention teetotalism only in jest, IME.

To get closer to the topic at hand, are Australian Methodists still considered to be evangelicals? There are still some British Methodist evangelicals (who appear to have little to do with the Anglican varieties). However, the denomination as a whole doesn't have a very evangelical reputation here now.

[ 09. February 2017, 00:32: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Marama (# 330) on :

That gets complicated. The only people calling themselves 'Methodists' in Australia are now a recent (well, 1940s) American group calling themselves Wesleyan Methodists (mainly in Victoria). All the rest are in the Uniting Church, which has flexible views on such things as alcohol. Some of those from a Methodist background abstain, many others don't really have much allegiance to any of the old constituent bits of the new UCA. I'm not sure whether the American group abstains -they probably do.

Posted by Marama (# 330) on :

The Wesleyan Methodists would certainly see themselves as evangelical. There is also an evangelical wing to the Uniting Church, but in general the denomination would be seen as liberal. Whether the evangelical wing comes more from the old Methodist uniters would be difficult to determine; it probably varies by state.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

You'd have a much better understanding than I do, but my outsider's impression is that at last there's some sort of Uniting Church approach rather than those of the constituents continuing. The school to which my father, son and I went was Presbyterian, and still has overtones of that. The chaplain when Dlet was in prep school and early years of senior school was a former Methodist and there was a fair disjunct between his approach and that of his predecessors - although despite his background,he did like a glass of red. His successors, at least while Dlet was there displayed a much more modern attitude to many questions.

Back to the tangent: the wife of a former Prime Minister described the gin and tonics on HMS Brittannia as very English - warm and weak. The beer's certainly too warm for my taste. Not sure about cellar temps here always being around 11 degrees C though. This evening the temp in mine is about 20, and that's an underground cellar.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It's a myth that the British drink 'warm' beer ... although it can be difficult to keep proper cask ale at the correct temperature. It's best kept in the cellar below the pub of course and must always, always, always be dispensed via hand-pump.

That doesn't mean that there aren't good 'craft beers' around that aren't cask - of course there are. But they are not the same as real ales.

From what I can gather, Aussies and Americans tend to freeze the life out of their beer, but I've heard that's changing.

For bottled British ale it depends on the brew, but slightly chilled is best ... not room temperature but not plunged to sub-zero temperatures either.

11 to 13 degrees Celsius would be about right.

Tangent over ... back to evangelical Anglicanism ...

I'm still wondering where Sipech is. He was the one who asserted that Anglican evangelicalism was a different beast to evangelicalism per se.

For what it's worth, I'd agree with Baptist Trainfan that back in the ASB days, Anglican evangelicalism was more recognisably 'Anglican' in feel than it tends to be today ...

Is that a loss?

Yes, I'd submit that it is.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Michael Saward certainly had something to say about that in "The Post-Evangelical Debate" where, after noting Dave Tomlinson's dissatisfaction with his church, showed how his Anglican variety was very different.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

But is it?

Posted by Edith (# 16978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My experience of the Baptists is that they generally are posher than they think they are ... but all these things are relative.

I don't particularly want to focus on the class thing, and yes, that does come into it of course ...

I grew up in South Wales and at that time the denominations were fairly stratified in terms of social class, although to be frank, there wasn't a great deal of demographic difference between the Anglicans and Baptists.

It tended to go as follows:

Anglicans
Methodists
Baptists
Salvation Army
Pentecostals

But I'm talking a good while back now ...

Now, I think mr cheesy is right that when it comes to the Spring Harvest axis there ain't a great deal of difference between Anglican evangelicals and Baptist ones, for instance ...

You do get posh public school types in HTB and other charismatic Anglican circles, but to be fair, we also used to get some of those in the restorationist churches even - mainly the scions of missionary families who'd sent their kids home to the UK to public schools ...

We also had a smattering of former Anglican charismatics. On the whole, though, the demographic was fairly lower-middle class/upper working class and there were discernible north/south differences.

The class issue is interesting in and of itself, but it's not the issue I'm trying to address here.

I'm wondering why Sipech believes Anglican evangelicalism to be a somewhat different species to the evangelicalism found elsewhere.

Of course, there are different tribes within Anglican evangelicalism - 'Prayer Book Evangelicals' (in decline), the Reform type of Anglican evangelical, the Spring Harvest type, the New Wine type and so on ...

So no, it's not monolithic ...

But I'm wondering why Sipech believes it to be so distinct. I've never noticed and I'm pretty good on picking up nuances and differences.

Posted by Edith (# 16978) on :

Whoops, that posted before I'd added the reply.

Which is where were the Catholics? Weren't there any, or were they so beyond the pale as to be unnoticed or shunned?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Edith, that's an interesting question.

Back in the 1950s or earlier, before Vatican II, in much of England and Wales, there weren't that many Catholics, and they really did keep themselves to themselves. Their own clergy discouraged them from mixing too much, for fear they would either get contaminated with Proddyness or would marry out. Things changed remarkably after Vatican II.

This will sound shocking now. I can still remember two different occasions when some us met Catholics in a sort of ecumenical context, and the surprise to discover they really weren't that different from the rest of us.

Objectively this may not be a totally true picture but at the time people got the impression that they were recusant aristocrats or either Irish or descended from fairly recent immigrants from Ireland. So they didn't fit conveniently into the typical provincial social structure, but there weren't enough of them for that to be significant.

The only parts of the country that were different were Liverpool, where the Irish proportion of the population was really significant and some parts of Lancashire where whole recusant communities existed or had migrated into the adjoining towns in the C19 as part of the Industrial Revolution. As I've never lived there, I don't know how that affected the social set up.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Good question, Edith. They were generally Irish and invisible, other than when fights broke out with Catholic kids from the RC junior school further down the street.

There were one or two posh Catholic families but by and large most Catholics were Irish and poor. They were less well dressed, had shoes that were falling apart and snotty names. We believed that the priests were pocketing the money from their raffle tickets ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

'snotty noses' that should have been ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

More seriously, other than that nine year old's perspective, RCs were generally fairly working class and strongly represented in local Labour Party politics.

There was a residual anti-Catholicism when I was growing up in South Wales. Everyone from otherwise MoTR Anglicans to raving Penties thought that the RCC was reprehensible and out to rip people off.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... There were one or two posh Catholic families but by and large most Catholics were Irish and poor. They were less well dressed, had shoes that were falling apart and snotty noses. ...

And of course, one reason for that was that by the time one was in one's teens and old enough to be allowed to hear such things, one's parents said it was all because their priests told them they'd be damned if they used those wicked Protestant engines. So they had huge numbers of children, couldn't look after them and couldn't afford to give them decent shoes. [Mad]

Gamaliel, I'm sure you're old enough to have heard that one!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
More seriously, other than that nine year old's perspective, RCs were generally fairly working class and strongly represented in local Labour Party politics.
....

Still some noticeably Irish/ RC influences in S Wales Labour- e.g. from your old stamping ground Paul Murphy (KCSG etc), longstanding MP for Torfaen, his successor Nick Thomas-Symonds, Kevin Brennan (MP Cardiff West), Paul Flynn MP Newport West, etc. More widely, the RC/Labour voter correlation still holds up, according to most of the research on these things.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thanks Albertus - yes, those are names to conjure with ...

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... There were one or two posh Catholic families but by and large most Catholics were Irish and poor. They were less well dressed, had shoes that were falling apart and snotty noses. ...
And of course, one reason for that was that by the time one was in one's teens and old enough to be allowed to hear such things, one's parents said it was all because their priests told them they'd be damned if they used those wicked Protestant engines. So they had huge numbers of children, couldn't look after them and couldn't afford to give them decent shoes.

Gamaliel, I'm sure you're old enough to have heard that one!

MR. HARRY BLACKITT: Look at them, bloody Catholics, filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed.

MRS. BLACKITT: What are we dear?

MR. BLACKITT: Protestant, and fiercely proud of it.

MRS. BLACKITT: Hmm. Well, why do they have so many children?

MR. BLACKITT: Because... every time they have sexual intercourse, they have to have a baby.

(Python, Monty. But you knew that.)

[ 13. February 2017, 14:42: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I remember the old joke that a well-dressed man in the area would be a Protestant, and probably the rent man. Don't answer the door. (More of a Liverpool joke really).

[ 13. February 2017, 15:08: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

The only parts of the country that were different were Liverpool, where the Irish proportion of the population was really significant and some parts of Lancashire where whole recusant communities existed or had migrated into the adjoining towns in the C19 as part of the Industrial Revolution.

To which you can of course add Birmingham - which has the third largest St Patrick's Day parade after Dublin and New York, and which had sufficient RC population to get the first Roman Catholic cathedral to be built in England since the Reformation.

Now, it's an interesting question why the Birmingham Irish fly so far under the radar* - everyone thinks of Liverpool because it faces Ireland but actually Birmingham at various points since the 19th century has given Liverpool a run for its money as "most Irish city" in England.
It's never really had the sectarian split of football teams either - unlike Glasgow and Liverpool.

*there's a story (probably apocryphal but still current in the city) that after the pub bombings the city fathers quietly had a word through intermediaries pointing out to the IRA that if they were bombing Birmingham they really hadn't thought things through.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

People often tend to forget that at the time of the 'Second Spring' of Catholicism in England the Irish were citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and that the British,perhaps principally the English,governed Ireland.they should not have been considered as 'foreigners'
I agree that,in many respects, they were invisible.
I don't know much about England but in my home town in Scotland 12.000 inhabitants out of 26.000 were Catholic. As far as social events in the town were concerned the Catholics were really not quoted.It may seem unbelievable but there were not allowed to join the bowling greens.

Of course,as I think Enoch, said they did tend also to keep themselves to themselves and had their own social events which were usually only for Catholics.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

betjemaniac

quote:
It's never really had the sectarian split of football teams either - unlike Glasgow and Liverpool.

Be that as it may, Birmingham was the redoubt of Austin Chamberlain, its mayor, who split the Liberal Party over his opposition to Irish Home Rule. His creation of the Liberal Unionist Party, which, later merged with the Conservatives, greatly strengthened the right amongst the non-Catholic working class in areas of Irish immigration, including Birmingham, and laid the foundations of Unionist (Liberal Unionist+Conservative) domination of British politics in the modern age. Birmingham invented ethnic anti-immigrant politics.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
betjemaniac
quote:
It's never really had the sectarian split of football teams either - unlike Glasgow and Liverpool.

Be that as it may, Birmingham was the redoubt of Austin Chamberlain, its mayor, who split the Liberal Party over his opposition to Irish Home Rule. His creation of the Liberal Unionist Party, which, later merged with the Conservatives, greatly strengthened the right amongst the non-Catholic working class in areas of Irish immigration, including Birmingham, and laid the foundations of Unionist (Liberal Unionist+Conservative) domination of British politics in the modern age. Birmingham invented ethnic anti-immigrant politics.

Although the Chamberlains were hardly CofE Establishment either - they were Unitarian!

Actually, that in itself is an interesting observation. The amount of money you could make in Birmingham very quickly dwarfed that of the textile barons of Lancashire, or the South Wales coal magnates. The observation that the carriage was stopping at the church rather than the chapel by the third generation is, I think, less true in Birmingham than elsewhere. It was quite possible to stay in a bubble of whatever faith you had, securely surrounded by other local establishment figures who shared it. I would suggest that there was less of a rush to Anglicanism than would be the case elsewhere.

I often think the difference with Birmingham is that it is/was such a free-for-all - the RC church was strong, there were Quaker industrialists, the "leading" family that essentially dragged the place kicking and screaming into the late 19th century was Unitarian, then it was a stronghold of the Christadelphians too.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Kinda hard to see what a High Church Baptist might look like in reality.
Something like this - although this was extreme and, of course, Congregational!

But we (admittedly URC as well as Baptist) have pews, an organ, a gowned minister and choir, responsive psalms (but no candles or incense!) - we are considered quite unusual by the other Baptist churches in town.

The parish where I was received into the Anglican Communion is across the street from Canada's largest Baptist church, and they could go head to head with us in terms of position on the candle. (For one, they had regular "Choral Evensong," which we certainly didn't).

Then there's the Evangelical Baptists in the Georgian former SSR - talk about an extreme case!

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
There is also the example of the Catholic Apostolic Church to consider - originally a charismatic offshoot of Presbyterianism, it ended up with an elaborate liturgy which, I suspect, I would have rather liked.
I used to know two charming elderly maiden ladies who had been brought up among the Catholic Apostolics. They made the transition to Anglo-Catholicism quite seamlessly.

Interesting - I think I remember someone else saying on one of the CA threads that they tended to settle into high and dry parishes. Incidentally, their funds still exist as a distinct endowment in the Anglican Foundation of Canada.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Something also that people have never registered is quite how much middle class migration there has been from Ireland to Britain in the C20. If your memory goes back to the fifties and sixties, think how many Irish GPs there were then.

Indeed, generally, irrespective of the effect on religious denominations, middle class migration is something nobody seems to have noticed very much, or appreciated how significant it was. Migration is always assumed to have been the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Yet where do people think Australia, Canada etc got their first generations of lawyers, doctors etc from. They established families in their new homes just like the the tired, the poor and the huddled masses. Their children tended to follow them into the same sorts of careers. Indeed, being literate, they were likely to retain close links with their relatives back home. If things were going well, they were likely to encourage others to follow them.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Enoch

quote:
Something also that people have never registered is quite how much middle class migration there has been from Ireland to Britain in the C20.

How much? What's the evidence?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Enoch
quote:
Something also that people have never registered is quite how much middle class migration there has been from Ireland to Britain in the C20.
How much? What's the evidence?

I'm not aware of any specific evidence that would satisfy a sociologist. It might be quite difficult to find as there was more or less complete freedom of movement. So records might not even exist. I'm making my comment from growing up and living in Britain during the whole second half of that era.

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :

/QUOTE]The parish where I was received into the Anglican Communion is across the street from Canada's largest Baptist church, and they could go head to head with us in terms of position on the candle. (For one, they had regular "Choral Evensong," which we certainly didn't)./

Ah, yes, Yorkminster Park Baptist in Toronto --- a solidly evangelical church, but decidedly "high church Baptist", with processional and recessional, robed clergy, and first-rate classical choral music, all accompanying an order of worship that is relatively simple but which basically follows the traditional liturgical scheme. This can also be found at First Baptist in Halifax, which actually split off from St. Paul's Anglican Church and whose worship has a decidedly low-church Anglican flavor.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Enoch
quote:
Something also that people have never registered is quite how much middle class migration there has been from Ireland to Britain in the C20.
How much? What's the evidence?

I daresay that someone with more insomnia than I could tot up the 20c figures, but I'll simply just give us an idea by quoting the UK census via Wikipedia: In 2001, there were 674,786 people in England (1.4% of the population) who had been born in Ireland.

Were they middle class? No idea, but as the Irish I knew and studied with who ended up in Britain were generally professional class, possibly quite a few of them were. I was told that opportunity and jobs were better, although perhaps the majority of my gay and lesbian friends in Ireland found more room for acceptance in the UK at that period than in Ireland.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0