Thread: In which he invites discourse on the demerits of MoTR churches 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=020192
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It has been charged that the Ship is full of disenchanted former evangelicals who diss their previous affiliation.
Now, here's a chance to redress the balance, if imbalance there is ...
Here is your opportunity to state why MoTR and liberal churches stink.
It"s your chance to complain about oh so worthy but oh so PC worship lyrics, or MoTR complacency or lack of fervour or liberal apostasy or ...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Ah, you jumped in quickly there!
The main reason they 'stink' is that almost no one wants to attend them. Who cares about theology, music, coffee mornings, etc. if no one's there?
I wouldn't use the word 'stink' though. Maybe the stink of decline? Or the stink of shabby chapels? But IME the friendly atmosphere in such churches is usually quite fragrant, figuratively speaking.
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
Certainly. I'm a disenchanged evangelical, though not a "former" one. I gave up on the Pentecostal church of my upbringing and went with a more doctrinally sound church. All I got was a slightly more boring church. At least my kids are safe from accusation they are crippled Christians if they don't "fall out" under the spirit.
I visited a trendy church when I was cast adrift in my little ship on a church hunt. The star field moving behind the band on the three synchronized big screens was so awe inspiring to my visual senses I didn't even need to worship - I was having so much fun being dizzy.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I was using 'stink' figuratively, of course, SvitlanaV2.
What I mean of course, is 'what's wrong with them?'
Ok, so nobody goes to them, at least where you are ...
What else?
What is wrong with them that stops people going?
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
One of the advantages is that people are free to come and go, without anyone creating much of a fuss. But that is also a disadvantage - people stop going and nobody much notices. Sometimes people want to be noticed and get upset by that, although they'd hate the intense interest shown by leaders of more dominant churches. You can't have it both ways. (Or can you?)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Could I suggest that a definition of what exactly is meant by "a MoTR church" might be useful? Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the feeling from other threads that it might have a more specific meaning on in the other side of The Pond than on this side.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
We might also ask Aijalon what he means by a 'doctrinally sound' church.
Given his signature, I could guess ...
But that would derail the thread away from the OP.
I'm not sure there are major Pond Differences when it comes to MoTR churches - although there are probably more of a variety in the US and Canada. I suspect that MoTR churches in New Zealand and Australia are closer to what we'd have in the UK, but I might be wrong.
Perhaps it would help if you could define the features from a US / North American perspective, Nick Tamen and then we can see if we are comparing like with like?
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
Lost my post. Can't rewrite the assumed demerits of the extremes (and a bit about having prejudice and inaccuracies)
MoTR churches can have milder forms of the weaknesses of all of them. It might not quite be a concert with performers but it can still be a bit social clubby.
Sometimes without the strengths, a half-present ritual or a slightly naff praise band (that doesn't even give the high of it), social work that's a bit feeble. Leaving the down sides without the ups, and there will be occasions where that will happen.
Other times it can be of course be totally different. They are still in places that none of the other groups can get to (but that would be a different thread).
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Every time I've been to Oasis, Waterloo, it's been full to the rafters.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Someone is going to have to define "middle of the road"!
I can see that in some churches it might mean not much of anything - a sort of Laodicean milk-and-water experience. But in others it may mean committed but missing the dafter fringes. You can get the latter anywhere in any tradition. But those are two different things.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok ... Then let's define terms ...
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure there are major Pond Differences when it comes to MoTR churches - although there are probably more of a variety in the US and Canada. I suspect that MoTR churches in New Zealand and Australia are closer to what we'd have in the UK, but I might be wrong.
Perhaps it would help if you could define the features from a US / North American perspective, Nick Tamen and then we can see if we are comparing like with like?
That's the thing. I'm not sure there are "features" to define from an American perspective. "Middle of the road" means avoiding extremes to as to be acceptable to the widest possible audience. In a church context, it would probably simply mean not particularly conservative, not particularly liberal—unless one is talking about Episcopal churches, where it might mean not Low Church, not Anglo-Catholic—such that it's appealing to the largest possible cross-section of believers. And that seems contrary to the premise of the thread.
To be honest, I don't hear churches described as MoTR much at all over here. But I see it on the ship from British posters with enough regularity to make me assume—as I said, possibly incorrectly—that it has some more definite meaning there.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Someone is going to have to define "middle of the road"!
I can see that in some churches it might mean not much of anything - a sort of Laodicean milk-and-water experience. But in others it may mean committed but missing the dafter fringes. You can get the latter anywhere in any tradition. But those are two different things.
I'd say if you pick a largish [British] village/small town church (of any denomination) it's probably somewhere middle of the [Left hand drive] road. (whereas the town ones can differentiate more). [I'd imagine there's be a similar rule for other countries but it will be different]
And similarly if given a church in a random group of 100 churches for anything you can expect to find 10* that are more extreme each way. Then it counts as MoTR.
*Going for 10 as you'd expect 50% to be in the middle 80% of three uncorrelated questions.
[ 24. May 2017, 20:47: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think we're talking about the rump of Protestant churches which can't be described in other ways - so take out the Evangelicals, the liberals, the ultra-conservatives.
It's the broad space which includes most modern Methodists, URC, a lot of Anglican parish churches, lots of welsh chapels of various types and so on.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
What are thé two "sides" of the road that these churches lie between?
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
@Gamaliel. ha ha. I asked for that. So "doctrinally sound" should be taken to mean that any church activity, policy or theology should be carefully proven... which may mean leaving out a lot of the mystery and wonder of being a believer in a God of love who hides a matter for kings to search out. There is not much searching anymore in a "doctrinally sound" church, it is just a church made of the sum of its deeds (and its voters).
did you guess correctly! It's SBC! In regards to that my church is dying out little place. We think it's safe from holy spirit there!
Middle of the road in my mind simply means not offending people and appealing to all the millenials and building nice playgrounds and coffee shops. It means preaching out of, blogs, NT Write or Timothy Kellar books more than actual scripture. And it certainly means using easy on the ears translations.
Most of all MoTR means being politically neutral on my side of the pond. Patriotism is the great equalizer.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Yes, some definitions would be good - for example I wouldn't call Oasis Waterloo MoTR, it's evangelical.
Some denominations, of course, straddle multiple categories - obviously many Anglican churches are MoTR, but also many aren't.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think we're talking about the rump of Protestant churches which can't be described in other ways - so take out the Evangelicals, the liberals, the ultra-conservatives.
It's the broad space which includes most modern Methodists, URC, a lot of Anglican parish churches, lots of welsh chapels of various types and so on.
Hmmm, to me MoTR means between Catholic and evangelical - it would certainly include many liberals, though of course liberals can also be Catholic or evangelical.
I think a good old fashioned alignment chart is helpful here:
Conservative Catholic Conservative MoTR Conservative Evangelical
Moderate Catholic True Neutral (Moderate MoTR) Moderate Evangelical
Liberal Catholic Liberal MoTR Liberal Evangelical
Obviously, it only includes Western Rite traditions and those derived from then - one including Eastern Rites would be pretty complicated!
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What are thé two "sides" of the road that these churches lie between?
I'm pretty sure it's not between a single set of 2 sides.
Whether that's in the centre of an octogon (say between Liberal/Ritualistic/Fundamentalist). Or midway between a number of bipolar issues. I don't know.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
In our deanery (which divides into two parts - one 4-church team parish in the south, and seven separate parishes in the north), the churches have the following characteristics:
In the northern part:
1 x Anglo-Catholic - Mass/Benediction/Cell of OLW;
1 x charismatic-Evangelical (with a separate church plant on a newish housing development) - lots of missionary work, at home and overseas;
5 x 'Central' churchmanship - mostly Parish Communion/monthly Family Service, full vestments or alb/stole, few evening services, varying degrees of social interaction.
In the southern team parish:
1 x 'Central' - Parish communion/Family Service
1 x charismatic-Evangelical
1 x small mission church - Holy Communion/Family Service/Morning Worship
1 x small and very pretty mediaeval village church - wide mixture of services & lots of weddings!
The different churches have varying degrees of social interaction (the village church is noted for its work with young families).
Most of our parishes would, I think, be classed as 'MoTR', with the Carflicks and Evos at either side of the said road.
Many of the churches in other parts of the town are similar to the 'Central' ones - Our Place is the only A-C shack.
Does that help with definitions?
IJ
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I think a good old fashioned alignment chart is helpful here:
I've was introduced years ago a alignment chart with Lib/Evo/Trads as the vertices/corners of a triangle.
But at my last church, when heard it being described it had the edges labelled, which I like a lot more (there isn't a platonic extreme XXX church, and while you can't be all three extremes you can be two, which seems more accurate and interesting).
In both of these the centre of the triangle would be MoTR (either as a region round a bisector, e.g. extending to the Liberals in Pomona's def), or a circle (in Cheesy's).
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
The triangle thing only works in Anglicanism, but it does have the advantage of being based on a historical analysis of the roots of modern Anglicanism (i.e. "The Panther & the Hind" by Aidan Nichols). I take the point about the Platonic nature of the vertices, though I have visited a few of those! But it does highlight the serious problem involved in making one-dimensional characterisations.
Apologies to non-Anglicans.
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
I think MOTR was originally intended to apply generically in a sense of being just average.
Any church in any deno or creed could behave as "average".
The hallmarks of MOTR (or not) might manifest as the following
Limited political discourse by leaders
High overhead (buildings and payroll costs)
contemporary style music or mixed contemp.
Business models and capital and giving campaigns
preaching "series"
volunteerism initiatives
retreats
divorce rates equal to secular
income and status of members mainly homogenous
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Eh? How many times to I have to repeat that Canada is NOT the US when it comes to denominational structure and history. Not by a long shot.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It seems like I've opened a can of worms with the definitions ...
I actually had something simpler in mind, but I can see it's not that simple ...
Kansas City is on another planet.
Canada probably less so.
My own definition of MoTR in UK terms would be similar to mr cheesy's.
In Free Church or 'Non-conformist' terms it'd be most Methodist and United Reformed Churches and those Protestants who weren't evangelical nor uber-liberal in the more radical sense.
In Anglican terms it'd be 'Broad Church' or the modern equivalent of the old Latitudinarian thing.
So a modicum of ceremony and a sense of decorum without anything to frighten the horses, whether stratospherically 'high' on the one hand or overly 'enthusiastic' on the other.
MoTR preaching would tend to deal in broad moral platitudes without a great deal of theological content. All about being living, caring and nice to everyone.
MoTR worship would be worthy but unexciting, lacking the kind of oomph and fervour associated with charismatic evangelicalism on the one hand or the sense of mystery and the numinous associated with more 'higher up the candle' worship.
Essentially, it's a talk with hymns.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I think MOTR was originally intended to apply generically in a sense of being just average.
'Average' depends on the context, though. For example, in the British contexts I know, your list wouldn't be more relevant to MOTR churches than to other kinds, except that they probably spend a higher percentage of their income on the maintenance of buildings.
But above all, IMO, MOTR churches in the UK are defined by moderation. This is to say they may see themselves as evangelical, catholic, traditional, liberal or anything else, but only moderately so. A diversity of theological influences is tolerated among the laity so long as they're moderate and restrained about it. A fairly low key, moderate message will be delivered from the pulpit. There may be a few small groups, but not focused on discipleship, because individuals are free to develop their own (moderate) path of discipleship.
My background is with MOTR as a somewhat centre left and liberal leaning label. It goes along with mostly traditional hymns, a few 'worthy' late 20th c. numbers, and the occasional worship song. There's a strong sense of 'serving the community' through various social projects, and the church building is used by local groups. Specific evangelistic ventures take place occasionally, but aren't an embedded part of church culture, since there's an ambivalence about evangelism. However, I see the Fresh Expressions movement as a form of well-heeled MOTR evangelism. It keeps enthusiasts busy, but leaves mainstream congregations to follow their normal, moderate path.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Someone is going to have to define "middle of the road"!
Oh! finally! The use of acronyms on this site is DMFHI*
*NSFW
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I think MOTR was originally intended to apply generically in a sense of being just average.
Any church in any deno or creed could behave as "average".
The hallmarks of MOTR (or not) might manifest as the following
Limited political discourse by leaders
High overhead (buildings and payroll costs)
contemporary style music or mixed contemp.
Business models and capital and giving campaigns
preaching "series"
volunteerism initiatives
retreats
divorce rates equal to secular
income and status of members mainly homogenous
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Other than the point on political discourse, I have a hard time seeing any of those things as markers of a muddled-of-the-road church. I've encountered all of those things in lots and lots of churches on all sides of the road. The road would have to be exceedingly narrow for all of those things to be in the middle.
So far, the only clear picture I've gotten is that just about everyone means something different when describing a church as middle-of-the-road.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Middle of the Road
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
In other words it's a throwaway term, a weasel word, meant to mean "a church I don't like because it's not as exciting/biblical/liturgical/spiritual* as mine."
Prove me wrong.
_______
*/self-consciously offensive
[ 25. May 2017, 03:14: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, I don't think it's like that at all, Mousethief.
From a UK perspective, I think SvitlanaV2 has defined it well and she isn't citing it as something she necessarily agrees with or disagrees with, simply as the particular church background she has come from.
'Sweet moderation, the heart of this nation,' as Billy Bragg once sang.
What we've had here, of course, is a reaction to the civil and religious wars of the 17th century. Germany the same.
A lot of the keenies and the crazies killed one another or else buggered off to set up crazy communities on the other side of the Atlantic. (Gross simplification)
So what with that and the influence of the Anglican Via Media there developed a range of mild and moderate options.
In creating this thread, I'm addressing an apparent imbalance SvitlanaV2 has identified. Post Evangelicals like me are forever thrashing evangelical numptiness here aboard Ship whilst apparently giving the MoTR a free pass.
So here's an opportunity to pour shot in that direction too.
Equal opportunities.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Of course, apologies for the double-post, context and location come into it, too.
I'd tend to regard the Uniting Church in Canada (is that the right name?) and its equivalent in Australia as MoTR and groups like the United Methodists (is it?) and various moderate US Presbyterian groups as MoTR as well as some forms of US Baptist - National Baptist and American Baptist perhaps.
I might be wrong.
Of course these things are complicated. I read an article yesterday which talked about 'middle of the road evangelical and charismatic churches' in the US, by which it presumably meant mainstream churches within those traditions and not outliers who plunge their hands into baskets of rattle-snakes or head off into the hills armed with AK47s ...
In other parts of the world such moderate evangelical churches would themselves be seen as outliers.
It depends on perspective, on whether you stand.
In this instance, though, I'm running with SvitlanaV2's definition.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In other words it's a throwaway term, a weasel word, meant to mean "a church I don't like because it's not as exciting/biblical/liturgical/spiritual* as mine."
Prove me wrong.
Partially true. I'd say more other way round, as much. To call something MoTR you kind of have to recognize both sides, at least a bit.
Wheras if fixed at the extremes your going to see MoTR churches as compromised. Some just worryingly lapse with traditions, some beyond the pale.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Yes, some definitions would be good - for example I wouldn't call Oasis Waterloo MoTR, it's evangelical.
Some denominations, of course, straddle multiple categories - obviously many Anglican churches are MoTR, but also many aren't.
I wouldn't call Oasis Evangelical - not in the usual definition of the term anyway.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
These alignment charts are fun, and remind me of a past life in academic engineering:
"Optimising UK churchmanship within an n-dimensional paradigm, using both Genetic Algorithm techniques and the Hidden Markov Model".
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Here is your opportunity to state why MoTR and liberal churches stink.
I'm a Methodist; the white guy in a room of Caribbean pensioners. Our church stinks because it's very heavy on committees which no-one wants to serve on. And when the sermon is 'Jesus wants us to be kind', which happens now and again.
But we follow the lectionary, and when preachers are challenging on the text (which happens fairly often) the congregation responds - we sing the hymns louder, and (think about those pensioners) we get the odd 'Amen' and sometimes a spontaneous reprise of the last verse of the hymn.
For me good MOTR Methodism is evangelical (high regard for the bible) and a bit liberal (we can talk about what it means, and that might change; but it surely means something, and what it means is really important). It is charismatic (what it means is subject to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in our hearts and minds) but also historical and sometimes even a bit academic (Wesley wrote in 17** that........).
I'm an oddity in our church, but a good service like the above would stir our congregation, who mostly don't have an O level between them.
We'll be gone in 10-20 years, and I'll have to go somewhere else. We have RC connections - I don't belong there, but it's local, and (much like our committee problems) if you're not too attached you can let the hierarchical stuff pass you by.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Jay-Emm--
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Whereas if fixed at the extremes your going to see MoTR churches as compromised. Some just worryingly lapse with traditions, some beyond the pale.
Yes, that was pretty much the perspective at my childhood fundamentalist church. Though they thought "the traditions of man" something to be avoided.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Yes, some definitions would be good - for example I wouldn't call Oasis Waterloo MoTR, it's evangelical.
Some denominations, of course, straddle multiple categories - obviously many Anglican churches are MoTR, but also many aren't.
I wouldn't call Oasis Evangelical - not in the usual definition of the term anyway.
It's neither. It's liberal. And packed.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course, apologies for the double-post, context and location come into it, too.
I'd tend to regard the Uniting Church in Canada (is that the right name?) and its equivalent in Australia as MoTR and groups like the United Methodists (is it?) and various moderate US Presbyterian groups as MoTR as well as some forms of US Baptist - National Baptist and American Baptist perhaps.
I might be wrong.
Of course these things are complicated. I read an article yesterday which talked about 'middle of the road evangelical and charismatic churches' in the US, by which it presumably meant mainstream churches within those traditions and not outliers who plunge their hands into baskets of rattle-snakes or head off into the hills armed with AK47s ...
In other parts of the world such moderate evangelical churches would themselves be seen as outliers.
It depends on perspective, on whether you stand.
It does indeed depend on perspective, Gamaliel. I'd have to say this thread is confirming what I suspected—that you are taking understandings, distinctions and dynamics that make sense in the UK context and universalising them. In other words, you're taking what fits for British churches and assuming it fits everywhere. But as one living in one of the other places where you're assuming your understanding of middle-of-the-road fits, I'd say I think that assumption is wrong.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I'd agree with Nick Tamen. I don't know the extent of Gamaliel's experience outside England, let alone the rest of the UK, but again he's not at all right about here.
As a general point, I'd suggest that the role of churches in Oz society is very different to that in England and the US - and any other society you'd care to name. It still differs between the various Oz States although they are more uniform now than 50 years ago.
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I think MOTR was originally intended to apply generically in a sense of being just average.
Any church in any deno or creed could behave as "average".
The hallmarks of MOTR (or not) might manifest as the following
Limited political discourse by leaders
High overhead (buildings and payroll costs)
contemporary style music or mixed contemp.
Business models and capital and giving campaigns
preaching "series"
volunteerism initiatives
retreats
divorce rates equal to secular
income and status of members mainly homogenous
Other than the point on political discourse, I have a hard time seeing any of those things as markers of a muddled-of-the-road church. I've encountered all of those things in lots and lots of churches on all sides of the road. The road would have to be exceedingly narrow for all of those things to be in the middle.
So far, the only clear picture I've gotten is that just about everyone means something different when describing a church as middle-of-the-road.
indeed, I painted the vast majority as MoTR. And yes, the way is narrow. I don't believe that churches are really pointing people to THE WAY. We have become lost in a sea of intellectualism, socio-liberalism, and materialism. I mean, it's really bad.
Someone earlier said that it's like a Laodicean "milk and water" kind of thing. I could not say it better than that.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
To be fair Gee D and Nick Tamen, I have made it clear that any assumptions I'm making about Canada, the US and Australia are purely speculative.
I couched my comments in terms that suggested that I was open to correction if I was wide of the mark.
So no, I am not universalising my UK experience - and puh-leese - it's the UK not 'England' ... England is the bit that's bordered by Wales and Scotland ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I also laid out what it was I was referring to: ie. the UK situation that both mr cheesy and SvitlanaV2 has described.
Any resemblance to matters in Canada, Australia, various parts of the USA, is by necessity going to be partial only and very different conditions exist in each place - and indeed, as Gee D helpfully reminds us, between different regions within each of those countries.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
What is is about 'I might be wrong' that you don't understand?
Dashed Colonials ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
Kansas City may not really be another world as you earlier said. My own definition of MOTR is certainly off of what yours is a little bit, but really now that we have fleshed it out I think I can fairly say the same MOTR you describe is present here. Once personal viewpoints are accounted for, it seems MOTR is prevailing all over, hence, "average" is still a fitting description.
Maybe it simply boils down to not being "offensive".
The Pure Gospel though is offensive to those that don't want to hear it yeah? And prophecy is offensive to the church that is backsliding, yeah?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Gamaliel has mentioned US Presbyterians, but no-one's mentioned British Presbyterians yet.
I go to a MOTR Scottish Presbyterian church. It's the only church in the village and we have a few non-Presbyterians; Anglicans who don't want to travel to the next town, or Methodists and Baptists who don't want to travel to the next city. I think the fact that non-Presbyterians are comfortable here is part of what defines us as MOTR.
Our demerits? To be honest, I think the good things about our church far outweigh the demerits. But the size of our congregation has remained static despite new housing developments within the parish, and I'm still in the younger half of the congregation at the age of 53, so we are obviously not attractive to a large section of the population. The evangelical church in the next town is growing, so it's offering something which our MOTR church isn't.
[ 25. May 2017, 14:53: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I was teasing you Aijalon. I certainly recognise some elements of your MoTR definitions, of course.
The difference is probably an issue of scale as much as anything else. I tend to tell Americans that although there are indeed big cultural differences, we tend to have almost everything you have in religious terms - only on a much smaller scale.
I'm glad someone has mentioned Presbyterians in the UK. Of course, generally speaking Presbyterians are pretty invisible south of the border as the English Presbyterians were largely subsumed into the United Reformed Church in the early 1970s.
In Wales, the Calvinistic Methodists were Presbyterian ... now that confuses a lot of people ...
Anyhow ...
People are posting value judgements now about MoTR churches - which is what I was hoping to encourage ... not out of cussedness or spite but to redress those times where we've all had a go at evangelicalism or more full-on forms of Christianity.
These areas are tricky to define, of course, but I think 'milk-and-water' would be a good descriptor for what I'm angling at - and I'm sure there are 'universal' elements of that that transcend national, regional and cultural differences.
It's a tricky one too as a kind of principled moderation is one thing - and I don't think that's at all unattractive ... but sloppy milk-and-wateriness is something else again ...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
[Our Methodist church] will be gone in 10-20 years, and I'll have to go somewhere else.
And knowing that is sad, isn't it?
What many people, especially non-Methodists, don't realise is that the (MOTR) British Methodist church decline is widespread. They think it's occurring in pockets, just in inner city areas or wherever. But this isn't the case.
In a later post I might highlight some possible reasons for the decline, but at this point I just want to highlight the extent of the 'stink', so we're not in any doubt:
A sociologist at Lancaster Uni says that British Methodists are crumbling into the sea, with membership falling by a third over the past 10 years, to about 200,000 people. Attendance has fallen by a similar amount.
In 2013 there were over twice as many funerals as baptisms, or 2.5 to one, and children's attendances had fallen by 58%. There were 13% as many weddings as funerals.
And numbers on community rolls, which include the church 'fringe', have also fallen fallen dramatically, by 48 %.
Church Statistics (see p. 2) had Methodist decline at 19% between 2005-2010, sharing the highest spot with the Presbyterians; from 2010-2015 Methodists were projected to take the top spot at 24%. This makes it the fastest declining denomination in England, having overtaken the URC.
One of the commentators in a link above suggests that part of the solution would involve the Methodists closing more churches. But the denomination already closes more churches than any other: 310 between 2005-2010, which is more than one a week. This table covering 2008-2013 gives the Methodists a shocking rate of church closure compared to other denominations.
Decline is not a new thing. Between 1970-2000 Methodism lost a third of its churches (while the CofE lost less than a tenth) - and also lost 46% of its membership during the same period. (Refs are available.) Its membership was declining more rapidly than its churches, but closing the churches clearly did nothing to halt the loss. It's possible that oversupply might have been an issue in many cases, but church closure is detrimental to churchgoing overall, and is particularly serious in rural areas. But there there were other significant losses in the 60s-70s, for example a 33% drop in local preachers and a 55% loss of ministers on trial. (Refs are available.)
The denomination has also been aging for a long time, with 1969 the first year in which deaths exceeded new members. As the death rate given above would indicate, most are now retirees; in 2011 69% of adults in the Connexion were over the age of 65. There were more Methodists over 80 than between 20-40, and this was true in all but two circuits! (At least it proves that Methodists have long lives!)
Things are being done in many places to address these issues, but with the decline as longstanding as it is (some date it to the mid-1800s) and society moving culturally and numerically further and further away from Christianity (whether organised or nominal) 'turning things around' will take more energy and time than the denomination possesses as a whole. A few clergy are openly talking about the end. Many want to merge with the CofE, but mergers haven't halted Methodist decline in the past.
However, the Holy Spirit may still have long-term use for individual congregations. Unlikely to be those that look typically MOTR, I would think....
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Gamaliel wrote:
quote:
I'd tend to regard the Uniting Church in Canada (is that the right name?)
Assuming we're talking about the same group, no. It's still called the United Church Of Canada. Probably has a certain affinity(if not affiliation) with the groups calling themselves "uniting", but I'll leave any further explication on that to Sober Preacher's Kid, should he be so inclined.
[ 25. May 2017, 15:34: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What is is about 'I might be wrong' that you don't understand?
Dashed Colonials ...
Nothing. Just trying to point out politely that you may be right about being wrong.
Seriously, though, it all leaves me thinking this will likely be one of those threads where no one is talking about the same thing because everyone has different understandings of what middle-of-the-road means.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I had half an eye on Sober Preacher's Kid when I typed that, expecting to draw down his wrath ...
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
On SvitlanaV2's observations on the rate of Methodist decline, the question is whether they've brought that on themselves or whether it's a societal / cultural shift we can none of us do a great deal about ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What is is about 'I might be wrong' that you don't understand?
Dashed Colonials ...
Nothing. Just trying to point out politely that you may be right about being wrong.
Seriously, though, it all leaves me thinking this will likely be one of those threads where no one is talking about the same thing because everyone has different understandings of what middle-of-the-road means.
Heh heh, yes, quite.
I think, though, that Aijalon is right that there is some sense in which we are on the same page.
Other than some of the issues around scale, plant (owning buildings and so on) and practice, I can certainly 'clock' what he means by MoTR once I've taken Pond Differences into account.
Obviously, I am thinking in a UK context and using UK examples - inevitably, as that's where I live and I don't pretend to know a great deal about the church scene where you are.
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
So I'm bitter, clearly, meaning everyone is MOTR to me.
Perhaps we could do a round of throwing out certain forms of fundamentalism from the MOTR group.
I take it that Gamaliel would not include many evangelical USA groups in the MoTR. Do I have it right that MoTR as you have targeted it is to mean theological views? Are we talking about an MoTR view of God and the Bible, or a wider MoTR dealing with practices and procedures also?
So my church would be very MoTR in terms of appearance, very bland and non offensive in style. However, it's bylaws and theology are staunchly Southern Baptist and therefore full scale right wing. Some churches with virtually identical theology could be the hellfire breathing type, however, ours is moving MoTR in appearance to try to survive, while not changing any actual views, or even really challenging any old views.
Changing the window dressings is really all it is and half hearted at that.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In other words it's a throwaway term, a weasel word, meant to mean "a church I don't like because it's not as exciting/biblical/liturgical/spiritual* as mine."
Prove me wrong.
_______
*/self-consciously offensive
IME, that's not true. The parishes where I have served have generally been on the High and Peculiar end of the candle but the place where I want my ashes interred was MOTR village religion. They tolerated my churchpersonship because I was emotionally invested in keeping them open and I loved them dearly because they were serious about the Gospel and because they had my back during a difficult time with The Powers That Be. When I was leaving they rang Mrs Callan and asked what I would like as a leaving present. Mrs Callan said get in a professional photographer and arrange for a photo of Callan in the midst of the congregation. It sits on my wall as a reminder that Serious People said they were doomed and they continue to flourish.
They were deeply unsound on the subject of Sanctuary Bells and Incense, but, no-one is perfect.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
So I'm bitter, clearly, meaning everyone is MOTR to me.
Perhaps we could do a round of throwing out certain forms of fundamentalism from the MOTR group.
I take it that Gamaliel would not include many evangelical USA groups in the MoTR. Do I have it right that MoTR as you have targeted it is to mean theological views? Are we talking about an MoTR view of God and the Bible, or a wider MoTR dealing with practices and procedures also?
So my church would be very MoTR in terms of appearance, very bland and non offensive in style. However, it's bylaws and theology are staunchly Southern Baptist and therefore full scale right wing. Some churches with virtually identical theology could be the hellfire breathing type, however, ours is moving MoTR in appearance to try to survive, while not changing any actual views, or even really challenging any old views.
Changing the window dressings is really all it is and half hearted at that.
Well, I did mention that I'd read an article recently that spoke about MoTR US evangelical and charismatic churches, which I understood to mean the milder end of the spectrum ie. not snake-handling Pentecostals in the Appallachians, nor millionaire evangelists in private jets nor chewing-a-brick Puritanical neo-Calvinist fundamentalists or the King James Only brigade ...
So, no, I wouldn't necessarily exclude US evangelicals from the ranks of the MoTR. In some parts of the USA I suspect that MoTR evangelicals ARE the mainstream ...
I suppose where I'm coming from is that whilst I've retreated from various forms of full-on evangelicalism I don't doubt its power to transform and to make a difference ...
Whereas with some forms of MoTR milk-and-water Christianity I don't see that capacity retained.
Putting it crudely, some forms of very liberal Christianity is neutered and can't reproduce itself - it's like a mule in that respect.
It can only grow or increase in numbers by fall-out from more conservative or more 'lively' traditions - it cannot reproduce itself in the way that evangelicalism - or other forms of more mission-oriented traditions can.
As the UK sociologist and lay-theologian Dr Andrew Walker (Pentecostal turned agnostic turned Orthodox) once put it, 'Nobody is going to die for one of Spong's or Don Cupitt's stories' ...
So, where I'm coming from is this ... I am certainly disenchanted with evangelicalism and forms of revivalism - but at the same time I don't believe that MoTR forms of Christianity have a great deal to offer - other than as pit-stops or recovery-bays for those burned out or hurt by more full-on and fervent forms of the faith.
Those who've been around these boards a bit know that I have something of a history of gnashing my teeth and tearing my sackcloth at the vicissitudes of charismatic evangelicalism.
I wanted to balance that our by having a go at more MoTR forms of churchiness for a change.
Does that make sense?
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Yes, some definitions would be good - for example I wouldn't call Oasis Waterloo MoTR, it's evangelical.
Some denominations, of course, straddle multiple categories - obviously many Anglican churches are MoTR, but also many aren't.
I wouldn't call Oasis Evangelical - not in the usual definition of the term anyway.
It's neither. It's liberal. And packed.
It's liberal Evangelical - churches can be both, as they can be liberal Catholic. Oasis conforms to the Bebbington Quadrilateral (not being PSA doesn't mean not being crucicentric), uses distinctly Evangelical hymnody, and members/leadership would all self-identify as Evangelical (including Steve Chalke). I have attended Oasis many times, and have friends who are members there - they'd all identify as Evangelicals who are part of an Evangelical church. It may look different to many other Evangelical churches but that would equally be the case for a liberal Catholic church. I would consider it more Evangelical than Bloomsbury Baptist Church for example (which I have also attended many times).
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
Yes, G. That does make perfect sense. Unhappy with everybody!
I really think you and I are in the same boat together right now. Truly do like the analogy about the mule too. Makes sense.
In all honesty, I'm in a Baptist church, which I'm totally unsatisfied with, for two reasons: no one is "praying in tongues", if I chose to I could vote on church business matters. Aside from that things are so MoTR as to be distasteful.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Regarding British Methodism - I have a number of young (twenty- and thirtysomethings) Methodist friends, some of whom are ordained or are training for ordination. An awful lot of these are ministers' children (I know them mostly through the Student Christian Movement and Greenbelt, which themselves are probably at the more lively/thriving end of liberal MOTR Christianity), which to me says rather a lot. It reminds me of when Anglican clergy was often the family trade, and it would go from father to son without newcomers coming in. That's a problem, but I'm not sure British Methodism can repair the damage in time. It's sad.
For some reason MOTR churches and Berylware crockery go hand in hand, for me.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
I had to look that up, Pomona, but as soon as I did my memory (always tightly-tied to the olfactory) hit me with the smell of slightly-off milk and the taste of over-diluted church-parade orange squash. Happy days!
Your point about minster's kids is a good one, and points to one of the reasons for our decline I think. Methodism modelled a very local society which doesn't really exist anymore, by which I mean:
* A church at the centre of friendship groups and uniformed organisations, for adults and kids alike
* Likely stable employment in or near one's hometown, meaning families stay around, kids become Sunday School teachers, youth club members marry each other (or someone from elsewhere in the circuit!).
* Lack of educational opportunities; people looking for an outlet for their skills (admin, preaching, social) not available to them in their work.
* Under-employed mothers available for loads of unpaid work to keep the whole show on the road.
Instead, my generation of no-higher-education-before-in-our-family folks pissed off, starting about 1980, all over the place to poly and university - and most never settled in a new church. Our parents' generation have carried on as before, but as they die what's left is falling off the cliff.
So, a new church for the atomised 'society' - Methodism isn't it.
[ 25. May 2017, 18:35: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Not sure it's possible to define MOTR. It is easier to describe 'marks of MOTR'. I'd pick out a selection of the following:-
- I agree about the Berylware.
- Also about uniformed organisations.
I'd add at least some of the following:-
- a determination not to upset the horses.
- the biggest poster outside the church - i.e. its message - proclaiming the amount of money needed for a rebuilding project - even better - a thermometer.
- special services for organisations like the Round Table, the Lions or community choirs.
- a desire not to upset the Free Masons, who may well go there.
- seeing the church's role more as serving the community than Jesus Christ.
- a profound complacency.
Above all, I think for me one of the things that most irritates me about the MOTR tradition, is the feeling it gives me that this isn't what any of the great saints of the church, whether the apostles, or of any era since, would have been able to stomach.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
That sounds about right, Enoch - though I suspect the fund-raising thermometer is a bit apocryphal!
One word which is definitely "not on" is "evangelism". Well, all nice people are Christians, aren't they? - even if they don't come to church, and we don't want to offend them by talking about religion,
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Yes, some definitions would be good - for example I wouldn't call Oasis Waterloo MoTR, it's evangelical.
Some denominations, of course, straddle multiple categories - obviously many Anglican churches are MoTR, but also many aren't.
I wouldn't call Oasis Evangelical - not in the usual definition of the term anyway.
It's neither. It's liberal. And packed.
It's liberal Evangelical - churches can be both, as they can be liberal Catholic. Oasis conforms to the Bebbington Quadrilateral (not being PSA doesn't mean not being crucicentric), uses distinctly Evangelical hymnody, and members/leadership would all self-identify as Evangelical (including Steve Chalke). I have attended Oasis many times, and have friends who are members there - they'd all identify as Evangelicals who are part of an Evangelical church. It may look different to many other Evangelical churches but that would equally be the case for a liberal Catholic church. I would consider it more Evangelical than Bloomsbury Baptist Church for example (which I have also attended many times).
We've attended about half a dozen times, 2015-16, including 3 days with Rob Bell as one instance.
If we could afford it we'd move to attend.
It's alignment with the BQ is liberal, easily accommodates mine in these regards:
biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all essential spiritual truth is to be found in its pages)
crucicentrism, a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross
conversionism, the belief that human beings need to be converted
activism, the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in effort
[ 25. May 2017, 22:04: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
From what I've heard of Oasis Waterloo (and Steve Chalke, who was once the Baptist minister in my home town), I rather wish there were more churches like it. Perhaps there are, of course, and I just haven't come across them!
For all their 'worthiness', the MOTR churches in this neck of the woods all seem rather bland, for want of a better word.
IJ
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Gamaliel wrote:
quote:
I'd tend to regard the Uniting Church in Canada (is that the right name?)
Assuming we're talking about the same group, no. It's still called the United Church Of Canada. Probably has a certain affinity(if not affiliation) with the groups calling themselves "uniting", but I'll leave any further explication on that to Sober Preacher's Kid, should he be so inclined.
Well of course we have an affinity. It's our Calling.
The only bad thing about the Uniting Church in Australia is that they are so far away. Otherwise we are two peas in a pod. Get along famously.
quote:
Mark in Manchester wrote:
For me good MOTR Methodism is evangelical (high regard for the bible) and a bit liberal (we can talk about what it means, and that might change; but it surely means something, and what it means is really important). It is charismatic (what it means is subject to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in our hearts and minds) but also historical and sometimes even a bit academic (Wesley wrote in 17** that........).
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Ooh, that hits it right on the spot. That presses every single one of my buttons. It's like the French Reformed Church's baptismal blessing: it makes one's heart just melt as an expression of what the faith should be.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
That sounds lovely, Sober Preacher's Kid and I don't doubt what you are saying for one second ...
However, the purpose of this thread from my OP was to discuss the demerits and weaknesses of the MoTR position (however defined) rather than its strengths and advantages ...
Of course, there are two sides of every coin.
I feel awkward being an Eeyore here and focusing on the downsides, but as I've said, I'm partly compensating for having been one of the folk SvitlanaV2 cites who has directed fire against more conservative or hard-line churches whilst not spreading my shot to liberal or MoTR outfits ...
But hey, if this thread helps people see the value in their own tradition/s then that's great ...
It's interesting talking to my brother-in-law and sister-in-law who are involved in a very MoTR Methodist church now - having been involved for decades with Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal / charismatic churches.
Even though they are aware of problems and decline across Methodism here in the UK they are loving every minute of it ...
Sure, they find some of the hymnody to be pretty bland and the sermons are a bit 'after dinner speech-ish' at times ... but the sense of community and the level of engagement they have in the house-groups and so on has proven very positive and stimulating ...
Intriguingly, and this ties in with your observation, Sober Preacher's Kid, my brother-in-law observes that he picks up just as much of a sense of God's guidance, providence and 'engagement' if you like among the Methodists as he ever did in the more full-on churches he's been involved with ...
Only it's discerned and discussed in a more sober or slow-burn kind of way ...
He feels it's none the less 'real' than what he had previously in more explicitly 'lively' and charismatic settings ... it's simply expressed differently and worked out differently ...
That's all the positive stuff.
How back to the downsides ...
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On SvitlanaV2's observations on the rate of Methodist decline, the question is whether they've brought that on themselves or whether it's a societal / cultural shift we can none of us do a great deal about ...
Things are being 'done', as I said above. The Methodist church I know best has recently spent thousands of pounds on modernising its building, and is the home of a FE which has already been in the media. The question is, what are such ventures trying to achieve, and is it possible that they'll have a significant denominational effect?
Statisticians claim that FEs are not sufficiently successful or numerous to make much of a dent in the rate of Methodist decline. In the long run some of them might become viable congregations, although I sense that the influence of MOTR 'moderation' means that few Methodist FEs are likely to become very dynamic. In any case, will it be the Methodist Church as such that benefits? Probably not.
Now, as to your earlier question, I'd say there was no division; Methodists both created and were subjected to the challenges which arose in a Christian nation of which they were a part. The same forces were at work in other denominations as well as theirs.
So although the following are some of the approaches one might come across, I'd see them as interconnected:
1. Methodism fit the rather fatalistic paradigm of church-sect (or rather, sect-church) theory very well. Growth occurred with advancing respectability and institutionalisation, but like a large ship that keeps moving after the engines have been turned off, there was a false sense of security because recruitment from outside and the socialisation of members' children slowed down dramatically. At some point the lack of recruitment meant the management of a protracted decline: mergers, etc.
2. Methodist historiography tended to emphasise the devoutness and heroism of the early pioneers, and bemoaned the censorious (or, conversely, too lax), bourgeois, superficial faith and witness of their successors. There were also many ex-Methodists who heavily criticised what this kind of Methodism had done to them in their youth.
3. Methodism has been the beneficiary or victim of much larger historical forces, with the popular enlightenment, democracy, urbanisation, market economies, etc, as the relevant factors. IOW the movement can be seen as benefiting from a particular moment in history, but unable to sustain the momentum when the culture moved on.
There are also attempts to insert the specific Methodist experience into various secularisation paradigms. I find these relevant:
a. The movement became a victim of its own success. E.g. by successfully defying religious monopolies it helped to create the culture of religious pluralism. This eventually reduced its own share of the religious market, and probably contributed to the rise of post-Christendom. (But in the USA religious pluralism has had a more more positive outcome for popular religiosity.)
b. The urbanisation theory of secularisation suggests that the historical community-based revivalism in parts of the UK is inappropriate for modern urban populations. OTOH, it's also true that post-revivalistic Victorian and Edwardian churches overreached themselves in trying to promote a diffusive Christianity within the 'community' via social means. It took resources and energy away from internal spiritual development, which helped to weaken congregations further. Even today I see a desire to influence the penumbra which doesn't take into account the internal weakness of the church.
c. The extent to which Methodism had allowed itself to become highly numerically dominated by women (often over 65%) made it susceptible to the secularising impulses of the cultural revolution in the 60s and 70s, which had more of an impact on the religious perceptions and behaviour of women than of men.
d. Some would argue that the propensity of state churches in Europe to align themselves with the forces of conservatism and traditionalism in the face of societal change disastrously contributed towards secularisation; but it was particularly disastrous for the Nonconformist churches that tried to emulate them, since they lacked the prestige, the institutional strength or the ability to recruit or to keep members/worshippers which would ensure their health overall.
On the last point, I'm particularly convinced that as Methodism sought to emulate the CofE it was doing itself out of a job in the long term. Who needs a second rate CofE when the real CofE already exists and is present? This is why I think newer groups should be careful of learning from larger but declining historical denominations. The main thing they might learn is how to decline themselves - only more rapidly! Some commentators argue that in some contexts this is precisely what's happening.
As for what the denomination should have done or could do now, I might discuss that in another post. Hopefully a shorter one!
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
In this neck of the woods there are a few MOTR churches (about 50% of all local churches). They are numerically weak but punch way above their weight in inter church matters - a function of their numerical strength in the past.
They are all declining in size - some very rapidly. They have a good focus on social justice but are often very embarrassed and non committal of anything that has a missional edge. Problem is they just don't see that their position is analogous to that of other churches: there are one or two strong personalities who have dominated things for a while but are stuck in an 1989 timewarp (the date is significant).
The big growth in church life locally is in new churches - often one national or ethnic grouping. They will have absolutely nothing to do with the existing set up whilst it's dominated by MOTR churches and agendas.
It's a very unhappy future for everyone.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I wonder what has changed about Methodism.
There were 4 large Methodist churches within walk of 20 minutes of here - two Primitive (for sure), two Wesleyan (I think).
Gamaliel tells me that these were never really filled, and yet I'm not sure if that can be true - I saw a survey from the 1930-40s where 80% of people in this part of Wales said that they attended church at least once on a Sunday.
It'd be interesting to see if there was any more granular information at any point - and there are also various other churches within the same distance (2 Anglican, Baptist, Congregationalist.. possibly others). But the Methodist were a lot bigger, so it seems possible that they were a big part of the local culture after they were built (around 1890-1900, I think).
I wonder what changed.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
A lot changed for Methodism, as I tried explain above. But you're talking about Wales, aren't you? Gamaliel will probably have a lot to say about that.
My understanding (as per this essay, but it's not available online) is that the contributory factors were the decline of the chapels' role in maintaining the Welsh language, the disaffection of the working classes as Welsh religion was Anglicised and professionalised, the damage caused by economic and industrial decline in Wales, and the rise of the unions and then the welfare state, which took over the caring role that the church had previously maintained.
Wales now has a lower church attendance than England, which I imagine is still shocking for many English Non-conformists to hear. But it's said that the Welsh churches that remain could still have an important social role, especially as social services struggle.
[ 26. May 2017, 17:16: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
A lot changed for Methodism, as I tried explain above. But you're talking about Wales, aren't you? Gamaliel will probably have a lot to say about that.
Yes, I suppose I was musing that at some point Methodism changed from being something that attracted a lot of people around here to be something that was a minor sport. The one of the big Methodists chapels closed in the 1960s, so that process of decline has been going on for a long time.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
mr cheesy
It took a long time, but in the Welsh context it might be easier to track the process than in England, since the contributory factors appear to be much clearer. And Wales is a smaller country, after all.
Emigration must surely be a factor too. I've read that Irish Methodism suffered a lot from that. English Methodism too, although we hear less about it. The youngish, ambitious, upper-working class and lower-middle class Methodist was surely attracted by the possibilities of good employment elsewhere.
When my church closed, a whole flock of elderly former members turned up from far flung suburbs and small towns to share in the commemorations. The ones who went to Oz, NZ, Canada or elsewhere in the 60s and 70s were unlikely ever to return, certainly not to the church.
[ 26. May 2017, 17:37: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I am an anglo-catholic serving a MOTR church - I am suprised, though I shouldn't be, at the depth of people's prayer lives - nothing lukewarm here.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's a very unhappy future for everyone.
Can you explain why you think the new churches in your area will have an unhappy future?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Never usually one to be lost for words, something I share with a former close neighbour of yours, mr cheesy, 'Welsh wind-bag' Neil Kinnock - I have little to add to SvitlanaV2's excellent analysis of what went on in Wales.
On the issue of whether chapels were ever as full as popular legend maintains - I'll meet you half way there. If my memory serves I was thinking more of Yorkshire than Wales where it was certainly the case that chapels were built to an excessive size in anticipation of growth that never materialised.
It wouldn't surprise me if attendance stood at around 80% in the Welsh Valleys until around the 1930s.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That sounds about right, Enoch - though I suspect the fund-raising thermometer is a bit apocryphal!
One word which is definitely "not on" is "evangelism". Well, all nice people are Christians, aren't they? - even if they don't come to church, and we don't want to offend them by talking about religion,
It's the whole bloody *niceness* thing. I have only very rarely wondered whether I should join the RCC but one of the things I find attractive about it is that it doesn't, on the whole, seem to confuse being Christian with being nice.
I don't know whether MOTR always equalled 'nice'. My great hero ++Fisher was probably the last Central Churchman to be ABC and I don't think anyone ever accused him of being *nice*, warm and friendly though he could be.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's a very unhappy future for everyone.
Can you explain why you think the new churches in your area will have an unhappy future?
The reason they will have an unhappy future is that, fundamentally, they are just the same as all the others that are already there and/or have gone before. There's more and more fragmentation and division amongst them: they flourish and then fade very quickly.
First generation migrants are founding their own churches, second generations are either moving out to mainline denominations or moving out altogether.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That sounds about right, Enoch - though I suspect the fund-raising thermometer is a bit apocryphal!
One word which is definitely "not on" is "evangelism". Well, all nice people are Christians, aren't they? - even if they don't come to church, and we don't want to offend them by talking about religion,
It's the whole bloody *niceness* thing. I have only very rarely wondered whether I should join the RCC but one of the things I find attractive about it is that it doesn't, on the whole, seem to confuse being Christian with being nice.
I don't know whether MOTR always equalled 'nice'. My great hero ++Fisher was probably the last Central Churchman to be ABC and I don't think anyone ever accused him of being *nice*, warm and friendly though he could be.
Around here they are nice being the public face of the church (Radiuo, TV, papers), until you express a contrary view. Niceness is very superficial and it is quickly extinguished when certain shibboleths are questioned (both DH matters and local issues).
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's a very unhappy future for everyone.
Can you explain why you think the new churches in your area will have an unhappy future?
The reason they will have an unhappy future is that, fundamentally, they are just the same as all the others that are already there and/or have gone before. There's more and more fragmentation and division amongst them: they flourish and then fade very quickly.
First generation migrants are founding their own churches, second generations are either moving out to mainline denominations or moving out altogether.
Ah, I see.
Unfortunately, traditional ecumenicalism has very little to do with keeping hold of the younger generations. I was the secretary of a Churches Together network, and it was very difficult for the churches to get their young people interested in coming to (boring?) meetings. I think this is something that the headquarters of the movement need to think about.
What did seem to work was joint activities between the youth groups from different churches. Of course, if the mainstream churches have few or no youth of their own then this isn't going to involve them anyway.
[ 26. May 2017, 23:33: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Unfortunately, traditional ecumenicalism has very little to do with keeping hold of the younger generations. I was the secretary of a Churches Together network, and it was very difficult for the churches to get their young people interested in coming to (boring?) meetings. I think this is something that the headquarters of the movement need to think about.
What did seem to work was joint activities between the youth groups from different churches. Of course, if the mainstream churches have few or no youth of their own then this isn't going to involve them anyway.
Churches Together isn't really operating any more. When it did, it appealed to the lowest common denominator (ie we're churches) and lived off its history. Very few church leaders, let alone young people, attended. It wasn't and isn't relevant to most people and, as I say, it was dominated by pressure groups from the MOTR camp.
The young people do meet but there have been comments from the liberal/motr camp that it's too overtly "church" and evangelistic. I just get the feeling we can't win!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Ecumenism works when it majors on getting churches to share in local projects which fire the imagination and cannot be run simply by one congregation - eg Street Pastors, Night Shelters, area litter-picks, combined public open-air celebration service and witness.
It doesn't work when it majors on boring committee meetings, structures and constitutions or dutiful and worthy lowest-common-denominator services. Nor if the clergy aren't willing to get to know each other, or if those from some denominations regard others as "below the salt".
As you say, ecumenism tends to be the province of MoTR church, possibly because they are broader (or woolier!) in their theology than the "new" churches - though this is changing. Sadly, the enthusiastic folk organising the interchurch projects which do "take off" tend to forget that they do need some structure for these to work properly, and that they are unconsciously building on the labours of the ecumenical movement over the last 60 years which have served to break down the barriers between denominations.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Niceness is very superficial and it is quickly extinguished when certain shibboleths are questioned (both DH matters and local issues).
Ah, the illiberality of Liberalism!
Been there, got the T-shirt (and the bruises).
[ 27. May 2017, 10:59: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The young people do meet but there have been comments from the liberal/motr camp that it's too overtly "church" and evangelistic. I just get the feeling we can't win!
Then just invite them to social events. Don't you have any purely social events?
Obviously, if the others don't share your theology on evangelism then joint effort on that score won't work, and might actually be quite confusing for your young people. So be grateful for small mercies!
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
As you say, ecumenism tends to be the province of MoTR church, possibly because they are broader (or woolier!) in their theology than the "new" churches - though this is changing.
Sociologists tend to argue that ecumenicalism is a symptom of church decline and marginalisation, which is a plausible reason why it would appeal to MOTR churches rather than evangelicals.
Of course, the former also make a virtue out of a necessity by emphasising unity. But I suspect that the specific benefits of church unity depend very much on where a church is in its life cycle, and on its precise goals.
As it happens, I note with interest that a new book has been published about the ecumenical movement from a URC perspective. It's the sort of thing I'd like to read, not least because books about MOTR/liberal church culture and engagement seem quite rare. If anyone else has read it a review on this thread might be relevant.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[I note with interest that a new book has been published about the ecumenical movement from a URC perspective. It's the sort of thing I'd like to read, not least because books about MOTR/liberal church culture and engagement seem quite rare. If anyone else has read it a review on this thread might be relevant.
Yup, I've read it (I know the author). But I borrowed my copy from another Minister so no longer have it ... I'll try and see my way to making some comments. I seem to remember thinking that it was good (if possibly a bit dismissive of evangelicals), depressing and - quit rightly - of particular interest to URCers but hopefully saying some things to the wider Church.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I am commenting from Cliff College chapel, which feels very appropriate (volunteering at Cliff College Festival for SCM)! I'm not sure I've ever seen so many Methodists before.
Where I live, our local Churches Together is thriving and the local Pentecostal pastor is one of the most enthusiastic members. I realise it may be unusually successful though!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Re. that book! The author certainly knows what he is talking about, not only having been a URC minister for many years but also one who has traced its history and studied its statistics very carefully and from them drawn uncomfortable conclusions.
I found it informative, interesting and easy to read. I was particularly taken with the section on LEPs and their relative failure, with its observation that these may be formed from several denominations but usually embrace a single theological position.
One slight “gripe” is that the book does appears to make an underlying assumption that “liberal = good” and “evangelical = bad”; which to my mind is unduly simplistic and groups all evangelicals into one group whereas they are very diverse.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Where I live, our local Churches Together is thriving and the local Pentecostal pastor is one of the most enthusiastic members.
Here we have a "new (ish)" Evangelical church running a joint Alpha course with the Catholic church ... neither though are officially members of the local ecumenical grouping!
[ 27. May 2017, 16:40: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
If we are considering the 'demerits' of more liberal or MoTR churches - however defined - then I think that 'illiberal liberalism' can certainly be included.
The mileage varies, but I've sometimes encountered a greater generosity of spirit among people from more 'hard-line' or entrenched church traditions than I have among those traditions that make a big deal out of espousing tolerance and respect.
That's one of the conumdrums (conumdra?) we have to live with, I think ...
The mileage varies of course and there are always exceptions to any rule ...
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I found it informative, interesting and easy to read. I was particularly taken with the section on LEPs and their relative failure, with its observation that these may be formed from several denominations but usually embrace a single theological position.
That's interesting, I've often wondered what happens to the churches as they age and develop.
One doesn't hear much about the church in Milton Keynes, I wonder whether there each congregation retains something of the dominant "former" (I know it is more complicated than this, but it feels more like the churches have joined to make a new denom than anything else) denomination or whether there is any consistency across the area.
[ 28. May 2017, 08:51: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
BaptistTrainfan
Interesting stuff about the book, thanks. Perhaps the author never met the kinds of evangelicals who were willing to be serious fellow travellers, and he resents that - especially since he's obviously disappointed with how the ecumenical movement turned out.
But I want to go back to MOTR 'niceness': I think it has fairly practical reasons in the Methodist case.
- With closure such a real possibility for many churches, a Methodist minister will be loathe to drive away committed members (and their money), no matter how troublesome.
- The lack of clergy and funds means ministers have several churches in their care, which reduces the amount of disruptive energy you can expend on one place.
- Most sermons are given by lay preachers, so if you're a minister it's hard to control a congregation and make unwelcome changes if you're not around.
- Due to the stationing system, if you turn the congregation against you you'll be leaving in 5 years anyway.
The above is mostly due to the circuit , and I think the circuit as an organising structure for Methodism has helped to create a MOTR identity overall for the denomination.
For a start, with so many local preachers passing through the pulpit you're not going to get preaching closely targeted at your church's particular mission or needs, so it's not easy for a single congregation in a circuit to develop a different worshipping persona from all the rest.
Local preachers aren't expected (and nor do they expect) to deviate significantly from their usual practice when they go to a church. And AFAIK they receive no updated training from the circuit on how to construct or deliver contemporary and/or alternative forms of worship services. It's all about the 15 min. monologue sermon in the middle of a hymn sandwich.
Only well-attended, well-resourced and self-confident congregations that can produce their own preachers have any chance of circumventing this uniformity - and to do so is inevitably to defy the circuit system to some extent.
Apart from that, it's back to money. The circuit assessment (financial contribution) is very challenging for congregations. The assessment has to be paid on top of building maintenance costs, and even relatively well-attended churches can find it overwhelming.
The assessment is based on how many members a church has, and largely disregards their level of income. Unfortunately, this means that the making of new members may be detrimental to a church's finances unless the newcomers are well-off and generous. I'm sure this discourages evangelism, especially if the local economic situation has declined.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Ecumenism- oh Lord, yes. Six months working for Churches Together in Wales got rid of any illusions I might have had about that. And then Week of Prayer for Christian Unity joint services- just, no. Lowest common denominator is the politest thing I can say about all that. I have been in places where there were excellent ecumenical relationships but that was about local people getting on with each other. I'd take my local RCs/ Baptists/ Presbyterians/ Quakers/ whatever as I find them and that's how I'd expect them to take me. Get on as neighbours, do our stuff in parallel, do things (study, social action, public witness, social events) together if it makes sense or is enjoable- but saints preserve us from the annual Sunday evening mishmash, just in the interests of showing we can be nice to one another. A sort of ecclesiastical National Brotherhood Week.
[ 30. May 2017, 18:05: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I found it informative, interesting and easy to read. I was particularly taken with the section on LEPs and their relative failure, with its observation that these may be formed from several denominations but usually embrace a single theological position.
That's interesting, I've often wondered what happens to the churches as they age and develop.
One doesn't hear much about the church in Milton Keynes, I wonder whether there each congregation retains something of the dominant "former" (I know it is more complicated than this, but it feels more like the churches have joined to make a new denom than anything else) denomination or whether there is any consistency across the area.
I lived fairly close to Milton Keynes some years ago - the churches were in our local association as well as being in the local diocese etc. From what I recall, Ecumenism was seen pretty much as an embarrassing mess. Lots of "new" churches were springing up, meeting in community halls as I think the Local Council would only let a church be built if it was ecumenical. One or two later joined the BU, others NFI I think.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If we are considering the 'demerits' of more liberal or MoTR churches - however defined - then I think that 'illiberal liberalism' can certainly be included.
The mileage varies, but I've sometimes encountered a greater generosity of spirit among people from more 'hard-line' or entrenched church traditions than I have among those traditions that make a big deal out of espousing tolerance and respect.
That's one of the conumdrums (conumdra?) we have to live with, I think ...
The mileage varies of course and there are always exceptions to any rule ...
I agree with you on that one ... if a MOTR set up is crossed, watch the fur fly
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Especially, perhaps, if the group prides itself on its "tolerance" and finds it hard to accept that others actually have definite views ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
... or else if the forms of the faith (eg liturgy, ritual) have become more important than its fundamental common "esse" or beliefs.
By the way, I suspect that the question about MK was specifically about the Church of Christ the Cornerstone which is a 5-way ecumenical church in the centre of town. Perhaps someone here can comment?
[ 31. May 2017, 10:39: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I lived fairly close to Milton Keynes some years ago - the churches were in our local association as well as being in the local diocese etc. From what I recall, Ecumenism was seen pretty much as an embarrassing mess. Lots of "new" churches were springing up, meeting in community halls as I think the Local Council would only let a church be built if it was ecumenical.
This gives the impression that it was the appearance of the new churches that made the rest worry that ecumenism was an 'embarrassing mess'. I find that sensibility a bit problematic.
I assume that the ecumenists wanted to project an image of total unity and compliance, and resented outsiders coming in who undermined that image. That's understandable, but the best ecumenical partners are surely those who are completely committed to the ideology. By definition, those churches with a different theology and a different history are going to have other priorities. And since this is a free country, the new groups have a right to set up where they will and take their own approach. Their time usually comes in the end.
Moreover, if ecumenism evolves then the version that the Methodists/Anglicans/URC bought into 20-odd years ago probably isn't the version that'll be of much use to most British churches in 20-odd years' time. (And how much use is it today, one might ask?)
For example, many Methodists and a few Anglicans have been working for years towards a merger of their respective denominations. Maybe we're closer than ever. But some now say that this kind of unity isn't really where it's at any more. Perhaps the people involved need to take a step back and ask themselves how the ecumenical project can be reinvented in a way that's meaningful to our future.
[ 31. May 2017, 20:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But some now say that this kind of unity isn't really where it's at any more. Perhaps the people involved need to take a step back and ask themselves how the ecumenical project can be reinvented in a way that's meaningful to our future.
Which is what I am trying to say to our collapsing ecumenism here.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Especially, perhaps, if the group prides itself on its "tolerance" and finds it hard to accept that others actually have definite views ... or else if the forms of the faith (eg liturgy, ritual) have become more important than its fundamental common "esse" or beliefs.
By the way, I suspect that the question about MK was specifically about the Church of Christ the Cornerstone which is a 5-way ecumenical church in the centre of town. Perhaps someone here can comment?
You're right on the money there. The LEP's in MK usually had a Minister of a specific denomination, the upshot being that they tended to be more "interested" in their denomination than in others. After a few years the music stopped, the leader changed and another denomination stood up to the plate.. Christ the King had a large congregation, mostly Anglican. It was an Anglican church in reality which no amount of ecumenism could hide.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I lived fairly close to Milton Keynes some years ago - the churches were in our local association as well as being in the local diocese etc. From what I recall, Ecumenism was seen pretty much as an embarrassing mess. Lots of "new" churches were springing up, meeting in community halls as I think the Local Council would only let a church be built if it was ecumenical.
This gives the impression that it was the appearance of the new churches that made the rest worry that ecumenism was an 'embarrassing mess'. I find that sensibility a bit problematic.
I assume that the ecumenists wanted to project an image of total unity and compliance, and resented outsiders coming in who undermined that image. That's understandable, but the best ecumenical partners are surely those who are completely committed to the ideology. By definition, those churches with a different theology and a different history are going to have other priorities. And since this is a free country, the new groups have a right to set up where they will and take their own approach. Their time usually comes in the end.
Moreover, if ecumenism evolves then the version that the Methodists/Anglicans/URC bought into 20-odd years ago probably isn't the version that'll be of much use to most British churches in 20-odd years' time. (And how much use is it today, one might ask?)
For example, many Methodists and a few Anglicans have been working for years towards a merger of their respective denominations. Maybe we're closer than ever. But some now say that this kind of unity isn't really where it's at any more. Perhaps the people involved need to take a step back and ask themselves how the ecumenical project can be reinvented in a way that's meaningful to our future.
Sorry - my post was poorly worded. The LEP set up was a mess before the new churches came on the scene, they didn't cause it.
Time wise I'm referring to the late 1990's by which time the love affair with LEP's was really over. Christians weren't looking to share someone else's praxis on a revolving weekly basis - they were looking for continuity.
The expectation for places like Milton Keynes and Swindon were that people would attend their local church whatever their denominational origins - hence the view that LEP's would thrive. In practice people began to be happy to travel to church, to a place that met their denominational expectations and/or the way they liked their church to be "done." It didn't help either that the traditionalist/motr/liberal theology adopted by most LEP's to enable the whole thing to operate, alienated those of a more charismatic or evangelical persuasion who found churches to their liking outside their immediate community.
I understand that both Swindon and Milton Keynes now have denominational and other churches on the doorsteps of LEP's.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But some now say that this kind of unity isn't really where it's at any more. Perhaps the people involved need to take a step back and ask themselves how the ecumenical project can be reinvented in a way that's meaningful to our future.
Which is what I am trying to say to our collapsing ecumenism here.
Locally that's just the situation we face here. A 1980's model with 1980's assumptions. It just doesn't wash nearly 30 years later with a town 3 times the size and way more diverse than it was then
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]
I assume that the ecumenists wanted to project an image of total unity and compliance, and resented outsiders coming in who undermined that image. That's understandable, but the best ecumenical partners are surely those who are completely committed to the ideology. By definition, those churches with a different theology and a different history are going to have other priorities. And since this is a free country, the new groups have a right to set up where they will and take their own approach. Their time usually comes in the end.
Moreover, if ecumenism evolves then the version that the Methodists/Anglicans/URC bought into 20-odd years ago probably isn't the version that'll be of much use to most British churches in 20-odd years' time. (And how much use is it today, one might ask?)
For example, many Methodists and a few Anglicans have been working for years towards a merger of their respective denominations. Maybe we're closer than ever. But some now say that this kind of unity isn't really where it's at any more. Perhaps the people involved need to take a step back and ask themselves how the ecumenical project can be reinvented in a way that's meaningful to our future.
Ecumenism is not about lowest common denominators. about presenting an image of total unity and compliance, or about merger. Ecumenism - and St Sanity is in a covenant with the local Catholic, Baptist and 2 Uniting churches - is recognising that while we come from different traditions, valuing those other traditions as valuable contributors to Christ's church on Earth, we do have most points in common and sharing those between ourselves . So on Palm Sunday, for example, we have a joint procession through the streets. The Catholics and we have our crucifers and thurifers, the Uniting have neither but are happy to join in giving this public witness to our faith.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I don't have an issue with ecumenical walks at Eastertime (although I think I find Easter walks of witness a bit embarrassing, which is my own problem). What I'm saying, I suppose, is that ecumenism often seems grander in theory than in practice.
But your post reminds me that parts of the Anglophone world have moved quite far along the ecumenical route. Australia doesn't just have ecumenical congregations, but has a Uniting Church, which has perhaps influenced attitudes towards ecumenism among Australian Christians in general.
I must add that the RCC doesn't seem to be the problematic element in English ecumenism today. (I can't speak for other parts of Britain.) MOTR Anglicans, Methodists and others usually admire the RCC's spirituality, and respect its ancient traditions of worship and theology. The denomination is further away from changing its teachings on DH issues than many smaller evangelical groups, but the fact that many RCs at grassroots level are quite moderate helps to make their denomination more acceptable, so it seems.
No, the challenge today is what to do about the evangelicals. Do they participate in your Palm Sunday walks?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
There are Evangelicals and Evangelicals! So no real generalisations can be made. There's a world of difference between your average Baptist Union church, New Frontiers congregation, Christian Brethren and FIEC - for instance.
I have found (most of) them happy to take part on Easter Walks of Witness, though they may hanker for more overt evangelism within that.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'd second what Baptist Trainfan says. In my experience, most evangelicals are more than happy to take part in such things, even if it's only to fly the flag for evangelicalism and use it as a platform in some way.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Yes, I've known evangelicals who've participated in various ecumenical ventures. My point wasn't that all evangelicals are the same!
Gee D's post emphasised that Uniting Christians and RCs happily engaged in a joint witness this Easter. Nothing was said about the participation of anyone else. But it seems to be the case that when people (such as ExclamationMark above) on this website and elsewhere talk about denominational difficulties with ecumenicalism these days, they usually refer to problems between MOTR churches and certain evangelical groups - not between the MOTR churches and the RCC.
[ 02. June 2017, 18:00: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, it varies. The local Pentecostals here get on very well with everyone, including the RCs. In other places, such as my wife's home town, the Penties were very much out on a limb - or were until very recently.
But yes, as a general rule of thumb I'd say that MoTR churches tend to get on better with the RCs than they do with full-on evangelical congregations.
This isn't necessarily a Free Church thing either, I know evangelical Anglicans who tend to remain aloof from ecumenical activity.
As to where any 'blame' attaches - whether on the MoTR side or the evangelical side when it comes to local tensions, it tends to be the case, in my experience, that it's a case of either side 'talking past' the other - although some MoTR outfits can be awkward and difficult in a way that belies their apparent emphasis on tolerance and respecting difference etc.
In a similar way to how many Quakers can be awkward and belligerent so and so's despite their emphasis on peace-maker and tolerance.
It's one of life's conundrums. In the same way, some people who sit under hell-fire and damnation sermons and blood and thunder week by week don't seem to carry those attitudes with them into the rest of their week ...
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
In my local area's Churches Together (which does include all the local churches - there aren't many!) I'd say the Pentecostals, RCs, more evangelical Anglicans (not Evangelical per se, just moreso than the other Anglicans who are still pretty MOTR), and Salvation Army soldiers are the most active. The local Pentecostal church is in a very conservative denomination (not Vineyard or NFI) but the lead pastor is a very nice man who is involved in Benedictine spirituality and is making some waves in a progressive direction on some Dead Horses within his denomination - there are more branches in the local big town which are decidedly more frosty with MOTR/liberal/Catholic churches.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yes, I've known evangelicals who've participated in various ecumenical ventures. My point wasn't that all evangelicals are the same!
Gee D's post emphasised that Uniting Christians and RCs happily engaged in a joint witness this Easter. Nothing was said about the participation of anyone else. But it seems to be the case that when people (such as ExclamationMark above) on this website and elsewhere talk about denominational difficulties with ecumenicalism these days, they usually refer to problems between MOTR churches and certain evangelical groups - not between the MOTR churches and the RCC.
As to participation of anyone else, St Sanity is an Anglican church, so our Palm Sunday procession (not Easter) is one of 3 traditions; more if you count the 3 strands that combined in the Uniting Church, plus the traditions that the Uniting Church is building for itself. The Baptist church is member of the covenant and shares in the covenant's Lenten, Pentecost and Advent services - indeed, membership of the covenant introduced Advent to the local Baptists and it is becoming a part of their tradition. The Baptists have yet to join the Palm Sunday procession though.
I would not say that the formation of the Uniting Church contributed much to ecumenism here, but rather the reverse. That, plus economics.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I would not say that the formation of the Uniting Church contributed much to ecumenism here, but rather the reverse.
Interesting point - could you elucidate, please?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
The formation of the Uniting Church removed 3 churches (or most of 2 plus all of 1*) from the field of ecumenical discussion. Those uniting then had to spend quite a lot of effort in their unification and could not contribute much out of that for a long time. Those that remained out of the new church have become more and more isolated. Does that help?
*All of the Congregational Church, nearly all of the Methodist, and much of the Presbyterian.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Pomona
A Pentecostal pastor turning his conservative denomination progressive? If it can be done without the whole thing morphing into well-meaning MOTR irrelevance after a few decades that'll be impressive.
I do think ecumenicalism is important today, particularly for ordinary churches in an challenging, secular environment. But it's hard not to see it as yet another step on the congregational or denominational route towards respectability and assimilation. And once that goal has been achieved, where else is there to go but down?
Of course, other outcomes are possible, depending on circumstances (ongoing Christian immigration, a very middle class surrounding suburb, a local legacy of high churchgoing rates, etc.)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The formation of the Uniting Church removed 3 churches (or most of 2 plus all of 1*) from the field of ecumenical discussion.... Does that help?
Yes, thanks. In Britain the URC initially saw itself as only the first step towards a pan-ecumenical "superchurch", but that never happened. What it has done is (a) make the URC more likely to enter into formal ecumenical partnerships than other denominations; (b) make them struggle to find their distinctive identity; and (c) occasionally make some of them a bit smug about their ecumenical credentials.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Pomona
A Pentecostal pastor turning his conservative denomination progressive? If it can be done without the whole thing morphing into well-meaning MOTR irrelevance after a few decades that'll be impressive.
I do think ecumenicalism is important today, particularly for ordinary churches in an challenging, secular environment. But it's hard not to see it as yet another step on the congregational or denominational route towards respectability and assimilation. And once that goal has been achieved, where else is there to go but down?
Of course, other outcomes are possible, depending on circumstances (ongoing Christian immigration, a very middle class surrounding suburb, a local legacy of high churchgoing rates, etc.)
Actually the denomination is likely to split over women leadership, by 'making waves' I meant 'making a fuss' I guess?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
A Pentecostal pastor turning his conservative denomination progressive?
Historically a lot of Pentecostal groups have been a lot more progressive on some issues than their Conservative counterparts in other denominations.
That said, my own feeling is that Pentecostalism as such is declining in the West - not for reasons of progressivism, but because the communities they were typically strong within are disappearing.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I'm aware that all Christian groups, including Pentecostals, tend to become more 'progressive' over time, if by that we mean they reduce at least some of the tensions between themselves and the wider society.
The more interesting question regarding Pentecostals, as I implied, is whether they can go down this route, and how far, without ending up with the very same problems as the MOTR churches before them. (Of course, secularisation is a huge challenge for all Christian groups - although for some of them it also presents an opportunity.)
Whether Pentecostalism is declining in the West is highly debatable. In the UK, there's clearly been a reduction in white working class Pentecostalism, but a rise in non-white Pentecostal immigrants.
In British terms Pentecostals now outnumber Methodists. By 2020 it's projected that the number of Pentecostals will have grown by 25%, and there'll be 541,954 Pentecostals to 176,160 Methodists in the UK (see p. 4). This will make the latter a more, not a less significant presence in the British Christian community.
Elsewhere in Europe I understand that the number of Pentecostals has always been very small, so any increase in one constituency has probably cancelled out the decline in another.
[ 04. June 2017, 15:15: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
'This will make the latter a more, not a less significant presence in the British Christian community.'
I obviously mean former. I.e. Pentecostals will become a very significant group in British Christianity. This is already becoming apparent. In the cities some of the mainstream churches, evangelical ecumenical networks and theological colleges are keen to create connections with majority black Pentecostal churches, and to recognise their leaders and scholars. This wasn't always the case.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm aware that all Christian groups, including Pentecostals, tend to become more 'progressive' over time
That is not what I was talking about at all, please read what I wrote. Historically there has been a progressive side to Pentecostalism, even when this went against the grain of the particular society they were in.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Perhaps it would be easier to understand what you're getting at if you gave some examples.
From my own perspective, I'm aware, for example, that many Pentecostal groups have had women pastors for quite some time. I'm also aware that the early Azusa Street movement incorporated a kind of equality among people of all races and classes.
I've also heard it said that black Pentecostalism is somewhat separate from fundamentalism for various reasons. African American Pentecostals don't have the same right wing focus on DH issues that many other American evangelicals do.
But perhaps you have something else in mind.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0