Ship of Fools: Christianity for the council estate

Thread: Christianity for the council estate 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=020298

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Bishop Philip North of Burnley wrote an article in the Church Times a week or so ago comparing three festivals he'd been to, Keswick, New Wine (where he gave an address which has made him flavour of the month to some people who are not his natural constituency) and Walsingham. As one might expect of someone from what one might call the mysogonistic wing of Anglo-Catholicism, Walsingham is more his thing than the other two.

However, he also claims Walsingham is good because it is a truer Christian expression of working class culture than the other two.

Here is a link. It's behind a paywall, but you should get a few free viewings per month.

I have tended to dismiss Philip North as 'the Brexit Bishop'. However, is he onto something? Or is this just an odd sort of sentimental narodnicism?

I tend to see Walsingham as gin, lace and camp. Is it though an expression of Christian faith that is peculiarly simpatico for people from bleak council estates and other abandoned groups in society? It's a tradition that is very proud of the slum priests of 150 years ago, but I still doubt his claim. At the core of the Anglo-Catholic vision are priests heroically exhausting themselves doing great things for the working classes. They still, though, retain 100% custody of the metaphorical shrine. That is not the same thing as working class people being able to express faith or do things for themselves?

What do other shipmates think? What is your experience?

Posted by DonLogan2 (# 15608) on :

I read this on Facebook, I don`t think any of these can be classed as church for the council estate or have anything that comes close to being more like "working class", whatever that may mean now.

I think that there is a divide between the church and any culture that they may be surrounded by and the only way to bridge that gap is to be where the other is, only then can you understand the culture a bit better. There can be no one size fits all scenario as even with a general culture there can be lots of differing homogenous groups among it. A bit like worship across different churches. I am coming to believe that we need to go out and make connections in all sorts of different groups by sharing leisure time with them and understanding a little of their lives, we can then ethically tell them about our culture and find out where the two meet.

But I might be wrong...

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Anglo-catholics do have a heritage of social witness and outreach but among some ACs, there is almost a snobbish feel to this pride as if ACs were the only ones in the Church to care about the poor.

In the 19th century, both evangelicals and Anglocatholics were, in their varying flavors, spoke to the lower working classes.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I should think that large residential Christian festivals, of any sort, are more likely to attract people with a higher income. Daily Holiday clubs on the large estates where families live are much more likely to attract the residents, especially those who get bored because there is not much provided for them in their area.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I'm not convinced by +Philip's analysis - quite apart from anything else, he's not even mentioned the Nonconformist and Pentecostalist groups which may far more reflect working-class culture. However I do congratulate him for tackling the subject: rather more substantively, here is an address he gave a year ago which I read at the time.

This is an issue I myself am struggling with, having moved a few months ago to a church on an estate. We get squads of kids to our clubs but it's clear to me that the predominant culture of the church is alien to the majority of residents. I find this a challenge, not only because the church related much better to its surroundings 50 years ago (when the estate itself was more diverse in terms of social stratification) but also because I am well and truly embedded in middle-class culture myself.

Clearly we need to do things in new ways but I don't yet know what those ways should be.

[ 15. September 2017, 16:32: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Hmmm ...

I'd suggest that it's a bit both/and ... But then I would ...

I think that both Pentecostalism and forms of High Churchiness can appeal in working class areas - so it's not one or t'other but both.

That said, I think Anglo-Catholics do tend to exaggerate that aspect and blow the slum-priest trumpet rather too readily.

We all know that they simply like dressing-up and are trying to find some justification for that.

I'd rather they were honest and simply admitted that they like dressing up.

I would.

If I went to an Anglo-Catholic parish I'd make no bones about that. 'I'm here because I like dressing up. So you have a problem with that? If you do, then sod right off ...'

Why pretend otherwise?

Why try to make some kind of 'class' issue out of it?

'Look. Let's get this straight. I like bells and smells. Alright? If you want to fart around with New Wine and worship songs and all that dumbed-down shit, just sod off and leave me alone ...'

I'd rather they were honest and said that rather than trying to justify it with some cod sociology.

To be fair, some Anglo-Catholics do a lot of good work in run-down areas. But a lot don't. A lot of them are snobby bastards.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'Look. Let's get this straight. I like bells and smells. Alright? If you want to fart around with New Wine and worship songs and all that dumbed-down shit, just sod off and leave me alone ...'

What might interest you is that our local RC priest (an excellent man) is very much into New Wine ... I'm not.

I did last week meet an Anglo-Catholic priest working in a working/lower-middle class environment (but not an estate) who is very mission-minded and has seen real church growth in the last couple of years. I was impressed.

[ 15. September 2017, 17:21: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Yes, Walsingham gets very camp at big festivals but it is great in ordinary time.

I went on several parish pilgrimages there in the days when I was in an urban priority, inner city parish.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Interesting that you assume that the Anglo-Catholics at Walsingham - clergy or lay - cannot possibly be working-class themselves.

I also find it interesting that FiF is classed as the misogynistic wing of the CoE but Anglican Mainstream/Reform et al are not....! I can't see how it is any more misogynistic or exclusive than conservative evangelicalism. The HTB crowd at New Wine may not be +Philip's usual audience, but there are charismatic Anglo-Catholics, albeit on a smaller scale than charismatic Roman Catholicism.

There's plenty of the upper-middle-class gin and lace action in conservative Anglo-Catholicism, but if anyone in that camp is working for more working-class inclusion and outreach it is +Philip. I am working-class and Anglo-Catholic, and I would certainly trust him on the issue over a great many liberal Anglicans who I might agree with more on Dead Horses - I think the class issues in the CoE are deep-seated and present in all parts of the church. I've experienced it just as much in charevo Anglican churches in urban areas.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

As ever, Gamaliel, you express so many things better than I do. It must be the open mic poetry.

Baptist Trainfan, I agree with you, if I'm picking up your suspicion that so many of us in the CofE seem to assume that it has nothing to learn from anyone else. If the original Pentecostals emerged from working class culture, it's worth asking what aspects of how they have done things were natural to their home culture.

There is though, I think, another puzzle, which I'm not sure anyone has thought much about. Perhaps they have, and I've just not encountered the discussion.

As recently as 50-60 years ago, the country contained large, relatively static communities, sometimes even working in what were sort of company towns. Now, that is no longer the case. Furthermore, many of those that grew up in those communities have prospered. They own their own houses, even if with mortgages, and have become middle class. But others haven't.

Another consequence, both of that and of universal education has been that the sort of people who used to be community leaders, union figures etc, have now also become middle class.

The Labour Party is often accused of being sentimental of the sort of working class that was the bedrock of its traditional support, and of wanting to recreate it, when a lot of people don't want to go back there. Are the churches doing the same sort of thing in a different way? Do we have a dream that everything would be much better if we could recreate church life as it was long ago, whether that is of processions of children clad in white at Whitsun, the days when the chapels were awash with hwyl, or when people knelt in the street when Father passed by?

I'd almost ask whether the formats both of old time Pentecostalism and of slum Anglo-Catholicism are both attempts to express faith in a format that resonates only to subcultures that don't exist any more.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The mosques are full.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The mosques are full.

That, Martin, is a valid and significant point. Immigrant communities go to mosque. Indigenous communities whose grandparents and great grandparents went to church far more than people do now, don't.

All the same, I can remember the fifties. Churchgoing and a sort of implicit low level belief were stronger than they are now. But they weren't the glory days when the pews were filled every Sunday,

quote:
"When steam was on the window panes
And glory in my soul" *

that some people now imagine.

Asking the question a different way, did Irish Catholics in England in those times attend church more faithfully than indigenous Protestants because their priests told them they would burn in hell if they didn't go to Mass every Sunday, or because it was a home from home, a matter of identity?

* John Betjeman, Undenominational.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The mosques are full.
That, Martin, is a valid and significant point. Immigrant communities go to mosque. Indigenous communities whose grandparents and great grandparents went to church far more than people do now, don't.

But equally there are plenty of immigrant communities who go to church too. There are a couple of RC churches nearby that are filled with Polish immigrants (standing room only, people kneeling outside the church come Mass). A number of anglo-catholic churches with fairly pentecostal leanings that pull in African origin and so on.

I think it though that Gamaliel is correct even here - where those communities are ones from countries with a non-conformist tradition of any size, their own pentecostal/charismatic churches are what most of them attend.

Both Keswick and New Wine are very middle class - but that's really a reflection of those particularly scenes, and not even always a good reflection of the churches from which most of the attendants come from.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

@Enoch. I meant to acknowledge your excellent comparison with the Labour Party and do so now on the 13:14 to Nottingham rather than the Hotel Dechampagnie. The working class 'en't what they used ter be.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

What do you want from people who live on council estates (I read that as 'poor people', I might be wrong)?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Me? Nowt. It's what they want. Nowt. The church has nothing they want. Or need. In their dire need. In want. There is a 99% disconnect between what the poor need and what the church on a good day gives. Even the poorest, those on the street, get 1% of their needs met in time, may be 5% in subsistence. It's easy to quantify.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

tbh, i couldn't care less who said what Bishop Philip said. It could have been anyone and from any church tradition.

I'm just glad it was said.
Coz i think it's true.

And talking about such matters makes lots of apparently important people squirm, which in this case anyway is also good.
.

Best piece of news this summer + the earlier talk mentioned is worth a listen too.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Ethne Alba, forgive my temerity in asking, but are you commending what he said at New Wine and elsewhere about the church and the poor, or are you commending the specific point I raised in my OP about whether Walsingham is the true and most working class way of expressing Christian faith?

Those aren't the same question at all.

[ 16. September 2017, 20:42: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Me? Nowt. It's what they want. Nowt. The church has nothing they want. Or need. In their dire need. In want. There is a 99% disconnect between what the poor need and what the church on a good day gives. Even the poorest, those on the street, get 1% of their needs met in time, may be 5% in subsistence. It's easy to quantify.

Yeah I agree. Who would voluntarily go to any type of church gathering if you weren't already connected to the Church?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

If Walsingham were Wythenshawe eh?

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

I think it's generalising wildly (and very patronising) to describe Anglo-Catholicism as the true expression of working-class Christianity. Possibly the case in Oxford or London, but in the North of England Methodism has historically done well in the mill towns; in Wales non-conformist chapels have dominated the scene.

Yes the mosques are full, but in my town there are several dozen churches but only about 5 mosques, so we're not comparing like with like. Conversation with muslim friends indicates that the mosques are currently in the position that the Church was 60 years ago; there's a certain cultural pressure to attend, and at least profess belief, but actual commitment to the faith is questionable.

Working class people who are actually working will often be quite genuinely too busy to go to church; they may well have minimum-wage jobs which require them to work long hours to make ends meet, including weekend shifts. Add family commitments to this and church will often get squeezed out, even among those who actually want to go.

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I think it's generalising wildly (and very patronising) to describe Anglo-Catholicism as the true expression of working-class Christianity. Possibly the case in Oxford or London, but in the North of England Methodism has historically done well in the mill towns; in Wales non-conformist chapels have dominated the scene.

If a working-class person attended one of the central Oxford Anglican churches, they would stick out like a sore thumb (the Anglo-Catholic establishments included).

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
In the North of England Methodism has historically done well in the mill towns; in Wales non-conformist chapels have dominated the scene.

And the working class identity of the South West might have Methodist echoes as well. But bearing in mind the thread's title, I imagine that most of the communities we have in mind here were pre-council estate.

Indeed, Anglo-Catholicism was a phenomenon of the inner city environment, so I understand. It would be interesting to know to what extent it followed those communities out to the council estates. It must have had more resources to do so than Welsh Non-conformity or the Methodist chapels elsewhere.

quote:

Yes the mosques are full, but in my town there are several dozen churches but only about 5 mosques, so we're not comparing like with like. Conversation with muslim friends indicates that the mosques are currently in the position that the Church was 60 years ago; there's a certain cultural pressure to attend, and at least profess belief, but actual commitment to the faith is questionable.

I think this depends on which Muslims we're talking about. In a mostly middle class Midlands or Southern town there might be more assimilation, since the Muslim community there will be smaller, and there'll be lots of social interaction with non-Muslims. But in areas with a larger, more confident Muslim community - and with the ongoing immigration of Muslims - secularisation may not seem so attractive.

In my city, mosques may well outnumber churches by now. Islam is certainly more dominant than Christianity as a lived faith.

quote:

Working class people who are actually working will often be quite genuinely too busy to go to church; they may well have minimum-wage jobs which require them to work long hours to make ends meet, including weekend shifts. Add family commitments to this and church will often get squeezed out, even among those who actually want to go.

The challenge for churches in this case is to be more flexible, to be open when people are available. Perhaps to be places where tired people feel able to relax, not just places of formality and tradition.

[ 17. September 2017, 14:22: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Interesting that you assume that the Anglo-Catholics at Walsingham - clergy or lay - cannot possibly be working-class themselves.

Hope that wasn't addressed to me - my parish was in the red light district. Many of our black women worked in a sweatshop making cheap clothes, we had a couple of men working in banks, a poistman (who taught me the importance of trade unions), a 'simple' bloke who always shared a room with his mother, several unemployed.
Our middle class types commuted in for the bells and birettas.
They've a woman as vicar now but are still firmly working class - I really miss it - the anglo-cats round here are all prissy.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

I'm not convinced the problem is exactly class, although I'm not sure it's entirely not class either. To me, the problem is entitlement.

Outside chaplaincy contexts, the Church of England is simply no good at explaining itself to people on its edge or helping them to come in. To be able to come in, you have to be able to demonstrate your entitlement by climbing in under your own steam, to show that you know the rules without being told them. If you can't do this, you will forever be seen with suspicion as an outsider, and get the "ecumenical response" which is also characteristic: "smile; nod; ignore".

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I think it's generalising wildly (and very patronising) to describe Anglo-Catholicism as the true expression of working-class Christianity. Possibly the case in Oxford or London, but in the North of England Methodism has historically done well in the mill towns; in Wales non-conformist chapels have dominated the scene.
If a working-class person attended one of the central Oxford Anglican churches, they would stick out like a sore thumb (the Anglo-Catholic establishments included).

I have attended some of them (and some of the college chapels, if they count), and I don't think I particularly stood out - remember that the central Oxford Anglican churches will have plenty of tourists, particularly at midweek or evening services. Like London, I think areas where churches form part of the tourist trail are quite different - there's a far broader and more transient mix of people in attendance. They would stand out far more in a church in a leafy suburb.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I guess when God got me, I turned to Christianity rather than bells and smells of a hippie nature to interpret my religious experience. Perhaps if I had been bought up in a commune, I might be on a Rastafarian discussion board at the moment. Maybe then summer youth conferences have a point, however manipulative and alienating they seem to this little black duck.

And yes, Walsingham seems incredibly posh as a name to this colonial, and not at all working class.

In my town, where we are either working class, hobby farmers or FIFO horse stud owners, families who are Christian go to the American-style mini-mega-Church, where they are ministered to by emigres from the liberal mainline denominations, or the Catholics, sustained by the running of quality schools.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

There were no coach loads of working class families when I went either time.

There was an angry looking, scurrying, thirty-forty something, dark and handsome vicar in the bookshop. I was caught in his anger in a meeting of eyes. I think he was projecting. I'm bound to be wrong.

[ 18. September 2017, 09:26: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Yes the mosques are full, but in my town there are several dozen churches but only about 5 mosques, so we're not comparing like with like. Conversation with muslim friends indicates that the mosques are currently in the position that the Church was 60 years ago; there's a certain cultural pressure to attend, and at least profess belief, but actual commitment to the faith is questionable.

Both of these points are pertinent, and IMO correct.

Mosques have such a high attendance because there is still massive cultural pressure within Islamic communities that makes people go. As I live and work in Birmingham I know many muslims, and from those interactions I'd say about the same percentage of them are genuinely religious as is the case for the traditionally Christian communities.

But the question of how many churches there are versus how many mosques there are is also important to bear in mind, especially when the myriad varieties of Christianity are taken into account. Even adjusted for percentage of population there must be at least two churches for every mosque, so is it any wonder the mosques would be twice as full?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I live and work in Birmingham too, but my impression is slightly different.

I feel that Islam is very much a way of life, rather than a sophisticated set of doctrines that every Muslim has to sign up to. Going to the mosque, for some Muslims, is part of that way of life, and isn't necessarily a sign that one is some kind of highly thoughtful, theological person.

By comparison Christianity probably suffers by being a much more cerebral, inward-focused religion, almost detached from 'real life'. If one has problems with any aspects of Christianity (or with the church) it seems easier to drift away, because there isn't really a well-defined and public way of life that validates the whole thing and holds it together.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Nobody seems to have picked up on this point in my OP, which to me was an important part of what I was airing.

quote:
... At the core of the Anglo-Catholic vision are priests heroically exhausting themselves doing great things for the working classes. They still, though, retain 100% custody of the metaphorical shrine. That is not the same thing as working class people being able to express faith or do things for themselves? ...

Do you agree or disagree? Was I being fair, unfair, or just out of date? Do you think this applies just as much to all other Christian endeavour, except perhaps the Great Welsh Revival of 1904?

Or if not, which endeavours successfully avoid potential charges of being patronising or condescending in a well meaning sort of way?

And as a matter of comparison, do you think this has now come to apply just as much, or at least, nearly as much, to the Labour Party?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I'd be surprised if any Anglo-Catholics are heroically working in places where others (inside or outside the Anglican setup) aren't. That might have been true in the long-distant past, I don't think it stands up now.

The idea that Anglo-Catholicism is somehow working-class whereas New Wine is Upper Middle Class seems like bunk and wishful thinking to me.

Posted by keibat (# 5287) on :

ScitlanaV2 wrote:

quote:
I feel that Islam is very much a way of life, rather than a sophisticated set of doctrines that every Muslim has to sign up to. Going to the mosque, for some Muslims, is part of that way of life, and isn't necessarily a sign that one is some kind of highly thoughtful, theological person.

By comparison Christianity probably suffers by being a much more cerebral, inward-focused religion, almost detached from 'real life'.

etc...

In parish ministry in an area with relatively low educational levels, seeing families coming to church for the 'occasional offices / rites of passage: baptism, marriage, and burial, I have to say that for many Christians Christianity is also a way of life, not a cerebral system. Hereabouts, it still has some traction; clearly, over massive swathes of contemporary Britain, it has lost that traction. It isn't, it really isn't a question of doctrine, but of practices.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Nobody seems to have picked up on this point in my OP, which to me was an important part of what I was airing.
quote:
... At the core of the Anglo-Catholic vision are priests heroically exhausting themselves doing great things for the working classes. They still, though, retain 100% custody of the metaphorical shrine. That is not the same thing as working class people being able to express faith or do things for themselves? ...
Do you agree or disagree? Was I being fair, unfair, or just out of date?

I think the description is out of date. It was true to an extent in the past (though never to the extent that it's repetition bears) but in general the bits of the inner city where it used to be true have gentrified, as have the churches in those areas. And any working class communities nearby no longer attend church.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Yebbut. Bishop North is definitely talking about bleak council estates, not gentrified urban bits of inner cities. And the city where I live (see below) has some inner gentrified bits and some inner very ungentrified bits. I suspect that's the same in at least some other cities.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes, and those areas can be cheek-by-jowl.

To me, the person who has best explained the history of social housing, in particular large estates, is Lynsey Hanley, herself a native of the Chelmsley Wood estate in Birmingham. Her book "Estates", although not exactly politically neutral, tells us a lot about how the large self-contained estates came to be as they are today, although it says little or nothing about the church as a focus of community. She does however have a highly relevant chapter about what one might call the estate mentality, or "Wall within my head".

The church I serve is on a 1960s estate which still has more of a social mix than many such - ironically this has been preserved by the much-maligned "right to but" policy. Four things are of interest. One is that the estate is almost self-contained, with very few (vehicular) access points from the surrounding area. Second is that visionary Christians in the area planned the church to be there right from the start of construction. Then comes the fact that the church hall (the church itself came later) was initially the only community resource and even housed the local Post Office before the shops were built, some time later. And finally we have the issue that most of the church members today, probably through "culture lift", no longer live on the estate but nearby (the same is true for me).

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yebbut. Bishop North is definitely talking about bleak council estates, not gentrified urban bits of inner cities. And the city where I live (see below) has some inner gentrified bits and some inner very ungentrified bits. I suspect that's the same in at least some other cities.

OK, but I don't see that there is a whole lot of evidence that Anglo-catholicism in particular has more stickiness in those areas than other forms of Christianity.

In the absence of real facts, we can only deal with anecdotes - and mine from various places I've lived suggest that working class communities in general are turned off church.

When I lived in England, the Anglican parish setup struggled to continue with a presence in council estates. And where it was still present, I don't believe there was any great bias towards Anglo-catholicism. In fact, I'd say if anything the bias was in the other direction: for example local parishes in one place were working with a Church Army evangelist to put on ultra-low church services for people who had no connection to any kind of church at all.

Here in Wales, I'd say that the Anglican churches are probably more inclined to be Anglo-Catholic than in England, but it seems like they're almost entirely absent from the poorest council estates. It looks to me like the Salvation Army have a bigger presence in those places and there are a scattering of Methodist, Baptist and other chapels.

In general it seems like most of the smaller churches and chapels are in steep decline (however high they are up the candle) but there is growth in various "house church" setups. I don't know what is happening in the SA, but everyone else seems to be generally coalescing in the towns and abandoning the estates.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Here in Wales, I'd say that the Anglican churches are probably more inclined to be Anglo-Catholic than in England, but it seems like they're almost entirely absent from the poorest council estates.

Speaking only for my local situation, the CinW has two churches that meet in church schools (at least during term time). They come under the aegis of the wider Ministry Area which, at present, is seriously understaffed and struggling to fulfil all its duties.

I do not know how successful these school-churches are, either in terms of numbers or of drawing from the local community, but I think the idea is a good one. It's perhaps significant that the "mother church" of the Ministry Area is not on the local estates but in a "posher" area, although (to be fair) that area was built up some decades earlier.

[ 19. September 2017, 07:49: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Speaking only for my local situation, the CinW has two churches that meet in church schools (at least during term time). They come under the aegis of the wider Ministry Area which, at present, is seriously understaffed and struggling to fulfil all its duties.

I do not know how successful these school-churches are, either in terms of numbers or of drawing from the local community, but I think the idea is a good one. It's perhaps significant that the "mother church" of the Ministry Area is not on the local estates but in a "posher" area, although (to be fair) that area was built up some decades earlier.

One of the differences between South Wales and parts of England is that in the Valleys (and elsewhere) whole (or large parts of) towns are basically council estates and are quite some distance from "posher" areas.

Even in Cardiff the areas aren't so far apart - whereas that's quite different in an area which is a string of small towns and estates with no centre of gravity and wealth.

I think the CiW is doing better in Cardiff than elsewhere because people can relatively easily commute to neighbouring areas, whereas that's much more difficult to do elsewhere.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Even in Cardiff the areas aren't so far apart.

Here they literally adjoin - though the planners have made it difficult to get from one to the other, at least by car (there are footpaths), and the road layout means that you don't "naturally" drive through the estates but go round the edges. I'm sure that the idea was to prevent through traffic "rat running", but the effect is to cut off the estates from the wider world. There's a good bus service though.

[ 19. September 2017, 08:09: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Here they literally adjoin - though the planners have made it difficult to get from one to the other, at least by car (there are footpaths), and the road layout means that you don't "naturally" drive through the estates but go round the edges. I'm sure that the idea was to prevent through traffic "rat running", but the effect is to cut off the estates from the wider world. There's a good bus service though.

OK, what I meant was that it is possible to walk between different types of Anglican church in Cardiff (say if one wanted to go to an Anglo-Cath joint when the local one is a low church). That's not possible where I am.

But the point you make is a good one too - the estates in eastern Cardiff are arranged in a particularly weird way so that traveling around isn't exactly easy there either.

Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on :

I find this discussion very illuminating, disturbing and ...... better not go there, I might use some very rude words.

I don't think anyone in this discussion is actually working class or from a working class background. These questions and answers would not be coming up if they were.

Can I suggest that instead of discussing what "you" think so called working class people are like, that you get off your backsides and actually go and engage with, talk to and more importantly listen to ordinary "working class" folks. Then you might be able to come to some reasoned ideas of how to communicate God to them.

Thank you.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Show us.

I'm middle class by education and work. From a council estate. I've roughed it too. A thousand miles from home with nothing in my pocket. Which helps. In 8 years of working with the homeless.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
I find this discussion very illuminating, disturbing and ...... better not go there, I might use some very rude words.

I don't think anyone in this discussion is actually working class or from a working class background. These questions and answers would not be coming up if they were.

I live in the cheapest accommodation in one of the cheapest areas of Wales. There are estates that are worse than where I live, but I'm not sure what one could possibly call this area if not working class. It has a history of mining and then generations of unemployment. Most people live in small terrace 1890s housing, some live in poor quality pebble-dashed housing from the 1960s. A smaller number live in larger detached or semi-detached housing.

quote:
Can I suggest that instead of discussing what "you" think so called working class people are like, that you get off your backsides and actually go and engage with, talk to and more importantly listen to ordinary "working class" folks. Then you might be able to come to some reasoned ideas of how to communicate God to them.

Can I suggest you might want to make fewer assumptions about the people you're talking to?

quote:
Thank you.

No no, thank you. It is always good to read ill-informed rants which masquerade as I-know-better-than-you knowledge.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Enoch, sorry...I'd missed your clarification question.
.

Is a Walsingham Youth Pilgrimage the true and most working class way of expressing Christian faith?
I haven't got a clue.
I have never been so have nothing to base such a declaration on.

But Bishop Philip does think that it is a true and most working class way of expressing Christian faith
No doubt because he has seen people's lives changed as result of attending.
So he'd like to big-up a part of the C/E where what he says are working class youngsters are actually connecting with God.

He's excited. It's post-festival time. This was what that article was about....imho

Walsingham, Kewsick, New Wine...who cares? Everyone's welcome anywhere

[ 19. September 2017, 15:44: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:

Is a Walsingham Youth Pilgrimage the true and most working class way of expressing Christian faith?
I haven't got a clue.
I have never been so have nothing to base such a declaration on.

But Bishop Philip does think that it is a true and most working class way of expressing Christian faith
No doubt because he has seen people's lives changed as result of attending.
So he'd like to big-up a part of the C/E where what he says are working class youngsters are actually connecting with God.

I wouldn't know either, as I've only been to the RC Walsingham, so to speak.

But I can sort of imagine that Walsingham represents quite a visible expression of indigenous working class Christian spirituality in the CofE.

But is visibility what the bishop means? Or is he talking about the numbers of people involved? Or perhaps the content of their faith or the degree of their devotion, as compared to working class Christians of other traditions?

And is he talking of something that can be quantified, or it is more about a gut feeling?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

How could it do that? I couldn't see that at all either time. The visible expression of indigenous working class Christian spirituality in the CofE. Apart from the kitsch. What was I missing? Or is it a matter of having eyes to hear?

[ 21. September 2017, 16:49: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

But the question I'm asking is whether this is a genuinely working class expression of Christian faith, or whether it is something being provided for the working classes by a tradition of middle class clergy who think it's good for them?

After all, what ever social background we came from, or would like to think we still belong to, by the time a person gets to post on this board, or, for that matter to write an article in the Church Times, I suspect we're all bourgeois and middle class.

[ 21. September 2017, 17:55: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Then you've answered your own bizarre straw man question. I just don't understand why it's being asked.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

One of the things we've largely lost in the UK is the sense of there being 'folk Anglicans' in the way that there are 'folk catholics.'

So, for instance, my maternal grandfather's family were very working class and generally devout in a very tangible way that wasn't pietistic in the evangelical sense. It wasn't quite 'catholic' as such but they made a big deal of graves and prayer books in an almost talismanic sense at times.

They valued communion and respected clergy - and other religions.

You wouldn't have heard them citing chapter and verse but their faith was very down-to-earth and unselfconscious. At times you suddenly had a sense of the numinous and the divine,even amidst harsh conditions they lived in, the ailments and set-backs they suffered.

I still see elements of that in some rural areas but it's largely vanished in the cities other than in some parishes.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The overwhelming sense one gets from all layers of all churches is that Christianity is something that should be "done to" council estates. IMV this is offensive and patronising: the churches - all of them - should offer services (not just liturgies but other activities) to all and a genuine welcome to all. Will that work to bring "Christianity" to the council/social housing dweller? Don't know.

What I do know is that in a village such as where I play putting the church at the middle of village life - through things like Play-and-Praise for toddlers, carols in the middle of social housing (because there is a nice flat piece of grass with a light), harvest centred around offerings from local farmers, churchyard working parties, etc - is far more acceptable (and effective) and reaching out to the people in our social housing than anything amount of preaching.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

As long as the yearned for result of that and Messy Church isn't to get them to sign up for a concert interrupted by a lecture.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The overwhelming sense one gets from all layers of all churches is that Christianity is something that should be "done to" council estates. IMV this is offensive and patronising: the churches - all of them - should offer services (not just liturgies but other activities) to all and a genuine welcome to all. Will that work to bring "Christianity" to the council/social housing dweller? Don't know.

It seems to me an undiscussed truism that unemployed and low income people don't have the time or mental energy to organise religion in this country. Unlike in years past when miners were well known as autodidacts and were took the lead in religious movements like Methodism, in the current era, if church isn't led by the educated, time rich and relatively well off, it doesn't happen at all.

This seems to particularly apply to the white poor - other ethnic communities seem to have considerably more stickability with regard to organising religion.

If a poor person doesn't like going to church run by a more wealthy, higher social class person (which is going to be a sizable proportion of white poor, if not other poor groups), then it doesn't matter how welcoming the church is.

quote:
What I do know is that in a village such as where I play putting the church at the middle of village life - through things like Play-and-Praise for toddlers, carols in the middle of social housing (because there is a nice flat piece of grass with a light), harvest centred around offerings from local farmers, churchyard working parties, etc - is far more acceptable (and effective) and reaching out to the people in our social housing than anything amount of preaching.

Mmm. I think village life is quite different to council estates. For one thing, even the poorest members of a village (who, by pressure of housing if nothing else are unlikely to be as poor as someone on an inner city council estate) are likely to participate in a parish church event. Because there often isn't anything else happening.

Larger villages and smaller towns in England do sometimes have areas of council housing, and my perception is that the parish church is usually as ineffective at reaching out to inhabitants there as in the inner cities.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The overwhelming sense one gets from all layers of all churches is that Christianity is something that should be "done to" council estates. IMV this is offensive and patronising:

That's part of my point. My question also, though, is whether Bishop North has a point that nose-bleed high Anglo-Catholics are somehow better socially embedded than anyone else, or whether that's wishful thinking because he's a nose-bleed high Anglo-Catholic who happens to find himself suffragen bishop in a part of the country with a fairly high level of social disadvantage

quote:
the churches - all of them - should offer services (not just liturgies but other activities) to all and a genuine welcome to all.

But doesn't that describe 'doing things to' people, just the same, except using slightly different language?

quote:
Will that work to bring "Christianity" to the council/social housing dweller? Don't know.

What I do know is that in a village such as where I play putting the church at the middle of village life - through things like Play-and-Praise for toddlers, carols in the middle of social housing (because there is a nice flat piece of grass with a light), harvest centred around offerings from local farmers, churchyard working parties, etc - is far more acceptable (and effective) and reaching out to the people in our social housing than anything amount of preaching.

Alas, I think Mr Cheesy is right in saying that villages are different from large socially monochrome urban estates.

Gamaliel I think what you said about losing a sense of 'folk Anglicans' is quite interesting. Would I be right in suspecting that your grandparents attached importance to being churched?

I'm going to stick my neck out a bit on something else. There's a strong perception in church circles that the non-conformist denominations and Catholics have the edge on reaching the disadvantaged over the CofE. I slightly wonder if that might not be quite as so as we think.

There's no doubt that if you are a practicing Christian and class A, you are more likely to be CofE. It's that which gives the impression that the CofE is the church for the English equivalent of the crachach.

So, the other denominations look more C1/C2 than the CofE does. But apart from having more of the As, the bedrock of your typical CofE congregation is actually just as much C1/C2 as it is for everybody else. if you were to look at churchgoers as against the non-churchgoers, rather than comparing churchgoers, if you are C1 or C2 and a practicing Christian, I suspect you're just as likely to be CofE as anything else. And if you are D or E, I suspect that unless you belong to an ethnic group, you are no more likely to be a non-conformist than to be CofE.

[ 22. September 2017, 21:29: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

My grandparents weren't 'practising' but some of my maternal grandfather's sisters were. He had 11 brothers and sisters who survived infancy.

When I knew them they tended to receive communion at home. My great-aunt Nell was severely limited in her movements due to cerebral palsy. At her funeral the vicar said he'd learned more about patience and long-suffering from her than anything he'd been taught in seminary.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

My father's side of the family were nominally non-conformist.

They were Baptists but his father had become a 'free-thinker' and his mother wasn't interested. She kids to Sunday school at Ebenezer Two-Locks but didn't go herself.

My family were an interesting mix of dirt-poor working class and aspirational shop-keeper types. My grandmother on my mother's side came from a line of bicycle manufacturers who eventually fell on hard times.

So we were a mixed bag.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

I'm going to stick my neck out a bit on something else. There's a strong perception in church circles that the non-conformist denominations and Catholics have the edge on reaching the disadvantaged over the CofE. I slightly wonder if that might not be quite as so as we think.

There's no doubt that if you are a practicing Christian and class A, you are more likely to be CofE. It's that which gives the impression that the CofE is the church for the English equivalent of the crachach.

So, the other denominations look more C1/C2 than the CofE does. But apart from having more of the As, the bedrock of your typical CofE congregation is actually just as much C1/C2 as it is for everybody else. if you were to look at churchgoers as against the non-churchgoers, rather than comparing churchgoers, if you are C1 or C2 and a practicing Christian, I suspect you're just as likely to be CofE as anything else. And if you are D or E, I suspect that unless you belong to an ethnic group, you are no more likely to be a non-conformist than to be CofE.

At a certain point in history British Nonconformity probably had a considerably higher percentage of less advantaged members or affiliates in its ranks than the CofE, but the CofE's surely always had the greatest absolute numbers of such people, simply by virtue of being the national church and having the widest coverage.

I should think that disadvantaged members and adherents are less significant among the Nonconformists than among the CofE nowadays. This is because Nonconformists have been upwardly mobile in a way that doesn't seem so apparent in the CofE. And also, Nonconformity (with the exception of the Baptists) has shrunk so much faster than the CofE, probably losing far more people at both the top and the bottom.

The question now is whether newer groups have partially taken over from some of the historical denominations when it comes to working class churchgoing.

For example, I've noticed that on some current and previous council estates in my city, you're as likely to find a Jehovah's Witness temple or a small independent chapel as you are to find a CofE or RCC church. (The Nonconformists are absent, unless they meet privately.)

As for the RCs, my understanding is that their working class contingent has mostly been foreign or of foreign descent since the 19th c. That certainly seems true today.

[ 23. September 2017, 13:56: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... As for the RCs, my understanding is that their working class contingent has mostly been foreign or of foreign descent since the 19th c. That certainly seems true today.

In the C19 and early C20 the RCC was largely perceived as the church for immigrant Irish workers. Even the English recusants complained of being swamped. However, there has always been much more Irish middle class movement than people have noticed.

Catholic churches often provide separate masses in languages like Polish. Nevertheless, there are plenty of Catholic congregations which are every bit as middle class as neighbouring CofE ones, even if quite a lot of the surnames are Irish.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I always thought that until at least the early 1920s Ireland was considered as part,politically,of Great Britain and a fief of the English crown. why , then ,are Irish people described as foreigners, when they were considered to be citizens and subjects of the English crown ?

On a separate note I was on the island of Jersey last weekend. In St Helier there were two principal Catholic churches, one in the past for French speakers and the other for English speakers. The French has gone now but the main church has at the weekend three Masses in English, one in Portuguese and one in Polish. The principal English language Mass also has the Gospel and the notices read in Portuguese.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Enoch

I wonder if the middle class Irish RCs were middle class when they arrived, or if they became so after coming to the UK.

The claim has been made that among immigrant churchgoers those who progress socially are more likely to remain within the church than those who don't. So although the assumption is that black British churchgoers are working class, for example, they may well be more educationally and professionally successful overall than those who don't go. The same may be true for RC immigrants who continue as churchgoers.

It's not surprising, I suppose.

Forthview

The British usually take a more limiting view of who belongs. When the Windrush generation arrived from the Caribbean in the late 1940s-early 1960s they were viewed as immigrants, despite being British subjects.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Although they came from what was then just another part of the UK, In the C19, Irish workers were definitely regarded as migrants, even if it was accepted they were not foreigners. Even people from other parts of England were likely to be regarded in much the same way. There were fights between groups of railway navvies who stuck together according to where they'd come from.

I think you're right Svitlana that many Irish Catholics who originally migrated as workers and their families have moved up the social scale and become middle class. However, there has definitely all along been a significant but less noticed movement of Catholics from Ireland to mainland Britain who were already middle class in Ireland and did middle class things when they got to mainland Britain. That is still the case now.

In the same way, everybody always assumes that British people who emigrated to Australia, Canada etc in the C19 and did well when they got there were originally the downtrodden or even convicts. But there was a very substantial emigration of middle class professionals, engineers, lawyers, doctors etc in the C19 who formed the basis of those sectors in what eventually became the dominions.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
In the same way, everybody always assumes that British people who emigrated to Australia, Canada etc in the C19 and did well when they got there were originally the downtrodden or even convicts. But there was a very substantial emigration of middle class professionals, engineers, lawyers, doctors etc in the C19 who formed the basis of those sectors in what eventually became the dominions.

Yes indeed, including scions of such families as the de Montforts and Fairfaxes to name a couple.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Re council estates, in Ukland at least they've changed somewhat in most places since the heady days of the 1950s, full employment, 'You've never had it so good', etc.

Our Place isn't a council estate as such - mostly early 20th C terraced houses, plus some 1920s/30s semis/terraces - but certainly working-class (and amongst the top 10% in the country in terms of poverty and deprivation). Looking at parish profiles (the adverts C of E churches publish when they're looking for a new Vicar), ISTM that, no matter what the churchmanship of the parish may be, the regular congregation is going to be smallish compared to those in leafy suburbs.

In our case, the stable, established, English working-class families have been to a large extent replaced by families from Foreign Parts, students (also from Foreign Parts), a leavening of English one-parent families, and a few older people. This morning's Eucharist had a congregation of people from Hungary, Russia, Angola, the Philippines, Portugal, Poland, the West Indies, and Nigeria (as well as some native Uklanders, too, but the Latvian contingent was missing). All these people live within or just outside our small parish, and I suspect that we are by no means unusual.

(I can now say 'Good Morning' in Yoruba, Tagalog, Magyar, Polish, Russian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Latvian....

Why we have no Scandinavians or Indians, I know not. Seems unfair, somehow...).

IJ

Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on :

Sorry Mt Cheesy if I offended you. But I just found the arguments somewhat tedious and steriotypical.

I don't think that dividing people up into working class/middle class, is relevant today. What do we mean by middle class and how many types of middle class are there anyway?
One of my so called "middle class" friends earns a lot less than another "middle class" friend. They both own houses. One struggles and one is comfortable. They aren't the same and both have completely different tastes in lifestyle, music, communication etc.
If we beholden to upper/middle/working class, we are missing out the homeless. They are people too - they usually don't work (although in today's society some do - especially in London).

Many sociologists today posit more than 1 "working" classification. We need to be more nuanced. Pre-1960s and dialectical definitions don't work in 2017.

Council estates can, and usually do have a mixture of people, some having bought their houses and comfortable and some really struggling, some unemployed.The one I grew up in was very mixed and the one where we work is also mixed. Pigeon holing people makes divisions.

Surely we should be communicating what Christianity is about in language and methods that people can relate to, no matter what their sociological division is? It may be different in one location from another - so what!

I couldn't care what denomination Christians are from, or what their style of worship. They need to engage with people, talk to them and listen to them. Then design worship that will be meaningful to the location and people they are with.

Walsingham.......don't think you will get many "working class" (whatever that means), travelling from Scotland and Wales and the far south- West of England. Too expensive! Nice place though. I like it at the old ruins, down where the pools are.

I think folks who are too wedded to their style of worship, thinking it is the only way, may get a shock when they get to heaven.

(By the way sorry for the spelling. I'm dyslexic and there ain't no spell checks on SofF.....hint, hint)

Posted by keibat (# 5287) on :

To be pedantic: Forthview wrote:

quote:
I always thought that until at least the early 1920s Ireland was considered as part,politically,of Great Britain and a fief of the English crown.

'Great Britain' is the name of a rather large island, which includes the countries of Scotland, Wales, and England. 'Ireland' is the name of an also quite large island situated a tad further west, which includes the Irish Republic and the UK Province of Northern Ireland. Ireland was – OK; 'fief' is technically wrong, but it'll do – a fief of the English Crown from the medieval period through to 1800, when it was fully incorporated into the United Kingdom, and remained so until the partition of Ireland between the 26 counties of the predominantly Roman Catholic south and the 6 counties of the predominantly protestant north in 1920/21. The Free State in the south was initially intended (by the British) to be a somewhat Canada-like Dominion still under the Crown, but it unilaterally declared itself a Republic in 1936 (which the British graciously recognized some 12 years later); the north has passed through various versions of self-government as a Province within the UK.

'Ireland' is of course often used as a convenient name for the Republic, but it often becomes necessary to specify whether you mean only the Republic, or the whole Island of Ireland. If you want a convenient wordname for the UK, 'Britain' is OK, but 'Great Britain' is factually (geographically) incorrect, since it doesn't include Northern Ireland.

Because of this complex interwoven history, and although the Republic is not a member state of the Commonwealth, citizens of the Irish Republic resident within the UK have full citizens' rights within the UK; however, the Republic and the UK are both so-called 'sovereign states', and so at least in some respects Irish citizens are indeed 'foreign'.

However, xenophobia is usually not really about people's passports, but perceived cultural incompatibility. 'Irish' migrants who moved to work in Great Britain, especially after the Potato Famine in the 1840s, were predominantly unskilled and Roman Catholic and typically ended up in manual labouring jobs or domestic service. Protestants from Ireland, especially if Anglican, were however known as Anglo-Irish, and were equatable with Colonials from the Dominions of the Empire, i.e. respectable. So historical anti-Irish prejudice is a compound of religious and class-based prejudices.

The Little Englanders now have much more exciting Foreigners to despise – persons of colour from South Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean; or persons of strange tongues from far-eastern Europe.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Enoch, your codes are confusing to me. I know what C19 means, but I'm betting that C1 and C2 don't mean the first and second centuries. You also used a word that seemed like something the US President would tweet while having a minor stroke.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Enoch, your codes are confusing to me. I know what C19 means, but I'm betting that C1 and C2 don't mean the first and second centuries. You also used a word that seemed like something the US President would tweet while having a minor stroke.

C19 means nineteenth century. As far as I know, that abbreviation is universal. C1 and C2 could mean 1st and 2nd century in a different context, but here are part of a standard sociological classification A-E used in this country, among others by the Office of National Statistics. Here is a description. Most British people will understand them, even if they disagree with them or don't like the concept. I can see that someone from somewhere else might have a problem understanding them.

I can't give a translation of whichever word Mr Trump might tweet unless you tell me which word, as I can't guess from your comment which word or phrase you are referring to.

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

Wild haggis, there are definitely working class Anglicans who travel from Cardiff to Walsingham, as long as a priest organises a coach. A church where I played the organ some years ago used to love the Walsingham trips. Many of the congregation were on benefits and those who were working were mostly in low paid jobs (cleaner, call centre etc). They used to save up for the coach fare.
The parishes in the south of Cardiff are traditionally poor and Anglo-Catholic. As far as I know, all the revamping of Cardiff Bay hasn't altered that. I'd be interested to know if any of the residents in the nice new gated flats go to church, and if so, where.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I think it's generalising wildly (and very patronising) to describe Anglo-Catholicism as the true expression of working-class Christianity. Possibly the case in Oxford or London, but in the North of England Methodism has historically done well in the mill towns; in Wales non-conformist chapels have dominated the scene.
If a working-class person attended one of the central Oxford Anglican churches, they would stick out like a sore thumb (the Anglo-Catholic establishments included).

I'm one of those working class people who left a council estate and went off to posh universities and ended up speaking posh and eating guacamole so I probably don't count according to some assessments. However, in a central Anglican church in Oxford I'm very familiar with, I can think of several working class people who are very much "traditional working class" and who are as valued as the poshoes. Admittedly, there are more poshoes but that's a result of the changing demographic of the area.

Thurible

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

And demographics on former 'working-class' estates are changing rapidly, as I pointed out earlier.

(BTW, welcome back, Thurible!)

IJ

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Aravis
Thinking of Roath, eh? St Saviour's Splott, St Margaret's, St German's and St Martin's, to name a few. <tangent> St Martin's has a very fine mosaic of Christ Pantocrator which was blessed by Rowan ++

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

You are of course right about those places .... my son, when living in the area, sometimes attended one of these (St. German's, I think). However when people think "council estate" they are usually thinking of large peripheral estates built in the 1930s or more recently, such as St. Mellons or Pentwyn, and I'm not sure if the churches in such areas are as "high". Perhaps the period when the houses and churches were built has something to do with it.

(Having said that, the part of London where I grew up had a large 1920s LCC estate adjacent, and both Anglican churches within it were A-C).

And don't forget the Nonconformists (though Splott Baptist church has just closed)! Perhaps there has always been a range of churchmanship in most places.

[ 27. September 2017, 07:37: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I think it's generalising wildly (and very patronising) to describe Anglo-Catholicism as the true expression of working-class Christianity. Possibly the case in Oxford or London, but in the North of England Methodism has historically done well in the mill towns; in Wales non-conformist chapels have dominated the scene.
If a working-class person attended one of the central Oxford Anglican churches, they would stick out like a sore thumb (the Anglo-Catholic establishments included).
I'm one of those working class people who left a council estate and went off to posh universities and ended up speaking posh and eating guacamole so I probably don't count according to some assessments. However, in a central Anglican church in Oxford I'm very familiar with, I can think of several working class people who are very much "traditional working class" and who are as valued as the poshoes. Admittedly, there are more poshoes but that's a result of the changing demographic of the area.

Thurible

Good Grief - hello Thurible, I'd often wondered where you'd got to!

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

wild haggis:

quote:
I don't think that dividing people up into working class/middle class, is relevant today. What do we mean by middle class and how many types of middle class are there anyway?

Sociologists are still using 'class' as a way of dividing different subcultures within a nation, though, and according to the Great British Class Survey run by the BBC in 2013 there are seven different classes. Two are actually labelled 'middle class', though some members of other groupings might consider themselves to be culturally middle class.

Class has never been only about money. Not in the UK, anyway.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0