Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE] Baptists are more of a minority
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
However, I meant 'mainstream' in the sense of historic denominations - I would include the RCC, Orthodox, Methodists, Baptists etc in that.
quote:Hosting
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Should the Church of England be disestablished?
Discuss.
Pixie, could you start the ball rolling on this difficult topic? My guess is that you will be agin it, but I may be wrong there. Are you an antidisestablishmentarian or not?
quote:IIRC there is already a second established church, the Church of Scotland. Other countries manage with multiple establishment (Finland, with Lutherans and Orthodox) and Germany with Evangelicals, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Query - in the future, if our monarch was styled 'Defender of Faith' and not 'Defender of the Faith' (or indeed we had no monarch), would it be possible for there to be more than one established church?
I am not opposed to there being an established church, but I'm not especially comfortable with the lack of voice other churches get. Representatives of mainstream churches (and indeed other faiths) should be in the House of Lords, for example.
quote:There is no established church in Germany. The German tax-collecting deal is simply something different. It is basically available to any (quasi-)religious community which can demonstrate that it (a) provides an institutional framework that is likely to last and (b) obeys the constitutional laws. Nine religious communities use this deal, including for example the German Jewish communities, whereas seventeen others could use it but do not, including for example the Salvation Army or the Society of Free Spirits.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Other countries manage with multiple establishment (Finland, with Lutherans and Orthodox) and Germany with Evangelicals, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics.
quote:Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn't the whole point of having an established state religion that it's part of "the Establishment"? You know, insiders, not a "voice of opposition".
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
C: It's good for the country to hear voices of opposition which aren't compromised by wanting to get elected (however much they may be compromised by other things). An Anglican priest recently got arrested trespassing in protest at a airbase. That means something different with an established church than it would mean without it.
quote:Indeed, a good way to experiment with disestablishment would be to break the link in Scotland - where establishment did nothing at all to prevent splits and divisions in the C19.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:IIRC there is already a second established church, the Church of Scotland. Other countries manage with multiple establishment (Finland, with Lutherans and Orthodox) and Germany with Evangelicals, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics.
quote:In short, state-backed religion is bad for both the state and for religion.
The two options for an official state religion are either the state becomes obsessed with determining who is really an adherent and who is just saying so to garner benefits from the state (the Inquisitorial option) or the state religion eliminates dissent by becoming so fluffy, toothless, and content-free that there are no strenuous dissenters (the Anglican option).
quote:The point is that many Anglican priests are voices of opposition, voices which attract more attention than they would coming from elsewhere.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn't the whole point of having an established state religion that it's part of "the Establishment"? You know, insiders, not a "voice of opposition".
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
C: It's good for the country to hear voices of opposition which aren't compromised by wanting to get elected (however much they may be compromised by other things). An Anglican priest recently got arrested trespassing in protest at a airbase. That means something different with an established church than it would mean without it.
quote:Anglicanism as a coherent intellectual tradition begins with the acceptance of dissent, not attempts to crush it. It's flexible, not fluffy, and this is a strength, not a weakness.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If I may be so bold as to quote myself on why having an established state religion is a bad idea:
quote:In short, state-backed religion is bad for both the state and for religion.
The two options for an official state religion are either the state becomes obsessed with determining who is really an adherent and who is just saying so to garner benefits from the state (the Inquisitorial option) or the state religion eliminates dissent by becoming so fluffy, toothless, and content-free that there are no strenuous dissenters (the Anglican option).
quote:No, Anglicanism begins with Henry VIII needing a new wife and breaking with the Catholic church. I'm pretty sure that a lot of what Hank8 did would qualify as "crushing dissent".
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Anglicanism as a coherent intellectual tradition begins with the acceptance of dissent, not attempts to crush it.
quote:If dissent is so critical, why the insistence on having the government's seal of approval? And I'm pretty sure that there's more dissent outside the Anglican church than in it. For example, I doubt Anglican clergy can openly deny the divinity of Jesus (to pick one example) in the manner a rabbi or imam would.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
It's flexible, not fluffy, and this is a strength, not a weakness.
quote:I said as a coherent intellectual tradition, I'm not talking about its origins, which are well known. The beginning of Anglicanism meaning something other than 'for Pope, read King' or opportunist wrecking is Elizabeth's time, when you could pay your money and take your choice. Excusing the abuses of power isn't much of a challenge or an achievement; establishing freedom of religion where none had existed is.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:No, Anglicanism begins with Henry VIII needing a new wife and breaking with the Catholic church. I'm pretty sure that a lot of what Hank8 did would qualify as "crushing dissent".
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Anglicanism as a coherent intellectual tradition begins with the acceptance of dissent, not attempts to crush it.
quote:Not a seal of approval; an opportunity to be heard at all. I'm not talking about theological dissent, I'm talking about real, political dissent which makes a difference to people's lives.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If dissent is so critical, why the insistence on having the government's seal of approval? And I'm pretty sure that there's more dissent outside the Anglican church than in it. For example, I doubt Anglican clergy can openly deny the divinity of Jesus (to pick one example) in the manner a rabbi or imam would.
quote:If there's no "opportunity to be heard at all" outside of Anglicanism, how is that not a government seal of approval? I have to be skeptical of anything billed as government approved political dissent.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:Not a seal of approval; an opportunity to be heard at all. I'm not talking about theological dissent, I'm talking about real, political dissent which makes a difference to people's lives.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If dissent is so critical, why the insistence on having the government's seal of approval? And I'm pretty sure that there's more dissent outside the Anglican church than in it. For example, I doubt Anglican clergy can openly deny the divinity of Jesus (to pick one example) in the manner a rabbi or imam would.
quote:There's no opportunity for priests to be heard. Do you live in Britain?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If there's no "opportunity to be heard at all" outside of Anglicanism, how is that not a government seal of approval? I have to be skeptical of anything billed as government approved political dissent.
And why not talk about theological dissent? A system which deliberately marginalizes rival religious beliefs is not one I'd call accepting of dissent.
quote:Well, this is the crux of the matter. To Americans, the CofE's established status probably sounds like an unfair monopoly of the public role of religion. In fact, the established status is the only reason there is any public role for religion, short of being an easy hot potato on cheap TV and radio discussion shows. The Church of England wouldn't be replaced with anything. Disestablishment itself would be conceived of as the removal, not the liberation, of religion.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'll leave the first to those here who are sniping at the Anglican Church except to say, it would probably be good to the surviving church.
'm not sure what it does to the nation . There's always been a rash of people complaining about lawsuits against prayer in school in the US with the "what's wrong with letting them pray?"
What would disestablishment look like in the UK?
Would it be like Northern US.. no clergy officiating at public events or a rotating religion version of the current establishment toss a priest into Government events?
quote:You don't have established religion in the States. You have Rick Warren and John Spong.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:In short, state-backed religion is bad for both the state and for religion.
The two options for an official state religion are either the state becomes obsessed with determining who is really an adherent and who is just saying so to garner benefits from the state (the Inquisitorial option) or the state religion eliminates dissent by becoming so fluffy, toothless, and content-free that there are no strenuous dissenters (the Anglican option).
quote:and, a bit further on,
3 For power is given you of the Lord, and sovereignty from the Highest, who shall try your works, and search out your counsels. (AV to spare hosts copyright anxieties)
quote:It's also very dangerous for the state and for us who live under its authority, since it invites God's wrath on the public weal, which is very bad for all of us irrespective of whether we have any control over the decision.
6 For mercy will soon pardon the meanest: but mighty men shall be mightily tormented. 7 For he which is Lord over all shall fear no man’s person, neither shall he stand in awe of any man’s greatness: for he hath made the small and great, and careth for all alike.
quote:lel
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Well well well... It seems as though you have once again, despite your best efforts, become a pawn in one of my rather elaborate ruses, and it seems as though the end result of said ruse has left your state of being of a lesser quality than before you were dealt the card hidden up my sleeve, while being none the wiser! And yes, while it is true that you will eventually recover from this recent turn of events, it remains unclear whether or not your social status on this website will remain at its current level, or if it will take a turn for the worst! After all is said and done, at the end of the day, you will have to accept the fact that you got the short end of the deal! I hold no remorse or regret, for I am and always shall be... A MASTER RUSEMAN!
quote:It boils down to ego and the delusion that the CoE is still relevant. Nobody pays a blind bit of attention to what CoE clerics say, just as is the case with clergy of other denominations. It's a peculiarly English Anglican conceit to believe otherwise.
Originally posted by Touchstone:
Would someone qualified to do so please explain what actual difference disestablishment would mean to the punters in the pews?
The Church in Wales has been disestablished for nearly a century, and I see no noticeable difference between it and the C of E (I attend churches in both) The C in W is probably a bit poorer, but that was because it was also disendowed when it was disestablished (it got shafted good and proper). As I recall, the point at issue in Wales was non-conformists being required to pay tithes to their local anglican vicar, which seems rather quaint now, to say the least.
People in Wales still expect to get married in and buried from their local anglican church, even if they never go there. This and the church schools are most people's points of contact with the church, and it's all exactly the same in both provinces. So if disestablishment happened, would anyone notice except a few church geeks?
quote:At present, people still have the option of actively deciding to ignore it. Not all do. It's also vital for democracy that unpopular sentiments are heard.
Originally posted by CL:
It boils down to ego and the delusion that the CoE is still relevant. Nobody pays a blind bit of attention to what CoE clerics say, just as is the case with clergy of other denominations. It's a peculiarly English Anglican conceit to believe otherwise.
quote:Too right.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:At present, people still have the option of actively deciding to ignore it. Not all do. It's also vital for democracy that unpopular sentiments are heard.
Originally posted by CL:
It boils down to ego and the delusion that the CoE is still relevant. Nobody pays a blind bit of attention to what CoE clerics say, just as is the case with clergy of other denominations. It's a peculiarly English Anglican conceit to believe otherwise.
quote:I'm not certain I see the difference (nor do I see the difference between establishment and the state funding secured by German law). Does establishment mean state participation in senior appointments? Or is it a situation where all agree that there is an establishment?
Originally posted by Forthview:
There is no 'established'church in Scotland.
There is,however, the National Church of Scotland.
quote:Ironically Henry VIII was given that title by the Pope for "writing" a crappy defence of Roman Catholicism contra Luther before the split with Rome. And it was never intended to be an hereditary title, so I'd be happy for it to go all together.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Query - in the future, if our monarch was styled 'Defender of Faith' and not 'Defender of the Faith' (or indeed we had no monarch), would it be possible for there to be more than one established church?
quote:That's the way it is here in the US. Churches and certain other non-profit organizations are tax exempt under IRC 501(c)3. This allows donations to be written off of the donor's tax return as a tax deduction, but it precludes the non-profit from making political statements or telling constituents voting advice in most cases.
Originally posted by would love to belong:
PS There is no state funding of the C of S, but individual congregations (and probably the central bureaucracy too) are registered charities with OSCR and get the usual tax breaks.
quote:I am flagging this for the attention of the admins.
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Gosh, I start this as a joke thread and you Anglicans just go on and on and on and on discussing...... Don't you get bored of it?
One thing I have noticed is that, in all your lengthy discussions and Sharing Of Deep Wisdom, the words "Christ" or "Jesus" are never uttered (except as oaths). Sad, sad, sad.
quote:I suppose that's always a possible side effect of posting something in a forum that bills itself as a 'space for serious debate'.
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Gosh, I start this as a joke thread and you Anglicans just go on and on and on and on discussing......
quote:What have they been able to change or affect in the last 20 years?
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
[QUOTE]The point is that many Anglican priests are voices of opposition, voices which attract more attention than they would coming from elsewhere.
quote:Baptists are radical dissenters by theological conviction and practical application. We'd be more than happy to see disestablishment. We see an established church as an arm of the state and hence unlikely to make the kind of radical waves we are looking for.
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
I understand that other Christian denominations and other religions (I refuse to use that ghastly politically correct term "faith groups") would oppose disestablishment because they consider that an established C of E gives a voice to religious concerns at the highest level.
quote:But do they anyway? Liberals, Anglo Catholics and evangelicals are always having a go at each other, wherever they co exist. Isn't it better to see a divide which may not stop the fighting but which actually stops the in fighting?
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
[QUOTE] I can't think of any reason other than proximity to the cultural discourse which would induce people as different as Nicky Gumbel and Giles Fraser to live and work in the same denomination. I may be wrong.
quote:The same question can be asked of Baptist, Methodist, RC or anyone else's clergy. They don't seem to have had more influence by being free of establishment.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:What have they been able to change or affect in the last 20 years?
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
[QUOTE]The point is that many Anglican priests are voices of opposition, voices which attract more attention than they would coming from elsewhere.
quote:Don't worry
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The real questions are to do with Monarchy (who would do the Coronation?), the Legislature (the Lords Spiritual) and issues such as Parliament having to vote on changes to the Prayer Book etc.
quote:The CofE is a minority faith group in the UK. A review of the nature and extent of its representation in our society is long overdue.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am not opposed to there being an established church, but I'm not especially comfortable with the lack of voice other churches get. Representatives of mainstream churches (and indeed other faiths) should be in the House of Lords, for example.
quote:Theoretically, yes. In practice there are many Baptists who have lost that "cutting edge" and are happy with the status quo. Some of those have never really imbibed Dissenting principles, others think "it's a good thing to have bishops in the Lords as they can voice a Christian perspective".
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Baptists are radical dissenters by theological conviction and practical application. We'd be more than happy to see disestablishment.
quote:Just a humble bit of advice (and I hope it's not too late!): you should be quietly grateful that people are taking this thread seriously. IMO disestablishment is an extremely important issue, to non-Anglicans as well as Anglicans, and it deserves far more than joke treatment.
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Gosh, I start this as a joke thread and you Anglicans just go on and on and on and on discussing...... Don't you get bored of it?
quote:Since this is your thread, why not explain to us how you think disestablishment might aid or hinder the cause of Jesus Christ?
One thing I have noticed is that, in all your lengthy discussions and Sharing Of Deep Wisdom, the words "Christ" or "Jesus" are never uttered (except as oaths). Sad, sad, sad.
quote:Baptists are more of a minority
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:The CofE is a minority faith group in the UK. A review of the nature and extent of its representation in our society is long overdue.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am not opposed to there being an established church, but I'm not especially comfortable with the lack of voice other churches get. Representatives of mainstream churches (and indeed other faiths) should be in the House of Lords, for example.
quote:OK enough is enough. That is a pretty open and blatant admission of trolling.
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Gosh, I start this as a joke thread and you Anglicans just go on and on and on and on discussing...... Don't you get bored of it?
One thing I have noticed is that, in all your lengthy discussions and Sharing Of Deep Wisdom, the words "Christ" or "Jesus" are never uttered (except as oaths). Sad, sad, sad.
quote:Having studied this myself, (Stark & Bainbridge) I don't like it. Is it not in danger of creating churches and religious movements around market-oriented charismatic entrepreneurs, and of becoming dangerously theologically populist in its need to attract the punters?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]I'm intrigued by the supply-side theory of church development that some American sociologists have proposed. They say that American religious vitality exists precisely because there is no state or quasi-state church. The American religious free-for-all creates high standards and competition among the churches, and doesn't allow any one denomination to dominate the discourse, culturally or politically.
quote:Which is beside the point, unless you're arguing that not only should unpopular sentiments be heard but that they should have an officially-mandated government platform for airing those sentiments. Does this same reasoning apply to, for example, neo-Nazi groups? Their sentiments are exceedingly unpopular.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
It's also vital for democracy that unpopular sentiments are heard.
quote:There have been times when that is not so and even now many of the extreme nationalist political parties have their neo-Nazi or neo-Fascist elements, such as Italy's Forza Nuova, France's Front National, the UK's BNP and elements of UKIP.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Which is beside the point, unless you're arguing that not only should unpopular sentiments be heard but that they should have an officially-mandated government platform for airing those sentiments. Does this same reasoning apply to, for example, neo-Nazi groups? Their sentiments are exceedingly unpopular.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
It's also vital for democracy that unpopular sentiments are heard.
quote:Baptist Trainfan, I regret I agree with Jengie and not with you. If we are talking about dissent as a political movement rather than pietism and being a 'peculiar people', that is something that derives its initial impetus from the Civil War. Presbyterians and Independents differed on some things, but both took it for granted that there should be a close relationship between religion and the state. They just disagreed how, and agreed that this should be more congregational, and should neither involve Bishops nor a system of separate church courts parallel to the ordinary ones.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Theoretically, yes. In practice there are many Baptists who have lost that "cutting edge" and are happy with the status quo. Some of those have never really imbibed Dissenting principles, others think "it's a good thing to have bishops in the Lords as they can voice a Christian perspective".
There is also the whole issue of "civic religion", of Christianity aka the CofE endorsing Royal weddings, Remembrance services and the like. Yes, I know that representatives of other faiths and denominations get invited to take part, but it's clear who is running the party. It also puts Christian words in the mouths of those who do not really believe them and tends to endorse the idea that to be English is to be Christian (unless you deliberately opt out).
quote:Agreed but that's part of the problem - if we were all in or out it would make it easier. Some of us will never be in for all sorts of reasons so I suggest we work together from outside. Too much of the CofE has too much to lose by speaking out from within - it would have greater clout speaking out from without, with the partnership of other faith groups.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Yeh but we have been outside the establishment which is not the case in CofE. The question is whether that has made any difference to your ability to change anything. It would appear not. Jengie
quote:Traditional is one thing, contemporary is another.
Originally posted by Enoch:
[QUOTE]"The traditional dissenting ideal for the relationship between church and state is closer to post-Tridentine Catholicism than the modus vivendi to which the CofE is accustomed", Discuss.
quote:American church is market driven and uses all the fell techniques of that secularist material agenda. Those of us who have a nodding acquaintance to marketing recognise its stamp on American church culture and, increasingly on the British. The church planting movement was little less than expansionist parachuting, driven by Peter Wagner's and Robert Schuller's positivism. (Find out what people want and give it to them).
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:Having studied this myself, (Stark & Bainbridge) I don't like it. Is it not in danger of creating churches and religious movements around market-oriented charismatic entrepreneurs, and of becoming dangerously theologically populist in its need to attract the punters?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]I'm intrigued by the supply-side theory of church development that some American sociologists have proposed. They say that American religious vitality exists precisely because there is no state or quasi-state church. The American religious free-for-all creates high standards and competition among the churches, and doesn't allow any one denomination to dominate the discourse, culturally or politically.
Having said that, I think that is definitely happening in the UK - even among (some) Anglicans - as the State Church lesses its penetration of broad society.
quote:Yeah Jade, I know but legend has it we are growing!
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE] Baptists are more of a minority
However, I meant 'mainstream' in the sense of historic denominations - I would include the RCC, Orthodox, Methodists, Baptists etc in that.
quote:Well, I stand corrected (you put it so nicely!)
Originally posted by Enoch:
Baptist Trainfan, I regret I agree with Jengie and not with you.
quote:That's a very post-Enlightenment view of things. Nobody in the seventeenth century or earlier, would have thought that saying prayers on a public occasion was christianising a civic occasion. Nor would many people since, until very recently. Nor would Solomon or whoever wrote his Wisdom if he didn't (see my citation this morning). They would have assumed that it was better, and a good thing, that public officials publicly acknowledged that they and the civic role they were exercising were accountable to God.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
... But what do you feel about my basic point - the "Christianising" of Civic occasions?
quote:It goes a bit further than that. The premise of established religion in the seventeenth century (or earlier) was not just that officials were "accountable to God" but that they were exercising their authority God's behalf. The obviously corollary is that anyone opposing the state was also opposing God. While seeing the status quo as an extension of the Almighty works pretty well for an absolute monarchy, it doesn't do so well in a system involving democratic elections.
Originally posted by Enoch:
That's a very post-Enlightenment view of things. Nobody in the seventeenth century or earlier, would have thought that saying prayers on a public occasion was christianising a civic occasion. Nor would many people since, until very recently. Nor would Solomon or whoever wrote his Wisdom if he didn't (see my citation this morning). They would have assumed that it was better, and a good thing, that public officials publicly acknowledged that they and the civic role they were exercising were accountable to God.
quote:I would absolutely agree with you re being a challenging minority. I am uncomfortable with the church, any denomination of the church, being an arm of the state. I'm just wondering if it's possible to have an established religion and not have that. Probably not though.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:Yeah Jade, I know but legend has it we are growing!
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE] Baptists are more of a minority
However, I meant 'mainstream' in the sense of historic denominations - I would include the RCC, Orthodox, Methodists, Baptists etc in that.
My point was a bit bigger than that - it was more about our "right" as denominations to speak out when adherence is now way less than 10% of the population.
I suppose my radical unorthodoxy means I'd personally rather be a challenging minority than a comfortable and complacent majority. The church in the UK is getting smaller but those in it may be getting stronger - some of the dead wood and the compromise has gone.
quote:I agree with you that no church should see itself, or let itself be seen, as an arm of the state.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I would absolutely agree with you re being a challenging minority. I am uncomfortable with the church, any denomination of the church, being an arm of the state. I'm just wondering if it's possible to have an established religion and not have that. Probably not though.
quote:Surely all states are subject to His sovereignty, whethere Christian or otherwise? Having a state religion doesn't make a difference to God's sovereignty!
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:I agree with you that no church should see itself, or let itself be seen, as an arm of the state.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I would absolutely agree with you re being a challenging minority. I am uncomfortable with the church, any denomination of the church, being an arm of the state. I'm just wondering if it's possible to have an established religion and not have that. Probably not though.
However, if we believe God is sovereign, is it possible to have a state, however backslidden and disobedient, that is not subject to his sovereignty?
quote:That seems to be definitionally impossible, since it's the state doing the establishing.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am uncomfortable with the church, any denomination of the church, being an arm of the state. I'm just wondering if it's possible to have an established religion and not have that. Probably not though.
quote:One would hope it generates an awareness of God's sovereignty and a willingness to submit to its implications.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Surely all states are subject to His sovereignty, whethere Christian or otherwise? Having a state religion doesn't make a difference to God's sovereignty!
quote:I'd need data on the political interventions of individual priests over twenty years to tell you that. This might be interesting to find out about, but I don't have it.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:What have they been able to change or affect in the last 20 years?
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
[QUOTE]The point is that many Anglican priests are voices of opposition, voices which attract more attention than they would coming from elsewhere.
quote:There isn't any in-fighting. I've never heard them publically criticise each other, they just get on with the job. No, it's better for the church to cater to all tastes.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Isn't it better to see a divide which may not stop the fighting but which actually stops the in fighting?
quote:Sorry, this is just nonsensical. The Church does relate to the people who are interested in what it offers. See my previous posts on the idea that people not going to church constitutes a problem to be solved (Spoiler: it doesn't).
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It would be far better if we all had to work on the same playing field. Yes, you'd see Anglican churches close but it would be leaner, meaner and hopefully more dynamic and able to relate to the people around.
quote:I don't know what you mean by 'allow the Jesus message to breathe more vibrantly'. I think indifference to religion is the main source of indifference to other denominations, and I can't think why the CofE minus establishment wouldn't be on the same pay-no-mind list.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Speaking personally, I'd like to think that disestablishment would allow the Jesus message to breathe more vibrantly. Plique-à-jour is right to say that the nation largely ignores any Christian pronouncements that don't emanate from the CofE (or occasionally the RCC). However, I believe that the privileged status of the CofE in itself contributes to the indifference towards other denominations.
quote:And why is it a good idea for the state to give a leg up to people who want to be Anglicans over people who want to be Baptists?
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Also, I don't think we're on the same playing field. We don't want the same things, do we? The people who want to be Anglicans aren't, on the whole, the people who want to be Baptists.
quote:It doesn't.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:And why is it a good idea for the state to give a leg up to people who want to be Anglicans over people who want to be Baptists?
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Also, I don't think we're on the same playing field. We don't want the same things, do we? The people who want to be Anglicans aren't, on the whole, the people who want to be Baptists.
quote:Hang on a second. Your premise, as I understand it, is that because they've got the crown's seal of approval Anglican clergy are more able to get attention (and presumably results) from pressuring the government than clergy of any other sect. I'm pretty sure that having a shortcut to the levers of power unavailable to other faiths is considered a leg up by most people.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:It doesn't.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:And why is it a good idea for the state to give a leg up to people who want to be Anglicans over people who want to be Baptists?
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Also, I don't think we're on the same playing field. We don't want the same things, do we? The people who want to be Anglicans aren't, on the whole, the people who want to be Baptists.
quote:You've misunderstood me. Again, do you live in Britain?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Hang on a second. Your premise, as I understand it, is that because they've got the crown's seal of approval Anglican clergy are more able to get attention (and presumably results) from pressuring the government than clergy of any other sect. I'm pretty sure that having a shortcut to the levers of power unavailable to other faiths is considered a leg up by most people.
quote:I'm not sure it's possible to interpret your post differently.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
You've misunderstood me.
quote:You seem to be saying that because this priest was a member of the government's officially endorsed sect, his actions have a different meaning than if they were undertaken by someone without that endorsement. If that's not your meaning, what did you mean?
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
An Anglican priest recently got arrested trespassing in protest at a airbase. That means something different with an established church than it would mean without it.
quote:I prefer not to share personal details online, but no, I don't presently live in Britain if you think that's relevant. I've also got some pretty strong opinions on the official establishment of religion in Saudi Arabia and I don't live there either.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Again, do you live in Britain?
quote:As your reading of its meaning was incorrect, yes, it is.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure it's possible to interpret your post differently.
quote:No, I'm not saying that either. What I'm saying is what I said. Find out what 'establishment' means. It doesn't mean the Prime Minister likes you. A priest from a church whose ostensible role is to represent the spiritual life of the nation getting arrested precisely because he acted against the established order has a particular kind of impact. Anglican priests are expected to pay attention to the mood of 'the people', and this allows a spectrum of intervention.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You seem to be saying that because this priest was a member of the government's officially endorsed sect, his actions have a different meaning than if they were undertaken by someone without that endorsement. If that's not your meaning, what did you mean?
quote:The question is really whether or not you're British. If you are, I can't imagine why you're talking about a 'royal seal of approval' as though the preferences of the royal family had anything to do with the constitutional mechanism.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I prefer not to share personal details online, but no, I don't presently live in Britain if you think that's relevant. I've also got some pretty strong opinions on the official establishment of religion in Saudi Arabia and I don't live there either.
quote:If you have churches that are popular then you run the risk of having churches that are populist; and if your churches are universally 'unpopulist' then perhaps that's partly why they're unpopular! Not all American churches are populist, but a genuinely free-market environment for churches (i.e. no state church) means you have to tolerate churches you disapprove of as well as those you approve of.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:American church is market driven and uses all the fell techniques of that secularist material agenda. Those of us who have a nodding acquaintance to marketing recognise its stamp on American church culture and, increasingly on the British. The church planting movement was little less than expansionist parachuting, driven by Peter Wagner's and Robert Schuller's positivism. (Find out what people want and give it to them).
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:Having studied this myself, (Stark & Bainbridge) I don't like it. Is it not in danger of creating churches and religious movements around market-oriented charismatic entrepreneurs, and of becoming dangerously theologically populist in its need to attract the punters?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]I'm intrigued by the supply-side theory of church development that some American sociologists have proposed. They say that American religious vitality exists precisely because there is no state or quasi-state church. The American religious free-for-all creates high standards and competition among the churches, and doesn't allow any one denomination to dominate the discourse, culturally or politically.
Having said that, I think that is definitely happening in the UK - even among (some) Anglicans - as the State Church lesses its penetration of broad society.
British churches tend (generally) to have broader social mixes than American ones: American churches generally tend to be more homogenous.
quote:I agree but it isn't of the slick, soap powder style cringe making stuff you see all too often from certain well known churches.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]However, IMO almost all churches engage in 'marketing' of a sort, and are businesses by virtue of being institutions that need to generate an income and a minimum number of participants. The CofE as a whole doesn't do slick, yet its public image as 'the national voice of Christianity' or 'guardian of the nation's religious heritage' is carefully nurtured and its spokesmen are all on message.
quote:1. The impact is that most people will (if they care) consider him/her to be mad.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
[QUOTE]
1. A priest from a church whose ostensible role is to represent the spiritual life of the nation getting arrested precisely because he acted against the established order has a particular kind of impact.
2. Anglican priests are expected to pay attention to the mood of 'the people', and this allows a spectrum of intervention.
quote:Yes, but they're not alone in doing this: in 20 years, I've never charged for funerals or wedding or dedications (we practice adult baptism).
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
An additional large chunk of the work in local parishes is the baptisms, funerals and weddings of those who want these services to be religious. This is over and above the services everyone thinks the churches are about. Baptisms are free, funerals are charged on set fees, which aren't huge and when I was booking them were assigned (went to the diocese) and didn't cover costs, although the fee structure changed this year. Weddings are not really that common nowadays unless it's a chocolate box church in a sought after area - too many other places to get married.
The local parish church is expected to find a minister to preside at any funeral of a parishioner when requested, believer or not, crematorium funeral or church, the deceased just has to live in the parish. Now, if the CofE was practising such a cynical attitude as you're expressing, they wouldn't be willingly engaging with families over funerals. CofE churches do this because it's part of being a parish church and part of serving the local community. In comparison, the non-conformist minister I worked with wouldn't continue with initiatives that he didn't see as bringing countable converts, albeit children's work or Alpha courses.
quote:1. Well you've led a sheltered life. I encountered enough of the in fighting some years ago to leave the CofE. These days it's not unusual to hear clergy dissing each other over heir approaches to SSM, ritual and liturgy, women priests and bishops etc etc. It's from the inside not from outside.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
[QUOTE]
1. There isn't any in-fighting. I've never heard them publically criticise each other, they just get on with the job. No, it's better for the church to cater to all tastes.
2. Also, I don't think we're on the same playing field. We don't want the same things, do we? The people who want to be Anglicans aren't, on the whole, the people who want to be Baptists.
3. I don't know what you mean by 'allow the Jesus message to breathe more vibrantly'. I think indifference to religion is the main source of indifference to other denominations, and I can't think why the CofE minus establishment wouldn't be on the same pay-no-mind list.
quote:Thanks - we try! Doesn't count for much but a community fun day in the summer (everything free for 1000+ people) has brought 20+ children into our weekday activities and other very specific work incl CAP has kicked off.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Exclamation Mark - you're obviously doing a good job.
My experience around here is that it's the CofE church that is leading in much of the outreach and community work - often jointly with other churches, particularly the RC church. The current initiatives I am thinking of are the recycling furniture store to provide cheap furniture for people in need, the credit union and food bank. This last is currently under discussion, not in place. All these came from people in the CofE church and are where many of the volunteers come from. The credit union used the church as premises for a while; it's now moved to the library, but the volunteers still mainly come from the CofE church congregation. It's the non-conformist churches that won't support national initiatives because it can't be seen as "their work" and piggyback on public events just to publicise themselves and convert, rather than support. The CofE church hosts things like the Horticultural Society and Art Society Annual Shows, free concerts and other community events. The non-conformist churches will use any event, like the Walk of Witness on Good Friday or the Christmas Market, as an opportunity to hand out leaflets and carry banners to advertise.
Now, there is no Baptist Church in town, so I don't know how well they would be doing, but the two local Baptist churches, in the village to the south and town to the north, are not that well known for their outreach work.
quote:I wasn't trying to dismiss the good work that the CofE does. I know it does good work. The question is, does it need to be an established church to do good work? The implication above is that all serious Christian activity would cease if the CofE were not wedded to the state.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
SvitlanaV2 - that's a pretty cynical view of how CofE churches operate in the community and what being an established church means on the ground.
[...]
quote:I don't agree - it can be changed and has been changed recently 9for weddings at least). It is a bit about protectionism and as for other churches not getting it - well, actually some of us do.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the established position of the CofE is what leads to the parish system that means, in theory, that the whole of England has a church and minister to provide the baptisms, marriages and funerals for anyone who lives in that geographical area. That is what establishment means on the ground. If establishment goes, then the parish system goes and the CofE becomes a congregational church without the requirement to minister to everyone within certain geographical boundaries.
quote:I don't see why disestablishment would have to lead to congregationalism. The Methodists aren't congregational. The RCC isn't.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the established position of the CofE is what leads to the parish system that means, in theory, that the whole of England has a church and minister to provide the baptisms, marriages and funerals for anyone who lives in that geographical area. That is what establishment means on the ground. If establishment goes, then the parish system goes and the CofE becomes a congregational church without the requirement to minister to everyone within certain geographical boundaries.
quote:I think this would be brilliant! Christians rejecting favouritism from the state and making it clear that privileged access to the levers of power is not something we should seek or welcome.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm inclined to think that the CofE should, supported by other Christians, try to take the upper hand in managing the public process towards eventual disestablishment, rather than waiting for secular politicians and non-religious intellectuals to lead the debate. That wouldn't look good.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:The Church in Wales is disestablished? Who knew?
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd have no issue with Disestablishment but using my native Wales as a template - where Disestablishment already exists - I'm not sure it'd make any whit of difference one way or another.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:That may have been the intention in Wales, but if the Church Uniting in Wales ever did work out (i.e. us and the Methodists and the URC and the Calvinist Methodists/Welsh Presbyterians and whoever I've forgotten), we wouldn't get reëstablished. The national apostasy has been realized by accident.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Unlike Wales, where it was about 'which church?', under modern conditions, in England, it would be about corporate national apostasy, the state throwing off any sense that it is accountable to God.
quote:It doesnt though - the discourse is dominated by the loudest and those most ready to take an extreme position, as those are the people reported most widely by the Media - we only need to look at the Gay Marriage 'discussion' emanating from the US.
The American religious free-for-all creates high standards and competition among the churches, and doesn't allow any one denomination to dominate the discourse, culturally or politically. It's a controversial thesis (links are available) but I suspect there's a lot of truth in it.
quote:It was Curiosity Killed... who said that congregationalism would be the outcome of disestablishment, not me. What you're suggesting is that there's currently a parish system in theory and congregationalism in practice. That's very interesting. The broad church concept surely contains the seeds of congregationalism, because what's the point of having a charismatic Anglican church down one road and an Anglo-Catholic one up the hill if people are simply meant to attend (or go for assistance to) their parish church regardless of churchmanship?
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Oh, and I'll let you into a secret SvitlanaV2, the CofE on the ground is already congregational ... it's just that no-one's told the bishops yet ...
quote:It's true that the British perception of American religion is dominated by notions of extremism. But it's not true that the Westboro Baptists are more successful than the Episcopalians or the Seventh Day Adventists or the United Church of Christ. The WBs make good copy, but what about their growth, influence and theology, etc.? Nothing to write home about, I suspect. They're pantomime fundamentalists. I don't see how that makes them important.
Originally posted by beatmenace:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2
quote:It doesnt though - the discourse is dominated by the loudest and those most ready to take an extreme position, as those are the people reported most widely by the Media - we only need to look at the Gay Marriage 'discussion' emanating from the US.
The American religious free-for-all creates high standards and competition among the churches, and doesn't allow any one denomination to dominate the discourse, culturally or politically. It's a controversial thesis (links are available) but I suspect there's a lot of truth in it.
Here Westbro Baptists (for example) would only make a small column in a local paper - filed under 'Loony Fringe'. There are only about 30 of them. My point is that we have heard of them -and thats becuase they are extreme and newsworthy. So some equal voices are more equal than others in a media driven world.
quote:Mmm, you may well be right. Mind you, perhaps this is simply because us 'non-established' Christians (clumsy phrase, sorry!) (a) notice the classification of established and non-established, and (b) don't take for granted the establishment of the C of E. On point (b), is it not the case that those in a privileged position (due to race, gender, education level, religious affiliation or whatever) tend not to notice their favourable situation? What's the phrase, 'check your privilege'?
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed, South Coast Kevin, but on a daily level and on the ground, I doubt if most Anglicans give the 'privileged' status a second thought. Nor does it particularly bother those who don't bother with church in any way, shape or form.
It tends to be seen as more of an issue by those who don't have that 'Established' status.
quote:SCK, agree with you here. Also surely Anglicans are aware of their established status in terms of church schools, the church's role in marriage, the church being so present at Royal and state occasions etc?
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:Mmm, you may well be right. Mind you, perhaps this is simply because us 'non-established' Christians (clumsy phrase, sorry!) (a) notice the classification of established and non-established, and (b) don't take for granted the establishment of the C of E. On point (b), is it not the case that those in a privileged position (due to race, gender, education level, religious affiliation or whatever) tend not to notice their favourable situation? What's the phrase, 'check your privilege'?
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed, South Coast Kevin, but on a daily level and on the ground, I doubt if most Anglicans give the 'privileged' status a second thought. Nor does it particularly bother those who don't bother with church in any way, shape or form.
It tends to be seen as more of an issue by those who don't have that 'Established' status.
quote:Oh yes, I expect you're right. But my problems with establishment are nothing to do with what things look like on a daily basis!
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All I'm saying is that on this side of the fence, the 'Establishment' side if you like - things don't look that much different on a daily basis than they ever did when I was in the new-churches or the Free Churches ...
quote:What's this got to do with disestablishment of the C of E? In the event of disestablishment, the C of E would be perfectly at liberty to retain written liturgies, would it not? And, correspondingly, non-established churches can take whatever decision they wish on whether or not to use written liturgies, can't they?
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This works both ways. I've certainly come across URC and other Free Church ministers who, when asked to lead services at Anglican churches as part of some ecumenical initiative, have come away thinking, 'Wow! this makes life so much easier! I wish I could have it all written down in advance!'
quote:An undeniably paradoxical idea - that we're in a post-Christendom age, therefore it doesn't matter if we have a state church or not.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On balance, I'm opposed to Establishment but I wouldn't die in a ditch over it. We are so far down the road towards a post-Christendom society that whether the CofE is Established or not probably doesn't make a great deal of difference.
quote:So an Anglican priest is in essence a government official defying orders? If we take this construction then one would have to hold that Anglican clergy are therefore less trustworthy when supporting the status quo, since that's their job.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:No, I'm not saying that either. What I'm saying is what I said. Find out what 'establishment' means. It doesn't mean the Prime Minister likes you. A priest from a church whose ostensible role is to represent the spiritual life of the nation getting arrested precisely because he acted against the established order has a particular kind of impact.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You seem to be saying that because this priest was a member of the government's officially endorsed sect, his actions have a different meaning than if they were undertaken by someone without that endorsement. If that's not your meaning, what did you mean?
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
It's also vital for democracy that unpopular sentiments are heard.
quote:You're getting into kettle logic here. You can't argue that the purpose (or at least one purpose) of having an established church is to give voice to unpopular opinions and that its purpose is to reflect popular opinion (i.e. "the mood of 'the people'").
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Anglican priests are expected to pay attention to the mood of 'the people', and this allows a spectrum of intervention.
quote:Which is why I deliberately avoided the term "royal" in my argument, instead referring to "the Crown", a legal term-of-art which is not synonymous with either the monarch or the monarchy, though obviously those things are interrelated in the current order.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
The question is really whether or not you're British. If you are, I can't imagine why you're talking about a 'royal seal of approval' as though the preferences of the royal family had anything to do with the constitutional mechanism.
quote:Luckily we don't have to speculate about this, since the non-English parts of the U.K. lack an established church. Is there a dearth of baptism or funeral services in Scotland and Wales relative to England and, if so, does this represent a difference in supply or a difference in demand for those services?
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
An additional large chunk of the work in local parishes is the baptisms, funerals and weddings of those who want these services to be religious. This is over and above the services everyone thinks the churches are about. Baptisms are free, funerals are charged on set fees, which aren't huge and when I was booking them were assigned (went to the diocese) and didn't cover costs, although the fee structure changed this year. Weddings are not really that common nowadays unless it's a chocolate box church in a sought after area - too many other places to get married.
The local parish church is expected to find a minister to preside at any funeral of a parishioner when requested, believer or not, crematorium funeral or church, the deceased just has to live in the parish. Now, if the CofE was practising such a cynical attitude as you're expressing, they wouldn't be willingly engaging with families over funerals. CofE churches do this because it's part of being a parish church and part of serving the local community. In comparison, the non-conformist minister I worked with wouldn't continue with initiatives that he didn't see as bringing countable converts, albeit children's work or Alpha courses.
quote:Um... Not all of us...
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
I understand that other Christian denominations and other religions (I refuse to use that ghastly politically correct term "faith groups") would oppose disestablishment because they consider that an established C of E gives a voice to religious concerns at the highest level.
quote:but the names put forward are selected by Vacancy in See committees which are made up of church goers and officials within the appropriate diocese.
Archbishops and bishops are appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, who considers the names selected by a Church Commission. They take an oath of allegiance to The Queen on appointment and may not resign without Royal authority.
quote:I realize this, but the contrary position taken by Plique-à-jour, who holds that because of official establishment an Anglican priest holds an "insider status" when commenting on government policy, a status presumably not held by clergy of other sects. I was questioning this position, which is why the first sentence in my previous post ended in a question mark.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Croesos - a minister of the Church of England is not a government employee.
quote:Do you mean Covenanting Churches
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:That may have been the intention in Wales, but if the Church Uniting in Wales ever did work out (i.e. us and the Methodists and the URC and the Calvinist Methodists/Welsh Presbyterians and whoever I've forgotten), we wouldn't get reëstablished. The national apostasy has been realized by accident.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Unlike Wales, where it was about 'which church?', under modern conditions, in England, it would be about corporate national apostasy, the state throwing off any sense that it is accountable to God.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:C of E clergy are no more insiders when it comes to government policy than clergy of any other church. The government doesn't give a toss what C of E clergy think.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I realize this, but the contrary position taken by Plique-à-jour, who holds that because of official establishment an Anglican priest holds an "insider status" when commenting on government policy, a status presumably not held by clergy of other sects. I was questioning this position, which is why the first sentence in my previous post ended in a question mark.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Croesos - a minister of the Church of England is not a government employee.
quote:No, that's not what I'm saying. No, that isn't their job.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So an Anglican priest is in essence a government official defying orders? If we take this construction then one would have to hold that Anglican clergy are therefore less trustworthy when supporting the status quo, since that's their job.
quote:But that ISN'T WHAT HAPPENS, THAT ISN'T THE CASE. If you won't listen to the testimony of the people who actually have experience of the thing you're trying to understand, you're not going to understand it.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm still not sure why it's the government's job to define what constitutes the proper "spiritual life" for its citizens, or why it's a good thing to hold that those outside the official sect are either improperly spiritual or less English than adherents.
quote:I haven't done that. Its ostensible role is to reflect the mood of the people. This permits a level of social involvement nobody would countenance or care about from other denominations, because their province is everyone in England, not just the people who have the same beliefs as they do.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're getting into kettle logic here. You can't argue that the purpose (or at least one purpose) of having an established church is to give voice to unpopular opinions and that its purpose is to reflect popular opinion (i.e. "the mood of 'the people'").
quote:I never said this, or anything like this. You're forcing everything that's being explained to you through the round hole of your ignorance of the organisation you've decided that you oppose. I don't see how anyone will profit by this.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I realize this, but the contrary position taken by Plique-à-jour, who holds that because of official establishment an Anglican priest holds an "insider status" when commenting on government policy
quote:Pretty much all of the churches in the US are gathered churches, and we've got a higher church attendance than the UK, so I don't see a need to wring hands over disestablishment on that score.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To an extent, all churches are becoming 'gathered churches' as Christendom crumbles.
quote:I'm listening. You just don't like hearing your position stated baldly and without euphemism. Your stated position is that at least one of the purposes of establishment (i.e. a government grant of authority) is "to represent the spiritual life of the nation". If the Anglican Church "represent[s] the spiritual life of the [English] nation", it follows that any exercise of spirituality that's not Anglican is either deficiently spiritual or deficiently English.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:But that ISN'T WHAT HAPPENS, THAT ISN'T THE CASE. If you won't listen to the testimony of the people who actually have experience of the thing you're trying to understand, you're not going to understand it.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm still not sure why it's the government's job to define what constitutes the proper "spiritual life" for its citizens, or why it's a good thing to hold that those outside the official sect are either improperly spiritual or less English than adherents.
quote:If the purpose of the established church is to reflect popular opinion (a.k.a. "the mood of the people"), what was that earlier rigamarole about how an established church was important to reflect "unpopular sentiments"?
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:I haven't done that. Its ostensible role is to reflect the mood of the people.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're getting into kettle logic here. You can't argue that the purpose (or at least one purpose) of having an established church is to give voice to unpopular opinions and that its purpose is to reflect popular opinion (i.e. "the mood of 'the people'").
quote:And the only for the state to address social issues is to pick (or create) its favorite sect and give it preferential treatment? I don't buy it. Once again, this is something that's fairly easy to test. Are social problems left unaddressed in the non-English parts of the U.K. more often than in England and, if so, can this be definitively linked to the established church?
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
This permits a level of social involvement nobody would countenance or care about from other denominations, because their province is everyone in England, not just the people who have the same beliefs as they do.
The ostensible responsibility for even people outside the Church allows a kind of intervention, and an attitude to intervention, which would not be possible in a denomination without that role.
quote:Yeah, well there is the issue of what to call it if it went beyond being Covenanted Churches: CUiW was one of the options IIRC. (And "whoever I've forgotten" was the Covenanted Baptist Churches of course.)
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:Do you mean Covenanting Churches
Originally posted by pererin:
That may have been the intention in Wales, but if the Church Uniting in Wales ever did work out (i.e. us and the Methodists and the URC and the Calvinist Methodists/Welsh Presbyterians and whoever I've forgotten), we wouldn't get reëstablished. The national apostasy has been realized by accident.
The amusing thing about the most recent report on governance and discipline, would see the non-conformists finding themselves conforming to the pre-disestablished Church in that they would be accepting Bishop's...
quote:For now...
Originally posted by pererin:
it would be the end of monepiscopacy — the result would be that there were churches whose ordinary was not the geographical diocesan bishop.
quote:But is the church there to attract new members or to speak truth to power?
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Pretty much all of the churches in the US are gathered churches, and we've got a higher church attendance than the UK, so I don't see a need to wring hands over disestablishment on that score.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To an extent, all churches are becoming 'gathered churches' as Christendom crumbles.
quote:Who is to judge intention? It's not as if we'd be completely reinventing the wheel, as both Indian provinces have been through similar mergers. And is the language of "conforming" even relevant any more? It's not as if we're forcing everyone else to use the 1662 Prayer Book.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:For now...
Originally posted by pererin:
it would be the end of monepiscopacy — the result would be that there were churches whose ordinary was not the geographical diocesan bishop.
If (and I think it is a big IF, since there is a lot of minutia to sort out, it wont solve problems by just consecrating Bishops and saying 'there you go', at the most obvious there will be the issues of deficiency in intention to start with) it goes ahead then eventually it will develop to a point where non-conformists do just end up conforming and coming in from the cold (congregation numbers/up keep of buildings/clergy costs/etc. will most likely force it to that point) and the structure abandoned.
quote:Some US churches do one, some do the other, some do both, some do neither. Seems to me a church that isn't a part of a country's power structure is more likely to be able to speak truth to power than one that is.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:But is the church there to attract new members or to speak truth to power?
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Pretty much all of the churches in the US are gathered churches, and we've got a higher church attendance than the UK, so I don't see a need to wring hands over disestablishment on that score.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To an extent, all churches are becoming 'gathered churches' as Christendom crumbles.
quote:Small denominations have sometimes had social and perhaps even political influence out of proportion to their numbers. The Quakers are the most obvious example. But does the CofE fit into this sort of pattern? I'm not so sure.
Originally posted by leo:
But is the church there to attract new members or to speak truth to power?
quote:My church is not part of the country's power structure. Some men with pointy hats who happen to be members of the same denomination as us are part of the power structure. Things would probably be better if they weren't.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Seems to me a church that isn't a part of a country's power structure is more likely to be able to speak truth to power than one that is.
quote:National power structures don't take much notice anyway. But is it anyone's experience that a country's power structure takes any notice at all of religious bodies that segregate themselves from the system? I don't observe ours taking much notice of the Brethren, say.
Originally posted by RuthW:
[QUOTE]Some US churches do one, some do the other, some do both, some do neither. Seems to me a church that isn't a part of a country's power structure is more likely to be able to speak truth to power than one that is.
quote:But Ruth spoke of churches that '[aren't] a part of a country's power structure', not that 'segregate themselves from the system'. ISTM there's much space between these two positions.
Originally posted by Enoch:
National power structures don't take much notice anyway. But is it anyone's experience that a country's power structure takes any notice at all of religious bodies that segregate themselves from the system? I don't observe ours taking much notice of the Brethren, say.
quote:Look up the word ostensible. Look up the word pragmatism while you're at it. Re-read my post. Ask some other English people who are more patient than I am if you still don't get it.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If the purpose of the established church is to reflect popular opinion
