Ship of Fools: Chav Christianity

Thread: Chav Christianity Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026710

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Came across this rather interesting article in my twitter feed. What are your views? I have some issues with it - whilst I think Owen Jones' book Chavs was necessary and think that 'chav' is very much an example of modern classism, I think there are nuances that the article misses. For a start, it ignores by far the biggest working-class denomination ie Roman Catholicism. Particularly in the North-West, this is often mostly working-class (although the way RCs identify as RC even if not practicing surely has an impact there). Also, while I do think that the UK is far from universally middle-class, I think that the 57% number is possibly a little high. The working classes are also a complex group, just as the middle classes are (not to mention the differences between rural and urban class divisions). My paternal family - v working-class Catholics from the West Midlands - is a very different kind of working class to those labelled 'chavs', but we're still working class.

Carl Beech is a Baptist minister I believe? Can any Baptist Shipmates shed light on class issues in UK Baptist churches? Would be interested in the differences, if there are any, between BUGB Baptist and non-BUGB Baptist.

From an Anglican perspective, the ordination system in particular seems to be spectacularly biased in favour of the middle-class - issues there. Whilst I don't think priests should be matched to the class of their congregation exactly, I do think the priesthood as a whole should be reflective of the church as a whole, which is not happening. Even in 'inclusive' churches, it seems to be inclusive when it comes to gender/sexuality but class/race etc is not even on the radar. It should be. What can the CoE do to tackle this? Would be interested in the perspective of non-CoE Anglicans - how diverse are your churches? Episcopalians in both the US and Scotland seem to be almost universally rich and white, is this the case?

*detects possible dissertation subject*

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

From the article:

quote:
Two main criticisms come out of the idea that the Church is largely middle class. The first is that we have overlooked the working class in mission, or done mission in a way that limits and undermines working-class culture.

Having read the article, I'm none the wiser as to what 'working class culture' is supposed to be (as distinct from 'middle class culture') other than perhaps modes of dress and speech (which I don't think are necessarily worth protecting or preserving).

I'm uneasy with the underlying assumption that middle class people, by virtue of being middle class, are unable to relate to working class people or vice versa. That said, there's a brilliant Billy Connolly sketch in which he argues that aristocrats and the working classes actually have lots in common, with both looking down on middle class pretensions. If that's true, perhaps we need to look to the nobility to 'reach out' to the council estates...

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I think there are many different types of minister in Evangelical circles. If there is a divide, I'd say that ministers of larger churches tend to be more middle class than those of the smaller congregations.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

This has always interested me, since I grew up on a tough estate near M/c, where the only visible religious people were Irish Catholics. I don't recollect any neighbours or relatives who were religious.

Anyway, I then went to a very posh school, and to my amazement, there were all these posh religious kids. Well, we had fun taking the piss out of them!

As far as I can see, the English working class largely gave up on religion after about 1800, whereas the middle class hung on. How much of this was due to respectability and so on, I don't really know.

Anecdotology - one of my grandads had a deep and abiding hatred for anything to do with religion; I suppose he saw them as posh toffs, who looked down on the plebs, and of course, in WWI, told them to get on with being killed. So the clergyman was linked to the squire and the officer class, probably rather unjustly.

But yes, Catholics were seen quite differently, and I suppose, as rather alien, although in Lancashire there were/are deep Catholic roots, not just from the Irish immigrants.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Also possibly worth mentioning that Methodist/Evangelical uplift is a documented 'thing'. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read about it.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Even in 'inclusive' churches, it seems to be inclusive when it comes to gender/sexuality but class/race etc is not even on the radar.

Shouldn't that read especially in 'inclusive' churches?

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Episcopalians in both the US and Scotland seem to be almost universally rich and white, is this the case?

No.*

*Rather, there's enough truth in it to recognize the stereotype, but not enough to be true. The Episcopal Church in the USA is a lot more diverse than its reputation of yore would suggest. It has, for instance an entire Diocese for the Navajo and presences in many other tribal areas. In fact, if we look at the ethnic demographics of the Episcopal Church in the United States and compare them with those for the entire country, we see:

Native American/American Indian people are represented in the Episcopal Church at about the same ratio as in the general population (0.8 vs 0.9)
Pacific Islanders and Native Hawaiians are overrepresented in the Episcopal Church by a factor of 7 (0.2 vs 1.4).
African Americans are notably underrepresented, at only 6.4% of the Episcopal Church, as opposed to 12.6% of the entire country. However, this has to consider also the fact that there are several denominations in the United States that are almost exclusively African American.
Hispanics (of any ethnic background) are enormously underrepresented in the Episcopal Church as compared to the entire nation (3.5 vs 16.4). However, this is hardly surprising given that 68% of American Hispanics are Roman Catholic, with a plurality of the remainder being evangelical Protestants or pentacostal and only 5% belonging to 'mainline' churches.

In contrast to their closest ecumenical partners, the Evangelical Lutheran church (which is 97% non-Hispanic White) the American Episcopal Church is a veritable multi-ethnic rainbow. Social class is harder to determine, but on my trips to the US (which are fairly frequent), Episcopal parishes seem to mirror their communities, with perhaps a slight bias toward the professional middle classes.

As for the SEC, my impression is that it's very much a minority faith without a strong correlation to social class. As one Scottish friend put it, the stereotype is that the Roman Catholics are all working class as the Kirk is very middle class, with the Piskies floating awkwardly somewhere in the middle.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Carl Beech is a Baptist Minister working for Christian Vision for Men.

Some Baptist churches are very mixed socially and racially: some aren't - its impossible to generalise. We've planted a lot on estates perhaps more so than other denominations. We encourage everyone to get involved perhaps that helps attraction and cohesion?

Many (at least 1/3rd) wouldn't make you (and others) happy as they would follow a "traditionalist" line on human sexuality. In the new Jerusalem there are 22 different nationalities and people from a wide range of job and social circumstances. We have a ministry to our local area which includes the prostitutes on street corners. We have a big ministry to those with mental health issues and work with the council on lots of things designed to address deprivation. Does that make us a varied church - yes but it could be better.

Non BUGB Baptist are much more likely to be homogenously middle class congregations.

FWIW I always put my occupation as labourer even though I'm Revd EM. I've worked as one anyway as well has having degrees from one of the two oldest Universities in the UK. What class am I - none.

I've read Chavs and find it true to life. The working class esp those who are white are marginalised and seen as figures of fun by the media and others alike. Having said that, my dad as "old" working class also finds some of the people hard to take.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
In contrast to their closest ecumenical partners, the Evangelical Lutheran church (which is 97% non-Hispanic White) the American Episcopal Church is a veritable multi-ethnic rainbow. Social class is harder to determine, but on my trips to the US (which are fairly frequent), Episcopal parishes seem to mirror their communities, with perhaps a slight bias toward the professional middle classes.

This lines up with my personal experience. In my hometown (US Northeast suburbs) the TEC parishes are significantly more ethnically and socially diverse than the Lutheran ones, which are whiter and richer than the demographics of the area by quite a long margin.

However I would also say that in the US, there's much less of a "culture clash" between rich and poor Americans, in the same way that there is in the UK. There will be obvious markers like quality of car, clothes, home, etc. - but I don't think the gap is as wide (or as important) in the US. In the US race is far more of an issue in churches. There's a joke that says that the Civil Rights movement ended segregation in America except for on Sunday mornings.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Jade Constable

How fascinating! A lot has been said about racial diversity in the church, but there's been far less discussion about class. I think the influence (let alone the presence) of the white urban working classes has basically been forgotten by the Protestant churches in England.

It occurs to me that the problem of the 'middle class white evangelist talking down to white working class people' might be rendered less of an issue if evangelistic teams benefitted from the faith and energy of the ethnic minority and multicultural congregations. There might even be more cultural similarities between working class white and black teens than between middle class and working class white ones. There has been antagonism between white and black working class folk, but also plenty of shared space and cultural influence. All this should be explored and potentially utilised in evangelism.

The most interesting church I know re diversity of all kinds is a Baptist church, and I think it's already been the focus of a few studies. Speaking for myself, I'm especially interested in the inner city, and would like to learn more about what 'white flight' from such areas has meant for the white (and often working class) churchgoers left behind. But perhaps you'd prefer to focus on smaller towns and housing estates where 'chav multiculturalism' is less of an issue?

Anyway, I think the working classes and contemporary English Christianity (or Protestantism) would be an excellent topic for a dissertation!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Even in 'inclusive' churches, it seems to be inclusive when it comes to gender/sexuality but class/race etc is not even on the radar.
Shouldn't that read especially in 'inclusive' churches?

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Episcopalians in both the US and Scotland seem to be almost universally rich and white, is this the case?
No.*

*Rather, there's enough truth in it to recognize the stereotype, but not enough to be true. The Episcopal Church in the USA is a lot more diverse than its reputation of yore would suggest. It has, for instance an entire Diocese for the Navajo and presences in many other tribal areas. In fact, if we look at the ethnic demographics of the Episcopal Church in the United States and compare them with those for the entire country, we see:

Native American/American Indian people are represented in the Episcopal Church at about the same ratio as in the general population (0.8 vs 0.9)
Pacific Islanders and Native Hawaiians are overrepresented in the Episcopal Church by a factor of 7 (0.2 vs 1.4).
African Americans are notably underrepresented, at only 6.4% of the Episcopal Church, as opposed to 12.6% of the entire country. However, this has to consider also the fact that there are several denominations in the United States that are almost exclusively African American.
Hispanics (of any ethnic background) are enormously underrepresented in the Episcopal Church as compared to the entire nation (3.5 vs 16.4). However, this is hardly surprising given that 68% of American Hispanics are Roman Catholic, with a plurality of the remainder being evangelical Protestants or pentacostal and only 5% belonging to 'mainline' churches.

In contrast to their closest ecumenical partners, the Evangelical Lutheran church (which is 97% non-Hispanic White) the American Episcopal Church is a veritable multi-ethnic rainbow. Social class is harder to determine, but on my trips to the US (which are fairly frequent), Episcopal parishes seem to mirror their communities, with perhaps a slight bias toward the professional middle classes.

As for the SEC, my impression is that it's very much a minority faith without a strong correlation to social class. As one Scottish friend put it, the stereotype is that the Roman Catholics are all working class as the Kirk is very middle class, with the Piskies floating awkwardly somewhere in the middle.

at 'especially in inclusive churches'. Being involved in Certain Christian Organisations that end up being middle-class lesbian Methodist knitting circles, I agree and it worries me. Lots of hummus eaters, barely anyone from a region from which hummus may originate.

Thanks for the info re TEC and SEC.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Carl Beech is a Baptist Minister working for Christian Vision for Men.

Some Baptist churches are very mixed socially and racially: some aren't - its impossible to generalise. We've planted a lot on estates perhaps more so than other denominations. We encourage everyone to get involved perhaps that helps attraction and cohesion?

Many (at least 1/3rd) wouldn't make you (and others) happy as they would follow a "traditionalist" line on human sexuality. In the new Jerusalem there are 22 different nationalities and people from a wide range of job and social circumstances. We have a ministry to our local area which includes the prostitutes on street corners. We have a big ministry to those with mental health issues and work with the council on lots of things designed to address deprivation. Does that make us a varied church - yes but it could be better.

Non BUGB Baptist are much more likely to be homogenously middle class congregations.

FWIW I always put my occupation as labourer even though I'm Revd EM. I've worked as one anyway as well has having degrees from one of the two oldest Universities in the UK. What class am I - none.

I've read Chavs and find it true to life. The working class esp those who are white are marginalised and seen as figures of fun by the media and others alike. Having said that, my dad as "old" working class also finds some of the people hard to take.

That is interesting re non-BUGB Baptist churches - in my very limited experience it's the opposite.

I suppose the independence of individual Baptist churches makes this more difficult to generalise about. Can see that congregationalism (is that the right term for Baptist structure?) would have a positive impact. My main experience of Baptist churches is white conservative working-class, black conservative working-class in London/Birmingham. My main concern is that this creates a false dichotomy between conservative and WC and liberal and MC - plenty of those who are the opposite about but the voices of inclusive WC people get drowned out for some reason.

Agreed re 'old style' working class.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Jade Constable

How fascinating! A lot has been said about racial diversity in the church, but there's been far less discussion about class. I think the influence (let alone the presence) of the white urban working classes has basically been forgotten by the Protestant churches in England.

It occurs to me that the problem of the 'middle class white evangelist talking down to white working class people' might be rendered less of an issue if evangelistic teams benefitted from the faith and energy of the ethnic minority and multicultural congregations. There might even be more cultural similarities between working class white and black teens than between middle class and working class white ones. There has been antagonism between white and black working class folk, but also plenty of shared space and cultural influence. All this should be explored and potentially utilised in evangelism.

The most interesting church I know re diversity of all kinds is a Baptist church, and I think it's already been the focus of a few studies. Speaking for myself, I'm especially interested in the inner city, and would like to learn more about what 'white flight' from such areas has meant for the white (and often working class) churchgoers left behind. But perhaps you'd prefer to focus on smaller towns and housing estates where 'chav multiculturalism' is less of an issue?

Anyway, I think the working classes and contemporary English Christianity (or Protestantism) would be an excellent topic for a dissertation!

In my limited experience, white WC and black WC Christians do tend to interact with each other more than white WC and white MC Christians.

I have v little experience of non-Anglican UK Protestantism so mostly concerned with Anglican churches, but always good to have other denominations' experiences. I find that Anglican churches outside of big cities are almost wholly white MC, same for Methodist churches. How do you find race and class issues in Methodist churches?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

In the US race is far more of an issue in churches. There's a joke that says that the Civil Rights movement ended segregation in America except for on Sunday mornings.

In Inner London Sunday is the least segregated day of the week. The women are in church and the men in the pub watching football...

But in general its true we talk and worry a lot more about race than about class. The missing demographic in the churches round our way is white working-class adult men. Especially the middle-aged.

To be fair, the very poorest often do have some connection with church. It's the slightly better off that are least likely to. Those Americans might call middle class, but here are culturally working class. You don't meet a lot of plumbers, taxi drivers, builders, bus drivers, computer programmers (real ones, not fake business clones in suits), or low-ranking office workers in church. Or not male ones anyway. You do on the other hand meet lots of nurses, social workers, and teachers - who get paid no more but are more often considered culturally middle-class. And sometimes police as well, for some reason.

Our parish has become more middle-class in my time there as West Indians have declined in numbers and Africans increased.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Being involved in Certain Christian Organisations that end up being middle-class lesbian Methodist knitting circles, I agree and it worries me.

And what differentiates Methodist knitting from other kinds?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

... I'm none the wiser as to what 'working class culture' is supposed to be (as distinct from 'middle class culture') other than perhaps modes of dress and speech (which I don't think are necessarily worth protecting or preserving).

You can lose your culture and language if you like. I'm keeping mine!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Being involved in Certain Christian Organisations that end up being middle-class lesbian Methodist knitting circles, I agree and it worries me.
And what differentiates Methodist knitting from other kinds?

I could probably have used some commas in there! Knitters who are Methodist, not Methodist knitting.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

... I'm none the wiser as to what 'working class culture' is supposed to be (as distinct from 'middle class culture') other than perhaps modes of dress and speech (which I don't think are necessarily worth protecting or preserving).

You can lose your culture and language if you like. I'm keeping mine!

But what is it?!

(And are you really working class?)

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
From the article:

quote:
Two main criticisms come out of the idea that the Church is largely middle class. The first is that we have overlooked the working class in mission, or done mission in a way that limits and undermines working-class culture.
Having read the article, I'm none the wiser as to what 'working class culture' is supposed to be (as distinct from 'middle class culture') other than perhaps modes of dress and speech (which I don't think are necessarily worth protecting or preserving).

I'm uneasy with the underlying assumption that middle class people, by virtue of being middle class, are unable to relate to working class people or vice versa. That said, there's a brilliant Billy Connolly sketch in which he argues that aristocrats and the working classes actually have lots in common, with both looking down on middle class pretensions. If that's true, perhaps we need to look to the nobility to 'reach out' to the council estates...

It's not so much an inability to relate so much as a need for the church (generally) to reflect all people. Also, it's about MC people not assuming what being WC is like and vice versa, but people being able to talk about their own experiences. A MC-dominated church is going to be ignorant about the reality of WC life. That is not a good thing.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

... I'm none the wiser as to what 'working class culture' is supposed to be (as distinct from 'middle class culture') other than perhaps modes of dress and speech (which I don't think are necessarily worth protecting or preserving).

You can lose your culture and language if you like. I'm keeping mine!
But what is it?!

(And are you really working class?)

IME MC culture is more homogenous than WC culture, which varies a lot regionally. Also 'old style' WC culture is rather different from modern WC culture.

It's not that hard to look up, surely? Wiki article to start you off.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

The Wikipedia article doesn't tell me what 'working class culture' is, particularly as distinct from 'middle class culture'.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

This feels like yet another attempt to make me feel guilty for liking complex liturgy and renaissance polyphony, and for feeling more comfortable communicating from within the associated culture than from other positions. As with all other such attempts, it can fuck off.

As for whether the church is good at communicating with people who identify with working class culture, I'm fairly sure it isn't. But then, at the moment, I don't think many churches are very good at communicating with anyone, even itself.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
This feels like yet another attempt to make me feel guilty for liking complex liturgy and renaissance polyphony, and for feeling more comfortable communicating from within the associated culture than from other positions. As with all other such attempts, it can fuck off.

As for whether the church is good at communicating with people who identify with working class culture, I'm fairly sure it isn't. But then, at the moment, I don't think many churches are very good at communicating with anyone, even itself.

But lots of WC people like complex liturgy and renaissance polyphony. I think any implication that WC people are too stupid to enjoy those things is rather more offensive. Lots of WC RCs and A-Cs after all.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
As for the SEC, my impression is that it's very much a minority faith without a strong correlation to social class. As one Scottish friend put it, the stereotype is that the Roman Catholics are all working class as the Kirk is very middle class, with the Piskies floating awkwardly somewhere in the middle.

This isn't quite the stereotype I'm familiar with. Yes, historically the RC church in Scotland is largely working class. The Kirk covers a pretty wide spectrum, as you would expect, though I would say it is concentrated in the 'aspiring working class' through to the various lower-to-middle middle classes! (Oh, the subtle nuances of the British class system!)

The SEC definitely has a reputation for being 'posh'. Fair or not, the stereotype is a very strong correlation to the upper middle class and above. (Though that may be different in the north east, where they are historically stronger and more widespread.) There are also a few (i.e., about 4!) very large, very evangelical SEC churches in Glasgow and Edinburgh which will have a different demographic again, and from observation seem to appeal to the young professional classes. Definitely not somewhere in between Kirk and Chapel, though, but floating somewhere 'above' both!

I have no statistics to support any of this! [Smile]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Wikipedia article doesn't tell me what 'working class culture' is, particularly as distinct from 'middle class culture'.

Initiative is apparently not possible for the MC [Biased]

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
This feels like yet another attempt to make me feel guilty for liking complex liturgy and renaissance polyphony, and for feeling more comfortable communicating from within the associated culture than from other positions. As with all other such attempts, it can fuck off.

As for whether the church is good at communicating with people who identify with working class culture, I'm fairly sure it isn't. But then, at the moment, I don't think many churches are very good at communicating with anyone, even itself.
But lots of WC people like complex liturgy and renaissance polyphony. I think any implication that WC people are too stupid to enjoy those things is rather more offensive. Lots of WC RCs and A-Cs after all.

I'm not making that implication, or at least not trying to. I just feel, rightly or wrongly, that it comes over in accusations that churches ignore working-class culture. I'm not sure that the whole idea of working-class culture is currently coherent enough to be meaningful, wiki articles notwithstanding.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
This feels like yet another attempt to make me feel guilty for liking complex liturgy and renaissance polyphony, and for feeling more comfortable communicating from within the associated culture than from other positions. As with all other such attempts, it can fuck off.

This is certainly a cultural thing. The two churches I've attended in London (both multicultural areas, evangelical parishes) have a good number of working class people. But almost all of them are Africans, Caribbeans, Asians, or white immigrants. Working class white British people are as rare as gold dust it seems.

I've had the privilege to attend Anglican church services in West Africa and in the Middle East, and they were among the highest, most liturgically complex services I've been to. And in the case of the ME church, there was extremely low understanding of the English language. Didn't stop them saying the Lord's Prayer in extremely heavily accented English though.

So there is some reason that white working class people are not engaging with the church and it's nothing to do with their educational levels or grasp of the English language.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

seekingsister

I was just thinking some of that. Coming from a white Wobblie background, religious white Wobblies were and are rare, except for Irish Catholics.

And as you say, I notice tons of working class people in the local Catholic church, but few of them white English.

As I said earlier, it seems likely that the white Wobblies got disenchanted a long time ago - 1800? Of course, this led to various missions, with varying success, see the numerous chapels in some Wobblie areas.

*Wobblies = Industrial Workers of the World, an old US union.

[ 24. January 2014, 16:18: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
This feels like yet another attempt to make me feel guilty for liking complex liturgy and renaissance polyphony, and for feeling more comfortable communicating from within the associated culture than from other positions. As with all other such attempts, it can fuck off.

As for whether the church is good at communicating with people who identify with working class culture, I'm fairly sure it isn't. But then, at the moment, I don't think many churches are very good at communicating with anyone, even itself.
But lots of WC people like complex liturgy and renaissance polyphony. I think any implication that WC people are too stupid to enjoy those things is rather more offensive. Lots of WC RCs and A-Cs after all.
I'm not making that implication, or at least not trying to. I just feel, rightly or wrongly, that it comes over in accusations that churches ignore working-class culture. I'm not sure that the whole idea of working-class culture is currently coherent enough to be meaningful, wiki articles notwithstanding.

Oh not accusing you of implying those things, just saying if those things were being implied, that's wrong.

I sort of agree with you re culture - or rather, any MC attempts to distil what WC culture is in order to make themselves feel more right-on. A church that makes an effort to be inclusive of those from all backgrounds is a good thing. I have been in churches where I have felt uncomfortable due to my class/background - nothing said outright but definitely there. Said church was very involved in outreach but there was a distinct Lady Bountiful attitude to it all.

I think churches that 'include' WC culture that's actually a MC idea of what WC is, and churches that either explicitly or implicitly exclude WC people are equally bad.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I disagree about MC culture being more homogenous. I grew up in a definitely MC house, chartered accountant and teacher, emerged from working class, railway guard and nursery maid, autodidact gardener* and dressmaker. We had books and valued aducation. (*son of escapee from upper middle ex-Huguenot family married to hotelier's (read publican) daughter.)

As I grew up, I found that other, apparently MC homes had very different cultures. Members of Rotary, professional people had no books. One of my landladies, educated at private school and with the voice to match, mixed with the hunting layer of society, not upper class, but overlapping a bit. And people I met through school, emerged from working class more recently than my parents, but with MC occupations, had brought their culture with them. Not to the lengths of polishing their front door furniture and whitening their doorsteps.(Though in the other direction, one of my colleagues went hunting and held Tupperware parties - define that.)

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Even in 'inclusive' churches, it seems to be inclusive when it comes to gender/sexuality but class/race etc is not even on the radar.
Shouldn't that read especially in 'inclusive' churches?

Yes, that's why I steer away from churches that self-describe as 'inclusive'. ISTM shorthand for a particularly smug and blinkered white-middle-class Saturday-Guardian set of attitudes.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
How do you find race and class issues in Methodist churches?

The Methodist Church here produced some of the country's earliest work on the English church and race, and also went through a period of offering considerable financial support for initiatives to develop grass-roots and theological awareness of racial issues and racial justice. But times have changed, money is short and perhaps the need seems to be less. There are more black and Asian clergy now (although I think they face the same process of cultural assimilation that occurs with the white working class clergy). Congregations and clergy must develop their own racial awareness projects if they're interested. I suspect that the churches not already interested in this subject are unlikely to become so at this point.

Going back to your OP, I've noticed that in popular culture, CofE congregations do include a few working - or indeed, underclass - characters: see 'Rev' or even 'The Vicar of Dibley'. I've seen this in a few novels as well. They're obviously contrasted with the 'posh' characters.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I disagree about MC culture being more homogenous. I grew up in a definitely MC house, chartered accountant and teacher, emerged from working class, railway guard and nursery maid, autodidact gardener* and dressmaker. We had books and valued aducation. (*son of escapee from upper middle ex-Huguenot family married to hotelier's (read publican) daughter.)

As I grew up, I found that other, apparently MC homes had very different cultures. Members of Rotary, professional people had no books. One of my landladies, educated at private school and with the voice to match, mixed with the hunting layer of society, not upper class, but overlapping a bit. And people I met through school, emerged from working class more recently than my parents, but with MC occupations, had brought their culture with them. Not to the lengths of polishing their front door furniture and whitening their doorsteps.(Though in the other direction, one of my colleagues went hunting and held Tupperware parties - define that.)

I don't disagree that MC culture isn't homogenous, more that WC is less homogenous - or rather much less homogenous than people think.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The local (evangelical) theological college here in this city sends some students out to work in outer ring council estates.

The two estates that I know about do liturgy-lite and 'seeker' services and the number attending has gone up.

But they don't seem to be as successful as the baptists and non-denominational churches.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Even in 'inclusive' churches, it seems to be inclusive when it comes to gender/sexuality but class/race etc is not even on the radar.
Shouldn't that read especially in 'inclusive' churches?

Yes, that's why I steer away from churches that self-describe as 'inclusive'. ISTM shorthand for a particularly smug and blinkered white-middle-class Saturday-Guardian set of attitudes.

Sadly, this is usually the case. There are examples where people try harder to have a genuinely inclusive space, but unfortunately this is rare.

The problem, I suppose, comes when you have to pick the best of a bad lot inclusivity-wise. Inclusive in some ways but smug WMC Guardianistas (contrary to what many on here would suggest, the Guardian is usually evidence of MC not left wing values, not that they are mutually exclusive) is better than not inclusive at all.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The local (evangelical) theological college here in this city sends some students out to work in outer ring council estates.

The two estates that I know about do liturgy-lite and 'seeker' services and the number attending has gone up.

But they don't seem to be as successful as the baptists and non-denominational churches.

Tbh a lot of MC unchurched people would appreciate liturgy-lite too. Many WC people from an RC background would obviously have no issue with understanding liturgy, even if they didn't like it.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

As I said earlier, it seems likely that the white Wobblies got disenchanted a long time ago - 1800? Of course, this led to various missions, with varying success, see the numerous chapels in some Wobblie areas.

*Wobblies = Industrial Workers of the World, an old US union.

The Wobblies, founded in 1905, are still around. Given some of their history, they haven't always been particularly amenable to religion.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

There are two strands which I think we could pursue. One is the place of church and of denomination in specifically English culture: to my mind, class has been critical to this since the 17th century, when the Lollards and other dissenters were more or less on trail for their lives for being poor. Comparison with other places would also be interesting, but I would certainly be interested in keeping a strand of the debate focussed on specifically English experience. The other is a cross-fertilisation between this debate and the question of the church as a private club. Has identity, church (or whatever other expression of culture) as label, become so important that a congregation cannot include more than one cultural group, because a lack of identification prevents communication?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

(And are you really working class?)

As you said you didn't know what working class culture was, how can I answer that unless you say what you mean by the word?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
The other is a cross-fertilisation between this debate and the question of the church as a private club. Has identity, church (or whatever other expression of culture) as label, become so important that a congregation cannot include more than one cultural group, because a lack of identification prevents communication?

Interesting point. Class was certainly a significant element in the conflict that I was swept up in. I know of another priest who suffered a breakdown, after a very successful ministry in a working class parish, when he went to a much more 'socially ambitious' one.

I don't think the real problem is middle class vs working class; most middle class churchpeople I know are quite confident in their identity and happy to work alongside people from different backgrounds. Similarly working class ones. The problem parishes are those dominated by insecure 'Hyacinth Bucket' types who are threatened both by what they perceive as the intellectual and social superiority of the former, and the reminder of what they have escaped from (but fear sinking back into) of the others.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

I don't think the real problem is middle class vs working class; most middle class churchpeople I know are quite confident in their identity and happy to work alongside people from different backgrounds. Similarly working class ones. The problem parishes are those dominated by insecure 'Hyacinth Bucket' types who are threatened both by what they perceive as the intellectual and social superiority of the former, and the reminder of what they have escaped from (but fear sinking back into) of the others.

In other words, the problem is with the lower middle class/upper working class types?

Hmmm. I've sometimes thought in my idle moments that Mrs Hyacinth Bucket would do well in the Methodist Church, and it seems I was right; she'd feel less sandwiched between the two other groups because she'd be in the majority.

This isn't to disparate Methodists, but I suspect you'd find fewer Methodists at the social extremes in the way you've described.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

From an Anglican perspective, the ordination system in particular seems to be spectacularly biased in favour of the middle-class - issues there.

Are people from a working-class background who have a good education and a degree really so terribly different from people from a middle-class background who have a good education and a degree?

I can't say that I've noticed anything beyond the most superficial differences.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

One thing religion in Canada is not is class-based; rather it's tribal. Unlike our parents in GB we run the gamut from rural churches which are essentially shacks in Upper Left Boot, Saskatchewan to the palaces of Old Money in Toronto and Montreal like Timothy Eaton Memorial United Church.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
There are two strands which I think we could pursue. One is the place of church and of denomination in specifically English culture: to my mind, class has been critical to this since the 17th century, when the Lollards and other dissenters were more or less on trail for their lives for being poor.

My recollection is that the Lollards were 14th century to the mid 16th century. Those strands still remaining blended into the Puritan movement.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Are people from a working-class background who have a good education and a degree really so terribly different from people from a middle-class background who have a good education and a degree?

I can't say that I've noticed anything beyond the most superficial differences.

In the USA, maybe. I'm led to believe that 'class' in the US is more a matter of economic status rather than the subtle social identifiers that trip people up in Britain.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Wikipedia article doesn't tell me what 'working class culture' is, particularly as distinct from 'middle class culture'.

Well, as a corollary, how would you define 'middle class culture' as distinct from 'working class culture'?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Wikipedia article doesn't tell me what 'working class culture' is, particularly as distinct from 'middle class culture'.
Well, as a corollary, how would you define 'middle class culture' as distinct from 'working class culture'?

Bathroom suites: avocado or peach = working class; white or buttercup yellow = middle class.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Bathroom suites: avocado or peach = working class; white or buttercup yellow = middle class.

Help, I'm working class.

Bathroom suites: avocado or peach = bought in the 1970s or 80s; white or buttercup yellow = more recent. Unless working Class = not updating your bathroom suite if it works.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Anecdotology - one of my grandads had a deep and abiding hatred for anything to do with religion; I suppose he saw them as posh toffs, who looked down on the plebs, ... So the clergyman was linked to the squire and the officer class, probably rather unjustly.

There is a saying that in the landed classes the oldest son inherited the estate, the second son went into the military and the third son into the church. This was used to make the church sound out of touch with ordinary people. In truth not all landed families had a third son, and even if they had the proportion of toffs in the clergy would still be small. The problem with urban myths like this is that some people believe them.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Anecdotology - one of my grandads had a deep and abiding hatred for anything to do with religion; I suppose he saw them as posh toffs, who looked down on the plebs, ... So the clergyman was linked to the squire and the officer class, probably rather unjustly.
There is a saying that in the landed classes the oldest son inherited the estate, the second son went into the military and the third son into the church. This was used to make the church sound out of touch with ordinary people. In truth not all landed families had a third son, and even if they had the proportion of toffs in the clergy would still be small. The problem with urban myths like this is that some people believe them.

I have met toffs in the C of E. In fact, my most favouritest clergyman ever had been an officer and a gentleman, had private money, blah blah blah, but was a totally brilliant preacher and all round good egg.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Bathroom suites: avocado or peach = working class; white or buttercup yellow = middle class.
Help, I'm working class.

Bathroom suites: avocado or peach = bought in the 1970s or 80s; white or buttercup yellow = more recent. Unless working Class = not updating your bathroom suite if it works.

I've bought a house with a peach bathroom. Which works. Conflicting message!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

From an Anglican perspective, the ordination system in particular seems to be spectacularly biased in favour of the middle-class - issues there.
Are people from a working-class background who have a good education and a degree really so terribly different from people from a middle-class background who have a good education and a degree?

I can't say that I've noticed anything beyond the most superficial differences.

Not at all, the difference is the likelihood of getting a degree in the first place. You don't need a degree to be ordained in the CoE (but get one as part of the training) but it is recommended.

And is pointed out upthread, class in the UK is not really about income but various social perceptions.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

And is pointed out upthread, class in the UK is not really about income but various social perceptions.

My point, which I was rather unclear about making, was that I wasn't sure that a priest (with a good education and a degree) from a middle-class background was terribly different from a priest (with a good education and a degree) from a working-class background, and so as a result the background of my priest isn't important.

Maybe other people care more about whether their priest has the same accent as they do, or whether he knows how to use a fish knife.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by seekingsister:
However I would also say that in the US, there's much less of a "culture clash" between rich and poor Americans, in the same way that there is in the UK. There will be obvious markers like quality of car, clothes, home, etc. - but I don't think the gap is as wide (or as important) in the US. In the US race is far more of an issue in churches. There's a joke that says that the Civil Rights movement ended segregation in America except for on Sunday mornings.

Oh, there certainly is a culture clash in the United States. There are plenty of Episcopal churches where a highly educated, upper middle class, African-American lesbian would be just as accepted and welcomed as a highly educated, upper middle class, white, straight male. We just feel more comfortable beating ourselves up for being racist and seeking forgiveness for the sins of our ancestors. Welcoming the working class of any race or sexuality? Not so much in practice.

The working class in the United States tend to be evangelical, pentecostal, or Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics have a history of running parochial schools that provided a decent education to working class children. Episcopalians? We educate the children of the rich and powerful. In their defense, Episcopal schools don't discriminate on the basis of anything but the ability to pay.

Anti-racism training is mandatory for all seminarians. I'm still waiting for an anti-classicism seminar. I won't hold my breath

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I am trying to understand the culture reference with "chav", something not understood here.

In western Canada, depending on province and area, we have 10 to 50% or more North American Indians, called mostly First Nations here. Average age is younger by 20+ years into the late teens or early 20s, extended families tend to be grandmother headed who often looks after grandchildren as young parents have lives that may fit the "chav" designation. I take it that "chav" is a pejorative label; such a label here would be racist by definition.

Religion tends to be something that does not connect at all with this group when they come to cities dominated by the mainstream Canadian culture. Except in the north, where communities are isolated and the traditional culture of elders (which means both wisdom and age) may hold sway. There what we see is traditionalist Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism, with the denomination depending on the dividing up of the communities some 100+ years ago.Hymns sung in Cree (or Dene) and English, service following older liturgies in general, with recognizable older forms even if in other languages. I can't speak about the Arctic where Inuktitut is the dominant language and Inuit the culture. But what I have seen is conservative and old fashioned. Connection to the young? Not so much.

What does connect in cities is things that look more like social services. Food, parenting guidance and help, education, access to jobs training and the like. Everyone will talk of God or The Creator, in a vague way, but not much more. I expect the progressive dismantling of government services and the welfare state is responsible for this.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Anti-racism training is mandatory for all seminarians. I'm still waiting for an anti-classicism seminar. I won't hold my breath

And I'd assumed that "check your privilege" training had come from the States, like everything else...

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

And is pointed out upthread, class in the UK is not really about income but various social perceptions.
My point, which I was rather unclear about making, was that I wasn't sure that a priest (with a good education and a degree) from a middle-class background was terribly different from a priest (with a good education and a degree) from a working-class background, and so as a result the background of my priest isn't important.

Maybe other people care more about whether their priest has the same accent as they do, or whether he knows how to use a fish knife.

I understand you better now. I think that there will certainly be different upbringings and experience involved, and the experience of classism for the WC priest that the MC will not have experienced.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

The working class in the United States tend to be evangelical, pentecostal, or Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics have a history of running parochial schools that provided a decent education to working class children. Episcopalians? We educate the children of the rich and powerful. In their defense, Episcopal schools don't discriminate on the basis of anything but the ability to pay.

Anti-racism training is mandatory for all seminarians. I'm still waiting for an anti-classicism seminar. I won't hold my breath

American Episcopalianism has never had much working class input, has it? I think I read here on the Ship once that American Episcopalian churches occasionally received socially ambitious people from the evangelical churches, but this didn't seem to work very well because the theology was just too different for them.

I suppose there's not much point in Episcopalians struggling to appeal to a group whose spiritual needs are likely to be met more effectively elsewhere. That might be considered a poor use of resources.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

From an Anglican perspective, the ordination system in particular seems to be spectacularly biased in favour of the middle-class - issues there.
Are people from a working-class background who have a good education and a degree really so terribly different from people from a middle-class background who have a good education and a degree?

I can't say that I've noticed anything beyond the most superficial differences.

That's the UCCan's Order of Ministry right there. M.Div.'s, the lot of them. It's mandatory.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

If I remember rightly, LutheranChick attends a American Lutheran church that's unusually successful with working class people, despite not being evangelical, etc. I think she said this was partly due to having a minister who was a hands-on, practical, straight-talking man that working class men in particular could relate to. This kind of person isn't usually the type to enter the ministry, if we're honest.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I am trying to understand the culture reference with "chav", something not understood here.

In western Canada, depending on province and area, we have 10 to 50% or more North American Indians, called mostly First Nations here. Average age is younger by 20+ years into the late teens or early 20s, extended families tend to be grandmother headed who often looks after grandchildren as young parents have lives that may fit the "chav" designation. I take it that "chav" is a pejorative label; such a label here would be racist by definition.

Religion tends to be something that does not connect at all with this group when they come to cities dominated by the mainstream Canadian culture. Except in the north, where communities are isolated and the traditional culture of elders (which means both wisdom and age) may hold sway. There what we see is traditionalist Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism, with the denomination depending on the dividing up of the communities some 100+ years ago.Hymns sung in Cree (or Dene) and English, service following older liturgies in general, with recognizable older forms even if in other languages. I can't speak about the Arctic where Inuktitut is the dominant language and Inuit the culture. But what I have seen is conservative and old fashioned. Connection to the young? Not so much.

What does connect in cities is things that look more like social services. Food, parenting guidance and help, education, access to jobs training and the like. Everyone will talk of God or The Creator, in a vague way, but not much more. I expect the progressive dismantling of government services and the welfare state is responsible for this.

Chav = white trash as far as the US is concerned, not sure if it has similar meaning in Canada.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

Chav is also a word with which I am unfamiliar and I wonder if it means the Australia term 'bogan'.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

There's an amount of discussion of the origin - there is a word meaning "boy" in Rom, but it's gone far beyond that, very negative. Trailer trash would be a close equivalent, but I think it still carries an idea of youth. Not really a good word to use of another human being. It looks as though it is equivalent to bogan - but I think I have come across that in a book set in Scotland, of a not real being of peculiarly nasty habits. (And it wasn't boggart.)

[ 25. January 2014, 21:45: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on :

One positive development of recent year is that I think working class people don't, on the whole, dismiss anyone with an accent from more than 30-40 miles away as an alien.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Chav is also a word with which I am unfamiliar and I wonder if it means the Australia term 'bogan'.

Chav isn't really a class thing. At the working class end you have the people who wear sportswear when not doing sport, often not matching, especially if they do not appear athletic,
like this.

But there are chavs with money. Wearing Burberry check is a sign of being a chav. The Spice Girls were a chav band and David and Victoria Beckham are a chav couple.

Unlike Trailer Trash, Chav is not defined by money.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Chav means unsophisticated rather than anything to do with social class.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

There are chavs with money, but often they have working class origins, such as the Beckhams, or at any rate, David. You can take a boy out of Leytonstone, but you can't take Leytonstone out of the boy. I suppose it's also said pretty scornfully about somebody like him. Victoria was more middle class in origin I think, hence, posh Spice.

Incidentally, I think the term is less common now.

[ 26. January 2014, 11:08: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Chav comes from the Romany word for boy. Its use goes with many other manifestations of prejudice against travellers - like the Big Fat Gypsy Wedding programmes. I was rather hoping this particular usage had died a death as its day has rather been and gone.

Assuming this report wants to be taken seriously, it seems somewhat unnecessary to use a pejorative term in its title.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Chav is absolutely a classist slur (I am also uncomfortable with the report's use of it).

Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on :

I always thought "chav" meant "council house and violent".

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Assuming this report wants to be taken seriously, it seems somewhat unnecessary to use a pejorative term in its title.

I suppose they were taking the lead from Owen Jones's book; hence allowing the 'slur' to make the point most vividly. Isn't it a bit like some gay people have reclaimed the word 'queer', or black people n****r?

Though I don't know to what extent the report was written by, or for, 'chavs'.

[ 26. January 2014, 15:36: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Though I don't know to what extent the report was written by, or for, 'chavs'.

That's not important - what is though is whether anyone who the book is "about" has read it and whether anyone else who has read it will do anything with what they read.

I'm with Jade C on this: if other terms were used in the way "chav" is used, there'd be a racist outcry. Owen Jones makes that point in his introduction. We are happy to protect and to affirm gays and people of colour - "chavs", seemingly not. Even in the church we are prepared to confess our sins in the (past) slave trade but are seemingly unwilling or unprepared to address the inequalities of the modern oppressed particularly if they are white.

Mind you my daughter who works in mental health services has commented on the apparent (racist) divide. A young black man exhibiting certain behaviour is classified schizophrenic, a middle aged middle class white woman showing the same classified as bipolar. Now tell me that isn't wrong ... apart from the labelling per se, of course ....

Very little has changed since the days of the "great unwashed" of the Victorian era. For some "chav" culture is a form of entertainment rather like watching the fighters in the arena: inevitably you're comfortable and they're not - inevitably you will survive they will only cope, at best.

[fixed non-U code]

[ 26. January 2014, 17:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Though I don't know to what extent the report was written by, or for, 'chavs'.
That's not important - what is though is whether anyone who the book is "about" has read it and whether anyone else who has read it will do anything with what they read.

I'm with Jade C on this: if other terms were used in the way "chav" is used, there'd be a racist outcry. Owen Jones makes that point in his introduction. We are happy to protect and to affirm gays and people of colour - "chavs", seemingly not. Even in the church we are prepared to confess our sins in the (past) slave trade but are seemingly unwilling or unprepared to address the inequalities of the modern oppressed particularly if they are white.

Mind you my daughter who works in mental health services has commented on the apparent (racist) divide. A young black man exhibiting certain behaviour is classified schizophrenic, a middle aged middle class white woman showing the same classified as bipolar. Now tell me that isn't wrong ... apart from the labelling per se, of course ....

Very little has changed since the days of the "great unwashed" of the Victorian era. For some "chav" culture is a form of entertainment rather like watching the fighters in the arena: inevitably you're comfortable and they're not - inevitably you will survive they will only cope, at best.

[fixed non-U code]

Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are totally different and are diagnosed differently - the biggest difference being that psychosis is often not present in individuals with bipolar disorder. There are two forms of bipolar and bipolar II has more depression with milder manic episodes, so not very like schizophrenia at all.

There are certainly issues with how mental health issues in different groups is *percieved*, but schizophrenia and bipolar disorder(s) are unrelated and very different ilnesses. There are Shipmates with bipolar disorder btw, and I think saying that they're actually schizophrenic but are given a 'nicer' diagnosis because they are white is deeply offensive, not to mention medically wrong. Bipolar still has a lot of stigma attached to it btw.

[ 26. January 2014, 17:49: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Assuming this report wants to be taken seriously, it seems somewhat unnecessary to use a pejorative term in its title.
I suppose they were taking the lead from Owen Jones's book; hence allowing the 'slur' to make the point most vividly. Isn't it a bit like some gay people have reclaimed the word 'queer', or black people n****r?

Though I don't know to what extent the report was written by, or for, 'chavs'.

In the article it says the author of Chav Christianity (but not the article's author) self-identifies as a chav.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Though I don't know to what extent the report was written by, or for, 'chavs'.
That's not important - what is though is whether anyone who the book is "about" has read it and whether anyone else who has read it will do anything with what they read.

I'm with Jade C on this: if other terms were used in the way "chav" is used, there'd be a racist outcry. Owen Jones makes that point in his introduction. We are happy to protect and to affirm gays and people of colour - "chavs", seemingly not. Even in the church we are prepared to confess our sins in the (past) slave trade but are seemingly unwilling or unprepared to address the inequalities of the modern oppressed particularly if they are white.

Mind you my daughter who works in mental health services has commented on the apparent (racist) divide. A young black man exhibiting certain behaviour is classified schizophrenic, a middle aged middle class white woman showing the same classified as bipolar. Now tell me that isn't wrong ... apart from the labelling per se, of course ....

Very little has changed since the days of the "great unwashed" of the Victorian era. For some "chav" culture is a form of entertainment rather like watching the fighters in the arena: inevitably you're comfortable and they're not - inevitably you will survive they will only cope, at best.

[fixed non-U code]
Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are totally different and are diagnosed differently - the biggest difference being that psychosis is often not present in individuals with bipolar disorder. There are two forms of bipolar and bipolar II has more depression with milder manic episodes, so not very like schizophrenia at all.

There are certainly issues with how mental health issues in different groups is *percieved*, but schizophrenia and bipolar disorder(s) are unrelated and very different ilnesses. There are Shipmates with bipolar disorder btw, and I think saying that they're actually schizophrenic but are given a 'nicer' diagnosis because they are white is deeply offensive, not to mention medically wrong. Bipolar still has a lot of stigma attached to it btw.

Not my diagnosis nor my daughter's but that's how Rockingham Forest used to describe people. Thankfully they've now changed and treat people as people

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

'Chav Church' is a controversial title, but it's is eye catching and it invites debate. More likely to fly off the shelves than something worthy like 'Exploring Working Class Faith'.

According to Amazon the author Darren Edwards' first church plant has been nicknamed 'Chav Church'. Sounds a bit cheesy to me, but if the people who belong there are okay about it and don't take themselves too seriously, who cares?

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh, there certainly is a culture clash in the United States. There are plenty of Episcopal churches where a highly educated, upper middle class, African-American lesbian would be just as accepted and welcomed as a highly educated, upper middle class, white, straight male. We just feel more comfortable beating ourselves up for being racist and seeking forgiveness for the sins of our ancestors. Welcoming the working class of any race or sexuality? Not so much in practice.

I didn't mean to say in the Episcopal church specifically, but in America in general. TEC is very welcoming in my opinion.

I come from a family of educated black people and our "class" never shielded us from racism. So I would suggest that in the US race still matters more than class.

[ 27. January 2014, 07:55: Message edited by: seekingsister ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

The article in the OP suggests that Middle Class Culture includes "the assumption that personal development includes financial stability, moving off a council estate and ensuring your children are well educated". Conversely, Working Class Culture is described as "life on a council estate, dressing in a particular way, sense of humour, and attitudes to money and education ... the importance of family, hospitality, and sharing possessions."

I think it's fair to say that the WC "attitudes to wealth and education" are being described as different to those held by the MC - that is, WC culture means not seeking financial stability (including owning one's own home) or a good education. These are certainly attitudes that one can encounter in many WC estates across the country, but are they really ones that the Church should be promoting?

It comes down to whether or not we should be encouraging people to better themselves. I'm all for meeting people where they are, but surely the point is to help them to improve their lives? Serving people who are in financial poverty must surely include some kind of effort to help them stop being poor - to help them to be able to earn a living and eventually provide for themselves. Similarly, serving those who are in educational poverty must surely include some kind of effort to educate them?

If "Chav Christianity" means encouraging people to stay in financial and educational poverty because that's their "culture", then I for one don't think it's a particularly good idea. We can do better than that.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Some years ago, I lived for a time and attended church in a parish which was predominantly traditional WC. However, it was split between an older area of C19 early C20 terraced houses mainly with WC owner occupiers, and a newer area of post WW2 council housing. It was quite noticeable that more church members lived in the older area than in the council estate. What, though, was also interesting, is that when people exercised 'right to buy', one of the other things they quite often started doing, was attending church.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Wikipedia article doesn't tell me what 'working class culture' is, particularly as distinct from 'middle class culture'.
Initiative is apparently not possible for the MC

I take the joke but there is a serious point here: this thread (and the original article) suggest that there is such a thing as 'working class culture' and such a thing as 'middle class culture' and that the two things differ so fundamentally that a person from one background can be alienated if he finds himself in the other.

If that's true, it seems to me that these elements of working class 'culture' ought to be easily identifiable. The fact they haven't suggests to me that the supposed differences might not be so great. After all, a great many people watch ITV nowadays...

(And I'm very much LMC - I know my place.)

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

(And are you really working class?)
As you said you didn't know what working class culture was, how can I answer that unless you say what you mean by the word?

A fair point. Presumably class can still be measured by education, income, speech etc. even if a society is culturally homogeneous? That said, I may have made some assumptions about your background that I'm not in a place to make since we've never actually met.

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Wikipedia article doesn't tell me what 'working class culture' is, particularly as distinct from 'middle class culture'.
Well, as a corollary, how would you define 'middle class culture' as distinct from 'working class culture'?

I don't know, which is why I'm struggling to get to grips with the premise of this thread.

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Bathroom suites: avocado or peach = working class; white or buttercup yellow = middle class.
Help, I'm working class.

Bathroom suites: avocado or peach = bought in the 1970s or 80s; white or buttercup yellow = more recent. Unless working Class = not updating your bathroom suite if it works.

I thought aristocrats didn't update their bathroom suites either?

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Chav comes from the Romany word for boy. Its use goes with many other manifestations of prejudice against travellers - like the Big Fat Gypsy Wedding programmes. I was rather hoping this particular usage had died a death as its day has rather been and gone.

Is there really a prejudice against gypsies here? The word is applied to a group of people exhibiting particular characteristics regardless of background, isn't it?

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If "Chav Christianity" means encouraging people to stay in financial and educational poverty because that's their "culture", then I for one don't think it's a particularly good idea. We can do better than that.

If that is indeed what this supposed 'working class culture' amounts to, then 'Chav Christianity' sounds like little more than socialism dressed up in a dog collar - keeping the poor poor so that they're dependent on the State.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

Is there really a prejudice against gypsies here?

Is that a serious question?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The guy near me in Norfolk who shot a gypsy burglar (dead), was feted in the local area. He is a folk hero, despite (or because of) being imprisoned for it. In some areas, gypsies are at the bottom of the racist pecking order.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

Is there really a prejudice against gypsies here?
Is that a serious question?

Yes. The word might be of Romany origin but it's being applied in a way that is wholly unconnected to them.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The guy near me in Norfolk who shot a gypsy burglar (dead), was feted in the local area. He is a folk hero, despite (or because of) being imprisoned for it. In some areas, gypsies are at the bottom of the racist pecking order.

Do you mean Tony Martin?

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

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The guy near me in Norfolk who shot a gypsy burglar (dead), was feted in the local area. He is a folk hero, despite (or because of) being imprisoned for it. In some areas, gypsies are at the bottom of the racist pecking order.

TBF, to a certain type of hate-filled spleen thinker, anyone who kills a burglar, gypsy or otherwise, is considered a hero.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If "Chav Christianity" means encouraging people to stay in financial and educational poverty because that's their "culture", then I for one don't think it's a particularly good idea. We can do better than that.
If that is indeed what this supposed 'working class culture' amounts to, then 'Chav Christianity' sounds like little more than socialism dressed up in a dog collar - keeping the poor poor so that they're dependent on the State.

If you really think that's what socialism means no wonder there is such a big comprehension gap. I think the difference between so-called 'chav Christianity' (and there is of course a self-mocking element in the title) and traditional middle-class or upper class paternalism, is that working class people can and should receive the gospel message for themselves and in their own context, rather than needing to become middle-class first in order to hear it.

It is patronising in the extreme to think that poor people enjoy being poor and want to be left in poverty; there is a long history of working class people striving for education and 'self-improvement' though they have continually been discouraged by the controlling hand that the rich have on the levers of power. My dad, who never had the chance of formal education after 14, and never owned his own house, was one of the most well-read people I have known.

'Improving one's life' is not synonymous with being a property owner. Social housing has become the last resort for the poor; at one time there was an ideal of mixed communities where manual workers and intellectuals lived side by side (an even better - Benedictine - ideal was that of all workers being intellectuals and vice versa). What is civilised in slaving your guts out for a mortgage on a piece of overvalued jerry-building instead of paying a reasonable rent for a well-designed house? That is a goal destroyed for ever by Thatcher's bourgeois snobbery.

But lifestyle, in this sense, is not what the gospel is all about. Basically it comes down to whether the riches of the Church's tradition belong to all, or whether they are the possessions of the wealthy doled out in supervised quantities to the lower orders. There is a patronising element to some of the middle-class 'let's preach the gospel to the poor' attitudes, just as much as in the servants pews at the back of country estate churches. The recent C of E debate about the Baptism service is tainted by some of it: 'oh, these poor ignorant peasants wouldn't understand these concepts'.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I think the difference between so-called 'chav Christianity' (and there is of course a self-mocking element in the title) and traditional middle-class or upper class paternalism, is that working class people can and should receive the gospel message for themselves and in their own context, rather than needing to become middle-class first in order to hear it.

Again, this depends on what "being middle-class" means. There was a sense, on reading through the OP's article, that churches shouldn't seek to educate their congregations lest the mere fact of that education turns them "middle class".

quote:
It is patronising in the extreme to think that poor people enjoy being poor and want to be left in poverty; there is a long history of working class people striving for education and 'self-improvement' though they have continually been discouraged by the controlling hand that the rich have on the levers of power. My dad, who never had the chance of formal education after 14, and never owned his own house, was one of the most well-read people I have known.

This is, of course, true. And there are a great many members of the middle classes - myself included - who ultimately owe that status to parents such as yours.

But I don't think such a drive to better oneself has ever been particularly associated with "Chav Culture". Quite the reverse - it seems to glorify ignorance. Books 'ent good fer nuffink, innit?

quote:
'Improving one's life' is not synonymous with being a property owner.

Perhaps not, but the two are linked to a certain degree.

quote:
Social housing has become the last resort for the poor; at one time there was an ideal of mixed communities where manual workers and intellectuals lived side by side (an even better - Benedictine - ideal was that of all workers being intellectuals and vice versa).

My street has manual labourers, teachers, pensioners and medical and academic professionals living on it. It's just that we all own our own homes.

quote:
What is civilised in slaving your guts out for a mortgage on a piece of overvalued jerry-building instead of paying a reasonable rent for a well-designed house?

Those aren't exactly the only options. In fact, I'd say it's more often a choice between paying a mortgage on a well-designed house or paying a ludicrous rent for a piece of overvalued jerry-building...

quote:
But lifestyle, in this sense, is not what the gospel is all about. Basically it comes down to whether the riches of the Church's tradition belong to all

From reeading the article, it seems to me that it's more about whether the riches of the Church's tradition should lead to any change in a person's lifestyle and attitudes, or whether those people should be encouraged to retain the lifestyle and attitudes that they already have.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

Is there really a prejudice against gypsies here?
Is that a serious question?
Yes. The word might be of Romany origin but it's being applied in a way that is wholly unconnected to them.

No, I mean do you genuinely not know whether there is prejudice against gypsies (and Travellers, who are different) in Britain and Ireland?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

Is there really a prejudice against gypsies here?
Is that a serious question?
Yes. The word might be of Romany origin but it's being applied in a way that is wholly unconnected to them.
No, I mean do you genuinely not know whether there is prejudice against gypsies (and Travellers, who are different) in Britain and Ireland?

A worthwhile discussion, but perhaps that is a bit of a different topic?

[ 27. January 2014, 15:20: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

Is there really a prejudice against gypsies here?
Is that a serious question?
Yes. The word might be of Romany origin but it's being applied in a way that is wholly unconnected to them.
No, I mean do you genuinely not know whether there is prejudice against gypsies (and Travellers, who are different) in Britain and Ireland?
A worthwhile discussion, but perhaps that is a bit of a different topic?

If he did mean it it would imply that Anglicant is so ignorant of the realities of life in Britain that we could safely assume his posts on these topics are worthless. If just some rhetorical trope, then not so.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

Is there really a prejudice against gypsies here?
Is that a serious question?
Yes. The word might be of Romany origin but it's being applied in a way that is wholly unconnected to them.
No, I mean do you genuinely not know whether there is prejudice against gypsies (and Travellers, who are different) in Britain and Ireland?
A worthwhile discussion, but perhaps that is a bit of a different topic?
If he did mean it it would imply that Anglicant is so ignorant of the realities of life in Britain that we could safely assume his posts on these topics are worthless. If just some rhetorical trope, then not so.

To clarify, by 'here' I wasn't referring to the United Kingdom or Ireland, or making some wider comment on the treatment of gypsies or Travellers in this countries, but whether there's the racial connotation attached to the modern use of the word 'chav' that appeared to be suggested up-thread.

I thought that was clear when the two sentences of my post (of which only one was quoted by ken) are read together. Apologies if not.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In some areas, gypsies are at the bottom of the racist pecking order.

Gypsies were the one group that the Nazis considered lower than the Jews.

Moo

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0