Some people manage to change address without slagging off their previous affiliation.
I've not always succeeded but these days appreciate that I've been shaped by all settings I've been involved in and these have contributed to where I'm currently 'at'.
There's some kind of paradox in wanting a religion with more external discipline and being frustrated when the external discipline isn't lining up with what your internal "disciplinarian" says that discipline should be doing.
On the contrary, it's the bit in all of us that would like everyone else to agree with us and absent that, for discipline to bring them into line. Most of us realise why that's unreasonable. Trad caths, ortho bros, and "non-denominational" theo bros are convinced that they can force every into compliance.
@Stephen most Anglo-Catholic clergy I know wear Gothic vestments! Iirc Gothic vestments have historically been preferred in English churches in general. Other Anglo-Catholics may vary.
In my experience. Younger Anglo-Catholic clergy prefer Latin and older ones prefer Gothic. In Lift High the Cross by John Gunstone the clergy of the early twentieth century are colour code as to how Catholic they are. I seem to recall that only those in the strongest shades of red wore Latin vestments. You can see a modern version of it on here. The circles I largely move in are at present very definitely red. That said I have never heard more firmly preached the love of God.
There's some kind of paradox in wanting a religion with more external discipline and being frustrated when the external discipline isn't lining up with what your internal "disciplinarian" says that discipline should be doing.
On the contrary, it's the bit in all of us that would like everyone else to agree with us and absent that, for discipline to bring them into line. Most of us realise why that's unreasonable. Trad caths, ortho bros, and "non-denominational" theo bros are convinced that they can force every into compliance.
I think it’s more personal. Across the denominations it’s pretty much common knowledge that “love ought not to insist on its own way.” I can’t speak for the other groups but it’s true that the in the “non-denominational” and “independent”bros you’ll find some who seem to require a lot more conformity. Including, sadly, some in leadership.
I know the label doesn’t work abroad, but in the UK a lot of these folks have lost contact with respect for nonconformist dissent as a matter of conscience. More’s the pity.
And yet …. in all these groups I’ve found a great many kind, humble and loving people who don’t insist on their own way. Some of them really don’t deserve the leadership they’ve got.
This assessment is based on over 50 years experience amongst the dissenters. We’re a funny lot but I’m persuaded that God loves us, warts and all.
You can see a modern version of it on here. The circles I largely move in are at present very definitely red.
The author appears to be ignoring the existence of Common Worship, and doesn't mention the English Hymnal (any version). I'm not a liturgy geek but there's a prominent strain of Anglo-Catholicism that I think I'd define by the two along with calling female priests Mother.
You can see a modern version of it on here. The circles I largely move in are at present very definitely red.
The author appears to be ignoring the existence of Common Worship, and doesn't mention the English Hymnal (any version). I'm not a liturgy geek but there's a prominent strain of Anglo-Catholicism that I think I'd define by the two along with calling female priests Mother.
Yes, that’s what I call them myself. I think I don’t map well onto that diagram at all… all over the place in various areas!
There's some kind of paradox in wanting a religion with more external discipline and being frustrated when the external discipline isn't lining up with what your internal "disciplinarian" says that discipline should be doing.
On the contrary, it's the bit in all of us that would like everyone else to agree with us and absent that, for discipline to bring them into line. Most of us realise why that's unreasonable. Trad caths, ortho bros, and "non-denominational" theo bros are convinced that they can force every into compliance.
I think it’s more personal. Across the denominations it’s pretty much common knowledge that “love ought not to insist on its own way.” I can’t speak for the other groups but it’s true that the in the “non-denominational” and “independent”bros you’ll find some who seem to require a lot more conformity. Including, sadly, some in leadership.
I know the label doesn’t work abroad, but in the UK a lot of these folks have lost contact with respect for nonconformist dissent as a matter of conscience. More’s the pity.
And yet …. in all these groups I’ve found a great many kind, humble and loving people who don’t insist on their own way. Some of them really don’t deserve the leadership they’ve got.
This assessment is based on over 50 years experience amongst the dissenters. We’re a funny lot but I’m persuaded that God loves us, warts and all.
God loves everyone.
I'm sorry, @Barnabas62 but you keep mentioning this 'dissenting' thing as if it's a badge of identity.
In today's Western church scene, I wonder what the sort of churches you are referring to are dissenting from?
Nobody's going to stop Baptists from going to university. Nobody's going to lock Quakers up simply for being Quakers. If anything most 'non-conformist' churches these days are pretty close to the zeitgeist. One could argue that someone becoming a Copt or a traditional Catholic or, heaven forfend, an 'ortho-bro' are being more counter-cultural and 'non-conformist.'
How does 'dissent' express itself these days in ecclesial terms? Non-compliance with one's own denominational or 'connexional' structures?
This isn't the 18th century. The high-water mark of the 'non-conformist conscience' came and went in the early 1900s.
Surely there's more to it than, 'I disagree with that person over there'?
Hmmm....interesting table .....@ChastMastr Yes I'm not sure I do either.....somewhere between yellow and orange I suspect depending on what sort of mood I'm in
However I seem to have caused something of a tangent.....!
You can see a modern version of it on here. The circles I largely move in are at present very definitely red.
The author appears to be ignoring the existence of Common Worship, and doesn't mention the English Hymnal (any version). I'm not a liturgy geek but there's a prominent strain of Anglo-Catholicism that I think I'd define by the two along with calling female priests Mother.
Yes, that’s what I call them myself. I think I don’t map well onto that diagram at all… all over the place in various areas!
I likely am way out of my depth on this one, but I can’t help wondering if Pond Differences are at play here.
Hmmm....interesting table .....@ChastMastr Yes I'm not sure I do either.....somewhere between yellow and orange I suspect depending on what sort of mood I'm in
However I seem to have caused something of a tangent.....!
.
The color-coding makes me think of power rings, too. (Honestly I prefer when it was just the Green Lantern Corps with Sinestro having a yellow ring…)
You can see a modern version of it on here. The circles I largely move in are at present very definitely red.
The author appears to be ignoring the existence of Common Worship, and doesn't mention the English Hymnal (any version). I'm not a liturgy geek but there's a prominent strain of Anglo-Catholicism that I think I'd define by the two along with calling female priests Mother.
Yes, that’s what I call them myself. I think I don’t map well onto that diagram at all… all over the place in various areas!
I likely am way out of my depth on this one, but I can’t help wondering if Pond Differences are at play here.
I don't think so - it seems to be ACNA oriented. That's why the categories are so weird.
You can see a modern version of it on here. The circles I largely move in are at present very definitely red.
The author appears to be ignoring the existence of Common Worship, and doesn't mention the English Hymnal (any version). I'm not a liturgy geek but there's a prominent strain of Anglo-Catholicism that I think I'd define by the two along with calling female priests Mother.
Yes, that’s what I call them myself. I think I don’t map well onto that diagram at all… all over the place in various areas!
I likely am way out of my depth on this one, but I can’t help wondering if Pond Differences are at play here.
I don't think so - it seems to be ACNA oriented. That's why the categories are so weird.
There's some kind of paradox in wanting a religion with more external discipline and being frustrated when the external discipline isn't lining up with what your internal "disciplinarian" says that discipline should be doing.
On the contrary, it's the bit in all of us that would like everyone else to agree with us and absent that, for discipline to bring them into line. Most of us realise why that's unreasonable. Trad caths, ortho bros, and "non-denominational" theo bros are convinced that they can force every into compliance.
I dunno, I'm ok with people being disagreeable until they start getting threatening. I'm a fan of the flexibility of the Episcopal Church, which some folks talk about like it's a weakness. If someone doesn't want to say the Lord's Prayer the same way that I do, that's between them and God. I can soak that irritation for the sake of community.
It'd be nice if people stopped threatening each other.
My sense is, kind of per @Nick Tamen , you can find decent people and not-so-decent people in any cohort, including liberals.
You can see a modern version of it on here. The circles I largely move in are at present very definitely red.
The author appears to be ignoring the existence of Common Worship, and doesn't mention the English Hymnal (any version). I'm not a liturgy geek but there's a prominent strain of Anglo-Catholicism that I think I'd define by the two along with calling female priests Mother.
Nobody is going to lock Quakers up for being Quakers NOW, but that has not always been the case. That is one reason why William Penn started his colony in the new world. Just a couple of weeks ago, on Finding Your Roots, and NPR series looking a guest genealogy, they told of this person's Puritan roots. Their ancestor has been fined for giving shelter to a family of Quakers who were just wanting to get out of the rain.
Wasn't too long ago there was a rather long discussion on either this ship or the old ship as to whether we could consider Salvation Army people Christian because they do not accept the sacraments. Interesting history, they do not practice them because William and Catherine Booth felt the sacraments became a source of division. On the other hand, one could argue Salvation Army accepts the Creeds in substance even through their Articles of Faith does not explicitly name them.
Ahem, @Gramps49, it's not as if I wasn't aware of that. Why do you think I alluded to Quakers not being locked up simply for being Quakers if I wasn't aware that this hadn't happened in the past?
It was implicit in my post.
I think I may have alluded to the Salvation Army's position on sacraments upthread or on another recent thread. And no, I don’t regard them as not being Christian because of their particular stance on that issue.
If I remember rightly, the discussions here or on the old Ship about the SA's view of sacraments didn't centre around whether they were to be considered Christian or not, but the reasons for their practice in this regard.
Please do us the courtesy of knowing a fair bit about the history and development of religious movements such as the Quakers, Salvation Army and other groups that originated here in the British Isles.
I would also appreciate it if you were to stop lecturing the rest of us about things we are are already aware of or which are implicit in our posts.
I find it larger tiresome and irritating. I'm sure it's not deliberate or intended to set anyone's teeth on edge but I'm afraid that's the reaction it can cause. I would be very grateful if you could refrain from stating the obvious or presuming to lecture people on points they have already made themselves but which you've missed for whatever reason.
Apologies, that should have read, 'Please do us the courtesy of assuming or recognising we know a fair bit about ...' etc.
Heck, I can't speak for anyone else here but I have Quaker and Salvation Army friends and don't need you to put me straight on their history or particular practices.
It rightly irritates North American posters when Shipmates from this side of the Pond pontificate about some aspect or other of the US political, religious or social scene in a way that makes assumptions or doesn't accept or presume a knowledge that North American posters already have.
I was responding to @Arethosemyfeet, which is why I quoted their post. It included a generalised about non-denominational bros. Who are obvious dissenters. I agreed in part with the generalisation.
And if I share my long experience it’s because that’s what it’s been. Others have been less fortunate.
I know you are a refugee from that general grouping and therefore appreciate you are amongst those whose experiences have been less fortunate. I regret that. My two best friends (for over 40 years) have moved up the candle and that’s been better for them.
Please do us the courtesy of knowing a fair bit about the history and development of religious movements such as the Quakers, Salvation Army and other groups that originated here in the British Isles.
I would also appreciate it if you were to stop lecturing the rest of us about things we are are already aware of or which are implicit in our posts.
I find it larger tiresome and irritating. I'm sure it's not deliberate or intended to set anyone's teeth on edge but I'm afraid that's the reaction it can cause. I would be very grateful if you could refrain from stating the obvious or presuming to lecture people on points they have already made themselves but which you've missed for whatever reason.
Thank you.
@Gamma Gamaliel This is a personal attack on Gramps49. As per Commandment 4, if you must get personal, take it to Hell. Or apologise to Gramps49.
@Barnabas62 - to clarify, I'd consider myself a 'refugee' from the more extreme elements of that general grouping, not the general grouping itself in its broader sense, as it were.
We were in a Baptist church for 6 years before moving here and were very happy there. Prior to that I was 18 years in a full-on charismatic evangelical outfit and my wife was there for 14 years.
I didn't 'fall out' with the Baptists. I have a lot of time for them.
I was gradually moving 'up the candle' though even then, but I didn't become Orthodox because I had anything 'against' Baptists or 'non-conformists' in the terms UK sense.
My question was a more general one.
It's possible to be a 'dissenting' voice in any church tradition whether Big T or small t.
I was 'thinking aloud' as to what that actually means these days in places where nobody is going to be subject to sanction for not belonging to an 'established' church or the majority religion of whatever country they happen to live in.
Sadly, that doesn't apply worldwide. There are plenty of places where minority religious groups suffer discrimination or persecution.
Does being a 'dissenter' mean grumbling about whatever decisions one's 'church meeting', Synod, parish council or whatever else takes?
I valued the Baptist 'church meeting' process very much after years of elders making decisions on the congregations behalf without any consultation whatsoever.
There was a chap in our Baptist church who used to vote against everything and anything even though in most instances his was the single dissenting voice.
I once quipped about this to somebody and they replied, 'At least he's in a position where he can do so.'
I couldn't argue with that.
I'm not 'having a go' at you @Barnabas62 nor the tradition you represent.
I'm wondering what 'dissent' looks like now in societies where religious freedoms are - in theory - guaranteed and where the kind of values espoused in most Baptist, Methodist and URC churches aren't dissimilar to what we'd find in wider society or indeed most historic Churches these days.
I think the point about "dissenters" is the underlying state of mind. It suggests a certain fissiparousness, a willingness to strain at the bounds of any group, even after one has joined it. In a UK context, there is also something about being defined as an outsider, because the Establishment had, and in a rather attenuated way still has, such a complete grasp over power and influence that any later personal experience of inclusion by structures of power is always overlaid by this foundational exclusion.
One thing which intrigues me in Britain is the Roman Catholic church. Although clearly not part of the Nonconformist Dissenting tradition, Catholics were for many years excluded from the mainstream of religious and indeed national life. Of course the "old Catholics" suffered persecution despite being part of the (English) Establishment; even in the latter C19 Catholics were vilified and despised - was this because many were immigrant Irish?
Today, with some dishonourable exceptions, dissent is a lot more normal than it was and I think more widely tolerated. A good thing. The ‘hot button’ issues are less likely to produce fallings out. Churches with a Congregational polity (including Bapists and independent churches) have fewer people to get agreement with than the episcopal churches! A female friend of ours is now preaching/teaching in a New Frontiers church. That wouldn’t have happened a few years ago.
Personally I hope it’s a trend. Accepting a measure of dissent and diversity is a very helpful defence against Protestant tendencies to split.
Against that, people migrate more these days, but often that’s not about belief. Parents with young children are interested in the quality of children’s and youth work.
I hope also that it is a sign of better orthopraxy (I like that word!). Celebrating what we have in common is far better than encouraging witch-sniffers pursuivant.
One thing which intrigues me in Britain is the Roman Catholic church. Although clearly not part of the Nonconformist Dissenting tradition, Catholics were for many years excluded from the mainstream of religious and indeed national life. Of course the "old Catholics" suffered persecution despite being part of the (English) Establishment; even in the latter C19 Catholics were vilified and despised - was this because many were immigrant Irish?
My mother-in-law was a King and Country Anglican. She thought that to be trully English you had to be in the C of E. She was horrified when her daughter married a papist, appalled when that daughter then poped over, and threatened to disinherit her grandchildren if they were baptised RCs (which they were.) She saw the RC as essentially foreign.
In her work for Liverpool Education department she had come across some particularly knarly Irish nuns who were head teachers. They re-enforced her prejudices.
When I was a lad in the 1950s Catholics were very conscious of historical persecutions discriminatory laws. That history was a part of the school curriculum.
Even in the rapidly secularising South Wales of the 1960s and '70s there was still a residual anti-RC vibe. People always believed the worst about Catholics.
A nosey parker once saw the RC priest chucking out disused raffle tickets and the rumour went round that he was pocketing the proceeds.
Anti-Catholicism ran deep and not just with 'Church and King' Anglicans but with 'non-conformists' too.
'No Rome on the Rates!'
I may start a new thread on the 'dissenting' thing. In some ways traditional Roman Catholicism and other more 'conservative' forms of Christianity are now looking more 'dissenting' than those churches that would once have borne that label.
I'm not knocking it, but in many ways the Baptists, Congregationalists and other 'dissenting' groups have 'won.'
Now that 'recusants' aren't fined, adherence to the 'Established Church' is no longer enforced or tacitly assumed, and that many 'mainline' churches are socially-liberal then what is there for 'dissenting' groups to dissent from?
They are either going to 'dissent' from one another over minor issues or keep the fissaporous spiral going indefinitely.
There's not a great deal to distinguish New Frontiers, Vineyard or other 'non-denominational' churches from one another these days and unless you were among the cognoscenti most Methodist and URC services are indistinguishable from each other.
Plus many Anglican settings resemble all those in many ways too.
I'm not saying that the 'Higher' and more sacramental end of things doesn't have similar or parallel issues.
But it does make me wonder what 'dissent' or 'non-conformity' actually consists of these days.
Very few of us are living lives of radical discipleship in whatever setting we inhabit.
Unless we all go 'off grid' or sit on the top of poles, I'm not sure what we can do to show 'dissent' in any substantial way without becoming freaky, eccentric or adopting positions that risk taking us into loopy theocratic or sectarian territory.
I'm not singling any of us out for criticism. Just thinking aloud.
How can we show 'dissent' without trying to revert to an imagined idealised past or becoming po-faced puritans?
There's not a great deal to distinguish New Frontiers, Vineyard or other 'non-denominational' churches from one another these days and unless you were among the cognoscenti most Methodist and URC services are indistinguishable from each other.
Although the URC and Methodist ecclesial structures are somewhat different - not that a casual visitor would know about, of course. And there are many united URC/Methodist congregations anyway.
According to the historian John Bossy, RCs in England during the eighteenth century would have been outwardly almost indistinguishable from other dissenters in terms of worship until the Tractarians started swimming the Tiber in search of their Romantic picture of the Italian / medieval church.
I would describe New Frontiers as non-conformist as I consider that to be common terminology used for Protestant churches that are not part of the established church. However, I wouldn’t use the word ‘dissenting’ to describe us. We consider ourselves quite mainstream.
(There might also be an argument to consider the church a denomination as there are about 800 affiliated churches worldwide, with over 100 in the UK.)
Some people have a penchant for minority views. I agree that there may be a reaction to the power of the Establishment. Or whatever counts for established. “They are unscrupulous exploiters of power” etc.
I guess there was an element of that in the Reformation. “Exploiters can’t be trusted to get anything right. Because they are at heart exploiters and controllers”.
I think at its heart the Reformation was more about perceived abuse of power. The theological arguments were against that background. But ai guess it sensitised Protestant to abuse of power by any leadership.
“We’ve just kicked them out. Don’t you go down the same road!”.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. (Coupled with eternal suspiciousness.)
But that’s not the same as dissent as a matter of personal conscience. It’s a sense of wrongness. Whether or not exploited by the powerful. The cost of dissent is determined by the power of those in charge.
Yes, @Barnabas62, I recognise all of that. I was trying to express what I saw in the Methodism and Congregationalism in which I was raised, and the Quakers with whom I am now friends, in terms of the legacy of the dissent in which those movements started.
Now being a member of the Church of England doesn't mean I feel like an insider; anything but. In fact, I would put myself on the edge of most things, including credal Christianity. I certainly don't read anything in it as a statement of reality to which I can personally attest, other than the first four words.
I think Quakers don’t expect you to sign up to anything. If there is any recitation of any, or any part, of the Creeds at a Friends meeting, it would be by an individual who was moved to do so.
I'm not sure what John Bossy means when he says the RC s in England would have been outwardly almost indistinguishable from from other religious dissenters in terms of worship.
Most of them would have been gathered around small squires and their families with the priests being family retainers. The worship would normally have been without music, consisting of catechism,preaching and hurried Low Mass. The families would generally intermarry,conscious of the fact that if the head of the family 'defected' to Anglicanism the whole system would fall apart. (Not sure if other dissenters would have a hurried Low Mass)
The Irish question is a separate one. One has to remember that Ireland had been ruled by the English for centuries and (I think in 1801) became officially part of the United Kingdom. The Irish were officially not 'foreigners' but rather citizens of the United Kingdom. Dislike and distrust of the Irish would have been because of their profession (for the most part) of the Catholic Faith.
Apart from the Embassy chapels there would have been little ,if any music, in Catholic chapels.
The situation of Catholics in Scotland in the 18th century was similar but different. There was really only a handful of 'noble' families who kept the Catholic Faith and very few'squires/lairds and if the head of the family 'defected' as for example the Duke of Gordon this caused a big change.
The small Catholic communities in the North West of Scotland were those which the Reformation had never reached and those in the North East of Scotland and Aberdeenshire were communities which had had to a certain extent the protection of the Dukes of Gordon.
Things changed with the massive immigration from Ireland in the late 18th century,early 19th century.
I love the story of what happened in Glasgow with the serious dispute between the supporters of the Scottish bishop from Banffshire and a bishop sent from Ireland when the Irish complained that 'Paddy pays, but Sandy says'. In the end the Vatican retired both of these bishops and brought in an aristocratic Yorkshireman, Charles Eyre, to fill the post of Vicar Apostolic,becoming the first post Reformation Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow in 1878.
One thing which intrigues me in Britain is the Roman Catholic church. Although clearly not part of the Nonconformist Dissenting tradition, Catholics were for many years excluded from the mainstream of religious and indeed national life. Of course the "old Catholics" suffered persecution despite being part of the (English) Establishment; even in the latter C19 Catholics were vilified and despised - was this because many were immigrant Irish?
Yes, I think that is rather a gross simplification. By being 'papists', even upper class recusants excluded themselves from the Establishment and the Establishment both excluded them and regarded them as excluded. If they held titles, they could not sit in the House of Lords until 1829. Nor, until then, even if they were 40/- freeholders, could they vote or, for that matter, stand for Parliament. Until the 1790s they could not practice law. Since attempts to relax some of the anti-Catholic legislation had provoked in London in 1780 several days of violent rioting, governments were very wary even of making concessions they thought were fairly innocuous.
Prejudice against Roman Catholics lasted long after emancipation. The number of Irish Catholics immigrating in the C19 may not have helped, but people like Newman 'turning Pape' influenced this as well. Even in my childhood, residual and instinctive prejudice was quite widespread, partly because in much of the country most people did not meet Roman Catholics very much, and until Vatican II Roman Catholics rather kept to themselves.
I also think that John Bossy's comment that in the eighteenth century Roman Catholic worship would have been almost indistinguishable from that of Protestant dissenters is rhetoric rather than sound. Yes, in modern terms it would have looked low church. In penal times, away from the foreign embassy chapels in London, there was no other option. But the key bits were still mumbled in Latin and were sacramental, which was not what happened in other dissenting churches.
I think Quakers don’t expect you to sign up to anything. If there is any recitation of any, or any part, of the Creeds at a Friends meeting, it would be by an individual who was moved to do so.
When I applied for membership I was visited by some Friends who asked me about my faith, but I was not required to sign up to any statement of belief.
@Dafyd - the Mass would have been in Latin so no, it wouldn't have sounded like any 'dissenting' service. As @Enoch has indicated and as @Forthview says, it would all have looked a bit furtive.
@Heavenlyannie - I'd regard New Frontiers as a denomination, and quite a successful one.
I wouldn't regard them as 'dissenters' either as the sort of things earlier independent Protestant groups were dissenting from have either weakened over time or largely disappeared.
The kind of worship style adopted by the 'new churches' of the 1980s, from which New Frontiers emerged, is now pretty standard across the charismatic evangelical spectrum.
In a similar way the style we associate with older 'non-conformist' or 'dissenting' groups became pretty much standardised across the Methodists and URC etc - irrespective of their differences in structure.
The early Pentecostal groups also developed a fairly standardised style too - whether they were AoG, Elim or Apostolic here in the UK.
The question I've raised and it probably needs a new thread, is whether it makes any sense to talk about 'dissenters' in ecclesial terms these days in a 'post-Christendom' context.
Not for the first time you have given me something serious to think about.
It may be better to stop talking about dissenters, but instead about the value to all denominations of respecting, amongst their believers, dissent on an issue of personal conscience. To quote the late President Johnson's well worn cliche, it's better to have them inside the tent pissing out. Minority voices can sometimes be.prophetic in the sense of speaking the truth to power. And I think that in all of us there is a little bit of Amos!
I think the point about "dissenters" is the underlying state of mind. It suggests a certain fissiparousness, a willingness to strain at the bounds of any group, even after one has joined it. In a UK context, there is also something about being defined as an outsider, because the Establishment had, and in a rather attenuated way still has, such a complete grasp over power and influence that any later personal experience of inclusion by structures of power is always overlaid by this foundational exclusion.
Is it not also (or rather) that they have had to make a choice between group cohesion and conscience, and chose conscience? That their alliance was not to a church but to the Gospel?
I think that one has to consider the social history too. In England, the dissenting was as much to do with the state as with the religion. The new forms of religion grew out of an environment that included Ranters, Quakers, Shakers, Diggers along with Chartists and other political radicals.
As far as I understand it, continental European history of Protestantism grew in different ways. Without going into all this stuff again, Zwingli in Zurich did not appear to be a dissenter given that he was essentially a religious-political figure. The history in the USA is different again.
Roman Catholics can't be described as dissenters in the same sense because for long periods the Papacy was a military and political power. Over time that changed of course, but for long periods saying one was Roman Catholic in England was essentially treason because one was pledging oneself to one monarch instead of another.
Today I don't think "dissenter" can really apply to many or any religious groups that accept secular laws in the countries where they are. There are Islamist groups trying to set up Caliphates who possible fit this description, but as far as I know there are basically no Christian groups on collision courses with secular states like this today.
I think the point about "dissenters" is the underlying state of mind. It suggests a certain fissiparousness, a willingness to strain at the bounds of any group, even after one has joined it. In a UK context, there is also something about being defined as an outsider, because the Establishment had, and in a rather attenuated way still has, such a complete grasp over power and influence that any later personal experience of inclusion by structures of power is always overlaid by this foundational exclusion.
Is it not also (or rather) that they have had to make a choice between group cohesion and conscience, and chose conscience? That their alliance was not to a church but to the Gospel?
It appears that way in some senses, but then one has to also understand that these things happened over many generations. Of course someone had to start a chapel or religious group which might well have been as a response to the state or established church. But then subsequent generations would have grown up in church and have known no different, lacking the mental vocabulary to understand the thing that their forefathers were objecting to.
So whilst they might have inherited language about the Church (meaning the Church of England or the Roman Catholics) that might have been less about a conscious choice than because they had been brought up in the Methodist chapel and only knew the language and thought processes of Wesleyan Methodism. In time these tended to fragment into daughter and granddaughter denominations which became further and further away in time and beliefs from the initial point of disagreement.
I think it is a bit different in the USA in the sense that these denominations arrived "ready made" without the history of having evolved in different directions.
While it may have been a popular idea in England that Roman Catholics were pledged to be faithful to the pope rather than to the monarch,it certainly was not the case in all other countries of Western Europe.
During the 30 Years War in German lands the French state was generally on the other side against the Catholic parts of the Holy Roman Empire.
Just as in England it was the monarch who was in general responsible for the naming of the bishops. I understand that it was the case in Spain until the death of Franco that the Head of State would nominate the bishops.
Comments
Some people manage to change address without slagging off their previous affiliation.
I've not always succeeded but these days appreciate that I've been shaped by all settings I've been involved in and these have contributed to where I'm currently 'at'.
On the contrary, it's the bit in all of us that would like everyone else to agree with us and absent that, for discipline to bring them into line. Most of us realise why that's unreasonable. Trad caths, ortho bros, and "non-denominational" theo bros are convinced that they can force every into compliance.
In my experience. Younger Anglo-Catholic clergy prefer Latin and older ones prefer Gothic. In Lift High the Cross by John Gunstone the clergy of the early twentieth century are colour code as to how Catholic they are. I seem to recall that only those in the strongest shades of red wore Latin vestments. You can see a modern version of it on here. The circles I largely move in are at present very definitely red. That said I have never heard more firmly preached the love of God.
I think it’s more personal. Across the denominations it’s pretty much common knowledge that “love ought not to insist on its own way.” I can’t speak for the other groups but it’s true that the in the “non-denominational” and “independent”bros you’ll find some who seem to require a lot more conformity. Including, sadly, some in leadership.
I know the label doesn’t work abroad, but in the UK a lot of these folks have lost contact with respect for nonconformist dissent as a matter of conscience. More’s the pity.
And yet …. in all these groups I’ve found a great many kind, humble and loving people who don’t insist on their own way. Some of them really don’t deserve the leadership they’ve got.
This assessment is based on over 50 years experience amongst the dissenters. We’re a funny lot but I’m persuaded that God loves us, warts and all.
Yes, that’s what I call them myself. I think I don’t map well onto that diagram at all… all over the place in various areas!
God loves everyone.
I'm sorry, @Barnabas62 but you keep mentioning this 'dissenting' thing as if it's a badge of identity.
In today's Western church scene, I wonder what the sort of churches you are referring to are dissenting from?
Nobody's going to stop Baptists from going to university. Nobody's going to lock Quakers up simply for being Quakers. If anything most 'non-conformist' churches these days are pretty close to the zeitgeist. One could argue that someone becoming a Copt or a traditional Catholic or, heaven forfend, an 'ortho-bro' are being more counter-cultural and 'non-conformist.'
How does 'dissent' express itself these days in ecclesial terms? Non-compliance with one's own denominational or 'connexional' structures?
This isn't the 18th century. The high-water mark of the 'non-conformist conscience' came and went in the early 1900s.
Surely there's more to it than, 'I disagree with that person over there'?
However I seem to have caused something of a tangent.....!
.
The color-coding makes me think of power rings, too. (Honestly I prefer when it was just the Green Lantern Corps with Sinestro having a yellow ring…)
https://geekscovery.com/2020/03/02/dc-comics-lantern-corps-explained/
I don't think so - it seems to be ACNA oriented. That's why the categories are so weird.
I dunno, I'm ok with people being disagreeable until they start getting threatening. I'm a fan of the flexibility of the Episcopal Church, which some folks talk about like it's a weakness. If someone doesn't want to say the Lord's Prayer the same way that I do, that's between them and God. I can soak that irritation for the sake of community.
It'd be nice if people stopped threatening each other.
My sense is, kind of per @Nick Tamen , you can find decent people and not-so-decent people in any cohort, including liberals.
That's very much my experience too.
Wasn't too long ago there was a rather long discussion on either this ship or the old ship as to whether we could consider Salvation Army people Christian because they do not accept the sacraments. Interesting history, they do not practice them because William and Catherine Booth felt the sacraments became a source of division. On the other hand, one could argue Salvation Army accepts the Creeds in substance even through their Articles of Faith does not explicitly name them.
It was implicit in my post.
I think I may have alluded to the Salvation Army's position on sacraments upthread or on another recent thread. And no, I don’t regard them as not being Christian because of their particular stance on that issue.
If I remember rightly, the discussions here or on the old Ship about the SA's view of sacraments didn't centre around whether they were to be considered Christian or not, but the reasons for their practice in this regard.
Please do us the courtesy of knowing a fair bit about the history and development of religious movements such as the Quakers, Salvation Army and other groups that originated here in the British Isles.
I would also appreciate it if you were to stop lecturing the rest of us about things we are are already aware of or which are implicit in our posts.
I find it larger tiresome and irritating. I'm sure it's not deliberate or intended to set anyone's teeth on edge but I'm afraid that's the reaction it can cause. I would be very grateful if you could refrain from stating the obvious or presuming to lecture people on points they have already made themselves but which you've missed for whatever reason.
Thank you.
Heck, I can't speak for anyone else here but I have Quaker and Salvation Army friends and don't need you to put me straight on their history or particular practices.
It rightly irritates North American posters when Shipmates from this side of the Pond pontificate about some aspect or other of the US political, religious or social scene in a way that makes assumptions or doesn't accept or presume a knowledge that North American posters already have.
The same applies in reverse.
I was responding to @Arethosemyfeet, which is why I quoted their post. It included a generalised about non-denominational bros. Who are obvious dissenters. I agreed in part with the generalisation.
And if I share my long experience it’s because that’s what it’s been. Others have been less fortunate.
I know you are a refugee from that general grouping and therefore appreciate you are amongst those whose experiences have been less fortunate. I regret that. My two best friends (for over 40 years) have moved up the candle and that’s been better for them.
@Gamma Gamaliel This is a personal attack on Gramps49. As per Commandment 4, if you must get personal, take it to Hell. Or apologise to Gramps49.
North East Quine, Purgatory host
Hostly hat off
Sorry @Gramps49 for my testiness and for the personal attack.
We were in a Baptist church for 6 years before moving here and were very happy there. Prior to that I was 18 years in a full-on charismatic evangelical outfit and my wife was there for 14 years.
I didn't 'fall out' with the Baptists. I have a lot of time for them.
I was gradually moving 'up the candle' though even then, but I didn't become Orthodox because I had anything 'against' Baptists or 'non-conformists' in the terms UK sense.
My question was a more general one.
It's possible to be a 'dissenting' voice in any church tradition whether Big T or small t.
I was 'thinking aloud' as to what that actually means these days in places where nobody is going to be subject to sanction for not belonging to an 'established' church or the majority religion of whatever country they happen to live in.
Sadly, that doesn't apply worldwide. There are plenty of places where minority religious groups suffer discrimination or persecution.
Does being a 'dissenter' mean grumbling about whatever decisions one's 'church meeting', Synod, parish council or whatever else takes?
I valued the Baptist 'church meeting' process very much after years of elders making decisions on the congregations behalf without any consultation whatsoever.
There was a chap in our Baptist church who used to vote against everything and anything even though in most instances his was the single dissenting voice.
I once quipped about this to somebody and they replied, 'At least he's in a position where he can do so.'
I couldn't argue with that.
I'm not 'having a go' at you @Barnabas62 nor the tradition you represent.
I'm wondering what 'dissent' looks like now in societies where religious freedoms are - in theory - guaranteed and where the kind of values espoused in most Baptist, Methodist and URC churches aren't dissimilar to what we'd find in wider society or indeed most historic Churches these days.
A gross over-simplification, I know!
FYI read "From the archive" (below the black-and-white picture): https://www.stpancraschurch.org.uk/ourparish/
Today, with some dishonourable exceptions, dissent is a lot more normal than it was and I think more widely tolerated. A good thing. The ‘hot button’ issues are less likely to produce fallings out. Churches with a Congregational polity (including Bapists and independent churches) have fewer people to get agreement with than the episcopal churches! A female friend of ours is now preaching/teaching in a New Frontiers church. That wouldn’t have happened a few years ago.
Personally I hope it’s a trend. Accepting a measure of dissent and diversity is a very helpful defence against Protestant tendencies to split.
Against that, people migrate more these days, but often that’s not about belief. Parents with young children are interested in the quality of children’s and youth work.
I hope also that it is a sign of better orthopraxy (I like that word!). Celebrating what we have in common is far better than encouraging witch-sniffers pursuivant.
My mother-in-law was a King and Country Anglican. She thought that to be trully English you had to be in the C of E. She was horrified when her daughter married a papist, appalled when that daughter then poped over, and threatened to disinherit her grandchildren if they were baptised RCs (which they were.) She saw the RC as essentially foreign.
In her work for Liverpool Education department she had come across some particularly knarly Irish nuns who were head teachers. They re-enforced her prejudices.
When I was a lad in the 1950s Catholics were very conscious of historical persecutions discriminatory laws. That history was a part of the school curriculum.
A nosey parker once saw the RC priest chucking out disused raffle tickets and the rumour went round that he was pocketing the proceeds.
Anti-Catholicism ran deep and not just with 'Church and King' Anglicans but with 'non-conformists' too.
'No Rome on the Rates!'
I may start a new thread on the 'dissenting' thing. In some ways traditional Roman Catholicism and other more 'conservative' forms of Christianity are now looking more 'dissenting' than those churches that would once have borne that label.
I'm not knocking it, but in many ways the Baptists, Congregationalists and other 'dissenting' groups have 'won.'
Now that 'recusants' aren't fined, adherence to the 'Established Church' is no longer enforced or tacitly assumed, and that many 'mainline' churches are socially-liberal then what is there for 'dissenting' groups to dissent from?
They are either going to 'dissent' from one another over minor issues or keep the fissaporous spiral going indefinitely.
There's not a great deal to distinguish New Frontiers, Vineyard or other 'non-denominational' churches from one another these days and unless you were among the cognoscenti most Methodist and URC services are indistinguishable from each other.
Plus many Anglican settings resemble all those in many ways too.
I'm not saying that the 'Higher' and more sacramental end of things doesn't have similar or parallel issues.
But it does make me wonder what 'dissent' or 'non-conformity' actually consists of these days.
Very few of us are living lives of radical discipleship in whatever setting we inhabit.
Unless we all go 'off grid' or sit on the top of poles, I'm not sure what we can do to show 'dissent' in any substantial way without becoming freaky, eccentric or adopting positions that risk taking us into loopy theocratic or sectarian territory.
I'm not singling any of us out for criticism. Just thinking aloud.
How can we show 'dissent' without trying to revert to an imagined idealised past or becoming po-faced puritans?
(There might also be an argument to consider the church a denomination as there are about 800 affiliated churches worldwide, with over 100 in the UK.)
Some people have a penchant for minority views. I agree that there may be a reaction to the power of the Establishment. Or whatever counts for established. “They are unscrupulous exploiters of power” etc.
I guess there was an element of that in the Reformation. “Exploiters can’t be trusted to get anything right. Because they are at heart exploiters and controllers”.
I think at its heart the Reformation was more about perceived abuse of power. The theological arguments were against that background. But ai guess it sensitised Protestant to abuse of power by any leadership.
“We’ve just kicked them out. Don’t you go down the same road!”.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. (Coupled with eternal suspiciousness.)
But that’s not the same as dissent as a matter of personal conscience. It’s a sense of wrongness. Whether or not exploited by the powerful. The cost of dissent is determined by the power of those in charge.
Now being a member of the Church of England doesn't mean I feel like an insider; anything but. In fact, I would put myself on the edge of most things, including credal Christianity. I certainly don't read anything in it as a statement of reality to which I can personally attest, other than the first four words.
I think Quakers don’t expect you to sign up to anything. If there is any recitation of any, or any part, of the Creeds at a Friends meeting, it would be by an individual who was moved to do so.
Most of them would have been gathered around small squires and their families with the priests being family retainers. The worship would normally have been without music, consisting of catechism,preaching and hurried Low Mass. The families would generally intermarry,conscious of the fact that if the head of the family 'defected' to Anglicanism the whole system would fall apart. (Not sure if other dissenters would have a hurried Low Mass)
The Irish question is a separate one. One has to remember that Ireland had been ruled by the English for centuries and (I think in 1801) became officially part of the United Kingdom. The Irish were officially not 'foreigners' but rather citizens of the United Kingdom. Dislike and distrust of the Irish would have been because of their profession (for the most part) of the Catholic Faith.
Apart from the Embassy chapels there would have been little ,if any music, in Catholic chapels.
The situation of Catholics in Scotland in the 18th century was similar but different. There was really only a handful of 'noble' families who kept the Catholic Faith and very few'squires/lairds and if the head of the family 'defected' as for example the Duke of Gordon this caused a big change.
The small Catholic communities in the North West of Scotland were those which the Reformation had never reached and those in the North East of Scotland and Aberdeenshire were communities which had had to a certain extent the protection of the Dukes of Gordon.
Things changed with the massive immigration from Ireland in the late 18th century,early 19th century.
I love the story of what happened in Glasgow with the serious dispute between the supporters of the Scottish bishop from Banffshire and a bishop sent from Ireland when the Irish complained that 'Paddy pays, but Sandy says'. In the end the Vatican retired both of these bishops and brought in an aristocratic Yorkshireman, Charles Eyre, to fill the post of Vicar Apostolic,becoming the first post Reformation Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow in 1878.
Prejudice against Roman Catholics lasted long after emancipation. The number of Irish Catholics immigrating in the C19 may not have helped, but people like Newman 'turning Pape' influenced this as well. Even in my childhood, residual and instinctive prejudice was quite widespread, partly because in much of the country most people did not meet Roman Catholics very much, and until Vatican II Roman Catholics rather kept to themselves.
I also think that John Bossy's comment that in the eighteenth century Roman Catholic worship would have been almost indistinguishable from that of Protestant dissenters is rhetoric rather than sound. Yes, in modern terms it would have looked low church. In penal times, away from the foreign embassy chapels in London, there was no other option. But the key bits were still mumbled in Latin and were sacramental, which was not what happened in other dissenting churches.
When I applied for membership I was visited by some Friends who asked me about my faith, but I was not required to sign up to any statement of belief.
@Heavenlyannie - I'd regard New Frontiers as a denomination, and quite a successful one.
I wouldn't regard them as 'dissenters' either as the sort of things earlier independent Protestant groups were dissenting from have either weakened over time or largely disappeared.
The kind of worship style adopted by the 'new churches' of the 1980s, from which New Frontiers emerged, is now pretty standard across the charismatic evangelical spectrum.
In a similar way the style we associate with older 'non-conformist' or 'dissenting' groups became pretty much standardised across the Methodists and URC etc - irrespective of their differences in structure.
The early Pentecostal groups also developed a fairly standardised style too - whether they were AoG, Elim or Apostolic here in the UK.
The question I've raised and it probably needs a new thread, is whether it makes any sense to talk about 'dissenters' in ecclesial terms these days in a 'post-Christendom' context.
And if it does, what does it look like?
Not for the first time you have given me something serious to think about.
It may be better to stop talking about dissenters, but instead about the value to all denominations of respecting, amongst their believers, dissent on an issue of personal conscience. To quote the late President Johnson's well worn cliche, it's better to have them inside the tent pissing out. Minority voices can sometimes be.prophetic in the sense of speaking the truth to power. And I think that in all of us there is a little bit of Amos!
Is it not also (or rather) that they have had to make a choice between group cohesion and conscience, and chose conscience? That their alliance was not to a church but to the Gospel?
As far as I understand it, continental European history of Protestantism grew in different ways. Without going into all this stuff again, Zwingli in Zurich did not appear to be a dissenter given that he was essentially a religious-political figure. The history in the USA is different again.
Roman Catholics can't be described as dissenters in the same sense because for long periods the Papacy was a military and political power. Over time that changed of course, but for long periods saying one was Roman Catholic in England was essentially treason because one was pledging oneself to one monarch instead of another.
Today I don't think "dissenter" can really apply to many or any religious groups that accept secular laws in the countries where they are. There are Islamist groups trying to set up Caliphates who possible fit this description, but as far as I know there are basically no Christian groups on collision courses with secular states like this today.
It appears that way in some senses, but then one has to also understand that these things happened over many generations. Of course someone had to start a chapel or religious group which might well have been as a response to the state or established church. But then subsequent generations would have grown up in church and have known no different, lacking the mental vocabulary to understand the thing that their forefathers were objecting to.
So whilst they might have inherited language about the Church (meaning the Church of England or the Roman Catholics) that might have been less about a conscious choice than because they had been brought up in the Methodist chapel and only knew the language and thought processes of Wesleyan Methodism. In time these tended to fragment into daughter and granddaughter denominations which became further and further away in time and beliefs from the initial point of disagreement.
I think it is a bit different in the USA in the sense that these denominations arrived "ready made" without the history of having evolved in different directions.
During the 30 Years War in German lands the French state was generally on the other side against the Catholic parts of the Holy Roman Empire.
Just as in England it was the monarch who was in general responsible for the naming of the bishops. I understand that it was the case in Spain until the death of Franco that the Head of State would nominate the bishops.