• What does it mean to belong?

    So, here’s the thing.

    Over the last few weeks we’ve been doing our usual gathering of names for the congregational roll at St Mary’s. We ask people here to fill in a form each year before the AGM indicating that they want to be included on the congregational roll. It has taken a few years for some people to get used to this, but now most people accept it for what it is – a simple clerical device that means we can keep the roll in a constantly changing congregation up to date.

    This year, I’ve as many questions about the result of this exercise than I have answers.

    You see, there are people indicating to me that they want to be regarded as members of St Mary’s who I didn’t expect. In particular, people who live at a distance who don’t ever set foot in the building from year to year.

    Now in once sense this is unremarkable. Most congregations will have people who are on the roll whom they never see. The thing that makes this a new development is that some of these people live very much at a distance and are indicating that they think of themselves as active members due to the way they participate online with St Mary’s.

    Furthermore, some clearly go to other congregations physically and receive the sacrament there but are indicating that they want to think of themselves as being on the congregational roll here. This is, I think, to do with our ethos.

    Moreover, there are people who are a couple of ministers in other denominations who are actively working in parish life but who are indicating to me that they want to be included on the congregational roll of St Mary’s.

    Now some of this is easy but other aspects are really complicated. The Scottish Episcopal Church doesn’t actually allow for dual membership of it and another denomination to start with, but I’m not sure that people are indicating to me that they want to be Scottish Episcopalians when they indicate to me that they want to be members of St Mary’s. The Scottish Episcopal Church doesn’t, strictly speaking, allow for people to be members of more than one of its congregations either but I’m not so sure that it matters what the church thinks – actual members do believe that they belong to more than one congregation anyway.

    From time to time, the Vice Provost and I have conversations about reviving the idea of a Friends of St Mary’s for those living furth of the city of Glasgow who have some allegiance to the congregation. I think that idea of a supporters group is probably a good one. However, I don’t think that is quite what we are talking about when we think about church membership.

    I think people want to belong to St Mary’s and not think of themselves as friends of St Mary’s but as actual participating members who are distant from Glasgow.

    Now, what does this mean? (That’s a real question and I’d welcome responses in the comments below – I’m still trying to work this out for myself).

    What do we need to do to make sense of this? What do we need to do online and with our communications generally to facilitate this situation. Clearly the internet and what we do with it here is having an impact on our life together including our life together apart.

    What should the church say about multiple membership?

    What does church membership mean in the age of the internet and how is it changing?

    I’m interested to hear John Chalmers of the Church of Scotland say today that he wants the church to think about what impact online engagement is making on membership of that denomination so it seems to me that this is an ecumenical matter. This is particularly significant given how negative he has been about social media in the past.

    I’m obviously interested that some of the people who do turn up to the Church of Scotland are actually thinking of themselves in the core of their being as belonging in some way to us too. (We must presume that the converse is true too, though I know of no examples).

    There’s probably more that I want to say about different types of belonging in another post further down the blog and there’s certainly a lot to be said about ecumenical matters.

    However for now, what does it mean to belong?

     

7 responses to “C of E Border Crossing”

  1. Eamonn Avatar

    I’m fizzing too! It’s not helped, either, by those of our own members who refer to us as ‘the English Church’.

  2. agatha Avatar
    agatha

    That is completely outrageous! Maybe the SEC should have talks with the Muslims and then we could declare Fatwas.

    Or is this the CoE’s off the wall attempt to solve the women bishops/gay bishops question by moving to nae bishops?

  3. FrPaulB Avatar
    FrPaulB

    As an English Anglican I’m pretty embarrassed. So much for the “Anglican Communion” we’re supposed to be busy preserving by setting up covenants and writing letters.

  4. Martin Ritchie Avatar
    Martin Ritchie

    Well, maybe this is a good thing for the SEC? At least we are not being lumped in as “Church of England” which is perhaps a step forward. The future for “state” churches in the UK seems to me to be shaky to say the least, so perhaps it’s to the benefit of the SEC to not be part of that! It is rather surprising that there is no mention of the SEC in the “history” part of the paper, other than a cursory reference to the continuing episcopalian element after 1690. Maybe all this means that we should feel completely free to reject the Anglican covenant as totally irrelevant and a hindrance to the mission of the SEC?

  5. fr dougal Avatar
    fr dougal

    I’m heading for the West Port to saddle up! Bring back Clavers and the dragoons!

  6. John Lindsay Avatar
    John Lindsay

    The CofE CofS meetings have been going on for a very long time as two national churches. The recent report is actually designed to include the SEC – check facts with ICRC or read the report itself!

  7. kelvin Avatar

    Hi John, nice to hear from you.

    I’ve read the report and was not impressed by it. I suppose I am glad that the SEC is to be included next time, something that I acknowledged above that was to happen.

    I’m entirely unimpressed with the C of E appointing one of their bishops as an emissary to the C of S though. Very much border crossing. Very inappropriate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • What, no blogging?

    Sorry I’ve not been keeping up this week. It was off to the North West of England for me to got to the Deans’ Conference. (Cathedral Provosts are called Deans in Englandshire, Diocesan Deans are called Archdeacons). Its the third one I’ve been to and this time it was the easiest to get to, fortunately.…

  • The Adventures of Mr Brouček

    The following review also appears on Opera-Britannia.com Rating: It is not difficult to see why performances of The Adventures of Mr Brouček are something of a rarity. The eponymous Brouček is whisked through time, space and circumstance in an opera whose score is at once challenging and beguiling. Scottish Opera’s collaboration with Opera North makes…

  • Kenneth McKellar RIP

    First the news of Malcolm McLaren’s death and now Kenneth McKellar too. (What an unusual little queue outside the pearly gates this Easter week). Here is Kenneth McK singing his Eurovision entry in 1966. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaCpDhCbvlY

  • Malcolm McLaren RIP

    Odd, isn’t it, how there is an outpouring of affection for Malcolm McLaren by the twitter generation whilst, I’m sure many would not have known who he was. For those of us who have grown up in the age of identity politics, Malcolm McLaren was one of our cultural pioneers, whether we liked what he…