• High Church and Informal

    Someone coming out of church on Sunday who isn’t a regular at St Mary’s said to me, “That was great – exactly what I like – high church and informal”.

    I was pleased that the person had understood what we are trying to do. High church and informal is precisely one of the ways in which I would describe the worship at St Mary’s. (Liturgical but not stuffy is another way of describing the same thing).

    The combination of all the glories of high church worship with a relaxed sense of fun seems to me to be quite an attractive option for churches.

    Generally speaking, I think that churches tend to be successful if people feel that they are in some way happy to be there. Some people describe that as feeling at home though I’m not sure that I’d talk about it like that. I think some people like going to churches where they feel they might be able to make friends though the real goal is a church where some people come feeling that and some people come sure in the knowledge that people will leave them alone if they want to be alone.

    The word for describing the sensibility of a local church is (or at least used to be) churchmanship. In many ways, it is a rather unhelpful word now, with all its sexist connotations. However, we still need ways of speaking about what particular churches are like.

    Churches have been described by all kinds of words in the past. Churchmanship has sometimes been described in terms like anglocatholic, low church, high church, evangelical broad church, moderate. I was interested to see recently that some people were starting to use Greenbelt (after the famous Christian Arts festival) as a churchmanship kind of term.

    I’m also interested that people are increasingly bonding multiple identities together to form new identities in terms of church in the same way that they are doing over cultural identities. People think of themselves as Black British, Asian American, New Scot and so on, the modifier indicating something that the basic identifier does not fully convey. Thus in church we get things like Open Evangelical (which I think has meant low church, supportive of women in ministry but not supportive of gay people in ministry) and Liberal Catholic (which I think has meant less stuffy than anglocatholic in worship and supportive of women and gay people in ministry until it costs anything).

    There are many ways of describing St Mary’s. We are certainly trying to be a Black Shoe congregation, which I think tells you just about all you need to know. However, High Church and Informal also describes things very well and I came out of church very pleased that someone had got it.

    What “churchmanship” term would you want your congregation to be known by. And what’s a better and more inclusive word than churchmanship anyway?

7 responses to “Ask! Tell!”

  1. Eamonn Avatar

    Count me in as a straight supporter of gay people, clergy or lay. But count me in, too, as one who respects people’s right to privacy. As a hetersexual male, I would not expect to be asked about my sexuality, or to be pressurised into being explicit about it, had I chosen to remain unmarried.

  2. kelvin Avatar

    I think that issues of privacy are a long way away from issues of whether one’s life should suffer for chosing to be open.

    Both important issues but they are very different issues one from another.

  3. Steven Avatar
    Steven

    I am about to “out” myself as a straight supporter of gay clergy in the Church of Ireland by getting a letter published in my local paper!

    It is one thing to have a personal (private) opinion and whole different thing to go public with that view. Feels quite liberating actually!

    I sort of wonder how I got to this point given that I used to be a fairly moderately against full inclusion in the life of the Church…

    I suppose it is the natural result of the way my thinking has been developing over some time, especially by engagement with liberal/progressive anglican thought and seeing that there IS another way to be Christian (as opposed to the dominant conservative evangelical ethos that prevails in my part of Ireland).

    1. kelvin Avatar

      Good for you, Steven.

      My guess is that the repercussions of the Very Rev Tom Gordon and his partner coming out about their partnership are shining little rays of light all over the Church of Ireland at the moment, occassionally illuminating things which some would prefer to be kept in darkness.

      > I sort of wonder how I got to this point given that I used to be a fairly moderately against full inclusion in the life of the Church…

      Don’t be surprised – so was I. So were most of the people I know who now advocate on behalf of progressive causes in the church. One of the things that is happening at the moment is that the really hard line anti-gay voices are being undermined by the people they thought they could rely on. It makes loud, cross voices crosser and louder. The sound of those shrill voices is the sound of people who are being squeezed from every direction.

  4. william Avatar
    william

    What’s in Kelvin’s Head?
    Confusion? Compassion?
    Wisdom? Folly?
    Light?Darkness?[in the Johannine sense]
    Humility? Arrogance?
    Obedience?Disobedience?
    Hopefully there’s a “next bishop” somewhere near!!

  5. Steven Avatar
    Steven

    I agree with you. One of the points I make in the letter to the Portadown Times (the original clergy statement was published in that paper on 16th Sept – see Thinking Anglicans) is that it seems that evangelical clergy in Ireland were happy with a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and it is the publicity that is causing the problem now – after all it must have been well known that Tom Gordon was living with his partner over the last 20 years!

    It is also ironic that three of the signatories of the clergy statement were women – i.e., those previously ordained following the development of a generous and inclusive theology of Christian leadership (in spite of Saint Paul’s issues). They now seek to use their authority to prevent others from benefiting from the very development that they benefited from…

    The only issue, I suppose, is that this development did take the Church of Ireland by surprise and the silence from the Bishops has been unhelpful.

    I would be interested to know your views on the tension between acting innovatively (perhaps, unilaterally) and the need to respect the whole body of Christ etc…

    The situation in TEC in respect of the ordination of Gene Robinson as Bishop, by contrast, involved an open and transparent development that went through the standard procedures of the Church. I know that in this case the issue is in respect of a civil partnership – which it was Dean Gordon’s “right” to enter under the law of the RoI but the significance of this move for the wider Church of Ireland would not have been lost in either himself or his Bishop.

    I still think he did the right thing but I am sympathetic to the criticism that these issues should not, in general, be dealt with an ad hoc manner… Although in fairness to Dean Gordon I am not sure if the debate would have ever got on the table if he had not acted as he has done.

  6. kelvin Avatar

    I think that there is a difference between electing a bishop and who a person choses to make a committment to.

    One is very clearly a public office that needs the consent of the people. The other falls within someone’s personal life.

    I wouldn’t say that is irrelevant and nor would I be so stupid as the recent Church of Scotland statement that said of a Church of Scotland minister entering a Civil Partnership that it was entirely a personal matter. It very clearly isn’t.

    However, I would say that it requires a very different level of consent to being a bishop.

    Clergy living arrangements get complicated very much more quickly than those of other people because very often they are living in housing provided by the congregation. That, if anywhere is where issues of public consent come in.

    Generally speaking, I think that the provision of housing infantilises the clergy and is undesirable.

    Once civil partnerships were introduced, people had the choice of either liking them or lumping them really. Clergy entering into them were an inevitable consequence of their existence.

    Most people I know think that the demands of the Church of England that clergy in civil partnerships promise to be celibate demonstrate a quite disgusting pruriance on the part of bishops making such demands.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Synod Blogging8- Liturgy

    Liturgical formation. We have the chance to talk about what makes good liturgy. We talk a lot about the choice of hymns at the Synod Eucharist. We move on to discuss the new Manage Liturgy. Andrew Barr tells us it is taken as read that marriage is by definition something between a husband and wife;…

  • Synod Blogging -7 child protection vulnerable adults.

    During the preceding coffee break, the convenor of the Liturgy Committee tells me that I an sitting in a dark corner. I presume he is taking about the lighting in the hall as he is taking photographs. When back in my place, I start to wonder. Is it really that dark? Was he trying to…

  • Synod Bogging -5 The Anglican Covenant

    James Milne speaks on the Anglican Covenant and proposes the motion that the Faith & Order Board be given authority to respond on this subject. Nancy Adams speaks of the brokenness of the Communion. Alison Peden welcomes the emphasis on Mission in the covenant. However questions how the 39 Articles can be a unifying force.…

  • Synod Blogging 4

    Bishop Brian speaks entertainingly about the difference between the Episcopal Synod which consists of the bishops of the SEC and the College of Bishops which consists of the bishops of the SEC.They dress up for the former and let the public in. For the latter, they dress down and meet behind closed doors. Bishop David…