Does the Church of England have ‘members’?
Lurking backside many of the current debates on mission, ministry, doctrine and discipleship there is often an unspoken assumption about whether or not the Church building of England should be considered in terms of its 'members'. At one stop of the spectrum, some appear to think that it ought to, and that there should be a articulate stardom between those who are 'in' and those who are 'out'. Those at the other end of the spectrum consider this to contradict the notion of a 'wide church', and consider such an idea a move from 'church' to 'sect'. They would rather encounter no clear bounds at all, and 'membership' (if that is fifty-fifty an appropriate category) divers by being English (since the Church is for all), or mayhap past self identification. They in turn are viewed by the first grouping as naive and counter-productive, undermining the possibility of discipleship as a normal part of church building life. (For a very funny spoof of this view, go here.)
But this discussion fails to inquire a more bones question—non whether the Churchought to have a concept of 'membership', but whether it alreadydoes. (Note, I am non here asking about membership of the church of God, which was explored previously, simply just what the institution of the Church building of England says almost itself.)
The first place to wait for this is in the Church Representation Rules (CRR). The Rules are available to read online, and the relevant forms virtually ballot are also online in an appendix. The relevant sections relate to eligibility for inclusion on the parish Electoral Curl, and like diction is repeated in a number of place. In the first part of the rules relating to the formation of the Balloter Curlicue, the wording is as follows:
1. (1) There shall be a church electoral roll (in these rules referred to as 'the whorl') in every parish, on which the names of lay persons shall exist entered equally hereinafter provided. The roll shall be available for inspection by bona fide inquirers.
(two) A lay person shall be entitled to have his name entered on the roll of a parish if he is baptised, of 16 years or upward, has signed an application course for enrolment set out in Appendix I of these rules and declares himself either –
(a) to be a member of the Church of England or of a Church building in communion therewith resident in the parish; or
(b) to exist such a fellow member and, non being resident in the parish, to have habitually attended public worship in the parish during a catamenia of six months prior to enrolment; or
(c) to exist a member in good standing of a Church which subscribes to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (non beingness a Church in communion with the Church building of England) and as well prepared to declare himself to exist a fellow member of the Church of England having habitually attended public worship in the parish during a menstruation of six months prior to enrolment.
In that location are several things to annotation hither.
The first is that the C of E does actually apply the linguistic communication of 'members', which might come equally a surprise to some.
Secondly, a good number of people read 1 (2) (a) as suggesting that membership of the C of Due east is near self-selecting identification and residency in the parish. Just the first paragraph in ii adds the stipulation of baptism, which sets out at least 1 clear 'purlieus status' for membership. Any research (for example) which surveys the views of 'members' of the Church really ought to include this as a status.
Thirdly, in 1 (ii) (b), if the person is not resident in the parish, there is a stipulation that he or she should 'accept habitually attended public worship in the parish'. This has been interpreted by some to suggest that those whoare resident have no expectation of 'habitual worship.' But this inappreciably makes any sense; why would the threshold for membership be college for those not resident in the parish than those who are resident? Is there actually a theology in the C of E which says that, past living within a certain distance of a church building, this somehow constitutes participation in worship? The only sensible manner to read this is that it rests on the supposition that, should a baptised person be resident in the parish, and declare themselves to be a member of the C of E, and then information technology goes without saying that they volition habitually nourish worship in the parish church. The provision for those resident elsewhere requires they attend habitually atthat church building, rather than their own parish church, to preclude multiple membership.
This is, fourthly, confirmed by the last paragraph, ane (ii) c. Someone is eligible who is resident in the parish, simply a member in good continuing of some other Trinitarian (note: not necessarily episcopal!) Church 'too prepared to declare himself to be a member of the Church of England having habitually attended public worship in the parish'. This final phrase strongly identifies being a 'fellow member' with 'habitually attention', which supports the exegesis of paragraph (b).
If that is non persuasive, then it is worth reflecting on the expectations gear up out in the baptism liturgy. In the Commission (p 72) we observe:
As they abound upwardly, they will need the help and encouragement of the Christian customs, and so that they may learn to know God in public worship and individual prayer, follow Jesus Christ in the life of faith, serve their neighbour after the instance of Christ, and in due course come to confirmation.
Those who can respond for themselves are asked (p 73):
Volition you continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers?
With the help of God, I will.
Along with the communal language of discipleship fatigued from the NT, it is quite clear that 'habitual attendance at public worship' is assumed to be an integral expectation for those who are baptised. This explains why the CRR (written first in an before, more participatory, age) simply assumes this without making it very explicit at every point. You go the sense that the original authors wouldn't have contemplated the notion of beingness a 'fellow member' of the Church without ever attention. And why would they if the idea simply wasn't current?
Then the Church of England does use the language of membership. It has a 'difficult' boundary of membership, in the course of the rite of baptism, only alongside that has an assumption that habitual worship will be the marker of this membership. It is certainly true that this expectation is not expressed in the form of a legal requirement—though it is expressed clearly and explicitly in relation to those non-resident or not baptised equally Anglicans.
What does that mean for public discussion of 'members' of the Church of England? I recollect it is pretty clear that few clergy take this understanding of membership into account when revising balloter rolls (for any reason)—I am not enlightened of anyone being refused entry on the ER on the grounds of failing to attend habitually, fifty-fifty though that appears to be the expectation—and so it would be rash to equate ER membership with church attendance. The difference betwixt ER and church attendance represents the those who are baptised and continue, in some way, to identify with the C of E—merely exercise not 'habitually attend.' If nominal Christian faith is on the decline, then we would expect that ERs would converge to more closely match attendance figures. It would not exist too hard to check this by looking at national statistics.
But it is besides clear that whatever word of the views or habits of 'members' of the Church cannot ignore the questions of whether such people are baptised and whether they actually nourish public worship.
Thoughts anyone?
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo
Much of my work is washed on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, would you considerdonating £1.20 a calendar month to support the production of this blog?
If yous enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you accept valued this mail service, yous can make a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Adept comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add together existent value. Seek first to empathize, and then to be understood. Brand the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view argue as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/does-the-church-of-england-have-members/
0 Response to "Does the Church of England have ‘members’?"
Postar um comentário