• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The Reconquista of Mainline Protestant Churches

RamiC

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2025
1,202
833
Brighton
✟69,223.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
My controversial opinion in favor of a Reconquista is because the people who have changed the direction of the mainline churches have caused real suffering, and are in a position to continue to cause harm as long as they remain in power. If it is possible to remove them, it would be a great act of charity, and might also dissuade others from following in their footsteps.
The people who have changed the direction of the "mainline churches" seem to be utterly convinced that the historic principles of Christianity have caused real suffering. This, however, is the very subject the conversation about the future of Christianity needs to get onto.

DH went to a wedding a few weeks ago. Not a church wedding, a legal, big elaborate ceremony, with two days of partying, in a grand historic building. The "bride" has always said that she thinks monogamy is oppression, and that she is not interested in it. She has since embarked on a new "relationship" with someone who is not the "groom" at her wedding. I am told the "groom" does know what she is doing, and that she has suggested that he starts something new for himself too. Friends who are not committed to any belief system at all are witnessing this and saying "How is this situation "married"? What is her idea of being married?", because they cannot figure it out. A liberal mind may ask who is getting hurt, when as long as it is true that everyone knows what is happening, they are all consenting to it. Personally, I am thinking the bride is refusing to get unhurt, she sees reasons to fear any true commitment, lacks faith in any power greater than her own immediate desires, and she is displaying this in public based on her desire for affirmation and support. I do not know how many of the wedding guests thought that they were going to support two people making a lifelong exclusive commitment to each other, UK law certainly expected that, but then the law is irrelevent if her "husband" does not do anything to get it applied (and all he could do is file for divorce anyway).

While I cannot say I see a path to restoring my country's faith in Jesus Christ (my heart wants this, but my mind cannot see the way), I am afraid that I am also thinking that we cannot go on like this, it is unsustainable.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
32,057
14,535
74
✟469,044.00
Faith
Non-Denom
The people who have changed the direction of the "mainline churches" seem to be utterly convinced that the historic principles of Christianity have caused real suffering. This, however, is the very subject the conversation about the future of Christianity needs to get onto.

DH went to a wedding a few weeks ago. Not a church wedding, a legal, big elaborate ceremony, with two days of partying, in a grand historic building. The "bride" has always said that she thinks monogamy is oppression, and that she is not interested in it. She has since embarked on a new "relationship" with someone who is not the "groom" at her wedding. I am told the "groom" does know what she is doing, and that she has suggested that he starts something new for himself too. Friends who are not committed to any belief system at all are witnessing this and saying "How is this situation "married"? What is her idea of being married?", because they cannot figure it out. A liberal mind may ask who is getting hurt, when as long as it is true that everyone knows what is happening, they are all consenting to it. Personally, I am thinking the bride is refusing to get unhurt, she sees reasons to fear any true commitment, lacks faith in any power greater than her own immediate desires, and she is displaying this in public based on her desire for affirmation and support. I do not know how many of the wedding guests thought that they were going to support two people making a lifelong exclusive commitment to each other, UK law certainly expected that, but then the law is irrelevent if her "husband" does not do anything to get it applied (and all he could do is file for divorce anyway).

While I cannot say I see a path to restoring my country's faith in Jesus Christ (my heart wants this, but my mind cannot see the way), I am afraid that I am also thinking that we cannot go on like this, it is unsustainable.
History shows that these sorts of marital aberrations are not at all new, although those who engage in them seem to think that they are inventing a better sort of relationship. The European upper classes (which have a much better recorded history) have a lengthy history of these sorts of aberrations. Peasantry and serfs were never expected to engage in formal marriage and, for centuries, were deprived of surnames in many countries, simply because they were viewed by the upper classes as hardly better than common chattel. Christian marriage soared in popularity in the nineteenth century as the Industrial Revolution raised both living and moral standards at all levels of society. It is no joke that Victorian propriety resulted in an ordered and stable society.

The twentieth century witnessed a general retreat from societal order and morality, not helped at all by two major wars and an enormous economic depression. The 1960's with its sexual revolution was heralded as inventing a new and more equitable society in which women would no longer be subjected to male domination. Through it all, however, marriage and stable families survived and thrived. Alternative relationships generally proved to be childless (although promiscuity remains endemic primarily in the lowest economic classes) with the net result being a society increasingly divided in its moral and religious commitments. I believe that, in the long term, mankind will remain as it always has - sinful - with some, albeit rarely an actual majority, embracing Christianity and its moral strictures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

RamiC

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2025
1,202
833
Brighton
✟69,223.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
History shows that these sorts of marital aberrations are not at all new, although those who engage in them seem to think that they are inventing a better sort of relationship. The European upper classes (which have a much better recorded history) have a lengthy history of these sorts of aberrations.
There is a huge difference in that in today's world this "bride" was not under any pressure to get married. Historically, European nobilty were, and they could easily find themselves obliged to marry someone deemed "suitable", while love in a romantic sense, was elsewhere.



The twentieth century witnessed a general retreat from societal order and morality, not helped at all by two major wars and an enormous economic depression. The 1960's with its sexual revolution was heralded as inventing a new and more equitable society in which women would no longer be subjected to male domination. Through it all, however, marriage and stable families survived and thrived.

The 1960's is when marriage and family stability really started to break down. I believe that two world wars and a terrifying economic depression were relevant to that happening, but they were happening concommitant to lower church attendance and the churches starting to "liberalise". My parents married in the early 1960's, they divorced in the late 1980's. At that time 1 in 4 marriages were ending in divorce. Now half of all marriages end in divorce. As far as I am concerned, this is disturbing, and it does need solving.



Alternative relationships generally proved to be childless (although promiscuity remains endemic primarily in the lowest economic classes) with the net result being a society increasingly divided in its moral and religious commitments. I believe that, in the long term, mankind will remain as it always has - sinful - with some, albeit rarely an actual majority, embracing Christianity and its moral strictures.
I believe that to be a sincere Christian in my own country right now, a person has to be quite strong in the faith, there is a lot of opposition people have to be able to withstand. I do not believe that the historic situation was always this way, I have seen the shift happen over the course of my lifetime. It might well be the case that previously the most convinced were in churches on Sundays with a lot of people not quite so strong in their faith also in the same church. In that situation, the stronger can influence and support the rest when the opportunity or need arises. There definitely were more people in the churches, and that alone makes a significant difference to Jesus' in terms of His ability to connect a person to stronger faith in Him.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
32,057
14,535
74
✟469,044.00
Faith
Non-Denom
There is a huge difference in that in today's world this "bride" was not under any pressure to get married. Historically, European nobilty were, and they could easily find themselves obliged to marry someone deemed "suitable", while love in a romantic sense, was elsewhere.





The 1960's is when marriage and family stability really started to break down. I believe that two world wars and a terrifying economic depression were relevant to that happening, but they were happening concommitant to lower church attendance and the churches starting to "liberalise". My parents married in the early 1960's, they divorced in the late 1980's. At that time 1 in 4 marriages were ending in divorce. Now half of all marriages end in divorce. As far as I am concerned, this is disturbing, and it does need solving.




I believe that to be a sincere Christian in my own country right now, a person has to be quite strong in the faith, there is a lot of opposition people have to be able to withstand. I do not believe that the historic situation was always this way, I have seen the shift happen over the course of my lifetime. It might well be the case that previously the most convinced were in churches on Sundays with a lot of people not quite so strong in their faith also in the same church. In that situation, the stronger can influence and support the rest when the opportunity or need arises. There definitely were more people in the churches, and that alone makes a significant difference to Jesus' in terms of His ability to connect a person to stronger faith in Him.
Thank you for the excellent reply. Christianity in Great Britain (where I think you are living, if I am not mistaken) has a very complex history. Following the Dissolution of the Monasteries as well as the Civil War, the Church of England attempted to reign supreme. All Dissent, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, was suppressed, with heavy penalties for Dissenters. One of my ancestors was a Dissenter who migrated, along with many others to New England in America in the seventeenth century. It seems to me that Christians who were strong in their personal faith in England and Ireland migrated, usually unwillingly, to escape harsh penalties. In the nineteenth century the Penal Laws were finally eliminated, but the damage was done. The eighteenth century had witnessed an immense disintegration of the Church and Society. Drunkenness and immorality were rife both in Society and among clergy of the Church. The Great Awakening, which began in North America found its way quickly abroad and the nineteenth century, known now as the Victorian Era, has gone down in history as one of deep piety and faith, although there were many serious exceptions to that image, not the least being Prince Albert Edward (subsequently King Edward VII) whose personal life was that of an extreme libertine. Hypocrisy eventually revealed its ugly face. When the first world war burst forth and the multitudes of working men were slaughtered in the trenches, the damage to the surviving social order was immense. The enormous output of war memorials did little to stanch the wave of resentment against the upper classes and their church. The Great Depression, fortunately, was not nearly as disastrous in the British Empire as in the United States, primarily because the British Colonies were relatively unaffected. Hitler's War, on the other hand, once more decimated the ranks of patriotic and faithful Britons. The 1950's was a decade of financial austerity caused by the war years. When prosperity resumed in the 1960's the populace, having been psychologically battered so brutally, found little reason to attend church. Mandatory church attendance, of course, had long been abolished, with the result that, as in other European countries, church attendance plummeted and, with it, any effective moral suasion.

That is my perspective and I am open to correction. At this point, I would probably compare the current situation in Great Britain with that of the eighteenth century. In the British Commonwealth, however, the situation is quite different. Christianity is thriving (relatively) as in Hong Kong, which, despite the brutal imposition of power from Beijing, still maintains the fruit of British missionaries and martyrs. A similar situation is also occurring in China itself, which, of course, never was an official colony, but which experienced mission work, primarily from England and also from other countries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

RamiC

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2025
1,202
833
Brighton
✟69,223.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Thank you for the excellent reply. Christianity in Great Britain (where I think you are living, if I am not mistaken) has a very complex history. Following the Dissolution of the Monasteries as well as the Civil War, the Church of England attempted to reign supreme.
I don't think it is much more complicated than anywhere else, although maybe the way the Church of England formed was unique. Not the desire of Henry VIII to get a divorce, which did cause the severence from Roman Catholicism, but the careful determination of Elizabeth I to avoid invasion or civil war, by ending up establishing a church so broad in it's appeal that people with very different tastes and even quite some theological differences would all be willing to accept it.


All Dissent, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, was suppressed, with heavy penalties for Dissenters. One of my ancestors was a Dissenter who migrated, along with many others to New England in America in the seventeenth century. It seems to me that Christians who were strong in their personal faith in England and Ireland migrated, usually unwillingly, to escape harsh penalties. In the nineteenth century the Penal Laws were finally eliminated, but the damage was done.
I do not believe that Puritanism is or ever was the only way to be strong in Christian faith, although a lot of Puritans did head for America in order to live their faith their way. I have met known and had my faith nurtured by Christians who were unshakeable in faith, all in the UK, in my lifetime. They did not all end up on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

When the first world war burst forth and the multitudes of working men were slaughtered in the trenches, the damage to the surviving social order was immense. The enormous output of war memorials did little to stanch the wave of resentment against the upper classes and their church.
The problem was not resentment of the existing social order, it was the fact that while the churches were short staffed because of the war the need for the church because of grief was immense. People ended up seeking comfort elsewhere, I have mentioned this in previous posts.

The Great Depression, fortunately, was not nearly as disastrous in the British Empire as in the United States, primarily because the British Colonies were relatively unaffected. Hitler's War, on the other hand, once more decimated the ranks of patriotic and faithful Britons.
We do not need the Empire to have faith in Jesus Christ. There is no reason why WW2 specifically targeted the most faithful British, it simply didn't do that.

The 1950's was a decade of financial austerity caused by the war years. When prosperity resumed in the 1960's the populace, having been psychologically battered so brutally, found little reason to attend church. Mandatory church attendance, of course, had long been abolished, with the result that, as in other European countries, church attendance plummeted and, with it, any effective moral suasion.
People need actual personal faith in Jesus Christ to inspire church attendance, preferably in churches that will lead and nurture such a thing. They do not require economic prosperity to make it happen.

Compulsory attendance would not cause those who don't believe they need to care about God to care about God.



That is my perspective and I am open to correction.
I don't have anything but a perspective myself.


At this point, I would probably compare the current situation in Great Britain with that of the eighteenth century.
Joke - yes, where is Queen Victoria when we need her?

In the British Commonwealth, however, the situation is quite different. Christianity is thriving (relatively) as in Hong Kong, which, despite the brutal imposition of power from Beijing, still maintains the fruit of British missionaries and martyrs. A similar situation is also occurring in China itself, which, of course, never was an official colony, but which experienced mission work, primarily from England and also from other countries.
There is a reason why I refer to my country when despairing over the state of the Christian faith and this is it. It is not a global problem.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
32,057
14,535
74
✟469,044.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I don't think it is much more complicated than anywhere else, although maybe the way the Church of England formed was unique. Not the desire of Henry VIII to get a divorce, which did cause the severence from Roman Catholicism, but the careful determination of Elizabeth I to avoid invasion or civil war, by ending up establishing a church so broad in it's appeal that people with very different tastes and even quite some theological differences would all be willing to accept it.

I agree. Elizabeth I seems to have been the prime mover in the creation of the Church of England. From what I know, Henry VIII, although relatively theologically inclined, did not embrace the Reformed Faith as it was in his time. The C of E, when established as the state church, attempted, as in the Thirty-Nine Articles, to create a theologically robust church. Over time it has broadened immensely, but at the time of the Civil War it fought against all forms of Dissent, not merely Puritanism, but others such as Popery, which was a prime target.

I do not believe that Puritanism is or ever was the only way to be strong in Christian faith, although a lot of Puritans did head for America in order to live their faith their way. I have met known and had my faith nurtured by Christians who were unshakeable in faith, all in the UK, in my lifetime. They did not all end up on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
I did not mean to imply that the Puritans were superior in any way, but merely that the loss in the population mix of ardent (perhaps fanatic) Christians diluted the overall religious mix. The same might be said concerning the enormous number of missionaries who went abroad to spread the faith. In their wake in their home countries remained many Christians who were not willing to go to that level of Christian service.
The problem was not resentment of the existing social order, it was the fact that while the churches were short staffed because of the war the need for the church because of grief was immense. People ended up seeking comfort elsewhere, I have mentioned this in previous posts.
This, indeed, is one facet of the problem. For many workingmen the pub was the preferred place for solace and social bonding.
We do not need the Empire to have faith in Jesus Christ. There is no reason why WW2 specifically targeted the most faithful British, it simply didn't do that.
Patriotism is always a significant factor in war. It is always the most patriotic men who volunteer to go to the front, and the less patriotic men who are drafted into service. This means, in reality, that the most patriotic men are much proportionally greater than the less patriotic men in terms of casualties. For many men, patriotism is firmly bound with religion. It was no accident that the slogan, "For God and King (or Queen)" was crafted. Thus, service to the Empire was service to God Himself, in the minds of many.
People need actual personal faith in Jesus Christ to inspire church attendance, preferably in churches that will lead and nurture such a thing. They do not require economic prosperity to make it happen.

Compulsory attendance would not cause those who don't believe they need to care about God to care about God.
In hindsight today, we know this to be true, but in the past it was not so. The ideal situation was to compel them to come in (Luke 14:23) to hear the gospel in the church, because there was no other place. In addition, there were strict Sabbath laws, which virtually eliminated other outlets on Sundays.
Joke - yes, where is Queen Victoria when we need her?
:oldthumbsup:

There is a reason why I refer to my country when despairing over the state of the Christian faith and this is it. It is not a global problem.
Agreed!
 
Upvote 0

RamiC

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2025
1,202
833
Brighton
✟69,223.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I did not mean to imply that the Puritans were superior in any way, but merely that the loss in the population mix of ardent (perhaps fanatic) Christians diluted the overall religious mix. The same might be said concerning the enormous number of missionaries who went abroad to spread the faith. In their wake in their home countries remained many Christians who were not willing to go to that level of Christian service.
I do not believe that there is or ever was a problem for the Church of England caused by all the really committed believers leaving the country, for freedom to live out their faith their prefferred way in the USA or on missions within the Empire. We are called as unique individuals to serve the Kingdom of God as the Lord will's, there is no "level" of service better in a travelling missionary than raising a family, or nuturing the local flock.


This, indeed, is one facet of the problem. For many workingmen the pub was the preferred place for solace and social bonding.
Social class is not relevant to the danger of deserting Christian faith for alternaive and false sources of comfort. The wealthy have their own temptations.

It was no accident that the slogan, "For God and King (or Queen)" was crafted. Thus, service to the Empire was service to God Himself, in the minds of many.
It is irrelevant if they thought service to the Empire was service to God, unless God thought it was, they were commiting idolatory, not being devout. They were defending the country from which Anglicanism originated, and if they also aquired their own faith through the Anglican church, then to give their lives to protect the country becomes more about the love of the Lord, and not the wrongful worship of their nation or it's Head of State.


In hindsight today, we know this to be true, but in the past it was not so. The ideal situation was to compel them to come in (Luke 14:23) to hear the gospel in the church, because there was no other place. In addition, there were strict Sabbath laws, which virtually eliminated other outlets on Sundays.
At the start of the C of E the battle for access to the Bible was still raging. It was a very dangerous, but I believe holy campaign. The reason for the high priority of people attending church to hear it was widespread illiteracy and the prohibitively high cost of books. It was not so much "ideal" that people went to church to come to know the Bible, as at that time, apart from being clergy, or extremely wealthy, it was as you say, the only way. This is no longer the situation.

The problem I see all around me now, and as many are aware, it applies even within the church, is people not believing the Bible, and disputing what it means by what it says. Widespread lack of belief is what caused the ditching of the old Sunday trading laws, because with the majority of people already seeing no need for a different day in their week, those restrictions became an imposition from an alien worldview.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
32,057
14,535
74
✟469,044.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I do not believe that there is or ever was a problem for the Church of England caused by all the really committed believers leaving the country, for freedom to live out their faith their prefferred way in the USA or on missions within the Empire. We are called as unique individuals to serve the Kingdom of God as the Lord will's, there is no "level" of service better in a travelling missionary than raising a family, or nuturing the local flock.
Whether or not we care to admit it, when a person leaves to serve God in another place, that person's place in the pew of the church is empty. If all of the members of a church leave to serve God elsewhere, then there are no members left to attend services. The building is empty and if another use is not found for it then it is either demolished or decays. Great Britain is littered with redundant church buildings, many of which are of outstanding architectural merit.
Social class is not relevant to the of deserting Christian faith for alternaive and false sources of comfort. The wealthy have their own temptations.
I was merely using one common example. Today, that great leveler of society, the internet seems to be fulfilling similar purposes for all levels of society.
It is irrelevant if they thought service to the Empire was service to God, unless God thought it was, they were commiting idolatory, not being devout. They were defending the country from which Anglicanism originated, and if they also aquired their own faith through the Anglican church, then to give their lives to protect the country becomes more about the love of the Lord, and not the wrongful worship of their nation or it's Head of State.
If Great Britain was a true theocracy, then God would, indeed, be King and service to the nation would be service to God. However, I rather doubt that the monarchs of Great Britain ever viewed themselves as God incarnate. Instead, there was a deeply-ingrained belief that the monarch was God's representative, ordained by Him through royal birth to not only administer the temporal affairs of the nation, but also the spiritual affairs as head of the Church of England. Time and Parliament have steadily diminished these roles to the point where the monarch is simply a figure head with no actual power.

When the slogan, "For God and King" was being promoted, there was a clear intention for patriotic citizens to understand their role as having a divine imprimatur not at all unlike that conferred upon the current Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church on Russian soldiers being sent to their deaths in Putin's war in Ukraine, with the promise of immediate salvation upon their death. If there was no theological incentive intended, then the slogan ought to have been "For King and Country".

At the start of the C of E the battle for access to the Bible was still raging. It was a very dangerous, but I believe holy campaign. The reason for the high priority of people attending church to hear it was widespread illiteracy and the prohibitively high cost of books. It was not so much "ideal" that people went to church to come to know the Bible, as at that time, apart from being clergy, or extremely wealthy, it was as you say, the only way. This is no longer the situation.
Although this is true, the fact is that Sabbath laws remained in effect and were enforced long after literacy was common. It was the Protestant Dissenters who actively promoted literacy. Well into the nineteenth century large landowners discouraged literacy among their peasantry, viewing it as, at best, needless, and, at worst, the source of dissent and social unrest. Church attendance was much easily controlled with compliant clergy funded by ruling classes.
The problem I see all around me now, and as many are aware, it applies even within the church, is people not believing the Bible, and disputing what it means by what it says. Widespread lack of belief is what caused the ditching of the old Sunday trading laws, because with the majority of people already seeing no need for a different day in their week, those restrictions became an imposition from an alien worldview.
To that I would also add widespread ignorance and disinterest. There was a time when the Bible formed a key component of education, but that time is long gone. Many people have no incentive to engage in religion, especially in an era when human longevity has expanded so greatly.
 
Upvote 0

RamiC

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2025
1,202
833
Brighton
✟69,223.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Whether or not we care to admit it, when a person leaves to serve God in another place, that person's place in the pew of the church is empty. If all of the members of a church leave to serve God elsewhere, then there are no members left to attend services.
This did not happen anywhere in the UK.


The building is empty and if another use is not found for it then it is either demolished or decays. Great Britain is littered with redundant church buildings, many of which are of outstanding architectural merit.
The church buildings are being sold to pay the legal and PR bills related to the clergy abuse situation.

Instead, there was a deeply-ingrained belief that the monarch was God's representative, ordained by Him through royal birth to not only administer the temporal affairs of the nation, but also the spiritual affairs as head of the Church of England.
The spiritual leader of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Cantebury.
Although this is true, the fact is that Sabbath laws remained in effect and were enforced long after literacy was common. It was the Protestant Dissenters who actively promoted literacy.
They went to America, they were not here.

The restoration of RE to the National Curriculum is under consideration as we speak, and that might have an impact on the Reconquista of Mainline Protestant Churches.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
32,057
14,535
74
✟469,044.00
Faith
Non-Denom
This did not happen anywhere in the UK.
This certainly did happen in the seventeenth century when entire congregations of Puritans emigrated either to Holland (initially) and then to New England in America.
The church buildings are being sold to pay the legal and PR bills related to the clergy abuse situation.
Redundant churches are hardly recent. After the Great Fire of London in 1666 many parishes in the City were eliminated completely because there were no active congregations for them. Even the ones that were reconstructed by Christopher Wren only survived because of wealthy guilds that paid for their reconstruction. The primary cause of redundancy is the relatively large number of churches within a relatively thinly populated area. Most inner cities have very small permanent residents, although a relatively large Qof parish churches. The fact is that the Church of England has a great surplus of architecturally significant buildings to maintain in perpetuity without adequate funding to do so.
The spiritual leader of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Cantebury.
The actual head of the Church of England has always been the monarch. The power of the monarch as active head of the Church of England has diminished over time so that the Archbishop of Canterbury has taken on an active role. However, the monarch's approval is required before a new Archbishop is appointed.
They went to America, they were not here.
Quite so. Literacy rates in America quickly outstripped those of England. Specifically literacy rates in Puritan New England where religious faith was tied in with literacy, specifically biblical literacy.
The restoration of RE to the National Curriculum is under consideration as we speak, and that might have an impact on the Reconquista of Mainline Protestant Churches.
A similar movement is afoot in Texas where the Texas Education Agency has recently mandated Christian education for all schools using the KJV only. To say the very least, this is controversial.
 
Upvote 0

RamiC

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2025
1,202
833
Brighton
✟69,223.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
A similar movement is afoot in Texas where the Texas Education Agency has recently mandated Christian education for all schools using the KJV only. To say the very least, this is controversial.
There is no similarity, the political structures of the two entirely different countries make that so.
 
Upvote 0

RamiC

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2025
1,202
833
Brighton
✟69,223.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
This certainly did happen in the seventeenth century when entire congregations of Puritans emigrated either to Holland (initially) and then to New England in America.
The Puritans all going to the USA is not the problem for the C of E now.
Redundant churches are hardly recent. After the Great Fire of London in 1666 many parishes in the City were eliminated completely because there were no active congregations for them.
Three quarters of the City population were dead, from a disease and then the Great Fire. This is nothing to do with who was more committed to Christian faith, and it is not relevant to any attempts to save the Mainline Protestant Churches now.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
32,057
14,535
74
✟469,044.00
Faith
Non-Denom
The Puritans all going to the USA is not the problem for the C of E now.
Most assuredly. Religious Dissent in England poses no threats to the Church of England now.
Three quarters of the City population were dead, from a disease and then the Great Fire. This is nothing to do with who was more committed to Christian faith, and it is not relevant to any attempts to save the Mainline Protestant Churches now.
It does, however, prove my point that churches come and churches go for a wide variety of reasons and that clergy highjinks and the sale of property to make amends for them is not the only reason for the disappearance of congregations.
 
Upvote 0

RamiC

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2025
1,202
833
Brighton
✟69,223.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
It does, however, prove my point that churches come and churches go for a wide variety of reasons and that clergy highjinks and the sale of property to make amends for them is not the only reason for the disappearance of congregations.
That was not the point you made, this was "when a person leaves to serve God in another place, that person's place in the pew of the church is empty. If all of the members of a church leave to serve God elsewhere, then there are no members left to attend services. The building is empty and if another use is not found for it then it is either demolished or decays. Great Britain is littered with redundant church buildings, many of which are of outstanding architectural merit." and "After the Great Fire of London in 1666 many parishes in the City were eliminated completely because there were no active congregations for them." Those who did not survive 1666 in the City had not left to serve God elsewhere...at least not anywhere on earth.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
32,057
14,535
74
✟469,044.00
Faith
Non-Denom
That was not the point you made, this was "when a person leaves to serve God in another place, that person's place in the pew of the church is empty. If all of the members of a church leave to serve God elsewhere, then there are no members left to attend services. The building is empty and if another use is not found for it then it is either demolished or decays. Great Britain is littered with redundant church buildings, many of which are of outstanding architectural merit." and "After the Great Fire of London in 1666 many parishes in the City were eliminated completely because there were no active congregations for them." Those who did not survive 1666 in the City had not left to serve God elsewhere...at least not anywhere on earth.
Thank you for agreeing with my basic premise, which is that lack of faith or moral turpitude are hardly the only causes for the decline and loss of members and of churches.
 
Upvote 0

RamiC

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2025
1,202
833
Brighton
✟69,223.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Thank you for agreeing with my basic premise, which is that lack of faith or moral turpitude are hardly the only causes for the decline and loss of members and of churches.
I do not agree.

My first post in this thread said "If we could establish what happened roughly 100 years ago that lead to the decline of faith that started about then, then it might be reversible."

There is only one thing that can cause decline in churches, it is a loss of faith.

A church losing all it's members to a national disaster is irrelevant, since the dead either had faith in this life, or it is too late for them anyway. Anyone going elsewhere on account of their faith is not really a decline in faith, since Jesus cares if we know Him, not where we are doing it.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
32,057
14,535
74
✟469,044.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I do not agree.

My first post in this thread said "If we could establish what happened roughly 100 years ago that lead to the decline of faith that started about then, then it might be reversible."

There is only one thing that can cause decline in churches, it is a loss of faith.

A church losing all it's members to a national disaster is irrelevant, since the dead either had faith in this life, or it is too late for them anyway. Anyone going elsewhere on account of their faith is not really a decline in faith, since Jesus cares if we know Him, not where we are doing it.
Are you the same individual who informed me that both plague and the Great Fire of London were the primary reasons for the loss of many churches in the City?
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
17,859
9,640
51
The Wild West
✟963,214.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
@bbbbbbb just FYI the purple color you used in your posts is very hard to read on a browser using the Dark theme for the site (which I use due to photosensitivity). And you know I really enjoy reading what you write even when we disagree. I also particularly love talking architecture with you.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
32,057
14,535
74
✟469,044.00
Faith
Non-Denom
@bbbbbbb just FYI the purple color you used in your posts is very hard to read on a browser using the Dark theme for the site (which I use due to photosensitivity). And you know I really enjoy reading what you write even when we disagree. I also particularly love talking architecture with you.
I apologize. I did not realize that it was posing a challenge. I had hoped to differentiate my responses from his posts.
 
Upvote 0