Church of England’s Shift Away from Traditional Terminology

[Social Media]

 

The Church of England, a cornerstone of British religious life for centuries, is undergoing a subtle yet significant transformation in how it communicates and identifies new worshipping communities. A recent report suggests that the word "church" is being increasingly replaced with terms that are perceived to be more relevant and modern, such as "community" and "worship." This change, while seemingly minor, reflects deeper currents within the Anglican Church as it seeks to navigate the complexities of faith in a contemporary context.

 

The Centre for Church Planting Theology and Research conducted an insightful study into the language used by 11 dioceses to describe new worshipping communities. Traditionally, the establishment of a new group within the Church has been referred to as a "church plant." However, the report reveals that although 900 new churches have been initiated by these dioceses in the last decade, none of them have used the term "church plant" as their primary descriptor. Instead, there is a marked preference for language that emphasizes "worship," "congregation," and most notably, "community."

 

Rev Dr. Will Foulger, the vicar of St Nicholas in Durham and the author of the report, observed that out of the 11 dioceses studied, six primarily used the term "worship" to describe their new projects, two used "congregation," and seven preferred "community." This shift in terminology suggests a deliberate move towards language that resonates more with modern sensibilities, potentially broadening the appeal of these new initiatives.

 

However, this trend has not been without its critics. Dr Giles Fraser, the vicar of St Anne’s in Kew, expressed concern over what he sees as a "misplaced desire to be relevant and modern-sounding." In a candid critique published on UnHerd, Dr Fraser lamented, "It is as if the Church has given up on church. Not since Prince became Squiggle has there been such a daft revision." His remarks highlight the tension between embracing modernity and maintaining the rich traditions that have long defined the Church of England. Dr Fraser also warned that the adoption of these new forms of worship has been "ruinously expensive" for the Church, cautioning against the abandonment of traditional parish churches in the pursuit of modern relevance.

 

The report further uncovered that 10 out of the 11 dioceses involved in the study employed the concept of "culture change" to describe the integration of these new initiatives within their diocesan framework. This suggests that the Church of England may be intentionally moving away from using the word "church" as part of a broader cultural rejuvenation. Dr Foulger posited that the term "church" might no longer be comprehensive enough to capture the essence of what these dioceses are trying to achieve. He suggested that the phrase "new things" might better reflect the innovative nature of these projects.

 

A spokesman for the Church of England provided further context for this linguistic shift, explaining that one reason why the term "church" appears less frequently in descriptions of "new worshipping communities" is that these forms of worship often exist outside of traditional church buildings. This evolution is evident across the country, where new communities have emerged in diverse and sometimes unconventional settings.

 

For instance, at St Barnabas in Ealing, a "Shh free" mass welcomes families with young children, allowing them to participate in worship without the usual expectations of silence. In east London, All Hallows Bow has introduced a "silent disco worship" within an existing church, attracting young adults to a new form of communal worship. Meanwhile, the Diocese of Worcester has embraced outdoor worship, with congregants in the Teme Valley South opting for countryside walks that include Bible readings and prayer rather than traditional church services.

 

Despite these innovations, the Church of England maintains that these communities are as much a "church" as any other form of worship. "These communities often meet in existing church buildings, attracting additional worshippers alongside traditional congregations, but they are as much 'church' as any other form of worship," a Church of England spokesman stated. He added that, theologically, a church is defined as "a community of people who, together, live in relationship with God through Jesus Christ." This definition underscores the idea that the essence of a church lies in the communal pursuit of faith, regardless of the physical or linguistic form it takes.

 

In his report, Dr Foulger acknowledged that this change in language is compelling the Church to "redefine what we think a church is in the Church of England." He also recognized that this shift has led to a sense of alienation among certain parts of the Church, particularly those for whom fidelity to traditional ecclesial forms and practices is central. This ongoing debate reflects the broader challenge faced by the Church of England as it seeks to balance tradition with innovation in a rapidly changing world.

 

Financially, the Church of England has invested heavily in these new initiatives. Since 2014, the Church Commissioners have awarded £82.7 million to dioceses specifically for the purpose of starting new churches and religious communities. This investment is set to continue, with the Church announcing plans in 2021 to establish more than 10,000 new worshipping communities over the next decade. A Church of England spokesman defended this funding strategy, noting that "significant investment has supported parish renewals, front-line ministry roles, and children’s and youth workers across various church traditions." This commitment to funding both traditional and new forms of worship highlights the Church's dual approach to maintaining its historical roots while also adapting to contemporary needs.

 

In conclusion, the Church of England's evolving language around the concept of "church" reflects a broader cultural shift within the institution. As the Church seeks to engage with modern society, it is experimenting with new forms of worship and community that challenge traditional notions of what it means to be a church. While this transformation is not without its critics, it also represents an opportunity for the Church to reach new audiences and remain a vital part of British spiritual life in the 21st century. The debate over the use of the word "church" is emblematic of the broader struggle to balance tradition and modernity in a rapidly changing world, a challenge that the Church of England will continue to navigate in the years to come.

 

 

Credit: Daily Telegraph  2024-08-23

 

 

 

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[thaibeachlovers]

IMO the Anglican Church desperately trying to stave off it's inevitable demise.

IMO once my generation has passed, the Church in western countries will fade away, like stamp collecting or train spotting.

[herfiehandbag]

They haven't yet taken the (probable) final step - admitting that really they don't really believe in God anymore! Probably because they won't be able to justify the frocks anymore!

 

[JonnyF]

The Church of England shifting away from using the word Church.

 

Sounds like a winning strategy. 😃

 

I'd imagine they'll stop using the word "England" soon as well? Surely that's Wacist. They could rename themselves "The Congregation just south of Scotland". Would that be OK? Or does the word "South" also have negative connotations regarding the slave trade?

 

So many words, so many objections.

 

What a time to be alive. 😄

[BritManToo]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the Anglican Church desperately trying to stave off it's inevitable demise.

IMO once my generation has passed, the Church in western countries will fade away, like stamp collecting or train spotting.

I think they should open a few Mosques.

That's the only way for them to attract new business.

[Chomper Higgot]

This will stir outrage amongst those who never attend church.

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

This will stir outrage amongst those who never attend church.

 

I assume you mean Never attend "congregation"?

 

Come on Chomps, get with the program, the word church is so 2023, show your progressive credentials and support this changing of the language. Gotta keep people on their toes. 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

I assume you mean Never attend "congregation"?

 

Come on Chomps, get with the program, the word church is so 2023, show your progressive credentials and support this changing of the language. Gotta keep people on their toes. 

As I was saying.

[mfd101]

It has long been the case that the miserable trendy bits of Christendom - desperate to survive in a changing world - have given up on actually really 'believing in God' (as opposed to a metaphorical understanding), or in Jesus as Son of God (just a nice story), or the Resurrection (what a funny but wise tale) or anything else that Christians believed for the previous 1900 years.

[Purdey]

For an institution that is based on believing what happened over 2,000 years ago is true, modernization is more likely to disassociate congregation from the church.

[klauskunkel]

marketing...

[Thingamabob]

A couple of translated quotations from early publications of the Quran:

 

'Women are your fields. Go into them as you please'

 

'Killing an infidel will ensure you a place in heaven'

 

Unless the Anglican  church, and Brits generally, wake up, Britain will be under sharia law by the end of this century, latest.

 

Messing about with terminology is a waste of time. Leadership that commands respect is what is needed.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 23 by Thingamabob

[herfiehandbag]

3 hours ago, mfd101 said:

It has long been the case that the miserable trendy bits of Christendom - desperate to survive in a changing world - have given up on actually really 'believing in God' (as opposed to a metaphorical understanding), or in Jesus as Son of God (just a nice story), or the Resurrection (what a funny but wise tale) or anything else that Christians believed for the previous 1900 years.

And that is why the congregations are falling.

 

Ironically whenever something "central" like the Coronation occurs, then they become the spiritual heart of the nation, doubly ironic perhaps when you consider that they pinched that particular liturgy lock, stock and barrel from the Catholics (of whom I am one); that is why they can insist that it is a 1000 year old ceremony!

[MicroB]

5 hours ago, Purdey said:

For an institution that is based on believing what happened over 2,000 years ago is true, modernization is more likely to disassociate congregation from the church.

 

Do you think the "Church" 100 years ago was anything like 1900 years before it, or the Church 500 years ago was anything like what passed for a Church 1500 years? The infrastructure, the terminology, the language changes (eg. King James Bible, the Tyndale Bible).

 

Heres a thing; the only reason the Gaelic language survived in Ireland was because of Protestant missionaries. In the Catholic churches, the services were mostly in Latin. The congregation hadn't a clue. These missionaries cottoned on to if you wanted new members of the flock, talk to them in a language they understand.

 

It looks like the agnostics/atheists moaning about a changing CoE (the Established Church) have never heard of High Church.

[herfiehandbag]

3 hours ago, MicroB said:

Heres a thing; the only reason the Gaelic language survived in Ireland was because of Protestant missionaries. In the Catholic churches, the services were mostly in Latin. The congregation hadn't a clue. These missionaries cottoned on to if you wanted new members of the flock, talk to them in a language they understand.

At the risk of veering wildly off topic, the readings (Old Testament, Epistles, Gospel and sermons were in the vernacular - English). The rest of the Mass was in Latin, but the congregation, having listened to It over years, brought up with it, understood it!

 

As a matter of interest, I have been involved in teaching the choir at the Catholic Cathedral here in Chiang Rai to sing the Gloria and Sanctus in Latin, and the Kyrie Eleison in ancient Greek. The choir, girls, mainly Akha hill tribe boarders at the school attached to the Cathedral, do so beautifully, and I have taken great pains (my Akha is very limited!) to make sure that they understand what they are singing!

 

But then I love the Latin, which many no doubt think a bit weird!

 

I also remember my father recounting hearing Mass aboard a troopship during the Second World Was. The congregation was drawn from British and Commonwealth, Poles, Czechs, and French. Not a problem, Mass was said in Latin!

 

 

Edited August 23 by herfiehandbag

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, Purdey said:

For an institution that is based on believing what happened over 2,000 years ago is true, modernization is more likely to disassociate congregation from the church.

If that is your understanding then IMO you have no understanding of it. Certain truths remain true no matter how many years pass. Unfortunately the Church has never been about those truths, but about controlling the population.

IMO now that technology ( social media, influencers, podcasters etc ) has taken over the job of controlling the sheeple, the Church is surplus to requirement, and is being allowed to wither away.