Skip to main content

Context


Where I study the buzzword is 'context.' I'm studying for a degree in 'contextual theology.' We're always being asked to relate academic study to our work in church and the world. We're asked to think about our context theologically and our theology contextually. I like this approach. I think its quite appropriate and useful for ministerial training. I pass this building everytime I walk to Sainsbury's to do my shopping. It used to be a Unitarian church and now its the home of Manchester Amateur Photographic Society. For me its a gravestone: 'A Unitarian community once lived here 1646 - 1970. Now it is dead.'


If I needed it, this serves as a sombre reminder of the context of British Unitarianism. Everything we do and say should be related to this context: the context of decline; the context of gravestone-churches; forgotten brick buildings rotting slowly away at the side of the road.


It's irresponsible to act like this isn't happening. It's irresponsible to think we can continue to go on as we have been. It's irresponsible to keep our money locked away, and not spend it on exciting new ways of doing church and ministry.


Everytime I walk past this building I think of these things.





Comments

Anonymous said…
I agree entirely, Stephen. I think the same on seeing Ullet Road Church, Liverpool. It is still in use but I've never seen more than 20 people in there, not even enough to raise a hearty hymn. And part of the church (the cloisters) have become like a mausoleum housing the memorial stones of yesteryear.

http://www.unitarian.org.uk/images/pic_local_mersyside.jpg

I guess there are two questions - have Unitarians recognised there is a problem? And if so, have they arrived at a solution?

I look at my local Zen group and it is thriving with 30+ members at the main weekly meetings, and always a variety of people with many newcomers (not just 30 regulars).

It is not devoutly Buddhist in the sense people of many traditions visit and the discussions often go 'outside the box', but it is nonetheless held together by the Buddhist tradition.

Also, in terms of practicalities, it is lay-led (but with some members trained and educated in Buddhism), it has twice weekly morning and afternoon meetings, is located near the city centre in the vicinity of the student area - and the meeting space is rented.

It is far more dynamic and flexible than any church I've encountered what with all the committees, hierarchies and anchor-like buildings.

The group is actually moving soon to rent out new quieter premises but in a similar area - and continues to grow. It doesn't have to worry about the leaky roof, or the smashed window...

I think if Unitarians are really serious about stopping the rot (and extinction as a national movement) then maybe they should look to groups like this as an example?

But having said all this, the Biblical teaching on new wine and old skins perhaps also has relevance? Maybe it's a case of survival of the fittest, and perhaps the old archaic churches need to die out for a revitalised movement to emerge from it?
Anonymous said…
I agree with both of you.

The N.U.F., and particularly its Internet Forum, provides another example of a vibrant spiritual community that doesn't own any real estate, nor do we want to.

Can there really be a single gathered congregation, Unitarian or Christian come to that, meeting in a building important enough to be listed, but not important enough to be a tourist attraction, which wouldn't find life simpler if the State owned it & the congregation rented it on Sundays & whenever else it needed it?

As a lay preacher I have discovered that I don't seem to get invited back much to congregations which either possess or aspire to (yes, it happens) a building which isn't fit for purpose. I suppose I could keep my mouth shut over coffee afterwards, and perhaps I may even do so in future - having established (to my own satisfaction at least) that one of our problems is the Trustee whose qualification for office is their cheque book rather than their spiritual insight.

If we want to attract new Unitarians, we can make a good start by disabusing ourselves of the notion - which, to be fair, I don't think our elected leaders suffer from - that "chapel" is going to attract anyone.

Popular posts from this blog

Radical?

When I started this blog nearly 4 years and nearly 300 posts ago one of the labels I used for it/me was "radical." Perhaps I used it a little unreflectively. Recently I've been pondering what radical means. A couple of things have made me think of this. Firstly this blog series from my friend Jeremy, which explores a distinction between "radical progressives" and "rational progressives." There is also this definition of radical, liberal and conservative from Terry Eagleton quoted at Young Anabaptist Radicals : “Radicals are those who believe that things are extremely bad with us, but they could feasibly be much improved. Conservatives believe that things are pretty bad, but that’s just the way the human animal is. And liberals believe that there’s a little bit of good and bad in all of us.” What interests me is finding a way to express the tension I feel sometimes between myself and the wider Unitarian movement. One way to express this is to say I tend

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th

What is Radical Christianity?

Radical Christianity is about encountering the God of love . It is first and foremost rooted in the discovery of a universal and unconditional source of love at the heart of reality and within each person. God is the name we give to this source of love. It is possible to have a direct and real personal encounter with this God through spiritual practice. We encounter God, and are nourished by God, through the regular practice of prayer, or contemplation.  Radical Christianity is about following a man called Jesus . It is rooted in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet living under occupation of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. It understands that's Jesus' message was the message of liberation. His message was that when we truly encounter God, and let God's love flow through us, we begin to be liberated from the powers of empire and violence and encounter the  "realm of God" - an alternative spiritual and social reality rooted in love rather th