In a piece that I recently wrote about denominations, I suggested that there were powerful forces, especially in the States, that are seeking to destroy all large church groupings in favour of small independent ‘bible’ churches. The Episcopal (Anglican) Church in America has suffered its own confrontations with factions and small groups seeking to persuade congregations that its central body has strayed from the Bible in favour of heretical beliefs. Over a period of years, such a church congregation may be totally undermined so that eventually it declares itself to be independent of the denominational structure provided by a national body or a local diocese. Such an independent Episcopal congregation, if it wishes to retain its Anglican identity, will often seek the oversight of a foreign province such as Nigeria or Rwanda. In practice it has become an independent congregation. Nevertheless, it wants to pay lip-service to the idea of being under the discipline of African bishops and some of the historic traditions of Anglicanism.
Recently I have acquired a book with the title Steeplejacking. The word is one used in the States to describe the process by which small groups of conservative Christians engineer the take-over of local congregations. Having succeeded in gaining power, they then force the congregation to cut ties with the sponsoring denomination. It would appear from the book that this process is not uncommon. The book, by Sheldon Calver and John Dorhauer, presents the issue from the perspective of one denomination, the United Churches of Christ (UCC). Both the authors have watched various congregations within this denomination being ‘steeplejacked’. Each was then persuaded to become independent under the control of a group of powerful lay people or a minister with a strongly conservative agenda.
The book describes in some detail the processes which allow two or three motivated newcomers with an agenda to take over the reins of an unprepared congregation. Sometimes the minister at such a church is weak or ineffective. Alternatively, he lacks the theological understanding to see what is going on. Sometimes it is the minster himself actively managing the break-away process. In most denominations on both sides of the Atlantic there are legal and financial ties which bind the local body with the national one. Break-away churches may have to factor in the loss of pension rights for a departing minister and expensive court cases to determine ownership of property. The potential reward in gaining possession of valuable church plant through independence evidently makes these battles worth fighting.
What is the motivation for seeking to destroy denominational structures of the churches of America? The simple and probably wildly over-simplified answer is that independent congregations are more easily integrated into the values of the political/religious Right. The right wing political/religious juggernaut that is in the ascendant today in America is first of all deeply immersed in the idea of spiritual warfare against ‘secularism’. This is another word to describe the dominant liberal culture of America, which is politically represented by the Democrats. At the same time, it is appealing to a fantasy golden age of male white dominance. This is alluded to in Trump’s slogan, ‘Make America great again’. The use of the word ‘again’ indicates that those who identify with this slogan are active believers in the idea that there was once a golden age of secure Christian morality and stability in America. Golden age beliefs are generally products of nostalgia rather than accurate historical memory. Many people do, in fact, buy into the idea of rebuilding a 1950s Christian society. The reality of living in that period actually favoured only one group – white men. Women and people of colour were treated poorly, if not abusively. Women were kept in their place in the home, subservient to the wishes and dominance of men. Many of the old-fashioned moral values being promoted today by the religious Right are those that in fact victimise women. The right of women to have an opinion about such things as birth control or abortion barely existed. Gay relationships were then hidden. Even now they are considered abhorrent because they subvert the nostalgic picture of a Christian home with its clearly defined hierarchy. One person, the man, was in charge of all that happens in the family. Much of the energy which drives churches out of denominational structures is the energy that simply hates the new realities of modern democratic liberal ideals. These promote inclusiveness, justice and tolerance. How much easier to promote a fantasy return to the past? Such a regression fantasy lies behind most fundamentalist movements all over the world.
The book Steeplejacking lists the techniques used to gain dominance in congregations so that under the guidance of the conservative cabal, the congregation can vote themselves into independence and thus ownership of the church, theologically and legally. Typically, the overseeing denomination is caricatured as taking a position contrary to biblical ‘values’. In the case of the UCC, a favourable vote on ‘gay marriage’ in 2006 was a signal to conservatives that the denominational leadership was taking a position where the bible was being betrayed. This was represented as being on a slippery slope to heresy and abandonment of the faith itself. Such distortions were fairly easy to sell when adherence to such ‘facts’ is presented as a salvation issue. Lay people often find it difficult to see through the distortions and propaganda of the steeplejackers. Also, a minister who is unsure of his theology, or is too demoralised to face up to the virulence of his attackers, sometimes simply abandons the field to the plotters. They are then able to get themselves voted on to committees and generally subvert the congregation on its way to independence.
The parallels between the situation in the American UCC and the Church of England are not particularly close. Few clergy in the Church of England are interested in leaving their denomination, not least because they would stand to lose pension rights. It also is impossible to move a parish outside the legally binding structures of the Church of England. But even if most Anglican clergy stay loyal to their bishops and church in a formal way, some of them oversee disloyal activity and promote a variety of intolerant stances within their congregations. As a parish priest I have often had to stand up to small ‘factions’ when it was suggested that some activity or teaching was not ‘biblical. I have had to point out that the Church of England takes more than one view on a variety of topics. This is not a teaching that is found in conservative congregations. Far too many Christians are being taught that truth is a single entity. You either have it or you don’t. It is thus hard for these Christians who are taught in this way to feel comfortable in a place where difference of opinion is not only tolerated but even encouraged. Many of them want to hear only from a minister who preaches a single perspective, based on this ‘biblical’ perspective. Preaching from the bible should of course produce a single consistent message. But we know that it does not in fact happen. There are as many bible ‘truths’ as there are preachers to disagree about what they are. The reason for the current popularity of the independent congregation is that there only one voice is heard, that of the minster. Hearing a single opinion creates a kind of semblance of unity. But this can only exist when all other opinions and perspectives have been removed from the arena. In a political context we call this a one-party state or fascism.
Steeplejacking may not exist in a formal sense in Britain but the dynamics that enable it are alive and well. Telling a congregation that another congregation or even an entire denomination has been taken over by Satan, because it does not agree with your current moral stance, is a form of steeplejacking. Allowing any church to become a cocoon of like-minded believers who are actively discouraged from asking questions or being allowed to disagree with ministers, is an expression of the Christian culture that steeplejackers want to promote. Perhaps those of us who find the concept of an inerrant bible problematic should be more vocal in our challenge to this kind of thinking. The impulse to take over churches in the name of ‘truth’ will never be a recipe for unity and harmony. What it does create is division in an unseemly and fractious struggle for power. That does not look or seem to be very Christian or able to promote the teaching and spirit of Jesus.
Dear Stephen, you do see things from one point of view, and I understand that point of view all too well but do understand that there is another way of looking at things in the contemporary, particularly Western, Church. That other way is that many traditionally orthodox pew sitters and clergy have seen their Church gradually managed by a politically astute elite (at least they have thought of themselves that way) moving their denomination away to a religious understanding that is quite contrary to what they have believed and understood as faithful to scripture and tradition. If they have popped their head above the parapet they have been cat-called as behind the times or not really educated enough. Sadly they have felt themselves isolated and that the door has been opened for them with the hint, “Please exit, we don’t wish the likes of you in our modern Church”
When clergy who are retired and have no further intention of starting a new grouping are seen to depart then something serious has happened. A fellow of mine near my first parish wrote about his story in “A Sad Departure”, he had faithfully served his denomination for 40 years and amongst his children were two ministers. No it is all too easy to jump on a bandwagon of pointing at extreme right wing Bible thumping bigots as the only opposers of the new “enlightened way”. The disappearance of so many faithful Christian people from our Churches is indeed a sad departure and we ought to realise that there are more ways of looking at the fragmentation of our Churches than the one you so ably espouse.
On the other hand, I know, or know of, a number of people who have left the Church because they find it too narrow-minded and discriminatory. Our battles over remarrying divorcees in church; the ordination of women; and now same sex marriage and ordination of people in same-sex relationships, have cost us dear – especially among the younger generation.
I remember that it was with considerable trepidation that I preached on the deep love between David and Saul at the time that Jeffrey John was appointed Bishop of Oxford and then asked to step down. I was worried that my congregation would be disapproving and critical of the stance I took on the issue. Not a bit of it – they were pleased and relieved.
I think you meant David and Jonathan Janet. Not much love lost between David and Saul. It baffles me how people imagine David and Jonathan’s profound covenant love relationship has anything to do with homosexual sex though.
We don’t know either way, do we?
Yes, sorry, of course I meant David & Jonathan. In preparing for that sermon I read through the account of David’s life, concentrating on the parts where Jonathan was mentioned and skipping all the stuff between. I was gobsmacked – I didn’t see how I could have missed it before.The writer talks about the love between David and Jonathan in the same way her talks about the love between a man and a woman.
Oh, I absolutely agree Janet, in fact David’s eulogy says Jonathan’s love was more wonderful than that of women. It is a marvellous picture of deep love between men; such a pity that it gets pulled into the field of sexual behaviour.
Interesting Stephen, and Leslie. I am reminded of soap in the bath – some of these matters I find hard to get a grip on. That’s why I only comment occasionally on this blog. I am uncertain on a number of points that have been raised, but I appreciate reading the posts.
I agree with others in that it is broader than the evangelical right at issue here. Personally I have not seen this extreme form of church politics (steeplejacking) in the UK.
For a better understanding of evangelicalism may I suggest “The Global Diffusion of Evangelicalism: The Age of Billy Graham and John Stott” by Brian Stanley.
I have not come across the phenomenon of a whole church being taken away in a totally different direction myself. But I have certainly met clergy who thought themselves infallible. And clergy who aren’t really Anglican but work for the CofE. I have found the high Anglo-Catholics greatly at fault here. I’m sure I’ve seen news stories about churches that want to take the church in the sense of the building and set up on their own. Which they can’t do. But what mostly happens, is the incumbent simply goes their own way, and no one notices!
Many times, too, problems arise in The Episcopal Church when the hierarchy refuses to get involved. On the one hand, the hierarchy will come after you, guns a’blazing, if you try to wrest property from the church. On the other hand, if you complain to your bishop about potential abuse in the local church, you get a whole lot of handwringing, suggestions you talk with the vestry, and the whole, “This isn’t of weighty and material importance to the ministry of the church,” routine.
Of course, The Episcopal Church can’t have it both ways-a hierarchy when convenient, a congregational polity when that’s easier. That’s not to say that the bishop should be involved in every detail of parish life, but if they are willing to ignore issues at the local level, they shouldn’t be surprised when zany and unexpected stuff happens.
I agree with Leslie’s first reply. There are churches who have joined up with other Gospel churches in a partnership (in England)and in my experience they wouldn’t want to be mentioned in the same sentence as the Church of England.