'Dissent' and 'non-conformity' in the UK
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
No, not 'Anarchy in the UK' but I'd be interested in Shipmates' thoughts on the legacy of the 'Dissenting' and 'non-conformist' ('Free Church' or non-Anglican Establishment) tradition here in the UK.
Some of my ancestors were Baptist ministers in various parts of South Wales and the borders. One who died in the 1890s is still commemorated in a church he helped found. My brother visited recently and found 6 people worshipping in a chapel built to accommodate hundreds.
What do people think has been the legacy of the various independent church groups that emerged from the 1590s/early 1600s onwards here in the UK?
Where is this tradition, in its varied forms, going next? And no, I don't mean to restrict the discussion to traditionally white-majority groups.
As a Starter for Ten I'd suggest that the non-conformist tradition has had a significant impact in terms of the freedoms we now enjoy - and vigilance is needed to keep it that way.
But the freedom not to 'conform' also brings with it the freedom not to engage - not that I'm advocating coercion or conformity in matters of religion and personal conscience of course.
I'm Orthodox but not inclined, unlike some RC and Orthodox commentators to blame the Reformation and Radical Reformation for the gradual erosion of religious belief and practice. I can see why they say that but find it a rather simplistic premise.
But I am interested to explore the strengths and weaknesses of the 'Dissenting' tradition and to consider what the future may hold for its current heirs and proponents.
Some of my ancestors were Baptist ministers in various parts of South Wales and the borders. One who died in the 1890s is still commemorated in a church he helped found. My brother visited recently and found 6 people worshipping in a chapel built to accommodate hundreds.
What do people think has been the legacy of the various independent church groups that emerged from the 1590s/early 1600s onwards here in the UK?
Where is this tradition, in its varied forms, going next? And no, I don't mean to restrict the discussion to traditionally white-majority groups.
As a Starter for Ten I'd suggest that the non-conformist tradition has had a significant impact in terms of the freedoms we now enjoy - and vigilance is needed to keep it that way.
But the freedom not to 'conform' also brings with it the freedom not to engage - not that I'm advocating coercion or conformity in matters of religion and personal conscience of course.
I'm Orthodox but not inclined, unlike some RC and Orthodox commentators to blame the Reformation and Radical Reformation for the gradual erosion of religious belief and practice. I can see why they say that but find it a rather simplistic premise.
But I am interested to explore the strengths and weaknesses of the 'Dissenting' tradition and to consider what the future may hold for its current heirs and proponents.
Comments
As Dissenter and Free Church are pretty meaningless terms in the US, except perhaps in a historical context, I’m never quite sure where the lines are.
"Old Dissent" - eg Baptists, Independents but not Methodists - were strongly "for" freedom of conscience, especially in matters of religion, and often politically radical and republican. I think we've lost those latter qualities to a large degree. They have been serious about their faith (good) but have a tendency to split over their beliefs (not so good).
I also apologise for not referring to non-Protestant bodies such as Alan29's RC Church.
I was thinking of those groups which historically separated from 'this Church of England by law established' either in the late 1500s and early 1600s (Brownists and other 'sectaries', Independents and Baptists) or during the turmoil of the Interregnum and Commonwealth or following the Act of Uniformity and the 'Great Ejection.'
The RCs were treated as 'dissenters' even though they did not separate from the Establishment but represented an older order which preceded it.
I left the Kirk out of the equation not out of any oversight or dismissive attitude on my part, but because it was a different situation to that which applied in England. The Scottish Reformation went 'further' than the English one.
It would be appropriate to consider the Kirk but in a different way, I would suggest, than the Baptists, URC or the Methodists who weren't part of 'Old Dissent'.
To further complicate things, the Church in Wales was Disestablished in 1920 but nobody seems to have noticed.
Well, given that when you do the census in Scotland, your choices are Christian: Church of Scotland, Christian: Roman Catholic or Christian: other , it could be suggested that the Scottish Episcopal Church is considered non-conformist....
Indeed, and I would argue that their 'witness' in the freedom of conscience arena and in political radicalism also helped to 'moderate' more autocratic forms of government such as the Monarchy.
In that sense, all of us are beneficiaries.
The fissaporousness was probably their weak point, but an inevitable corollary perhaps of freedom of conscience. I'm not sure things could have worked out differently for them in that respect.
But what has happened to the 'non-conformist conscience' and what role can or will churches and believers in this particular tradition (or traditions) play in an increasingly secularists and post-Christian society?
Well, Welby infamously forgot to invite them to the last Lambeth Conference, if I remember rightly, even though ACNA and other independent Anglican groups from the US were invited.
But it's groups like Congregationalists, URC and Baptists from the 'Old Dissent' category and later groups like the Methodists and their offspring such as the Salvation Army and Church of The Nazarene I have in mind.
I'm thinking of the old 'Free Church' category rather than Pentecostals, say or 20th century 'new church' restorationist movements such as 'New Frontiers.'
I know these categories mean less than they used to and things are more fluid but I'd still recognise a 'bloc' within UK Christianity with its roots in 'Old Dissent.'
It's the contribution that has made, its current characteristics and potential future developments that I'd like to explore.
Umm... I think you might be mis-remembering something here. SEC bishops were invited to and attended Lambeth. ACNA was not and did not.
Curiously my Mrs Alan's grandad was the Denbigh lawyer who drew up the legislation that disestablished the CinW. And yes, Lloyd George did know her (grand)father.
Iirc it was an event in Scotland about Anglican-Presbyterian relations that the Church of Scotland was invited to but the SEC was not.
Which of course, has now come back to bite them in Epiphantic directions.
There is the Church of Scotland (Rarely ,if ever referred to as the CofS )was from 1560 until 1688 both episcopal and presbyterian. In 1688 the Church of Scotland became 100% Presbyterian and the Episcopalians were cast out into outer darkness before organising themselves as a separate (clandestine) body living through (like the Catholics) the 'penal ' times until really the early 1800s.
By that time the Established Church of Scotland was beginning to see the multiple schisms and separations of which there were so many that the term 'non-conforming' really had no meaning.
I'm anxious not to cause a tangent, but basically the marriage laws in England and Wales governing the C of E also cover the Church in Wales despite them being disestablished and wanting to dissent from C of E policy on this issue. At the moment they legally can't do so without the law changing.
Which is rather the point I was making.
I stand corrected.
I think we have lost much, if not all, of our radical edge as denominations as we have become Labour lite in attitude and character. We are far less likely to challenge and much more likely to join the crowd. Witness the unwillingness to engage with poorer areas.
On the local scale it's more positive with lots of initiatives designed to make a difference - and they do. It's cause for celebration when one person is helped but cause for concern that foodbanks (for example) are required in today's world. One church I know has been providing 200+ food bags each month plus a community fridge that helps several hundred people weekly. It's also a warm space, drop in cafe with support from other agencies who can be contacted through the set up.
There seems a big disconnect between the national and the local. Some see it going back to the 19th century when many new non conformist churches were built to mimic Anglican churches. The emphasis being more on form and style as opposed to function - which was more the concern of the founders.
All non conformist groups are going through a time of reflection. In most cases this is deep division over theological differences which some see as a growing liberalisation. I suspect that in the short term some denominations like the Baptist Union will see a split as a result.
At the risk of a tangent though, I do wonder whether there is a certain anachronistic slant to some of this.
Yes, many Dissenting groups were very radical by the standards of their times but arguably Maggie Thatcher was as much a product of Methodism as early Labour pioneers.
There's long been a kind of bourgeois self-help ethos within some strands of non-conformist Christianity - just as the old Liberal Party and the contemporary Lib Dems had/have occasional outbreaks of Libertarianism from time to time.
Catching up with some earlier comments and queries.
On the issue of immigrant or 'new churches' having input and influence from 'Old Dissent' - yes, to some extent. Largely, though, I'd say the influence came from later revivalist movements. Those movements also affected groups like the Baptists too, of course.
I would categorise the Quakers as part of 'Old Dissent' but as something of an outlier or offshoot from it.
Incidentally, my Baptist minister ancestors were related to Lloyd George.
Well Quakers were persecuted during the 17th century - so I think probably part of the old dissent ?
Were the revival movements that gave rise to “new churches” in the UK based in the C of E or in Dissenter churches?
In light of your comment on Thatcher and Methodism, in the churches that today are considered to come from “Old Dissent” would someone (especially a church leader) be shunned if it became known that they were a Tory or supported Tory policies?
There were some former Salvationists too and a smattering of former Anglicans but by and large they drew from the more revivalist end of the independent or 'non-conformist spectrum.
My Baptist ancestors started out as farm labourers and tin-plate workers. Some trained for the ministry. By the early 1900s they had become more upwardly mobile, as the saying goes. They were small shop-keepers and school teachers or had worked their way up to management roles in timber yards and the like and could afford to live in a terrace colloquially known as 'piano row' to reflect new disposable income that could afford a piano in the parlour.
They remained nominally Baptist or else became 'free-thinkers'. They became quite Conservative politically and even moved from a terrace to a bungalow. They never lost their strong South Walian accents and bad grammar though. 😉
My late wife's non-conformist ancestors underwent a parallel transition. In their case largely Wesleyan hand-loom weavers in Yorkshire who gradually became school teachers and else abandoned faith altogether or adopted liberal political and social views - nothing wrong with that of course - but with only the faintest tinge or nod to religious observance.
By and large, other than the Primitive Methodists, the 'Prims', the Baptists tended to be more working class than the Congregationalists and the Wesleyans.
I tend to see most 19th century non-conformist groups as upwardly mobile petit-bourgeois by and large whilst recognising the full picture was more varied. There were very poor Baptist groups in rural areas but my impression is that urban Baptists, whilst not as lower-middle class as the Wesleyans, weren't generally on the bread-line either.
Most had 'trades' of one form or other. I imagine the picture varied from place to place.
As a general rule of thumb in the social pecking order you'd have Anglicans, then Congregationalists, then Methodists, then Baptists, then groups like the Pentecostals. RCs tended to be at the bottom, other than RC peers and 'Old Catholic families'.
Unitarians and Quakers tended to be fairly moneyed too, via business if not 'old money'. Manchester Harris College is an Oxford college that was founded as a Unitarian ministerial training college (and still is one) which uniquely amongst UK universities has a beautiful Unitarian chapel.
In my neck of the woods Lord Leverhume (founder of Lever Brothers) built a couple of non-conformist churches in medieval styles in the villages he built. They look for all the world like Anglican parish churches.
The Port Sunlight one is still open and active.
ccpsurc.info/
I see the Thornton Hough one has been put up for sale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_George's_United_Reformed_Church,_Thornton_Hough
https://scarborough-urc.org.uk/?page_id=27
The front looks like an abbey,
But thinking they can fool the Lord
They've left the back part shabby.
They are in Capel Bach
They don't like surpliced choirs
They don't like Sospan Fach ...'
From 'Capel Calvin' by Idris Davies
Well worth a read. As with much of his poetry.
'They don't like beer or bishops
Or pictures without texts,
They don't like any other
Of the non-conformist sects.'
Love that!
The CofE always pops up though for the big gigs across town involving civic events and the like. Anyone else is lucky to get a walk on part, the Black majority churches being particularly "overlooked."
@ExclamationMark I appreciate that those are your experiences but they're far from universal. The Church of England gets picked by civic leaders to lead civic events because it's the national church, but it's not necessarily the decision of local clergy or a role that local clergy want to do. In my experience local Nonconformist cooperation with Anglicans varies hugely and depends on many factors. In many places it's a very positive relationship.
I also don't see how complaining about Anglicans is really talking about Nonconformists.
I was born into a strict Methodist family, of which my father was the black sheep. I stopped going to the Meths when I was far enough into my teens to rebel. Later in my teens and early 20s I made up my mind that if I was to return to churchy things I'd either be RC or Quaker, and the Quakers won. It was the time of the Falklands campaign and I was feeling very isolated, so I wandered into a Quaker meeting and liked the experience very much. I stayed for 40 years and although I still steer by Quaker principles and very much enjoy the Quaker way of worship I resigned my membership for personal reasons I won't go into. But one thing I'm proud of from my Quaker days: we were the first religious grouping in Britain to embrace the principle of equal marriage ("marriage is the Lord's work and we are but witnesses") after a lot of lengthy sometimes painful deliberations (Quaker business meetings are not for the hasty or impatient!).
I speak here about British Quakers only of course. Many of the early Quakers escaped oppression here to America (in some cases straight into oppression there, as in the Massachussets Colony) where they proved highly fissile, splitting into Hicksites, Wilburites, Conservatives, Evangelicals, Liberals and all manner of shapes and prejudices in between. I've seen smoke coming out of a letter from an American meeting responding to Britain's embrace of sexual and gender nonconformity. As for Kenya (set up by American Evangelicals and even more fissile) let's not go there, hey! But American Quakers were very much to the fore, even before 1776, in vigorously opposing slavery and promoting emancipation.
I don't think anyone's yet mentioned the Lollards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollardy
AFAIK, the Cathar or Albigensian *heresy* (aka different point of view) was never much present in England, but 12thC clerics were certainly afraid of it...
Regarding the monarchy, there was quite a vigorous debate among Baptist ministers about whether the National Anthem should be sung last Sunday, with the majority against it (perhaps 70/30).
@Pomona - I have certainly met my fair share of Anglican clergy who, when push came to shove, clearly believed that I wasn't a "proper" minister because I hadn't been episcopally ordained ... and one or two from an A/C background who had no such qualms!
Re Cathars, IIRC the attitude of English clergy was part of the plot of one of Ellis Peters' Brother Cadfael novels - The Heretic's Apprentice.
There are Anglican clergy who act like Wannabe Baptist ministers.
I daresay there may be Baptist ministers who behave like Wannabe Bishops.
In some countries, of course, Baptists do have bishops.
I once met a very Anglo-Catholic cleric who had found faith in a Baptist church before becoming Anglican and going way, way, way up the candle. He had little time for low church or evangelical Anglicans but a lot of time for the Baptists whom he considered more 'authentic'.
@Bishop's Finger, I know dissent (small d) predates Dissent Big D but for the purposes of this thread I had in mind those post-Reformation groups that still exist today or which have given rise to others.
I don't think there are many Lollard congregations around these days, still less Cathar ones. But who knows? I'm sure someone must be running one in a shed somewhere.
As to the Cathars, yes, there are still some around today...they are not much seen or heard, but there may well be one or two on these boards...