“What to do with the humble parish?” Why do we seem to be so entrenched within ideas of “my parish” or “their church?” Why do parishioners identify as more “members of the Parish of St Aethelredstone” rather than as “Anglican,” and why may they identify with their parish in opposition to say the Parish of St Cuthbertstonwick? [names changed to protect the guilty everywhere] Setting aside the ecclesiological and pastoral specifics of Anglican parishes, I want to consider here the sociological challenges of the parish, for these sociological challenges lie at the heart of a wide variety of present questions for our church. While the questions of parish boundaries, church mergers, church planting, minster models, evangelism, normativity, and diversity, all have theological, ecclesiological, and pastoral dimensions, their sociological aspects are often left uninterrogated. Therefore, here I want to consider these social aspects and how they may contribute to our understanding of parish life.
For all of the other services of the parish one of the most significant is the social group which is formed around the parish, one for which those within the parish—and those attending from outside—find their identity. Parishioners are not merely “Jane” or “John,” but “Jane member of Parish X.” The formation of these social identities around the parish structure are sociologically one of its greatest strengths—and I would also argue its greatest weakness.
Leaving aside specifically Christian aspects of the parish, and the appropriate benefits of public worship etc—as these will logically continue with or without parish boundaries—we may consider the great benefits of social groups to be also applicable to the social group of the parish. Individuals who identify with a social group are more likely to engage with the work of that group—in this case the work of the parish—which in turn is more likely to impact on their own personal identity and sense of belonging within the social group—the church.
Formally we can understand “social identity … as that part of the individuals’ self- concept which derives from their knowledge of their membership of a social group together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1982: 2). As Christians we value this identity structure, especially as it is positively correlated with other social items such as belonging, behaviour change, self-value, etc. Indeed, as we can see with civil parishes, and other local social enterprises such as “Good-Karma” Facebook groups, this desire for social connection and engagement is also highly sought after and valued in our broader community.
However, it is this same desire for social engagement and identity which is perhaps also its greatest Achilles heel. For with strong identity structures, comes the challenge of what is technically termed as “positive distinctiveness.” That is the challenge for a social group to be sufficiently different from other competing social groups such that members feel attracted to and can identify with their specific social group over and above other groups. This is especially the case where those competing social groups are normatively and geographically close, and in these cases “positive distinctiveness” will often require exclusive claims about one’s own social group, and similarly denigrating claims regarding others nearby. For example, the members of the Parish of St Cuthbertstonwick may pride themselves on their liturgical style and support their own sense of belonging in that parish by referring the members of the Parish of St Aethelredstone as “Aethelredstoners” and generating negative appellations regarding their musical preferences.
This is further exacerbated in situations where near neighbours share the same normative belief and identity structures, as the demands of positive distinctiveness require sharper invective to create points of division. As Lewis Coser observed “A conflict is more passionate and more radical when it arises out of close relationships. The coexistence of union and opposition in such relations makes for the peculiar sharpness of the conflict. Enmity calls forth deeper and more violent reactions, the greater the involvement of the parties among whom it originates”
(1998, 71).
Is this a good argument then for the abolition of parish boundaries, to remove the competition for positive distinctiveness? While this may seem like a logical way of reducing these challenges and uniting the church around a single focus for distinctiveness, unfortunately it only leads to further competition. For as groups cease to have avenues for generating positive distinctiveness outside of the groups the natural place to derive distinctiveness is within the group. This is usually seen through internal perceptions that certain members are not sufficiently normative, or somehow abrogate what some members consider the “core” identity of the group, despite remaining within the group. Indeed, this can be clearly observed within the Good Karma Network phenomenon, as, a couple of years into the project, large numbers of these neighbourhood groups devolved into schismatic fractures over internal accusations of members not upholding the norms of the groups, and significant disagreement over what these norms are, and their relative importance. Similar examples are found in civil parishes— and especially their American counterpart, the Homeowner Association. Lest we think that the church is immune from such debates one need only look at the plethora of churches which have split over musical styles, modes of preaching, or a host of other disputed norms. Schisms and the exclusion of members as black sheep for not being normative enough are part and parcel of group existence.
So far this seems to be a fairly dismal view of parish life: conflict with or without boundaries. Are there any avenues out of this social quagmire? Perhaps somewhat ironically the same ecclesial inheritance that gave the Anglican church the parish structure has also provided a resource for addressing the impetus towards division for positive distinctiveness: episcopal structures. While evangelical Anglicanism tends toward a congregational—and parish— emphasis, the proven mechanism for defusing schism within groups is to direct social impetus towards finding social distinctiveness within larger groups, rather than the smaller immediate—local—group. Indeed, theologically, this is the purpose of the church universal.
How then can we leverage these oft-denigrated structures towards that bigger theological vision and social purpose? A significant part of this is the need for a distinctive vision for the larger structure to inhabit. What is the purpose of the episcopacy? What is a diocese for? But, as part of that vision for there to be positive distinctiveness of the whole, there must be a similar allowance of diversity within the subgroups which make up the superordinate, the parishes which constitute a diocese, the churches which contribute to the denomination—lest there be a devolution to solely finding distinctiveness in the local. Such that the Parishes of St Cuthbertstonwick and St Aethelredstone can engage in that same vision side by side. This vision setting and diversity of engagement can find a wide range of expressions and outcomes, and while it is well beyond the scope of this piece to provide a singular answer, we can find a series of biblical and historical examples for inspiration. Indeed, one example is given by Scott Goode’s examination of 1 Corinthians, where he finds Paul organising that nascent church around the framework of “Salvific Intentionality” that allows for both coherent missional imagination alongside diversity in the Corinthian community (review in this issue).
Ultimately the overriding question about the parish is not whether it stays or whether it goes, but rather what should we look to as a means to present an encompassing vision to unify the church around, with or without historical geographical and social boundaries?
Rev Dr Chris Porter is Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at Trinity College Theological School.