In 1972 the URC came into being and two denominational traditions collided. There are problems today that are caused not by the positions regarding wider traditions, these were both traditions dominated by the Reformed Tradition, but by the fact that the two traditions did not bother to find out how the other tradition worked, the Presbyterian assumed that with these sort of half toned Congregationalists they would find it easy to dominate, the Congregationalists assumed that they would continue doing things as they always did with a few adjustments for Presbyterians as they had done before. The Presbyterians assumed there was a meeting two dissenting traditions of which theirs was superior because it was articulated. The Congregationalists just assumed the way they did things was the way it was to be done noy because it was Congregational but because that was how it was.
The mistake was made in thinking that within English Congretationalism there was a named tradition that in some way is comparable to the Presbyterian tradition of the Presbyterian Church of England. This Presbyterian tradition is that of a clear dissenting tradition that stands against the mainstream. It says “We do this BECAUSE we are PRESBYTERIAN”. It is clear and defined. English Congregationalism on the whole found no need for such a tradition. Indeed may have found problems with having it. Rather with respect to tradition it relates as a dominant discourse, the tradition has no name (or rarely is named) but is referenced by how “We do it”.
I suspect that this has several roots. Firstly the obvious one, the tradition is not a single strand but a loosely woven rope of many strands that are not always compatible. It is true that the Reformed strand is the core one but there are plenty of other bits. It has to be seen as an grouping that specialises in bringing the disparate together. What is more with the Independent part, for most congregations “the tradition” is primarily the tradition of that congregation and only secondarily draws on the wider experience of other congregations and the wider church. When you talk about the wider context few members have any interest. Thus there is a need to have a way of talking and holding things together without setting people’s backs up. Names tend to carry baggage with them, so it is convenient if their is no name for anyone to object to.
Secondly in England there was an indicator name change I suspect at the end of the nineteenth Century. Before that all Congregational churches tended to be called Independent and Congregational used only after then. Traditions are conservative by nature, I suspect that there is a strong streek of people who still think of themselves as going to the Independent Chapel despite this. To add to this the change seems to coincide with the NonConformist Ascendancy in Late Victorian times. There were places in England where Congregationalism was the dominant tradition, so naturally it took the dominant form.
The result is that former English Congregationalists are not concious of their Congregational heritage but they are secure in it, assuming it is the way things ought to be done by any rational person. They have not had a name and feel no need for a name. For them the question was how the Presbyterians will alter the way we do things. It is a tradition based around absorbing not fracturing.
The former Presbyterians, as do former Congregational Church of Scotland, (I have not idea what former Churches of Christ do) find that what happens is that instead of their nice named dissenting tradition, they are faced with a nameless mesh of ideas that somehow resists their attempts to say what it should be like. What is worse it uses the first person plural “We” of itself so your choice is to join it or dissent from belonging. This is not tradition as they know it, yet it assumes the dominant position.
This post makes me somewhat uneasy because it seems (to me) to assume that a clearly worked out and consistent tradition should be our common identity and that this tradition should be Reformed. I’m not at all clear that either assumption is valid.
I’m not sure, firstly, that the Old English Dissent was ever straightforwardly Reformed. For me the term “Reformed” has a quite clear application to those theological currents derived from the magisterial reform of the cities of Switzerland and the western parts of the Holy Roman Empire and especially Geneva (the other leading cities being Basel and Strasbourg).
The Genevan (Calvinist) strand of this broader tradition came to dominate the Netherlands and Scotland with significant Reformed presence in France (as dissenters), in England (within the established church), and in Poland (about which I know less).
The Reformed tradition as a whole stands very firmly in the Catholic tradition of assuming that the whole of society is and should be linked to the Church, hence its acceptance of infant baptism and the assumption in all its classical confessions before the middle of the seventeenth century that the magistrate and the church will work together.
Alongside this from the beginning was a dissenting tradition that rejected both Christendom and consequently infant baptism. This radical reformation wanted to stand clear of the state and see the Church as something people joined voluntarily as a coming out of the fallen societies they inhabited.
I see this anabaptist tradition as a significant influence on English Independency from the very beginning meaning that English Congregationalism (unlike Scottish Congregationalism) is not a dissident movement within the Reformed tradition but rather something distinct, partaking of something of the radical reformation (like the English Baptists, some of whom were always semi-Reformed).
AT no point does this post address the nature of the tradition, it solely addresses whether the tradition is named. The thing is that Presbyterian Church of England and it would appear from your post calls the tradition by name. “As Presbyterians we …”, “As Congregationalist we …”. English Congregationalism doesn’t. When the tradition was clearly referred to it is “We do …. “.
Names are interesting, they give the appearance of cohesion where there isn’t such but they also bring baggage with them because other people use them! The other thing is dissident groupings tend to name their tradition, dominant ones don’t. Roman Catholicism does not really recognise a tradition called “Roman Catholicism” that is a modern convenience. The tradition as far as they are concerned is that of the Church. You can end up with situations where Anglicans assume that the way they do it is the way, they do not see that as Anglican.
I would argue that the origin of the “We” approach amongst Congregationalist has dual routes, firstly in the primacy of the local, the “we” primarily refers to the local congregation and only by extension to the denomination so it seems wrong to use the formal denomination name for it. Also by using “we” it carries a sense of belonging without carrying too much specific baggage. It is hard to object to “we”. Secondly that there actually was a name change sometimes in the late nineteenth Century, early twentieth century, from Independent to Congregational. Not only therefore is “Congregational” relatively new but its introduction coincided with the Non-Conformist Ascendancy when Congregational Churches often were fairly dominant in their local community. In such circumstance the use of “we” would seem natural.
I am going to have to write this in full be ready for a rough ride, history is different from what our tradition believes.
You have heard the statement that about being the “First Cross tradition merger in Britain”, yes? Its crap, in 1690 the Presbyterians and Congregationalist signed the “Heads of Agreement”. The London one fell apart in about ten years but similar ones elsewhere in the country lasted to the mid seventeenth century. Some included Baptists, I found a case in Chesterfield where all three met in a single church. This may have been the origin of Union Chapels which existed up to 1972.
However when they fell apart it was not split on the lines that they joined, basically the more liberal adopted Presbyterian stance and the more conservative Congregational. This is important because of what came next.
Which was the Unitarian debacle. Most Presbyterian churches went Unitarian, outside Newcastle Synod there were about half a dozen remaining Presbyterian Churches in England who weren’t plants from Scotland by time of the Formation of Presbyterian Church of England.
The people who left the Presbyterian Congregations mainly became Congregationalists. Some I suspect became Baptists. Therefore there is no Reformed/non-Reformed break within English Dissent, the break is on the question of infant Baptism.
OK Newcastle Synod, is interesting because it also coloured the Presbyterian Church of England. I mentioned this did not disappear during the Unitarian Debacle. It did not because it had a continuous stream of dissident Scots Presbyterians crossing the border to get out of persecution in Scotland. To this day Northern Synod is a relatively conservative part of the URC. It is also true that many of our Presbyterian Churches have a conservative Presbyterian streak.
In other words the carriers of English Presbyterianism into the union were not the Presbyterian Church of England but the Congregational Church of England and Wales. It is Congregationalists who brought the direct link to the Presbyterianism of Richard Baxter as well as the Independency of John Owen and further out groups.