Ship of Fools: That's Entertainment?

Thread: That's Entertainment? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020090

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

What think ye, Shippies?

My wife recently returned to singing with a village church choir a few miles from here. She has cancer but the current chemo regime seems to be working and she is well enough to go to choir practice. In return, she helps out with services in high days and holidays and at weddings.

Since she has been away the congregation has halved in size. A previous incumbent, skilled in circus tricks had proven a big hit in the village school. The kids started coming to church. They brought their parents.

Soon, they had a thriving 'family service' going on alongside their more traditional services. Not my scene, but hey ...

Now, the circus stunt vicar has moved on. The current incumbent is a good bloke but not all-singing, all dancing. Numbers have dropped. The parishioners are dispirited.

Now, what are we to make of this?

Have things come to such a pretty pass that we need gimmicks and stunts to get people through the doors in the first place?

What happens if you are a vicar who is faithful in word and sacrament, who serves the community as best as you can but aren't given to jokes and japes?

This is an Anglican example. There will be others from other settings and traditions.

I have an issue with the current fixation in church being 'fun'. But at the same time, if we stick to doing stuff the traditional way then nobody turns up.

Sure, it en all about numbers ... But when you've had a sudden influx only to see it dissipate ...

(Duplicate thread deleted)

[ 21. February 2017, 22:16: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I hate to say it Gamaliel [Two face]

both.

My previous greatly missed village church did Messy Church and Men's Breakfast one Saturday a month. Messy Church is amazingly successful with regard to women and some men who would never come on a Sunday. Why should they?

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I am not a churchgoer, but permit me an observation. It reminds me of my late mother, a musician, who disliked electronic music and preferred natural instruments like a grand piano. I could never convince her that a piano was a sophisticated piece of technology with thousands of pounds of tension controlled by steel pins, complicated hammer movements and using special wood technology.

As an infrequent church visitor, I find it somewhat amusing to hear someone say they don't like providing entertaining services and prefer a traditional one. I may be stereotyping Anglican Churches, but I picture you saying this in a reverberant vaulted stone building with stained glass, an organ, choir, carvings, tapestry, bells.incense and pictures. It all looks to me like a lot of people put a lot of effort into making a space that enfolds the viewer in beauty. It may not be as attractive to the current generation that has lost the taste for two hour sermons, but I think you may be too used to it.

If your church meets in room of folding chairs in a gymnasium, disregard this observation. As I said, I don't get there very often.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I've done both, Palimpsest. I've worshipped in gyms, front rooms, hire halls, cinemas ... And also in the kind of traditional settings you describe.

My comments aren't about my own personal taste. That's changed over the years. Rather, I am making a more general point about sustainability and how churches 'maintain' people once whatever was the initial 'draw' is no longer there.

People are fickle. Perhaps we ought to accept that.

In the interests of balance, I know of a rather traditional Anglican parish which has lost a number of individuals and families because they don't like the new incumbent. Some of these people have attended church all their lives, yet they have made no attempt as far as I can tell, to find an alternative place of worship.

So, although the OP cites an example where a particular incumbent attached kids and families because of his particular gifts and skills, the point I'm trying to make is a broader one.

I'm not so interested in the style here, but the principle.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I'd say that church has always been about "entertainment" of some kind and the reason that Protestantism has split into so many strands is at least partly due to the perceived need to attract different groups of people.

In general, people who are "attracted" to particular types of church are fickle. And that applies to those who attend Cathedral for the beautiful choral music and those who go to see the funny clown vicar.

The real question, it seems to me, is to question whether the church is blindly chasing a fickle audience or whether that is part of a developing sense of authenticity - which involves more than just the leader who can change. But then knowing the difference is a difficult thing.

My general feeling is that others are less moved as we are by shopping for religious styles that whet our personal preferences. I was thinking about this when visiting a local mosque recently - I suppose one might prefer one style of preacher over another, but it sounds to me like the style is much the same wherever you go. One might find many similarities within particular "tribes" of Christianity (perhaps even more than within individual denominations) but given there is a lot more choice in style this might lead to more shopping.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I'm sorry, that made less sense than I'd hoped.

Anyway, I was also going to say that I recently attended a church which seemed to make few concessions to children and yet had quite a group of them. So "stickiness" isn't just about giving them what they want.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I suspect that the key in that church was the interaction with, and value given to, the children by its leaders.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Good thread.

Two Ideas for the pot.

Firstly as others have said; we have so lost the idea of what church is and what church is for that we are happy to make the vicar, the worship, the children, the fire eating (please God make this true) a valid reason to attend or not. My first questions these days is - Does this church have weekly prayer and bible study and is its weekly worship well done and honouring of God.

This is first order, you shall love the lord God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. To not do this first is a road to perdition. So many churches do not open except on Sunday morning and if the do it is for social activity. So many vicars are too busy for bible study and prayer.

Secondly and here I go a bit off-piste. I would be interested to know if anyone has made a liturgy that suits 5 years olds and people who have been coming to church for 40 years? My point is simple. The primary place where Christian education of children goes on is the home, not Sunday morning in church. Our responsibility is to help Mums and Dads to be disciples, so they may disciple their children.

I see vast quantities of time and energy go into youth work and all age worship to "try and get the kids" when in fact what the Mums and Dads are looking for is that we are deeply authentic in our discipleship.

They go to the pub for a drink, the darts club to play darts for the love of God (as He calls them, and He does) when they come to Church let them find people in love with God.

Fly Safe,

Pyx_e

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

To me, the biggest issue highlighted in the OP (and, similar examples we all know of) isn't the presence or otherwise of entertainment (or, particular forms of entertainment). The issue is the extent to which a single person can dominate a church to such an extent that the church (as it currently is) ceases when they move on.

To just run with the example in the OP. Clearly a gifted priest was able to communicate and attract children and their families. But, he didn't develop sustainable activities that didn't rely on him and could be carried on by others without his particular circus skills. Was that the biggest problem, that one man took on that ministry all on his own? Whether by his choice, or because no one else stood forward to help.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

I'm agreeing with a lot of the foregoing comments above. Sometimes it will be horses for courses, with people attending because they like a particular clergyperson, or a particular style of service. And when those disappear, those people disappear, too. That's human nature; and to a certain extent even the nature of church institutions.

And then there are those people who'll go to 'their' church come hell or high water.

I suppose the best a minister can do is be authentic - as someone said above - in worship, and obedient in responding to the calling to serve and lead. For some that might mean having a positive and numerically successful but potentially superficial response to worship; and for others a frustratingly, even embarrassingly, small but solid core of faithful attenders. Neither is wrong, as such. It's just how we are as people, and how we respond in our personalities to what is on offer. If authenticity and obedience is there, I believe the fruit will also be there somehow, despite appearances, however the ministry is enacted.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

Firstly as others have said; we have so lost the idea of what church is and what church is for that we are happy to make the vicar, the worship, the children, the fire eating (please God make this true) a valid reason to attend or not. My first questions these days is - Does this church have weekly prayer and bible study and is its weekly worship well done and honouring of God.

To state the obvious: are bible studies and bible studies and prayer meetings and prayer meetings.

Too often prayer meetings are little more than ways to spread gossip and bible studies avenues for bullying.

The fashion amongst some for constantly looking for more prayer and more bible study - as if the effort put in to praying somehow affects the outcome is quite tiring.

That said, I suspect what you're saying here isn't quite what many mean by prayer and bible study. Personally I'm increasingly feeling the urge to be more liturgical, to be somewhere that has regular liturgical services that I can attend at various times of the day. Which, I think, is a deeper urge than simply wanting to be entertained or to be in a sake space where I can shoot the shit with my friends (in a very polite Christian way, of course).

I could be wrong of course (about my own motives as much as anything else), but to me liturgical forms of prayer feel like being part of something bigger whereas toilet-position-prayer-meetings feel like opportunities for certain people to make the same dreary point over and over again.

quote:
This is first order, you shall love the lord God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. To not do this first is a road to perdition. So many churches do not open except on Sunday morning and if the do it is for social activity. So many vicars are too busy for bible study and prayer.

I don't really accept that there is a "first" vs "second" order commandment from our Lord. Certainly there were two, certainly the one followed the other - but I see them as entirely entwined. In loving our neighbour we are loving God, in growing in God we will increasingly love and cherish our neighbour. Prayer and church is not an end in itself.

quote:
Secondly and here I go a bit off-piste. I would be interested to know if anyone has made a liturgy that suits 5 years olds and people who have been coming to church for 40 years? My point is simple. The primary place where Christian education of children goes on is the home, not Sunday morning in church. Our responsibility is to help Mums and Dads to be disciples, so they may disciple their children.

Yes.. but mostly no. Church, and in particular the Anglican church, has a theology of membership by baptism. You might have heard of it.

Children are as much full members as anyone else. They shouldn't be pandered to, but equally they shouldn't be ignored on the basis that it is the job of parents not church to discipline children.

quote:
I see vast quantities of time and energy go into youth work and all age worship to "try and get the kids" when in fact what the Mums and Dads are looking for is that we are deeply authentic in our discipleship.

I think that's a false dichotomy. Dads in particular rarely see much value in sitting in church no matter how authentic we think we are being. Youth work matters because young people matter, and if the church doesn't do it then in many places nobody else is going to.

[ 22. February 2017, 08:53: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

The word I hate most in church contexts is 'relevant'.

Oh, we must make our worship relevant to people...

What do they mean? Relevant to whom? Because it seems to me that if you make your service relevant to Group A then automatically Group B is sidelined.

Becoming 'relevant' to get them in is treating the people of the community like consumers and all you are doing is adding your church to the long list of advertised groups, clubs and societies to which 'You are Invited' and 'There's a Warm Welcome for You in Our Church'.

I like whet the Pope Emeritus said when he visited the UK. A reported asked hi on the plane, 'How will you make the Church relevant?' His answer was that it was not his job to make the Church relevant, it was his job to make the Church accessible.

I like that.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Three comments.

1. The (in)famous "Homogeneous Unit Principle" favoured by Donald McGavran and the Church Growth Movement, and more recently taken up by Fresh Expressions, makes a virtue of focusing on specific cultures and evangelising within their parameters. That's fine - but it makes a nonsense of what the Church itself is supposed to be, and accedes to cultures rather than critiquing them.

2. Is there a difference between "Relevant" and "Intelligible"? Although I appreciate that peoples' musical and aesthetic tastes differ, and that folk do need to be led into an experience of the "numinous" or "other", is there any virtue in using language which no-one understands? Jesus didn't!

3. If we are keen on getting rid of the word "Relevant", we should also be keen on disposing of "Reverent" if it means starchy, churchy and stick-in-the-mud. Again, our Lord was not afraid of driving a coach-and-horses through the religious traditions of the day, and got heartily criticised for doing so!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Becoming 'relevant' to get them in is treating the people of the community like consumers and all you are doing is adding your church to the long list of advertised groups, clubs and societies to which 'You are Invited' and 'There's a Warm Welcome for You in Our Church'

But, like it or not, that is precisely how outsiders will regard us.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

People are fickle.

But it's about commitment imo. If you are committed to worshipping God you will find a Church which suits you and stick with it. If it doesn't suit you'll find another.

The people who come for other reasons don't have that commitment.

I know, because I'm one of them. I no longer find I can worship God and my hold on faith is very tenuous. So I go to Church because I love the people and it's good training for my Guide Dog puppy. But I find my attendance erratic and I very easily make excuses not to go. Once a month the service is at 9:30, which would mean me getting up and out with the dogs at 7am. So I don't go.

How to encourage commitment? Who knows, nothing has worked with me.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
People are fickle.

But it's about commitment imo. If you are committed to worshipping God you will find a Church which suits you and stick with it. If it doesn't suit you'll find another.

The people who come for other reasons don't have that commitment.

I know, because I'm one of them. I no longer find I can worship God and my hold on faith is very tenuous. So I go to Church because I love the people and it's good training for my Guide Dog puppy. But I find my attendance erratic and I very easily make excuses not to go. Once a month the service is at 9:30, which would mean me getting up and out with the dogs at 7am. So I don't go.

How to encourage commitment? Who knows, nothing has worked with me.

Me neither. Knowing it's really actually true, and not just a forlorn hope based on fear of death and oblivion, would probably help. But that sort of faith doesn't seem to be granted to everyone.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Apart from the entertainment angle (we are blessed with professional actors who do the drama bit with Sunday School so SS contributions are always amazing) it can also come down to a sense of purpose.

While regulars might make allowances for people who read badly, the vicar who thinks he is endearing when he loses his specs and bumbles over the notices, etc, chance visitors and those not committed to churchgoing through belief won't put up with it. Far too many churches think that being amateurish shows the genuineness of their belief, when all it shows is lack of preparation and a slapdash attitude.

Printed material must be well laid out, proof-read and easily understood.

Readers should be fluent and easily understood - that means more than making sure the PA system works.

Service sheets and booklets should be easy to follow and robust; they should also be replaced when they become dog-eared and tatty.

Music and drama items should be well-rehearsed and presented.

I'm not saying sticking to these will fill the pews to bursting, but they can cause people to not come again.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
A previous incumbent, skilled in circus tricks had proven a big hit in the village school. The kids started coming to church. They brought their parents.

[...]

Now, the circus stunt vicar has moved on. The current incumbent is a good bloke but not all-singing, all dancing. Numbers have dropped. The parishioners are dispirited.

Now, what are we to make of this?

I'm curious to know what's meant by 'circus tricks' and 'stunts'. What was this guy doing exactly that made his church so popular?

Putting that to one side, yes, I agree with lots that's already been said. It's dangerous for a church to become reliant on the particular gifts and skills of one leader who hasn't been willing or able to develop the gifts and skills of those around him.

It's a common problem, AFAIUI (although not in British Methodism, where the number of different preachers coming in means the temperature and style of worship in a church has to stay more or less the same regardless of who the minister is). Ideally there would be better communication in transition periods so that a new minister would learn from the outgoing one - and also learn from the congregation.

On the other point, I think there's always been fickleness in churchgoing, but what's interesting in the OP is that the people who left seem not to have been long-term churchgoers. Attendance hadn't become an ingrained habit. Were they in church out of religious devotion, as is expected of 'mature' Christians? Probably not. They were still 'guests' in the congregation, there to receive but not necessarily to give.

TBH, attending church out of duty alone is surely quite rare now. People expect to get something out of it, or else they won't go. Regulars who know what the deal is may accept that the benefits are mostly theological, but the average person won't see it that way.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

Let's face it, fickleness has increased everywhere.

The idea that people will attend something that is varying levels of unappealing because it's 'good for them' is somewhat unrealistic.

On the flip side, I've known people to burn out because they tie themselves to some institution that is dying because it's largely inimical to change so these things work both ways.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Gam:

quote:

What happens if you are a vicar who is faithful in word and sacrament, who serves the community as best as you can but aren't given to jokes and japes?

Perhaps the ultimate aim might be to teach a congregation to faithful in word and sacrament rather than chasing the entertainment and the cult of personality. Seems to me the church has very significantly lost its way in recent years and forgotten what it even is.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think there's always been fickleness in churchgoing, but what's interesting in the OP is that the people who left seem not to have been long-term churchgoers. Attendance hadn't become an ingrained habit. Were they in church out of religious devotion, as is expected of 'mature' Christians? Probably not. They were still 'guests' in the congregation, there to receive but not necessarily to give.

This isn't new. When I was a student in the 1970s I used to attend a church where the minister was a Great Preacher and Bible Teacher (as he was, and also a genuinely humble and spiritual man).

But, on the Sundays when he was "off", attendance dropped by 50%. That suggests that many folk held an inadequate ecclesiology.

I wonder how many folk went to the Metropolitan Tabernacle when Spurgeon was on his holidays?

[ 22. February 2017, 11:35: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

fletcher christian

But do most Anglican clergy really believe this particular message themselves? And are congregations liable to accept it if it were to be taught?

The significance of entertainment and personality in (some) churches could be partly due to the fact that there's so much ambivalence surrounding the theology of 'the word and sacrament'. The newer denominations (which includes Nonconformity to a degree) are often less sacramental in any case.

[ 22. February 2017, 11:39: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
When I was a student in the 1970s I used to attend a church where the minister was a Great Preacher and Bible Teacher (as he was, and also a genuinely humble and spiritual man).

But, on the Sundays when he was "off", attendance dropped by 50%. That suggests that many folk held an inadequate ecclesiology.

I wonder how many folk went to the Metropolitan Tabernacle when Spurgeon was on his holidays?

If preaching is emphasised as it is (or used to be) in many Protestant churches then this problem is inevitable.

By contrast, in the RCC priests are apparently supposed to be interchangeable, and sermons not a big deal; it's communion that matters. Indeed, I've heard that some RCs will go to church for communion and then leave.

I can see how the RC way keeps things on a more even keel. Expectations of worship in general are presumably low, because what really matters is participating in a certain ritual that's exactly the same every time. I don't know how this could be replicated in Protestantism, not least because the authority of the minister is lower. Evangelicals may have personality cults, but for the RCC the priest is Christ's representative on earth; he is supposedly powerful regardless of his 'personality'!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes; but I have heard (on hearsay) that people go to particular churches because they "like Fr. X's Mass".

Is there an RC shipmate who can comment?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I've read that in Chigago Father Pfleger (a friend of the infamous Pastor Jeremiah Wright) was incredibly unorthodox, but so popular that his superiors decided not to remove him for fear of sending attendance rates at his church through the floor.

Perhaps this is an example of the 'Protestantisation' of the RCC?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, it's a conundrum ...

Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful contributions folks. There's been a lot that's been posted that I agree with and a lot that's made me think ...

For the record, yes, I think Baptist Trainfan is right with his analysis of the way the kids were engaged with - they were taken seriously. So it wasn't simply a matter of party-games and circus tricks.

I hope people weren't getting the impression that I was critical of the circus-vicar in that respect - he had some impressive presentation skills honed during his years as a street-entertainer. He'd actually worked professionally in that capacity and was well trained and well-versed in conjuring tricks and so on.

So it made absolute and perfect sense for him to use those to engage with the kids at the village school. Equally, his wife - also a cleric - had a good way with her when she did some of the more traditional stuff - Candlemass and Evensong etc. She was based elsewhere but would help out and they made a good team.

I wouldn't say the new incumbent is doing anything 'wrong' - he's a lovely and genuine guy. He does the traditional stuff very well but he does ramble on a bit in sermons. He's tried very hard with the families and kids but he doesn't have the skills and personality / gifting that his predecessor had when dealing with that particular constituency.

Which begs all sorts of questions in my mind.

What are people going to church 'for'?

For the circus tricks?

For the style and presentation?

Of course, there'll be a range of reasons - social reasons, habit, conviction and commitment - and so on and so forth - and no two people will be the same.

I 'get' what SvitlanaV2 is saying about the RC model - it can almost become a 'filling station' one - people come in, take communion - top up on Mass - and off they go ...

There can be some strengths in that, but also associated weaknesses of course. One of the things I've noticed with RCs is how many of them are involved with extra-curricular community and charitable causes, as it were. It's as if because there is less scope for them to 'do' stuff in church, they express their faith by involvement in the wider world and community ...

Great, bring it on ...

Whereas on the other hand some of the very close-knit congregational style churches can have such a full programme of events and require such hands-on involvement to make everything run smoothly and keep the show on the road that people have virtually no time at all for anything else ...

I find myself increasingly like mr cheesy. I'd much prefer a dip-in, dip-out approach these days ... with my participation in small-group activities reserved for Lent and similar times rather than being an all year round thing. I've spread myself fairly thinly as it is - town council, voluntary arts activities, freelance work ...

And yet - and yet ...

I was intrigued by Fletcher Christian's comment about the Church forgetting what it's about - Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist/lay theologian talks about 'Gospel Amnesia' in some of his writings.

If the Church (universal) or particular local churches aren't about the Gospel then they aren't about anything.

I agree with Mudfrog. It doesn't matter how 'relevant' we aim to be then there's always someone for whom we are going to be 'irrelevant'.

I used to be part of a Baptist church plant that was lovely and wonderful in all manner of ways, but it thought of itself as being 'relevant' - to which my question was always, 'Relevant to whom? People like you? How about the old lady in her 80s or people from different cultures?' It was predominantly a Guardian-reading 20s and 30s something congregation with a smattering of older people and families.

It was very good in lots of ways but the turnover was pretty rapid because of the demographic - people coming and going and moving away with jobs etc.

Where is the 'constant' in all of this, I wonder? Is it even feasible to think in those terms?

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Humans tend to be afraid of change.

So the newbies have got to church, like the way it's done and all that.
Then the way it's done and the person doing the stuff changes.

Newbies don't like the change....and stop going.

Is that an oversimplification?

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
By contrast, in the RCC priests are apparently supposed to be interchangeable, and sermons not a big deal; it's communion that matters. Indeed, I've heard that some RCs will go to church for communion and then leave.

Well, some DO, but they are not supposed to. Just like some RCs only show up for Christmas and Easter. They do that, but that is not the expectation. The liturgy is important in RC mass too and I have a vivid memory of one priest who actually called out some people who were leaving before the end of services. (It had been happening for some time and he finally got tired of it and called "Excuse me, but the service is not yet over!")

The diocese assigns priests to churches and periodically moves them around, which I suppose creates the impression that they are interchangeable, but I can tell you that even in RC churches the change of pastor can have an effect on attendance. Our last pastor rubbed a lot of people the wrong way and they left to go to a nearby parish. (Ironically, after the most recent round of Pastor Shuffle, the two parishes now share a pastor!)

My parish also has a school connected with it. Traditionally, there would be "school" masses periodically throughout the school year. This allowed the priest to hone the sermon more for children than the normal weekly sermon, and it helped to teach young children how to behave in church. Our last pastor, however, stopped doing that, although I believe our new pastor has re-started the tradition.

So, even in RC parishes, the individual in charge of services can greatly affect attendance. And, sadly, it is a LOT easier to lose people than to gain them. Possibly, though, for us long-time RCs, we are so used to the Pastor Shuffle that we can be a little more tolerant--if we don't like somebody, we know we just have to be patient for a couple years and he will be gone.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e
I would be interested to know if anyone has made a liturgy that suits 5 years olds and people who have been coming to church for 40 years?

For very young children, the important thing is not the liturgy, which they can't understand, but simply what is going on.

There was a couple at my church who brought their two-year-old with them to early Communion every Sunday. He was delighted to watch the procession of carrying the gospel to the congregation to be read. The look on his face was wonderful to see.

Many people in the congregation would speak to him after the service. He knew that these people liked him.

When he was four he announced that he wanted to be a priest when he grew up. He moved away a few years later, but I would not be surprised if he did become a priest some day.

Moo

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

I read the OP and - only metaphorically of course [Smile]

- jumped up and down waving my arms and calling through sound-proof glass, 'The greatest problem is a lack of any God behind all the structures and faith beliefs.But then I read through all the other, as always, interesting, thoughtful and measured posts and knew that was daft and I can of course see the different points of view. I am with Boogie and Karl: Liberal Backslider in what they say.

People are aware that all entertainers have to work and train to be good at what they do. The vast amount of factual knowledge we have and the means of communicating it mean that people are accustomed to be shown the facts about how things are and how they work, how the environment and space is, how things can be made to work better by people working to develop and demonstrate the technological, environmentally friendly and practical solutions. They know that it is modern medicine which cures, not prayer (they also realise that mistakes are made because medical people are human like everyone else) . however much they might exclaim, Thank God!' when someone gets better. They see how religious groups provide money, help and time to work tirelessly for others, but perhaps there is a greaterrealisation that this is done because they are fellow human beings. Altruism is innate isn't it.

(But I'm afraid I do not know what the answer is to the OP)

[ 22. February 2017, 14:05: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I used to be part of a Baptist church plant that was lovely and wonderful in all manner of ways, but it thought of itself as being 'relevant' - to which my question was always, 'Relevant to whom? People like you? How about the old lady in her 80s or people from different cultures?' It was predominantly a Guardian-reading 20s and 30s something congregation with a smattering of older people and families.

It was very good in lots of ways but the turnover was pretty rapid because of the demographic - people coming and going and moving away with jobs etc.

Where is the 'constant' in all of this, I wonder? Is it even feasible to think in those terms?

The dream is to create churches where everyone can feel at home, but it could be argued that such churches have never existed to any degree. They certainly don't exist in Britain now, as a norm. If church planters realise this then they can plan for it.

The 'constant', however, is money. There are lovely old churches which will always be open for anyone who wants to drop in now and again for a traditional service, because they belong to (probably Anglican) denominations which have the money to maintain some churches for this purpose.

This isn't a sustainable approach for most denominations. The Baptists would probably do better to develop a model of flexible niche congregations that can teleport themselves in and out of communities according to need and demographics, etc. (Remember that inflexibility cost many denominations dear, because they couldn't organise quickly enough to follow their traditional constituencies from the cities to the new housing estates.)

As for the church mentioned in the OP, it's still open. It doesn't need a large congregation to do what it does well. The vicar is surely grateful for the congregation that he does have - and maybe he still has a good relationship with people who no longer attend. I'm sure they know they can pop in at any time.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The church cannot compete on worldly grounds. There's always going to be better singers, trendier music, better entertainment, more cogent speakers, better therapy, somewhere else. As long as a church is trying to do those things, even if it's briefly successful, it cannot last.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

Turning up for Mass is a bit like coming to the table for a family dinner. Sometimes the food is fantastic - and of course no-one cooks like your mum. Some days, inevitably, it's going to be baked cod, mash and cabbage. Or overdone pork chops.

Sometimes the conversation is interesting and entertaining. Sometimes we're largely silent together. But you come to the table at dinner time because you're part of the family and you need to eat.

So I suppose that's what I'm looking for from church: a sense of being part of the family, and fuel for the journey - but it needn't be haute cuisine.

And, as a parent, what Pyx_e said about parents and children.

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

My Episcopal church consists of a rather small group of old-timers and a few families with young children.

There is Bible study, which I was excited about until I went to a few. It's basically reading the Bible aloud, with the rector chiming in with commentary from the Interpreter's Bible. I was hoping for something a bit more, I dunno, meaty or intellectual or something, or at least how we could relate the reading to our lives or what is going on in the world today. So I stopped going.

There is also a midweek Holy Communion service in the morning (it's brief). I went a few times. There is a cadre of very sweet older women who attend this service, and they talk *incessantly*. I couldn't deal with it.

There was a daylong women's retreat a few months ago. I went. The entire thing was a religious-themed craft-making enterprise. I asked about this, politely, to one of the participants and she said, "yes, these retreats are all centered around crafts because the deacon really loves crafts." Well, I don't. I have no interest in crafts. So I won't be going to any other retreats.

This all sounds dire, and I don't mean it to be. I genuinely like the rector and the deacon. People have all been very nice to me. The building is lovely, and it is easy walking/biking distance (very important to me). But like Boogie, my attendance is spotty. In honesty, I think my attendance would be spotty at almost any church. That certainly has been true up to now. I may be a rather poor fit at this church in some ways, but I know that I'm not going to go across town to someplace else. While my attendance is spotty, I always keep up with my pledge donations.

I do know that there is no perfect church. As imperfect as I probably have made this one sound, I do feel God's presence during the service and I see a lot of kindness there. That keeps me going, spottily though it may be.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The church cannot compete on worldly grounds. There's always going to be better singers, trendier music, better entertainment, more cogent speakers, better therapy, somewhere else. As long as a church is trying to do those things, even if it's briefly successful, it cannot last.

I agree that secular sources are likely to provide these things more successfully. But the problem with trying to emphasise the purely spiritual aspects of church life over the 'worldly' ones is that the former provide ample opportunity for disagreement and discord. We live in pluralistic, individualistic times. Churches can maintain their beautiful and theologically orthodox liturgies, but the people they want to attract will persist in believing a variety of things. It's easier for churches to emphasise social aspects rather than spiritual ones.

Some commentators say that community is more important than theology when it comes to creating vibrant, growing churches. But how do you create community without having a strong shared theology? And can strong church communities occur if members don't want to devote enormous amounts of time to church life?

Many of the folk who post here no longer want to do that with their lives, and are a little suspicious of those who do; but then they bemoan the decline of strong, sizeable congregations. I don't know if there's a solution. But the reality is that few people today will sit in a church pew week after week out of duty.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hilda of Whitby:
There was a daylong women's retreat a few months ago. I went. The entire thing was a religious-themed craft-making enterprise. I asked about this, politely, to one of the participants and she said, "yes, these retreats are all centered around crafts because the deacon really loves crafts." Well, I don't. I have no interest in crafts. So I won't be going to any other retreats.

I have had a similar experience here - and the retreat was supposedly for everyone.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, that is a conundrum SvitlanaV2. I'm not sure what the answer is, probably because there isn't one.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

No general solution, no.

I think the Methodist Church is beginning to focus on congregations that benefit from certain advantages, and ensuring that they have the funds to renovate buildings and to the manpower to do more outreach work. In the meantime, the closure very many non-favoured churches elsewhere will no doubt continue.

You've probably read the recent CofE survey on what makes churches grow. It notes that there's no single recipe that's successful in every setting, but a church must plan for growth. As I've said above, it seems that once the exciting minister in the OP left there was no reflection on his legacy and on how that would be taken forward. That seems like a basic mistake to make these days.

Is better training needed for the clergy? Other studies show that it's important to identify and develop the clergy as leaders and not just as committed pastoral workers and providers of the sacraments, etc. This development and support should be essential for clergy sent to areas where the potential for growth has been identified.

Lay involvement often keeps members committed, so to what extent are the members of a growing church being kept involved? One advantage of a growing church is surely that there are more hands to do the work, meaning old timers can take a rest! A church shouldn't have to rely on the same weary souls to run things and make up numbers decade after decade.

But even if potential is identified and harnessed in some churches (and we should hurry up with that) large numbers of congregations elsewhere will still be permitted to manage decline. Church leaders should address this honestly.

[ 24. February 2017, 19:39: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

It is also very important to match the pastor to the congregation. An ardent sports fan with little interest in academics would not do well at a church in a college town. In the same way, a scholarly pastor would not fit in well with a church where very few people are interested in academics.

Moo

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

That's very true.

AIUI both CofE and (British) Methodist congregations are able to inform the relevant church authorities of the kind of person they'd like as their minister. Their requirements will be taken into account.

However, I think that in both denominations there's a serious and worsening undersupply of clergy, so to a certain extent you have to take what's available. The clergy can also make their own preferences known, and some areas are always going to be more attractive to them than others.

Research and anecdotal evidence also suggest that the kinds of people who are encouraged and drawn into the ministry don't adequately represent the breadth of social or personality 'types' to be found in congregations, or in society at large. In an age of straightforward deference to authority figures this wouldn't matter, but in modern British society it's a problem.

The kinds of people who can lead by inspiring others, create unity around a strong vision, and also connect with outsiders, are obviously rare in any walk of life, but especially so in our mainstream churches. There are various reasons for this. British Methodism, for example, seeks to avoid the whiff of personality cults, and deliberately tries to prevent any individual from developing too much influence. This has its pros and cons.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Almost ten years ago my church had to call a new rector. The diocese sent people to advise us, and emphasized the importance of making sure that there was a good fit.

The final decision was made by the vestry of the parish, but the diocese had veto power.

The rector has now been here ten years, and almost everyone is convinced we have the right rector for our parish. He is equally satisfied.

Given the limits of human nature, the situation is about as good as it can get.

Moo

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Your churches in the USA are probably blessed with greater numbers of available clergy.

In Britain a minister in the denominations I mentioned will usually have several churches in his or her care. This is a serious issue IMO. Studies apparently show that it's far harder for a congregation to grow and flourish if its minister has 3, 4, 5, 6 or more churches to look after. At the very least, a great choice of minister for one of those congregations might not be so great for the others who have to share. But the shortage of clergy means this situation is inevitable.

The congregationalist model is obviously riskier in many ways (e.g. you can get theological wackiness, splits, personality cults, financial vulnerability, etc.), but it seems to offer much greater potential for a committed minister with energy and vision - and for a church members - than the alternatives. Indeed, it's been argued that in the CofE, a flourishing church ministry frequently exists somewhat in defiance of the parish model.

And although it's a sign of unity that CofE clergy are expected to be flexible, willing to work with congregations of a different churchmanship from their own (e.g. evangelical clergy in more liberal-catholic congregations), I suspect that such pairings can potentially hinder growth and the development of a shared vision. Not sure if there's been much British research on this, although there's some North American commentary on the net.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0