Thread: What will happen to the church when the congregations all retire? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023163
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I wrote a few months ago about some of the problems of an aging congregation, but I think there is another issue too with the reality that church congregations are getting older.

Now I accept that some individual churches do not have these problems, but overall, this is the picture that we see - the congregations are aging, because the churches are not drawing in more people of the younger age ranges.

Now the church has sort of coped, because - generally - salaries increase as people age, so the income has not been as impacted as it might be. However, this usually comes to a break as people retire. And in 10 years or so, many women ( who make up a significant proportion of the congregations ) will be retiring. And even those who have partners who are still earning, they are liable to retire at a similar time.

So what will happen to the churches, which take an astounding amount of money to support, when the income flow of its supporters drops off - something that is liable to be a fairly sudden ( 5 years ) event, not a gradual (20 years) slow down. Will their be bankruptcies? What happens when a diocese ( or area, or whatever ) cannot pay its way?

[ 16. June 2012, 11:25: Message edited by: Schroedinger's cat ]
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Depends on the pension avaiable to the retirees.

If the church is valuable to them, the donations probably won't drop that much... until the donors die or move to "Waiting for God" spaces.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
Most elderly don't drop off church giving that much after they retire as far as I've noticed. Even my mother who is perhaps the most frugal woman I know gives as much to her church now as when there was a lot more money coming in.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Will their be bankruptcies? What happens when a diocese ( or area, or whatever ) cannot pay its way?
Well, the C of E is already well into deficit in London. The strategies currently is use seem to be: a) try to persuade people to give a higher proportion of their income to the church; b) close churches; c) not replacing clergy when they leave a post.

As you say, none of these is going to work in the long run. The collapse of private pensions and the cuts in public service pensions will eventually scupper a), and options b) and c) can't continue indefinitely without the church disappearing.

I don't know about bankruptcies. That's an interesting question which I think must depend on the legal status of the church in question. The C of E as the established church is probably legally distinct from churches of other denominations.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I guess the church will have to sell off some of its land and silver (typically they will leave it all until the last minute, then try to sell it all at once, when it won't be worth so much) and rely solely on NSM priests.

I'd be reluctant to see the buildings go as they are a focal point in communities, but perhaps a deal could be struck by which the best ones are preserved as museums of art with occasional services rather than as full-time churches.

Perhaps, just as people realise what they have lost, there will be a resurgence of fund-raising (rather like has happened with the National Trust). Hopefully this won't happen when it is too late to save most old churches.

But, if the worst comes to the worst, many ruins are still valued, much visited, and - occasionally - still hold services.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Ok, traditionally giving has not always diminished on retirement, but I suspect that in the next 10 years or so, it will start to - pensions will be squeezed more and more, and, just to add to it, early retirement may be seen as a good cost-reduction measure.

What is more, people will also die and then stop giving. So the decline may be more drawn out than i have indicated, but a) that just means that churches will "mend and make do" for a whole lot longer, and b) I wanted to highlight the possibility that in some places, there will be a significant drop in income.

I think the core points are still valid. If you want, consider what would happen if the churches had a 10% decline in income every year from now on. How would they cope?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
The most generous givers in churches actually tend to be widows on a fixed income. I've seen the numbers at more than one church of more than one denomination. This is in accordance with studies that show the poor being more generous than the wealthy.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The most generous givers in churches actually tend to be widows on a fixed income.
Yes. And elderly women who never married. Once when I was in a position to see the money coming in to a parish it was clear that the largest givers were older, working-class women.

quote:
This is in accordance with studies that show the poor being more generous than the wealthy.
And with Jesus's own parable about the widow's mite!
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
I suppose the National Trust could make a bid for some of the churches, and they could still be used for weddings and funerals and more casual church occasions and carol services.

A clerical aquaintence once remarked that he wished it would actually go like that as soon as possible, as the people who attended baptisms, weddings and funerals who were technically non-church, were much nicer and didn't tend to interfere.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Schroedinger's cat is semi-right. Those going on pension will not by much diminish their giving and I think it might well increase, as well as the availability of their time in volunteer work of all sort in the parish ('lay ministries', if you prefer that terminology).

The difficulty will be when they start expiring-- their replacements in the demographic pipeline are not there, nor have they developed habits of church affiliation or attendance. While a few will turn in that direction, especially those who retire into an area and want to establish roots (or even happy to move into a parish where they have not been tied up with, or repelled by, differences and conflict), the numbers will not be that great.

At some point, either the place will close (the preferred option of ecclesiastical managers, so that untidy files can be closed and funds redirected for their preferred activities -aka 'mission'), or amalgamate with other churches to form a multi-point charge, or go with non-stipiendary clergy, or a mix of the latter two with NSM massing priests and the pros dealing with coordination and the more complex situations.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Once when I was in a position to see the money coming in to a parish it was clear that the largest givers were older, working-class women.
As the most generous parishes tend to be the working-class ones (and I have to say, Evangelical).

This is a very pessimistic thread. It's a discussion that comes round in every generation: 'congregations are getting older, they will soon die off, and then the churches will close' But it's not universally true that new people aren't joining the church in sufficient numbers. Some parishes are shadows of their former selves, but many are in good heart and attracting new people... either much younger ones, or the slightly younger-than-retiring-age group as they reconsider their priorities in life.

Most of the churches I remember from 40 years ago were full of over-60s, who will all be dead now. Few of those churches are, because new people have taken their place.

[ 16. June 2012, 16:29: Message edited by: Angloid ]
 
Posted by Captain Chrism (# 11393) on :
 
Why does it all have to be bad news?
The post-war [WWII] demographic within the congregation means that many of our church members are now retiring and are available for ministry. Daytime activities, which we were unable to staff previously, are now flourishing.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I'd be reluctant to see the buildings go as they are a focal point in communities, but perhaps a deal could be struck by which the best ones are preserved as museums of art with occasional services rather than as full-time churches.
As long as the faithful are not expected to maintain them. There's something peculiar depressing about, two things. The first is a poster of a spire shaped thermometer. The second is the people of God serving a building rather than the building serving the people of God.

It would be a terrible failure on our part if we were the last generation of Christians. How would we excuse ourselves on the Last Day?

So rather than bemoan the lack of younger Christians to whom to pass on the baton, we need both to win them over and to pray them in.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Seems to me a fundamental question is what is the ecclesia, the church. Fundamentally, it is where two or three are gathered together in Jesus name. It is not some Hierarchical body as much as a group of people who proclaim the gospel and administer the sacraments.

I think if you look back through the history of the church there is a bit of an ebb and flow going on. At one time Europe was on fire for the Lord, sending out missionaries throughout the world. Recently it has been the United States which had caught the missionary zeal. Now it is Africa and Asia where the church is growing the most. Think of it, Africans sending missionaries to Europe and the Americas.

Christianity is not a dying religion. It is alive and well in many parts of the world.

I have no fear of the church disappearing. Two or three people gathering together in the name of the Lord will continue to happen well into the future.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Africans coming back as missionaries to the UK is not new. This dates from 2007 and is talking about Patrick and Helen Mukholi who came over from Mombasa Diocese in East Africa to work as missionaries on the Blackbird Leys Estate near Oxford in England. I know about them because I attended a talk given by them. I'm sure there are more
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Schroedinger's cat is semi-right. Those going on pension will not by much diminish their giving and I think it might well increase, as well as the availability of their time in volunteer work of all sort in the parish ('lay ministries', if you prefer that terminology).
Previous generations didn't curtail their giving when they retired, but I think baby boomers will, especially the ones who lost retirement savings in the recession. I can't see the "me generation" increasing their charitable giving when they go on fixed incomes. But we'll know for sure in a few years, at least in the US, as people born in 1946 hit full retirement age this year.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

Most of the churches I remember from 40 years ago were full of over-60s, who will all be dead now. Few of those churches are, because new people have taken their place.
When I first turned up at our church, now well over 20 years ago, on Sunday mornings the left-hand-side of the front of the church was dominated by a very large group contingent of old women. Maybe twenty or more. Two or three of them even brought their husbands with them.

Now only one of them is attending regularly, and another one or two occasionally. A couple of them are too ill to come, others have moved away to retire to the country (or the Caribbean), others have died (as have the husbands as far as I know). One of the husbands has a room in the church named after him, a couple of the old women have their names on a park bench, one of them has a framed picture on the wall of the vestry (is it a sin to ask blessed Doris to pray for us? A presumption that she is in a position to do so? Is that how cults start?)

But there are other old women who have turned up, and some of the younger women have got old enough to count as old. And as there are a lot more younger women than there were the supply of old women looks as if it hasn't dried up. Still not many old men. If I hang on another ten or fifteen years maybe I'll count as one.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Africans coming back as missionaries to the UK is not new. This dates from 2007 and is talking about Patrick and Helen Mukholi who came over from Mombasa Diocese in East Africa to work as missionaries on the Blackbird Leys Estate near Oxford in England. I know about them because I attended a talk given by them. I'm sure there are more
Yes right back to the 1950 or 1960s I think at St James URC Sheffield a deaconess from somewhere in the Carribean. Sorry not to be more precise, this is based on a paper article read several years ago in Reform (the URC magazine) and the recollection of people belonging to other Presbyterian churches nearby.

Jengie
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Still not many old men. If I hang on another ten or fifteen years maybe I'll count as one.
[Snigger] What's the life expectancy in your corner of Southwark diocese, Ken?
 
Posted by Ship's Stowaway (# 16237) on :
 
Church attendance runs in long historical cycles, down in some eras, up in others. I am an American, but the TEC is struggling with parallel problems to those of the CofE.

However, the CofE has actually been in much worse shape in other eras. See this 1933 article on how the 1830s English Oxford Movement (Anglo-Catholics) partially arose to remedy things like this:

"The Bishop of London recorded that in 1800 there were only six communicants in St. Paul's Cathedral on Easter Day."

[Eek!]

Other juicy details from the so-called Age of Enlightenment:

"Communions were neglected; in many churches the font was filled with an accumulation of debris and the altar was a rickety table that served more often as a convenient place for the minister's overcoat, hat, and riding whip than as God's Board."

[Paranoid]

And in America?

"And Chief Justice Marshall almost echoed the words of Thomas Arnold when he declared there was no future for the Episcopal Church."

[Eek!]

Here's a link to the article:

http://anglicanhistory.org/usa/acb/17.html

Compared to that era, today's CofE and TEC are miracles of piety and observance.

[Smile] [Votive]

[ 16. June 2012, 22:32: Message edited by: Ship's Stowaway ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Still not many old men. If I hang on another ten or fifteen years maybe I'll count as one.
[Snigger] What's the life expectancy in your corner of Southwark diocese, Ken?
Probably lower than anywhere else in the South of England outside some of the grottier post-industrial parts of North Kent (which is only down the road of course)
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
However, the CofE has actually been in much worse shape in other eras. See this 1933 article on how the 1830s English Oxford Movement (Anglo-Catholics) partially arose to remedy things like this:

"The Bishop of London recorded that in 1800 there were only six communicants in St. Paul's Cathedral on Easter Day."...
Those anecdotes misinterpret the situation. Communion was a thrice yearly service separate from the usual Sunday service, and crumbling churches were the result of wealthy lay incumbents not bothering to maintain the churches in their charge. They don't necessarily indicate a lack of general participation in church life in society as a whole.

[ 17. June 2012, 01:29: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Several small towns near me have Methodist churches that are dwindling. The building is fully owned (no mortgage), upkeep including major repairs is done hands-on mostly by church members which keeps out of pocket costs low. But there is no money for kiddie art programs, etc. (Well, with only 20 people in the church there are "not enough kids for a kid program," but the Sunday school of my early childhood was 3 kids and we had fun! Sometimes I think standards/assumptions are too high).

A nearby tiny town church was down to 6 ASA when the District sent a retired clergy guy, within two years that church had 30 members and attendance as high as 70. He re-retired and was replaced with a guy who had two churches, I think he's bi-vocational, tried hard, but the church stopped growing. Some clergy are better than others at whatever it is attracts and keeps people.

Another church in the District with attendance in the high teens just had it's clergy pulled, i.e. the official policy of District is "we will let this one die." I don't know the basis for deciding which tiny churches to support with paid clergy and which not to.

Some of the tiny Methodist churches have services only twice a month. Makes it easier to share clergy.

Personally I think the solution is to "return the church to the people" -- encourage people to stop being dependent of formal clergy, paid or not. I grew up in a morning prayer church, why isn't that a fine way to have a lay-led church, and keep the church going longer than it can afford clergy?

But eventually a church with no replacement people dies. If the whole town is dying, it's inevitable. If the town is not dying but the church is, there may be other problems, like a group who feel it's "my church" and resent "those newcomers."
 
Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on :
 
Older people generally maintain a reasonable level of giving. They also show a generosity of spirit in their commitment of time and effort to church activities.

Our church has a recycled clothing shop staffed completely by volunteers whose average age would be well past normal retirement age. Some of the most involved are in their eighties.

This ministry generates some income for the church but more importantly enables us to build relationships with a broad range of people in our local community.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
This is a very pessimistic thread. It's a discussion that comes round in every generation: 'congregations are getting older, they will soon die off, and then the churches will close' But it's not universally true that new people aren't joining the church in sufficient numbers.
On the other hand within two miles of where I sit, there are at least EIGHT closed church buildings (some demolished). The number of weekly masses in the Catholic churches have also decreased as numbers have declined. Only one of them was Anglican and the other possible Anglican closure was turned round in the early 1980s to now be thriving.

Contrarywise there are also at least 3 churches, which are meeting in hired premises, two because they have outgrown their own building, and the other which is a 'new church' - and is looking for a larger building to hire.

A confusion in all the financial discussions is the fact that some of the older generation give large legacies to their church: a friend who is to be inducted into a very run down team will have the benefit of one of the churches having such a gift - in the hundreds of thousands - 'for its maintaince'. It doesn't take a lot of those to postpone a closure - which is sometimes a bad thing...
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
I must say I found the demographic in my last Anglican parish heartily discouraging. The few "younger" people seemed to be around 40 and were not the sort who would bring many others in, except their close friends, who were already there. It all seemed terribly cliquey and co-dependent. I think the Anglican Archdiocese of Brisbane is a bit like this. Not much spiritual life.

The Catholic cathedral, where I now go, seems a bit like a busy central railway station but there seems a bit more emphasis on spiritual self-help rather than social life. I find that good. It's also much more ethnically varied and has far more young people.

I think many Western churches are having a hard time. Sometimes I think it's their own fault.

There are churches and churches.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Personally I think the solution is to "return the church to the people" -- encourage people to stop being dependent of formal clergy, paid or not. I grew up in a morning prayer church, why isn't that a fine way to have a lay-led church, and keep the church going longer than it can afford clergy?
I agree, this is a good move in certain circumstances.

The Synod of South Australia in the Uniting Church is getting ahead of things by proactively working on a model for rural areas (where population density cannot support ordained clergy in every congregation) where lay leadership is honoured, supported and invested in. The role of the church hierarchy is to support and resource the leadership of those congregations rather than blowing in and taking the leadership away from those who know the local context best.

I don't think an approach like that is good for urban ministry though. Urban congregations need missional leadership which challenges them more than a self-led model can allow for.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I don't think an approach like that is good for urban ministry though. Urban congregations need missional leadership which challenges them more than a self-led model can allow for.
Why should urban congregations be any different? The perception that problems are less in the country is hard to justify...

[ 17. June 2012, 09:43: Message edited by: Ender's Shadow ]
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Chorister:
I'd be reluctant to see the buildings go as they are a focal point in communities, but perhaps a deal could be struck by which the best ones are preserved as museums of art with occasional services rather than as full-time churches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As long as the faithful are not expected to maintain them. There's something peculiar depressing about, two things. The first is a poster of a spire shaped thermometer. The second is the people of God serving a building rather than the building serving the people of God.

Oh God yes. Assuming current trends continue, thousands of buildings have to go. In thirty years the nature of Christian community and ministry outside urban areas will have changed completely in the UK. This will be particularly painful for the C of E. I have a theory that one reason for evangelical success over the past fifty years is that they have already to some extent undergone the necessary consolidation, ironically helped by their marginalisation in the mid-20th century.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
For the CofE, that seems to be the core problem. A church of 30 members, on moderate pension, with a typical old church, is unlikely to be any more than self-sufficient.

And when all the churches in an area are at this point or less, you have an organisation that is no longer financial viable. So what do you dismantle? Close churches - what do you do with these beloved buildings? Share clergy? But that is not liable to improve matters, rather to hasten the decline?

The CofE in particular - but not exclusively - has two major draws on the finances of the members. Firstly the buildings, which are a millstone to a dying congregation, and the diocesan structure, which costs a lot (and is not bad value for money for growing or active churches). The problem is that changing or rationalising these is not a quick and simple process.

Looking from a purely business position (and I don't hold that God really gives a shit about the church structures that we are so attached to), the current model is unsustainable. I suspect that most of the other structural churches have a similar issue.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
A nearby tiny town church was down to 6 ASA when the District sent a retired clergy guy, within two years that church had 30 members and attendance as high as 70. He re-retired and was replaced with a guy who had two churches, I think he's bi-vocational, tried hard, but the church stopped growing. Some clergy are better than others at whatever it is attracts and keeps people.
That's depressing. The strong implication is that church growth is still dependent on having the right clergy.

I've a fear that at the moment, that might well be a virtual universal, but the future of Christianity might be dependent on its somehow ceasing to be.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
It depends where you are, the Diocesan structure is only a small part of the parish share in this diocese - 3%. The biggest cost is clergy stipends and pensions.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
A nearby tiny town church was down to 6 ASA when the District sent a retired clergy guy, within two years that church had 30 members and attendance as high as 70. He re-retired and was replaced with a guy who had two churches, I think he's bi-vocational, tried hard, but the church stopped growing. Some clergy are better than others at whatever it is attracts and keeps people.
That's depressing. The strong implication is that church growth is still dependent on having the right clergy.

I've a fear that at the moment, that might well be a virtual universal, but the future of Christianity might be dependent on its somehow ceasing to be.
Yes I think churches are dependent on clergy. The very structure of a worship program that has one person in front doing stuff while the rest sit in pews doing only what they are told when they are told (say "amen" here) encourages dependency. The attitude of most clergy I've met is that they do the stuff. I wanted to plan and advertise a Taize, "no I don't have time for another service." Who said anything about you being there Mr Clergyman, all I needed was a key to the building for one evening? Same response to my proposal in a different church to get a few together to do evening prayer, "no, I don't have the time."

In one place I started a prayer group; when the new clergy person arrived he declared himself the leader of the group by authority of his office. Too many clergy just assume they are in charge and no one else is/can be/should be.

Meanwhile, the people with years/decades/generations of experience that it's all run by the clergy have deeply learned they are not to do it themselves. Whether not allowed to or not capable isn't even a question, just not, altho I hear mutterings ranging from spiritual to educational incompetence as why no lay person can lead a worship service. Which I suppose is why people can be visited in the hospital by half a dozen from the church and complain that the church never visited if the clergy didn't visit. We have structurally defined church as what the clergy does. Not in words, everyone knows the "2 or 3" verse, but in experience of "going to church."
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
One of the advantages of the CofE having an interregnum between incumbents is that it can enable things to happen without clergy. Though it requires some willingness to 'take risks' by those in charge, if the new incumbent is willing to go with the new things - and stay out of the way - it can be good.
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
If one community/ area has many churches.....could that not be seen as picky.. by those outside of the faith?
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It depends where you are, the Diocesan structure is only a small part of the parish share in this diocese - 3%. The biggest cost is clergy stipends and pensions.
I am including the pay of the clergy, because churches do not always pay for their own clergy.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
One of the advantages of the CofE having an interregnum between incumbents is that it can enable things to happen without clergy. Though it requires some willingness to 'take risks' by those in charge, if the new incumbent is willing to go with the new things - and stay out of the way - it can be good.
It sounds good in theory - sadly in practice, I have never seen that happen.
Having been through quite a few interregna and observed many others in different churches, most of the time interregna bring a decline, both what goes on inside a church and in congregation numbers. Some years ago I saw some figures that claimed that most churches saw a 10% drop in attendance in interregna.

The only church which I saw maintain it’s programme of events, was one I attended and the outgoing vicar put into place some very rigorous succession planning. Even there people went to other churches just because they didn’t like the interregnum, we tried saying that vicars come and go but the congregations outlasts them, but some people just didn’t like a church without its clergy..
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Some years ago I saw some figures that claimed that most churches saw a 10% drop in attendance in interregna.

The only church which I saw maintain it’s programme of events, was one I attended and the outgoing vicar put into place some very rigorous succession planning.
I was once in a church which grew significantly during a 12 month interregnum. The vicar who had left, and his two predecessors, had encouraged the development of a strong lay leadership and lots of participation by everyone.

Sadly, the incoming vicar stopped all the activities his predecessors had encouraged. As Belle Ringer says, HE had to be in charge of everything.

So yes, IME the personality of the vicar is highly important for church growth.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Some years ago I saw some figures that claimed that most churches saw a 10% drop in attendance in interregna.

The only church which I saw maintain it’s programme of events, was one I attended and the outgoing vicar put into place some very rigorous succession planning.
I was once in a church which grew significantly during a 12 month interregnum. The vicar who had left, and his two predecessors, had encouraged the development of a strong lay leadership and lots of participation by everyone.

Sadly, the incoming vicar stopped all the activities his predecessors had encouraged. As Belle Ringer says, HE had to be in charge of everything.

So yes, IME the personality of the vicar is highly important for church growth.
I have a response on this, which I posted to the parish administration thread, as it seemed to me more pertinent there.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
I've seen a few churches on the further end of the conservative evangelical spectrum die. These seem to be more subject to 'market forces' than other churches, given that they are essentially congregational, so a slump in the congregation and giving has direct impacts on the church.

Generally speaking, what seems to happen is that the congregation gets progressively older, often with the people who joined earlier in life remaining until they are into retirement age. These keep things going for quite a few more years, often supporting a pastorate until people die and there is too small a congregation to pay for a pastor. Sometimes they can persuade a retired pastor to come for a few years on a semi-retired basis, but then he retires and things rumble on until there is a major crisis - such as an unexpected repair - and the thing suddenly goes down like a pack of cards. Then it is essentially over, depending on who exactly is the trustee of the building and so on.

It doesn't always work out like that - I know one chapel which went down to a few old ladies for a considerable time (years) before there was an influx of people and steady growth again.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
... I think many Western churches are having a hard time. Sometimes I think it's their own fault.

There are churches and churches.
What exactly this mean? OliviaG
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
^ does
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
In the ELCA our bishops have recently become fond of the word "nimble," as in the church needing to be nimble in re-structuring itself to accomodate the changes in demographics* and Zeitgeist that have led to struggling/non-viable congregations.

*In these sorts of discussions, in the midst of rending our collective garments over whatever we think we've done wrong in terms of losing membership, it's helpful to step back and also consider that, thanks to Baby Boomers and their parents, membership numbers were unusually high during mid-/late 20th century. So part of what feels like abandonment is just the pig, so to speak, having passed through the python. It's not just about the Church somehow missing the mark in terms of retaining people.

Anyway...I was thinking about that word today while talking to our antique-mall landlord, a devout RC. At Mass this morning the congregation was informed that the RCC was planning to close what sounded like half its existing parishes in the US, consolidate dioceses and the like. His congregation used to vie with the United Methodists in town for the title of largest church; they used to have daily Mass plus several Masses on the weekends, and also had a well-attended parochial school, plus a mission. Last year the school closed. Now it sounds as if area RC's may wind up with no church and no school, and having to drive at least 20 miles in any direction to get to church at least once a week...and no word about the fate of the mission, which is an important part of the community's social-services options for the poor and working poor.

The Lutheran churches in the area are far more robust, but we're operating these days with anxiety for the future, especially as middle-class jobs bleed away, leading to general population loss in our area AND decreased numbers of retirees chosing to spend their golden years here; comfortably middle-class pensioners have been one of the few growth sectors in our local population over the years.

Anyway...I think we have an advantage in nimbleness simply because we have more flexibility in whom we allow to minister in what ways, and because we don't burden the faithful with ideas like days of obligation, which are going to become an increasing burden if RC churches out here in the country continue to consolidate and people have to drive farther and farther to Mass. I think the RC's have the advantage in encouraging a domestic spirituality that keeps the faithful engaged with their faith even without regular access to organized parish life. But I wonder about religious formation, and how long that "domestic church" ethos is going to be able to hold up. (I admit to wishing that more of us Lutherans possessed it in the first place.) It just seems as if people are going to wind up falling through increasingly large cracks in our church systems, making church affiliation even less attractive/fulfilling.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
A clerical aquaintence once remarked that he wished it would actually go like that as soon as possible, as the people who attended baptisms, weddings and funerals who were technically non-church, were much nicer and didn't tend to interfere.
I am appalled by people who seem to think that churchgoers should give the church loads of money and yet never get involved or query, or question what that money should be spent on. If you give money you are involved, whether they like it or not. It would be bad stewardship to do otherwise.

By all means attract the casual attenders as well, but churches need committed regular and involved supporters too.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
... I think many Western churches are having a hard time. Sometimes I think it's their own fault.

There are churches and churches.
What exactly this mean? OliviaG
I thought that would be fairly simple to decrypt.

Some churches seem "alive" and others "comatose".

Ordinary people have a way of sussing this out.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I think many Western churches are having a hard time. Sometimes I think it's their own fault.

There are churches and churches. ...

I thought that would be fairly simple to decrypt.

Some churches seem "alive" and others "comatose".

Ordinary people have a way of sussing this out.
OK, I'll try again (maybe I'm not ordinary). What makes a church alive / comatose? If it is sometimes their own fault, as you say, what did they do? How can they fix it? How does one tell the difference between churches and churches? OliviaG
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
I think it is incumbent upon every individual and every church to attempt to find their own way through this, OliviaG.

Quite frankly, I feel myself woefully inadequate to provide guidance on this one.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Could it be as a state church the Church of England just got too complacent, assuming that everyone within the shadow of the spire was a member of the parish?

A while back there was a thread on why people are turned off towards the church. As I recall the primary strike was it's attitudes toward same sex relationships followed by the perceived differences between faith and science. I am not a scientist myself, but my pastor--who is a man of deep faith--is also a scientist, so that is not too big of a problem to overcome.

I think other things also get in the way: the lack of evangelical zeal among the parishioners. I believe it is an error to think it is the vicar/pastor's responsibility to bring the people in. I recall reading somewhere that a pastor would have to invite seventeen people before one person would respond. On the other hand a lay person would only have to invite three friends before one will respond. Pastors are there to provide word and sacrament and to help in the equipping of the saints, but the saints have to do the work of evangelism.

Somethings we have found very effective in our parish: we practice intentional hospitality. When new people come, there are several of us who meet them and introduce them to other members. We have hosted block parties for our neighbors--just last year as we were finishing our July block party a Chinese man appeared. He liked the music we had, he said. In the following weeks he brought his family. Soon we hope to formally welcome into the church at the baptism of his family and him. A look at our nursery is revealing: we have a Chinese boy, to Nigerian children, a boy from Ecuador and a Korean American girl.

We also promote ourselves on the World Wide Web and Facebook. I am in charge of Facebook advertising. For about $50 a month we have developed a reach that goes far beyond our community. Upwards of 15,000 people have seen our advertisements at least once. We have had people from Africa, Europe, Asia and the Americas check us out--a world wide reach for just $50 a month!

We are constantly getting the Word out at community activities, through one on one contacts and through the media.

I would say we have a good mix of people. Young families, Young single adults; middle aged families; and older generation. My wife and I find ourselves moving into that last category more and more. We enjoy our young families just as much as we honor our elders.

Just this morning, during coffee a woman who has visited the congregation a couple of times with her son approached me. Six years ago her son started school at WSU. He was from Kansas and did not know anyone in the congregation. We took him under our wing and invited him over to dinner several times. The woman told me much she and her husband appreciated our hospitality--she was almost in tears when she spoke to me. She said her son really felt he belonged to the church when he met us.

We still practice hospitality. I pick up a young man who has no transportation ever Sunday. We have a Chinese student we keep in contact with. We have hosted a young man from Botswana while he was here getting his doctorate.

Doesn't take much to practice hospitality, but I can tell you the rewards are outstanding.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I think it is incumbent upon every individual and every church to attempt to find their own way through this, OliviaG.

Quite frankly, I feel myself woefully inadequate to provide guidance on this one.
The Spirit blows where He wills - but I have a sneaking suspicion that even He has problems working in situations where people don't believe He might actually do anything [Big Grin] Beyond that, I would tend to argue that the 'wrong' position on homosexuality is a block to His work... but let's resist the temptation to go there.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
ES

If you just change the pronoun for the Holy Spirit, I am very much in agreement with you.

Paul said everyone has gifts for the building up of the church. If only people would believe the Holy Spirit can work her will through them.

(Okay, I know my use of the feminine pronoun might be something to discuss in Kerygma, but you get my point.)
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Personally I think the solution is to "return the church to the people" -- encourage people to stop being dependent of formal clergy, paid or not. I grew up in a morning prayer church, why isn't that a fine way to have a lay-led church, and keep the church going longer than it can afford clergy?
I agree, this is a good move in certain circumstances.

The Synod of South Australia in the Uniting Church is getting ahead of things by proactively working on a model for rural areas (where population density cannot support ordained clergy in every congregation) where lay leadership is honoured, supported and invested in. The role of the church hierarchy is to support and resource the leadership of those congregations rather than blowing in and taking the leadership away from those who know the local context best.

I don't think an approach like that is good for urban ministry though. Urban congregations need missional leadership which challenges them more than a self-led model can allow for.
A little idealistic perhaps What tends to happen is that growing churches like - in our parts - the pentecostalists started in a front room then bought a building and then...then...when the money came in went for a full time clergy.

And ecclesiologically it is inaccurate in an Anglican or catholic context. The clergy ARE part of the local church. They are part of the people. They are merely ordained for different functions
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
The only thing that church has to offer that one cannot get anywhere else is worship and teaching /study of religion. If someone wants to volunteer, or do charity work, or have a social circle, or hobbies, those are all available in the secular world. Christianity, despite cultural heritage, is no longer a default setting in our society.

To me the real question is why don't people in our society feel the need to worship the Christian God together any more? What would it take to get the average busy person to commit time for praise and thanksgiving and penance and forgiveness? Or to learn more about Christianity? And to want to do it with other like-minded people? To feel strongly enough to commit not just time, but money to it? Of all the myriad ways of worship and teaching and learning, how would someone find the "right" one? How do you know when it's the right one, or is that being too consumerist?

Too late. We live in a consumer society. Think of it as a marketing challenge. What does church have to offer? What's unique about church? What needs does it serve? Whose needs? OliviaG
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
The only thing that church has to offer that one cannot get anywhere else is worship and teaching /study of religion........

To me the real question is why don't people in our society feel the need to worship the Christian God together any more? What would it take to get the average busy person to commit time for praise and thanksgiving and penance and forgiveness? Or to learn more about Christianity? And to want to do it with other like-minded people? To feel strongly enough to commit not just time, but money to it? ......

What does church have to offer? What's unique about church? What needs does it serve? Whose needs?
The crux of it is that unless people have faith in God they don't want to worship, or to find out more about God, or to meet with fellow believers. They're unlikely to want to search their souls so that they will feel the desire to repent, receive forgiveness and start anew. They're more likely to want an instant fix to patch up any underlying niggling doubts or dissatisfaction with the way they are.

At the risk of stating the obvious, unless Churches can find new ways of bringing people to faith and helping them to grow in it, it will soon become noticeable that the diminishing number of people of faith cannot sustain the existing provision of services to the community, including the buildings.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
The only thing that church has to offer that one cannot get anywhere else is worship and teaching /study of religion.
I do all those at home, you want study just buy a good book or go one line, sign up for a free on-line class or discussion group for teaching (boy have I learned from the Ship! More than from a lifetime of sermons!), worship is what we do daily in how we live as well as specific prayer/song times at home or with friends.

You want to claim huge gathering at bleary eyed time of the week are somehow essential or even helpful, come up with better -- or better stated -- reasons!

Actually, I love gathering with other Christians, but an environment of staring at the backs of people's heads and go home with no personal contact beyond "good morning" is not a gathering any more than going to a movie is "gathering" with the anonymous people who also happen to be in the theater.

[ 18. June 2012, 15:31: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
 
Posted by ProgenitorDope (# 16648) on :
 
Not to be a pessimist, but I have a question: is it even possible to do anything at this point?

I mean, assuming the church(es) are (A) willing and (B) able to implement changes like the ones discussed above (and that's two big assumptions), isn't there a good chance its still too little, too late?

Certainly, I hope not, but it's just that I simply can't see my generation--or especially the one beneath us--even giving the church a chance. I don't know, that's just my own experiences talking. I'll admit I could be wrong.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
I ran the numbers on another thread - and it very definitely looks generational with surprisingly little variation within a generation over time (looking at the 1983 - 2008 timeseries).

Only around 10% of people born after 1970 attend church at least 1/month. It goes up to around 13% for the 50s and 60s, and those evangelised and the backsliders about cancel. But there doesn't seem to be much variation after 1970 in terms of religious attendance. There is, however, a sharp dropoff from earlier decades (I think the Church has been concealing declining proportions with a growing population).
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Historically, the church in the UK has been declining since the early 1900s. There was a slight increase soon after WWII, which was one of the most damaging things that could have happened, because it made it look like there was less decline than there was.

This decline has significantly increased in the last 40 years, but this is largely because a certain tipping point was reached, whereby a significant number of parents had then not been taken to church by their parents.

So we have had this decline for a century, and are still not really sure what to do about it. Most of the changes we have made in the last 50 years have been patching, in the hope that we can just keep the thing going until it is someone elses problem.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Historically, the church in the UK has been declining since the early 1900s...

a certain tipping point was reached, whereby a significant number of parents had then not been taken to church by their parents...

Most of the changes we have made in the last 50 years have been patching, in the hope that we can just keep the thing going until it is someone elses problem.
Is our thinking all wrong?

The church started with 12 men, or 120 in an upper room, or some number a whole lot less than our current numbers. We need to look forward from what we have, not backward.

That may mean ditch the building or anything else holding us back. Early church, for all our arguments, we can agree had no stained glass windows or pipe organs! We need to figure out what is essential and focus our energies on that.

I fear the load of "nice to have" luxuries are distracting our energy and attention to the institution's internal wants. Sort of like when a poor person insists on eating steak -- nice of you can afford it, far from essential to healthy life. To be healthy long term, we gotta focus first on essentials, then add whatever luxuries are genuinely affordable.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
To be healthy long term, we gotta focus first on essentials, then add whatever luxuries are genuinely affordable.
Yes, but one of the problems is that nobody seems able to agree on what the essentials are.

One person's essential is another person's luxury. And vice versa.

Can you suggest how we could reach a consensus?
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
To be healthy long term, we gotta focus first on essentials, then add whatever luxuries are genuinely affordable.
Yes, but one of the problems is that nobody seems able to agree on what the essentials are.

One person's essential is another person's luxury. And vice versa.

Can you suggest how we could reach a consensus?
I wasn't thinking what are the essential points of theology. But if you simply cannot conceive of valid worship without a pipe organ and professional music director, without vestments laced with real gold, without stained glass windows, what happens when your job moves you to a country where Christianity is illegal, or when your church closes due to lack of clergy and there's not another within 100 miles?

I admit it can be hard to think in terms of basic when we are used to more. I have a homeless friend who says it's unacceptable that the run down house she's borrowed free doesn't have hot water and cable TV. Those are, she believes, essentials. I know they aren't essential because much of the world doesn't have them. (At the moment I don't have either one, but that's a different story.)

One way is to look at places where Christianity is rare or new or in deeply impoverished countries. Whatever they manage to do without and still thrive as a Christian community, is probably unessential.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I think it was Ken Leech who said that the only things you need to be the church were water, bread, wine and memory.
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
In reflective moments, I often wonder if one of the reasons that ecumenical partnerships in US Mainline World have been flourishing is to facilitate the future sharing of space and/or clergy. We don't see a ton of this right now, but in fifty years' time, it might be far more common.
 
Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Chorister:
I'd be reluctant to see the buildings go as they are a focal point in communities, but perhaps a deal could be struck by which the best ones are preserved as museums of art with occasional services rather than as full-time churches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As long as the faithful are not expected to maintain them. There's something peculiar depressing about, two things. The first is a poster of a spire shaped thermometer. The second is the people of God serving a building rather than the building serving the people of God.

Oh God yes. Assuming current trends continue, thousands of buildings have to go. In thirty years the nature of Christian community and ministry outside urban areas will have changed completely in the UK. This will be particularly painful for the C of E. I have a theory that one reason for evangelical success over the past fifty years is that they have already to some extent undergone the necessary consolidation, ironically helped by their marginalisation in the mid-20th century.
Is there any possibility of sharing the space? You know, local evangelical churches meeting in the CoE building, saving $$ on building/buying/renting/maintaining their own space and helping to underwrite the costs of maintaining a beautiful and historic church building?

The Methodist church in which I grew up allowed a Korean congregation to come in and have services Sunday afternoons; eventually they bought the church and the few folks who still attended services had to drive another couple of miles to the next Methodist church.

My own anglican-flavored episcopal church mostly loses people as they move away (no work, little opportunity, tired of banging head against wall, etc.) but they are generally replaced by younger folks in their mid-20s to mid-30s, so it's an interesting, gradual change.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Those who don't see "the Church" as a discrete church, e.g. St Mumbles-of-the-Crossways, but as something else, i.e. a worshipping body of believers are quite correct IMO.

Christianity in the West is going through a testing time. What is it really about? A social club or a place you might just be transformed? I'd plump for the latter. But that's the difficult option.

Much of what we have now: discrete "plant"; paid clerics etc. was not there in the Early Church. The successful Churches will realise this.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Is there any possibility of sharing the space?
I can think of two communities only a few miles from me where they have already done this: one where the CofE congregation now meet in the Methodist church, and one where the Methodists now meet in the CofE church. From listening to people I know from both places, the arrangement seems to work well. I guess any problems would arise from deciding how many joint services to hold, and how many separate ones.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
I do know of two such church shares. They work but there is a lot of tension in one of them as they are very different churchmanship, (for want of a better word)

There is serious negotiations needed, over many things all the time, and a lot of tongue biting at times.

It reuires a lot of will and give and take to make it work.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
...My own anglican-flavored episcopal church ...
You must belong to some new denomination then. I was always under the impression that the Episcopal Church was a full member of the Anglican Communion.
[Killing me]

Seriously, I can see my former Anglican church going to the Mar Thoma Church (also a member of the Communion) the same way your former Methodist church went to the Koreans.

I think, in Australia, the number of primarily Anglo-Saxon churches, of whatever flavour, are going to decrease if they wish, consciously or subconsciously, to preserve their primarily ethnic membership. The Catholics realised this years ago and are now sourcing clergy from the same areas as the new immigrants.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
One of the reasons why I'm reluctant to return to my former denomination is that by the time I reach the age where I might need pastoral support (i.e. in about 30 years' time), most of those churches in any area where I'll be able to afford to live will have closed. I can't see any other future for them. It's not just the stats I've read, but my own eyes tell me that the numbers of people coming up behind me are far too few to sustain the denomination in certain areas, although it might persist in some form elsewhere.

Having hit middle age, and being single, I look at the elderly members of our churches, and note how they expect the church to support them pastorally, in gratitude for all the hard work, commitment and money they've given over the years. But when I reach that age, who's going to be around to support me? Unless there's a great revival around the corner (and most churches don't particularly seem to be thirsting after that) I can't see who'll be there to do it.

We may have to accept a more transitory involvement with our churches as the rate of closure speeds up. What will that mean? From what I've read, church closure tends to work in favour of overall decline. Maybe there's some way to overcome this, but I haven't heard of it. Maybe we need to develop a 'theology of church closure' that makes churchgoers less reliant on tradition, sameness, continuity. But that goes against the grain for my denomination, and perhaps for many others too.

Sorry if all this seems selfish, but these thoughts have been at the back of my mind recently, and they seem relevant to this thread.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
From what I've read, church closure tends to work in favour of overall decline.
Which is what we have seen over the last 30-40 years, and is just speeding up. The churches have not been able (willing/whatever) to change so far, and there is (as you say) no real indication that this is changing.

What is more, the larger churches - those who will last longest in the decline - tend to be the more extreme ones. Which will not help the moderates at all.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
It seems to me that churches have changed a lot in the last 30 - 40 years. Many of them even have change-itis, where they keep chopping and changing without even allowing any changes to bed down to see if they have any effect. And what do the grateful parishioners do, when faced with all this change? Groan, and mumble, and scarper off to the nearest cathedral (or simply stay in bed).

So it's not good enough to say that numbers will go up again if churches change.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Somewhere on the Ship, I've seen quoted that the demographics of churches remain similar - so for the last 30 years it's seemed as if churches will die out when the current congregation dies out, but the next congregation has come along.

I'm not sure how the same sex marriage scandal in the CofE is going to play out. I'd fallen out of church for various reasons, which I've done before, taken a break and gone back, but I really can't see any reason to go back to the Church of England now, and there's nowhere else I'd want to go back to.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
One of the reasons I really like the U3A is that people don't spend all their time moaning that there are no young people and that, if they don't recruit them, the organisation will die out.

The Ship, not to mention other parts of life, is full of examples of people who don't appreciate more established forms of church until they have lived a while first.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
What I've read is that people sometimes return to the church (or to more traditional forms of church) when they get older. But you can only return somewhere if you were there previously. The vast majority of middle aged and younger people in the country now were never part of the church in their childhood, so it's not a case of waiting for them to 'come home'. Some research suggests that old people don't naturally gravitate to the church unless it was a part of their youth.

Our older churchgoers remember when Sunday Schools and Boys' Brigades attracted large numbers of young people, but there's been a huge contraction before and during my lifetime.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I look at the elderly members of our churches, and note how they expect the church to support them pastorally, in gratitude for all the hard work, commitment and money they've given over the years. But when I reach that age, who's going to be around to support me?

We may have to accept a more transitory involvement with our churches as the rate of closure speeds up. What will that mean?
One thing transitory involvement means (speaking as one who has moved a lot, tends to be in a church a few years until the next move) is no one knows about your years of service and financial contribution because you did it elsewhere. I arrived in this town too sick to do anything, if I'd been teaching Bible study, leading VBS, forming prayer groups, giving up to 20% of my income here for a couple decades (instead of elsewhere), you bet the church would have rallied around to help. But a needy or just no longer able to contribute newcomer is ignored or barely tolerated. I see it all the time with retires moving to town.

I've already been told no one will visit me in my nursing home, "we visit our long time members." (Methodist church.) (Good reason to be Episcopal at the end, they'll come bring the bread and wine. For someone with no family that may be the only hope of an occasional visitor. Not that anyone ever brought it to my Mom!)
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:


I've already been told no one will visit me in my nursing home, "we visit our long time members." (Methodist church.)
If there is one thing more than anything that gets up my nose it's the attitude that 'Church' = 'our little congregation'. What does baptism mean for God's sake?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Belle Ringer

Your post above highlights the importance of the pastoral visitor, a post which still exists in the British Methodist Church.

Once an individual formally becomes a member of a particular Methodist congregation they should be allocated a pastoral visitor, whose job it is to keep in contact with them, especially if they're ill, or have other problems. Visting a sick person shouldn't depend on whether or not they're one of the church favourites, or the length of time they've been at the church!

(I must admit, though, that I was never aware of who my formal pastoral visitor was! This may be because, as a healthy younger person who was always in church anyway, I didn't seem to be in pastoral need. But there were older church members who took an interest in me and kept abreast of how I was getting on.)
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Belle Ringer

Your post above highlights the importance of the pastoral visitor, a post which still exists in the British Methodist Church.

Once an individual formally becomes a member of a particular Methodist congregation they should be allocated a pastoral visitor, whose job it is to keep in contact with them, especially if they're ill, or have other problems.
Thanks, I'll ask Google about that position and learn more. Churches tend to be vaguely aware of the problem but focused on programs rather than individuals, and dread "starting another program, who's going to do the work?" But I've heard of alternative methods, like a "buddy system, each church household is responsible to know where two other households are, if they aren't in church Sunday. Not "why weren't you in church?" but "noticed you missing, just checking if there's any problem, anything you need, or are you OK." So no one goes missing for a week without being contacted.

Encourages a bit of making personal contacts with another church member.

Wouldn't even have to be church attendance based, just contact each other once a week. ESPECIALLY for live alones, now 27% of USA households, and even more especially for newcomer singles who have no friends yet, someone specific to call "I'm sick, can you pick up some money from me and bring me some groceries" can be life-saving.

Yes, some people would opt out, you don't force contact on people.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Belle Ringer

Yes, I have to say that although I often grumble about British Methodism, the system of pastoral care seems to work fairly well.

There are problems, of course. Usually, it's a basic lack of pastoral visitors, or pastoral visitors who are themselves quite frail and elderly. However, sometimes a pastoral visitor just can't seem to get on with a particular individual on their list, and because the ministers find it hard to deal with conflict, the disharmony can rumble on and on without resolution. (Two of the people I got on with best in my church just didn't seem to like each other very much, and unfortunately, one was pastoral visitor to the other! The 'visitee' should have been transferred to another pastoral visitor, but this never happened.) Pastoral visitors need to be sensitive to how much contact is acceptable to each person on their list, and what kind of contact. (An occasional phonecall may be sufficient). Obviously, some are better at judging this than others.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I can see why Methodists were called Methodists. It's a great system and very organised. But when I tried to get a (much less organised) scheme set up in my Anglican parish I was promptly put in my place. 'We do look after one another, and we don't need you, Vicar, to make sure that we are doing that.' Which is all very well but doesn't necessarily help the lonely person who no-one really knows or cares about.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I can see why Methodists were called Methodists. It's a great system and very organised. But when I tried to get a (much less organised) scheme set up in my Anglican parish I was promptly put in my place. 'We do look after one another, and we don't need you, Vicar, to make sure that we are doing that.' Which is all very well but doesn't necessarily help the lonely person who no-one really knows or cares about.
I think I've met that church [Biased] Seriously I've known a church where if you were one of the 'in' people you were looked after, if you weren't then you fell through the cracks. But they were still convinced that they were a loving caring church.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
I've known a church where if you were one of the 'in' people you were looked after, if you weren't then you fell through the cracks. But they were still convinced that they were a loving caring church.
*A* church? You've known only one church like that? Ha, just about everyone I know says their church is like that. (Except the in-group folks insist their church in NOT AT ALL like that!)

Which suggests one needs a way to get word to ALL the church about the idea, find out who is interested. Not let the in-group kill the idea by their unawareness of the need in others. A "buddy system" could be a way to help out-group members identify each other and start building friendships? Outgroup people are often lonely, unable to identify who are the other outgroupers, since everyone in church is equally unfamiliar to them.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
...If there is one thing more than anything that gets up my nose it's the attitude that 'Church' = 'our little congregation'...
We have many of those around here. "Pastoral care" ="my best friend(s)".

They seem to be dying out.
[Votive]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I can see why Methodists were called Methodists. It's a great system and very organised. But when I tried to get a (much less organised) scheme set up in my Anglican parish I was promptly put in my place. 'We do look after one another, and we don't need you, Vicar, to make sure that we are doing that.' Which is all very well but doesn't necessarily help the lonely person who no-one really knows or cares about.
I think I've met that church [Biased] Seriously I've known a church where if you were one of the 'in' people you were looked after, if you weren't then you fell through the cracks. But they were still convinced that they were a loving caring church.
To be fair to the people I referred to, they did much more than just care for the 'in group'. They did care for all sorts of people many of whom had no connection to 'church'. But there were gaps which some sort of system might have helped bridge.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
To be fair to the people I referred to, they did much more than just care for the 'in group'. They did care for all sorts of people many of whom had no connection to 'church'. But there were gaps which some sort of system might have helped bridge.
Understood. No one means "we don't help anyone but us." But they can be blind to the existence of some others in their midst. Probably true of us all. Certain people we just don't know how to start a conversation with so we don't really see them, or so busy catching up with friend we don't have time to get to know newcomers.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Seriously I've known a church where if you were one of the 'in' people you were looked after, if you weren't then you fell through the cracks. But they were still convinced that they were a loving caring church.
All too common in my experience. And disastrous for newcomers.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Seriously I've known a church where if you were one of the 'in' people you were looked after, if you weren't then you fell through the cracks. But they were still convinced that they were a loving caring church.
All too common in my experience. And disastrous for newcomers.
Trouble is as said above it is not a deliberate policy. The 'in' people were unaware of what they were doing, and when asked about pastoral visiting or more formal ways of looking after people, they would insist that they didn't need it because they were doing it anyway.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One of the reasons why I'm reluctant to return to my former denomination is that by the time I reach the age where I might need pastoral support (i.e. in about 30 years' time), most of those churches in any area where I'll be able to afford to live will have closed. I can't see any other future for them. It's not just the stats I've read, but my own eyes tell me that the numbers of people coming up behind me are far too few to sustain the denomination in certain areas, although it might persist in some form elsewhere.

Having hit middle age, and being single, I look at the elderly members of our churches, and note how they expect the church to support them pastorally, in gratitude for all the hard work, commitment and money they've given over the years. But when I reach that age, who's going to be around to support me? Unless there's a great revival around the corner (and most churches don't particularly seem to be thirsting after that) I can't see who'll be there to do it.

...
I'm not sure about the UK, but this article on religious affiliation in Australia, based on data from our recent census, would seem to me to show that the churches here which are mainly Anglo-Saxon in make up are in decline.
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=31958

My recent Anglican parish in Brisbane was a prime example of what SvitlanaV2 was talking about.

I think this needs to take us back to the question of what Christianity and the individual churches are for. Are they basically support groups for regular attendees or is there a deeper purpose? If the answer is "basically support groups" then I fear there is no future for them.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I'm not too sure about the wisdom of it, but there are discussions amongst the more optimistic of our congregation about changing the church to suit the needs of those 50 years ahead. To my mind, it would be an expensive mistake should they get it wrong, as how can we know what people in 50 years' time would want? And if we can't afford to repair the roof properly, there's not much point spending loads of money on fancy furnishings. Perhaps we should make sure now that the church is waterproof and then, in 50 years' time if there is still a keen, active congregation with plenty of money, they could decide which pretty fabric they want on their chairs, futons or sofas, then.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Remember (possible urban legend warning) Khrushchev's challenge to Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad, as to what the Orthodox would do when that generation of aged grannies went. Nikodim replied that they would be replaced by another generation of aged grannies.

As others have noticed, many mainline churches have been affected by demographic changes-- my point of some years ago that Canadian Anglicanism was an ethnic chaplaincy was not well-received at the time. One local cleric's efforts at bringing in African and West Indian congregants was viewed with mirth and curiosity for many years-- the mockers are now muttering how unfortunate it was that this was not done with more energy in the twenty years since. Meanwhile, dioceses continue merrily triaging out churches in inner city and working-class areas to make funding room to work with middle-class suburban types with whom, perhaps, they are personally more comfortable (also known as Freeing Up Resources for Mission).
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
My sister-in-law always referred to her church as 'A little old lady Factory'. It's still going, 30 years later, with just as many recycled little old ladies.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
My sister-in-law always referred to her church as 'A little old lady Factory'. It's still going, 30 years later, with just as many recycled little old ladies.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Meanwhile, dioceses continue merrily triaging out churches in inner city and working-class areas to make funding room to work with middle-class suburban types with whom, perhaps, they are personally more comfortable (also known as Freeing Up Resources for Mission).
Hmm - let's look at the mess that the CofE is in in South Manchester. About 35 years ago there were two decent sized congregations - the one meeting in an old Anglican church, the other, an independent Evangelical church, in a 19th century building. In the next 10 years the Anglican congregation, having been given control of a second building and being told by the diocese: "do something with this, or we'll close it", saw growth to the point where the new, young congregation was filling that building to the point where it was bursting at the seams. In the meantime the Evangelicals had grown a bit, but not much.

Then the Anglicans dropped the ball. Rather than receiving 'Resources for Mission', it was left with the same level of clergy, or even less. It has continued to be a reasonably lively church - but has failed to build on the growth that it saw.

Down the road, the Evangelicals have been growing and growing. They've entirely outgrown their building and meet in a cinema, and now have a second congregration that meets in a night club. A break away Anglican group has developed (NOT from this congregation) and have now outgrown the building they're renting. Another independent evangelical mob, having thrown in their lot with New Frontiers, has also outgrown its building.

So instead of the CofE reaping this growth, others have. That's what happens when 'triage' isn't done - instead bishops insist on salami tactics (the most recently appointed clergy person is a half time diocescan officer, so they've CUT the staff they are providing to the only church in the deanery with a record of growth). And then they are surprised when we have no confidence in the hierarchy, and refuse to pay our quota.

So what is the alternative? Parishes are put on a minimal 'care and maintenance' basis; with almost no clergy cover. Those clergy posts are allocated to the churches where growth IS happening. The clergy then move into those almost defunct parishes with a substantial number from the growing parish who live in roughly the right area. The existing congregation is perhaps offered a continuation of their style of services, but another model is offered based on what has been seen to work at the growing parish. And then planted parish gets to the point where it can plant itself. This is basically the Holy Trinity Brompton model in London, and has worked well there. There's no good reason for it not to be effective in other big cities - but our bishops are too interested in 'keeping the show on the road', playing silly games over the consecration of women, and confusing the population over the gay issue. But hey - they'll be gone soon, receiving a pension, safe in the knowledge that they didn't close many churches.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
...

As others have noticed, many mainline churches have been affected by demographic changes-- my point of some years ago that Canadian Anglicanism was an ethnic chaplaincy was not well-received at the time. One local cleric's efforts at bringing in African and West Indian congregants was viewed with mirth and curiosity for many years-- the mockers are now muttering how unfortunate it was that this was not done with more energy in the twenty years since. Meanwhile, dioceses continue merrily triaging out churches in inner city and working-class areas to make funding room to work with middle-class suburban types with whom, perhaps, they are personally more comfortable (also known as Freeing Up Resources for Mission).
Pierre Berton had a similar vision in his 1965 book "The Comfortable Pew". I think he was similarly derided.

I share your opinion as regards the survival of Anglicanism in Brisbane and environs, if it fails to develop its, quite literally, dying WASP base. A base that is committed to a sort of "eternal 1950s pre-revocation of White Australia" endless morning tea.

I am staggered, repeat, staggered by the incredible religious ignorance and almost total loss of any concept of deep, transforming spirituality in my former parish. It came to a crisis in Lent, when, instead of concentrating on "the message"; study; prayer and fasting we had a series of "fun events" for the terminally bored or vague hangers on who would come.

I think the suburban outreach is an attempt to keep the demographic alive. We are not so much seeing an "ethnic chaplaincy" but a laager. What lies behind the "laager mentality" is what is frightening. The gormless, faux nice, well remunerated (A$90,000 p.a. package) clerics turned out by the local theological college don't seem to have the spine, nor the time, as they are so busy caring for their paying customers, to do any effective missionary work.

Genuine Christianity probably needs replanting in many parts of Australia. I remember, over 40 years ago, a saintly old Irish Jesuit, telling us he foresaw, in 40 years time, Roman Catholicism being replanted in this country by missionary priests from Japan. He was wrong in one aspect: they're from India; the Philipines and Africa. Catholics don't pay what the Anglicans do: hence the decline in local vocations, which mainly come from within the non-Irish descended new immigrant groups, where being a priest is still respected, these days.

It says a lot about contemporary Australia and contemporary Australians that it has come to this.

I think one of the things about the babushkas (grandmothers) in Soviet Russia is that they not only came to church but they engendered genuine belief in their grandchildren during the dreadful times of persecution. Somehow, assisted by the unbelievably heroic sacrifices of the martyrs: 600 bishops; 40,000 priests and 120,000 monks and nuns killed under Stalin, they kept the Faith alive.

Contemporary Western Christianity seems, to me, to be in a sort of "Fisher King predicament": dreadfully wounded and impotent hovering between life and death. I think the problem with it, or more specifically, its pew warmers is that they have no real religious life or faith: it is a form of being babysat before the lights are individually extinguished. What passes for "pastoral care" just temporarily alleviates the dreadful loneliness many feel without touching the root cause.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
To respond to Ender's Shadow, but with specifics for illustration's sake. In our case, triage is simply a fancy word for dropping the ball. A working class inner suburb (S Paul's Overbrook, once S Lucy's Eastview) was sold off to the 7Days about 20 years ago, just as a posse of about 3,000 Haitians (many of whom were unaffiliated Xns, and a good number Episcopalian-- remember that the largest TEC diocese is Haiti) and 2,000 unchurched Central Americans moved in-- at that time there was no Spanish-language RC church in Ottawa. Mission, of course, would have needed someone who could operate in other languages and would have had to spend much energy on handling immigrant settlement and dislocation challenges.

Shortly afterward, S Peter's Merivale went under the hammer even though 600 new housing units were going up immediately to its south. Even if we were only looking at census Anglicans, another 60 names would have doubled the parish membership. Both parishes were (albeit barely) paying their way.

If the diocese had only taken resources expended in priority-setting workshops, mission-statement development, and power-point presentation training... And I will not even touch the topic of the tens and tens of thousands of disenchanted and unchurched francophones we have quietly ignored.

Recently, parishes have been asked to start looking at their demographics but all I can do is shake my head at decades of lost opportunities on account of our perplexed navel gazing. Others, of course, will have their own interpretation.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
...

If the diocese had only taken resources expended in priority-setting workshops, mission-statement development, and power-point presentation training...

Recently, parishes have been asked to start looking at their demographics but all I can do is shake my head at decades of lost opportunities on account of our perplexed navel gazing...
Well, it's the rather blinkered viewpoint of those within the current (failing) system.

Perhaps (my viewpoint) is that the system, as it currently exists, no longer works effectively.

I think change, real change, may only come when the current system and those who run it crashes. Then there might be a real change.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0