Ship of Fools: 'Non-church' congregations V the Committed church goer

Thread: 'Non-church' congregations V the Committed church goer 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=023950

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I had a slightly strange conversation a couple of weeks ago with a CofE vicar who expressed the view that he much preferred the occasional offices (funerals/marriages/Christenings) to his regular services.

He was quite open in saying that he preferred the congregations at the occasional offices as they were usually very appreciative, even though they hadn't got a clue, and he always attended the receptions afterwards out of pleasure rather than duty. He included the Christmas congregations - especially at Midnight Mass - amongst his favourites.

This was contrasted with the regular cast who attend almost weekly, who can be difficult and 'viewy', and want meetings and fuss over the flower rotas He clearly has to go along with it because they gift aid and so on.

Laughing, he wondered if it might be possible to shuffle off the regulars and just stick with the casuals. This was meant purely in jest, and of course he understood the absurdity, but there was a certain sentiment underneath.

Do any clergy of any denomination on here have similar experiences?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I'm not a member of the clergy, but as a church steward I noticed similar attitudes.

Occasional church goers are more likely to be on their best behaviour when they go to church, because it's not such familiar territory for them. And because churchgoing hasn't become a routine, they're probably more profusely grateful when they do go.

I sense that the clergy want to feel needed and respected beyond the confines of a rather demanding, opinionated group of church regulars. And they enjoy interacting with 'normal' people, for a change! Perhaps many of their congregation are elderly women, etc. so they appreciate being able to interact with people from a different demographic.

This is understandable, although unless it's phrased carefully it can sound as if the minister is taking the regular congregation for granted, and would rather enjoy the company of other people!

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Someone who shows up just for a wedding or funeral or Christmas is there entirely by choice (well, maybe compulsion from family, but there is no sense of the *church* compelling them).

They have minimal expectations. And they are entirely outside all the politics inherent in any organization.

They are treated like a guest -- no one is flagging them down to try to get them to be on this committee or donate to that off-budget need or show up for all church work day to clean the basement.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Ive met lots of church congregations, and lots of non-church people. I know whom I would generally rather spend my time with.

I have heard some terrible tales of non-church people, who fail to understand what is acceptable and reasonable behaviour, and so can be a pain. For example, at a funeral where they complained that their special song had not been played - it had, but all of the mourners were outside smoking at the time.

I know many clergy like The first Communion of Christmas (Midnight Mass), because it can be a brilliant service, with lots of non-regulars. Regulars can a PITA.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

In my experience, if there's a problem of non-church people vs. committed churchgoers it's trying to convince the latter that it is a real and important part of my job to spend time with the former. Even if they're not paying my stipend, or funding church maintenance or on the select vestry.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

Isn't it nice to know how much your vicar appreciates your loyalty and your generosity?

How would his flock feel if they heard about this?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Mark Betts, I don't (as usual) know exactly what it is you're getting at. Or what it is you imagine you're reading here.

My own select vestry communicate very clearly with me on precisely these issues eg, whether non-church contributors should pay a fee for church services, whether non-church-goers should even be permitted to have the church for their services; whether or not they're happy with my sponsoring - as a clergyperson - poorer non-churchgoers for grants. And I make it very clear what I understand to be the responsibilities of an Anglican priest to his/her parish. There's nothing expressed here by me, that would in the least comes as 'news' to any of my vestry members and most of my congregation members. (At least the ones who stay awake long enough to attend meetings and listen to sermons!)

Don't your church council meetings have open and frank exchanges of views between the opinions and requests of church-members and the clergy they finance?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

IME it is not the regulars who show up drunk at Christmas Eve services and talk loudly.

Moo

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Yes, I've come across clergy with that attitude as well - I think they like non-churchgoers so much because they might become churchgoers in time. Meanwhile, the regulars are expected to give most of the money and do most of the work.

I wonder how many non-churchgoers will actually become faithful regulars, even if all the church's time and money are spent on them?

It seems to me important to get the right balance - if the regulars don't feel cared for as well, they are not likely to want to support the work of the church with time and money; you are likely to get regulars drifting away and still not get the newcomers to stick around.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Mark Betts, I don't (as usual) know exactly what it is you're getting at. Or what it is you imagine you're reading here.

Sorry - my comment was never intended to be aimed at you - it was about the OP.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Nice OP. I have experienced the same thing, but never thought of it that way.

I just think that it is nice to meet new people, however much we may love the regulars.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
...

Don't your church council meetings have open and frank exchanges of views between the opinions and requests of church-members and the clergy they finance?

The mutual relationship you and your parish council have is commendable, Anselmina. It should be the norm. Sadly, there are places it isn't.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I know my pastor enjoys doing funerals for the un- and underchurched; for him it's a real ministry to hurting and confused people. Baptisms -- sometimes gratifying, sometimes an exercise in wishful thinking that the individuals/families involved will truly become an active part of our church family in the long term. Marriages of non-church people -- usually sheer hell.

I'm guessing this sounds familiar to others.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
The mutual relationship you and your parish council have is commendable, Anselmina. It should be the norm. Sadly, there are places it isn't.

It's usually when controversial stuff comes up. I make an appeal that we talk about the hard stuff now in the meeting and not down the pub afterwards, or at the door when the meeting's finished (that'll happen anyway [Big Grin]

). TBH, it's the aspect of being an incumbent I feel most inadaquate over. I disappoint good-hearted faithful people at such times, and I don't have what it takes to share a vision that helps them to see further or gain a more optimistic hope for their future.

I do understand what others are saying here about church-members feeling neglected and having to pay to provide a free service for the one-off 'consumers'.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

It is a hard balance for parish clergy, after all you are the PARISH priest and not soley the chaplain of your congregation.

It is sometimes an impossible task to keep everybody happy. One vicar of my acquaintance when his congregation moaned that he never visited them, sat down with his PCC and listed his work and asked them to prioritise as he couldn't do it all. They looked at what he did and said that visiting the existing congregation was not a priority.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Thanks be to God.

I often feel that I should do that when expected to do things in the parish - when the parish does not know what I do outside its boundaries.

Are we mission-shaped or status quo shaped?

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
... I disappoint good-hearted faithful people at such times, and I don't have what it takes to share a vision that helps them to see further or gain a more optimistic hope for their future.

I do understand what others are saying here about church-members feeling neglected and having to pay to provide a free service for the one-off 'consumers'.

Perhaps you and they, together, are the continuing vision of where things are going? Quite frankly, it sounds like a good "moving dialogue", which is probably better than someone spending three hours in their study writing up a "mission statement" which sounds good but goes nowhere. I think you are a bit harsh on yourself here.

As a former long term contributing (in more ways than money) parishioner I never had the attitude "we pay your wages" to the priest. I think he could have done more - he was inherently lazy - but that was him. I'm sure he is atypical. Clergy should be trusted to both outreach and cater to the regulars.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
One vicar of my acquaintance when his congregation moaned that he never visited them, sat down with his PCC and listed his work and asked them to prioritise as he couldn't do it all. They looked at what he did and said that visiting the existing congregation was not a priority.

I like that idea. It would help to know what the parish priest does in order to respect the use of time. (In a general sense, for reasons of confidentiality, of course.)

I am aware of several individuals who have left the Anglican church and gone to their local catholic church because they perceived that the care to individual church members is greater there, particularly now that many Anglican churches are being grouped together.

[ 13. October 2012, 22:01: Message edited by: Chorister ]

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
]I am aware of several individuals who have left the Anglican church and gone to their local catholic church because they perceived that the care to individual church members is greater there, particularly now that many Anglican churches are being grouped together.

If my part of Ireland is anything to go by, they would rarely if ever be asked their opinion on anything.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
]I am aware of several individuals who have left the Anglican church and gone to their local catholic church because they perceived that the care to individual church members is greater there, particularly now that many Anglican churches are being grouped together.
If my part of Ireland is anything to go by, they would rarely if ever be asked their opinion on anything.

Bear in mind that Catholic parishes Tend to be far bigger than anglican ones, so the numbers of congrgants to a priest may be significantly higher. I also know several catholic parishes that are 'lumped together' and looked after by one priest.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Are we mission-shaped or status quo shaped?

Many of us are tending toward pear-shaped.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Yes, I've come across clergy with that attitude as well - I think they like non-churchgoers so much because they might become churchgoers in time. Meanwhile, the regulars are expected to give most of the money and do most of the work.

cf the non-Prodigal Son, the 99 unlost sheep and those who laboured all day in the vineyard.

Posted by Eleanor Jane (# 13102) on :

I can possibly empathise a bit with this view from a volunteering point of view. Volunteers who've been around forever can develop a big 'entitlement/ ownership' attitude and be very hard work for their manager. (Just because you've done something for 26 years, doesn't mean you're great at it! You may be worse 'cos you're out of date!) New volunteers are usually more polite/ friendly/ cooperative 'cos they're on best behaviour.

The thing I take away from it is trying to make sure I keep encouraging and supporting those who do stuff at church instead of slipping into constant complaints or just not saying anything.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
If my part of Ireland is anything to go by, they would rarely if ever be asked their opinion on anything.

From what those people have said, then don't want their opinions heard, they just want the priest to care about them when they are ill or when a family member dies. (Ideally this would happen in any church, but in those with large congregations or with several congregations lumped together in one Team it doesn't always happen.)

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

The danger, as I see it, is that regulars cannot necessarily be counted on to do everything while being unsupported - many of those seen as church regulars are going through their own tough times and are inches away from giving it all up. (As has been said by many on the Ship, for example.) Consequently, those in the church need to be nurtured just as much as those outside it.

[ 15. October 2012, 14:09: Message edited by: Chorister ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

It's always a difficulty for a congregation to both be the church which is called to serve others in need; and be the recipients of such service, when the need is their own.

If clergy are busily occupied with many occasional offices requiring them to spend lots of time with non-churchgers, there is less time to spend pastorally with churchgoers, except for emergencies. The bulk of Christian nurturing for many church members is done through worship, bible study/teaching course opportunities - that kind of thing. Unless there is a large team of staff dividing the labour between them, it's hard to see how much more can be done by the few individuals - lay or clergy who are usually left to get on with keeping parish life ticking over.

There is a different issue with churches which do a lot of outreach to the non-churchgoer. Maybe some congregations feel that their church is too mission-orientated, to their own detriment? But I've rarely belonged to that kind of church, and on the occasions when I did the congos were generally fairly focussed on evangelistic activity anyway.

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

My experience is the opposite. The non-church people who come to 'get their babies done' once the baptism is over seem to not see the point of the rest of the service and talk over it--particularly the Intercessions. Weddings of non-church people, well, lets just say in as ugly a church as I attend, you have to be a committed member to actually want to be married in my church. [Smile]

Funerals of non-church goers can be a mixed bag. Sometimes they are an absolute delight, sometimes they are bog-standard boring C+A (Crimond and Abide with Me) funerals, and sometimes they are pure hell. There is music that none of our regular musicians are able to produce to an acceptable standard (none of us can produce Widor to sound remotely decent on a 15-year old digital piano, for example...) and despite offering high-end digital recordings (frequently my own recordings of other organists, so I have permission to use them) the rudeness can sometimes be astonishing. I also won't play 'I did it my way' simply because I think it's an insult to the piece of music (which I actually rather like, even if I think it's wholly inappropriate for a church funeral) to have it played badly, again we have a CD copy and a PRS license, and offer that, and again, often it's an absolute misery. Yes, I get that they're hurting, but a level of common courtesy seems to be completely lacking. The two funerals for members of our congregation that I've had the privilege to play for, on the other hand, were a sheer delight.

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I know my pastor enjoys doing funerals for the un- and underchurched; for him it's a real ministry to hurting and confused people. Baptisms -- sometimes gratifying, sometimes an exercise in wishful thinking that the individuals/families involved will truly become an active part of our church family in the long term. Marriages of non-church people -- usually sheer hell.

I'm guessing this sounds familiar to others.

LC, I could have written your post myself.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Weddings of non-church people, well, lets just say in as ugly a church as I attend, you have to be a committed member to actually want to be married in my church. Funerals of non-church goers can be a mixed bag. Sometimes they are an absolute delight, sometimes they are bog-standard boring C+A (Crimond and Abide with Me) funerals, and sometimes they are pure hell. There is music that none of our regular musicians are able to produce to an acceptable standard (none of us can produce Widor to sound remotely decent on a 15-year old digital piano, for example...) and despite offering high-end digital recordings (frequently my own recordings of other organists, so I have permission to use them) the rudeness can sometimes be astonishing. I also won't play 'I did it my way' simply because I think it's an insult to the piece of music (which I actually rather like, even if I think it's wholly inappropriate for a church funeral) to have it played badly, again we have a CD copy and a PRS license, and offer that, and again, often it's an absolute misery. Yes, I get that they're hurting, but a level of common courtesy seems to be completely lacking. The two funerals for members of our congregation that I've had the privilege to play for, on the other hand, were a sheer delight. [/QB]

We have a pretty village church and get lots of wedding from non church attenders. I’ve just been chatting with our vicar about this, who says, that by and large in their experience the weddings of strangers are a joy.

Church members on the other had can be troublesome, as often think they own the building (and the vicar) and are full of rights and expectations because they are members and they can be very demanding. This can happen of course with non members but it is rare. For instance, a non member is unlikely to demand that we take down Sunday school work from the back of church, in case it ‘spoils their photos’ – something which did happen with one church wedding.

Funerals also we find, that when the deceased or family are church members they have large expectation s of what the church can provide. We have never had a non church family rude when we explain what the church is and isn’t able to provide – they are usually very understanding, if we explain that we can’t play certain music on the organ, but are happy to use CD’s if that’s what they family wish. The family are usually just grateful that we are trying to do what they want.

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
My experience is the opposite. The non-church people who come to 'get their babies done' once the baptism is over seem to not see the point of the rest of the service and talk over it--particularly the Intercessions.

This is sort of true at my church. It's not usually the actual couple with the baby, or who are getting married, but some of the friends and family who have been 'dragged' along; everything is hilarious and anyone who tries to offer them a hymn book or the sign of peace is clearly crazy. They usually speed out of the church at the first available opportunity.

Mind you there are a number of regulars who like a nice chat during the sermon. Being at the back with the music group you get to see the worst of everybody's habits.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
For instance, a non member is unlikely to demand that we take down Sunday school work from the back of church, in case it ‘spoils their photos’

We married in Lent (apparently unusual in some quarters) in a modern Catholic church in Dublin. A recent Lenten service had resulted in flowers (nice, we hadn't planned for much that way), but / and emblazoned across the altar on our photos is a huge banner saying 'REPENT'! I rather like it.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

quote:
For instance, a non member is unlikely to demand that we take down Sunday school work from the back of church, in case it ‘spoils their photos’
We married in Lent (apparently unusual in some quarters) in a modern Catholic church in Dublin. A recent Lenten service had resulted in flowers (nice, we hadn't planned for much that way), but / and emblazoned across the altar on our photos is a huge banner saying 'REPENT'! I rather like it.

Hehe!

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
My experience is the opposite. The non-church people who come to 'get their babies done' once the baptism is over seem to not see the point of the rest of the service and talk over it--particularly the Intercessions.

Well that sounds very sensible. The intercessions can be exruciatingly boring even for regulars, goodness only knows how 'occasionals' cope with it.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Our baptism within the Eucharist service is spread throughout the service so the family feels included at several points. Letting an older brother or sister pour the water into the font, hold the candle, etc. helps to keep the children involved.

But it does get rather hard work when several families are 'done' at once - it reminds me of a Moonie wedding....

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
IME it is not the regulars who show up drunk at Christmas Eve services and talk loudly.

Moo

IME as a back-row Bass, that's the Choir! [Big Grin]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0