Thread: Why is everyone so busy? 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=024192
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :
 
Our church has recently seen the retirement of two of our cleaning volunteers who are in their eighties. The problem is there is no one younger willing to take on the job. My daughter’s church youth club, which is a great success and growing each week, has recently shifted from weekly to fortnightly meetings because there are not enough volunteers to run it weekly. My sons' Boys' Brigade branch is not able to run its annual fund raiser this year because not enough parents can offer one Saturday morning to run a coffee morning.

There’s a theme here. Everyone is “too busy” to put themselves forward for these jobs. What are we all doing with our time that we weren’t doing before? Is this real, or is it a perception that our private time is more important to us than community time? Has life really become more demanding in the last few years? Is this all just coincidence and I’ve just been unlucky? Have shipmates experienced similar declining participation?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
What are we all doing with our time that we weren’t doing before? Is this real, or is it a perception that our private time is more important to us than community time? Has life really become more demanding in the last few years? Is this all just coincidence and I’ve just been unlucky? Have shipmates experienced similar declining participation?
Yes I've noticed it too - and it seems common across all volutary groups. A few reasons perhaps ..

- more time on line (like here!)
- too many rules when it comes to children and activities
- people move from interest to interest on about a 3 year cycle so have no time to learn the ropes and leading before moving (people also move churches and not just because they're moving towns. This parallels employment and the disappearance of jobs for life (unless you are the Saxe-Coburg-Windsor-Mountbattens
- lots of opportunities to shop and more leisure activities
- we expect things to be provided
- longer working hours/travelling/more work at home
- get involved only when our children are in "it" (whatever "it" is), then bail out when they leave. You won't see many memorials to faithful servants of 30 + years standing in the future

There may be more
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Another might be thatactivities for children/youth are much more demanding of their time. Hockey leagues that run kids' games at 6 AM or all weekend, plus road trips up to five hours drive away are the most noticeable around here. This may be a symptom of the parents' need to be seen as providing "opportunity" for their kids, but it usually ends up with parents whinging about the time and money they spend, while the kid plays video games in the car and is otherwise disconnected from having a life.

Rant over.

But the point is that we create time-filling, money-spending activities that "we" want to do, instead of sharing in a community. Meanwhile the parents hold down two or more jobs to pay for all this.

And everyone is actually more or less unhappy and stessed in ways that would be incomprehensible to the people of, say, fifty years ago or more.

Add in suburbia, where you don't (or rarely do) know more than a very few neighbours, while your friends are ten km. away or farther, and your family net isn't available to help.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
I think the problem goes beyond 'too busy (or don't want) to help out' and it includes 'too busy (or don't want) to become involved in stuff even if it is fun'. I think choirs, am-dram groups, photographic clubs, art/music appreciation groups etc all find it harder to get new members. It seems to stem from greater individualism and a disinclination to get involved in group activities, whether it is seen as work or play.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Well, here's why I'm so busy:

On weekdays I get home from work about 6:30pm. Change, wash, cook and eat, by which time it's about 9pm. An hour or so of TV then bed.

Some evenings I'll be at the football or cricket all evening until gone 10pm.

One evening a week we have to really rush the eating part in order to get to our house group.

Saturday: a precious lie-in usually followed by sport.

Sunday: church and shopping last until about 1pm, after which my wife and I get our one chance all week to spend some decent quality time together doing something other than cooking or eating.

Where in all that would I find the time to go and help with cleaning a church floor, other than the Saturday lie-in (which is about the only think keeping me from being an exhausted wreck for the rest of the week)?
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
They had a professional time management expert speak to the staff at my old church. She challenged the staff to stop using the word "busy" altogether, because she saw it as an excuse to avoid actual conversation and commitment. "I've been really busy" has become the new standard response to "How are you doing," to replace "I'm fine." I think most of the staff thought it was a little silly, but it might be worth thinking about.

I had lunch with an older gentleman yesterday, who told me that one of his philosophies in life is that you have to take an active part in your family, in your business, in your community, and in your church. It isn't something you hear lots of people saying today. But he had a realistic outlook on what that means. He was president of his Rotary club for a while, and that took away from his time to be active at work, but he said that you just have to manage.

As for youth directors, I don't know what the answer is. I was a kid in the era of the personality cult youth leader. The church would hire a youth leader with a big personality, and the kids got attached to that personality. When that leader burnt out or moved on, half of the youth group left. By the time I was an adult working with kids, they were on to the volunteer model, where we were supposed to seek out people with "a heart for Children." That works until you can't get volunteers to staff basic meetings, and you realize that you need to pay someone again. There may be a middle ground, but it seems to go back and forth.
 
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Everyone is “too busy” to put themselves forward for these jobs.
I think your use of quotation marks is appropriate - because I think "I'm too busy" is often a euphemism for "I don't want to do that."

Nen - who loves her job and volunteers a lot of time there because it wouldn't get done properly otherwise.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Everyone is “too busy” to put themselves forward for these jobs.
I think your use of quotation marks is appropriate - because I think "I'm too busy" is often a euphemism for "I don't want to do that."
I agree - we can always find time for the things we really want to do. Motivation is all.
 
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
I think people are just involved in more things, thus have less time to devote to any one of them. at least that is the case for me. I used to be involved in running a scout troop, taking my own karate lessons, driving kids to dance/soccer/hockey/swimming lessons and games, maintain the house and yard, deal with pets, sing in church choir (including rehearsals).. all while working full time. the scouts is the one area where I choose to volunteer my time (not just when my kids were in it--I volunteered since long before kids, and continue even though my own kids are now also "leaders" in the organization).

We have had to cut back on the frequency of our scout meetings, because kids are also all booked in other activities. and with a few exceptions, we also have the problem of former scouts who could be leaders not wanting to do it until their kids are in it.. and only working with whatever age group they have kids in (we are an ethnic scout group, so our leadership is pulled from a fairly small pool of people).

so I've been on both ends of this.. the person who has to say I'm too busy to add another volunteer activity to my list, as well as the one frustrated in finding others who are willing to volunteer. I know that there are legitimate concerns/issues on both sides.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
He was president of his Rotary club for a while, and that took away from his time to be active at work, but he said that you just have to manage.
How many people have the ability to just take time away from work though?
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
He's a real estate agent, so personal sales skills and networking are actually part of the job. He may have sold fewer houses that year, but the contacts pay off. I have heard of law firms that expect their young attorneys to be on nonprofit boards for the same reason.
 
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :
 
Speaking from the US and as a mom: there is a lot of societal pressure on parents, moms especially I think, to Spend Time With Their Children these days. (Because otherwise, obviously, you don't love your child and they'll drop out of school to become a criminal and it will be all your fault.) Time studies have found that even though more mothers are working longer hours outside the home, we still spend more time with our children than mothers did in the 1950s and 60s, before women's lib.

Anecdotally, children's activities and schools demand a lot more parental involvement than they used to. My kid isn't old enough to be in school yet but I hear that parents are expected to be involved with their kids' homework on a nightly basis. Also with things like birthday parties, sports, art classes and stuff like that, parents are sometimes expected to stay there with the child instead of dropping them off and coming back at the end.

Maybe you can convince some of your families that cleaning the church would be a good way to spend Quality Time together, and look good on the college applications...
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
I can't see it getting better soon. As the retirement age is being slowly ramped up to 67 the number of available volunteers is going to go down.
 
Posted by brackenrigg (# 9408) on :
 
Whilst the kids were growing up, I didn't drive so never left the village. All activities were confined locally.
Once we start driving, we get involved in activities in a 20 mile radius so there is a limit to what we can get involved in.
I am sure when people retire, they start getting involved in more to fill their time (when the grandkids allow)
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
Question: How many people complaining about people being "too busy" to help out are retired or do not work?
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Our church has recently seen the retirement of two of our cleaning volunteers who are in their eighties. The problem is there is no one younger willing to take on the job. My daughter’s church youth club, which is a great success and growing each week, has recently shifted from weekly to fortnightly meetings because there are not enough volunteers to run it weekly. My sons' Boys' Brigade branch is not able to run its annual fund raiser this year because not enough parents can offer one Saturday morning to run a coffee morning.

There’s a theme here. Everyone is “too busy” to put themselves forward for these jobs. What are we all doing with our time that we weren’t doing before? Is this real, or is it a perception that our private time is more important to us than community time? Has life really become more demanding in the last few years? Is this all just coincidence and I’ve just been unlucky? Have shipmates experienced similar declining participation?
The uncomfortable truth is this: when people say they are "busy" without specifying what with, it's really just their way of trying to avoid causing offence by saying straight out that the church is lame and they've found a better offer. My opinion is that people are generally not a significant amount busier than they were before, it's just that increased mobility and connectivity have opened up more options than ever before.

Granted, I do think the smartphone might have a little bit to do with it for some, like those who will read a work email outside of work hours. But the thing I've also noticed is that people won't read an email if they are engaged in something that's significant to them.

There could be lots of factors involved, just a few suggestions here...


quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
As for youth directors, I don't know what the answer is. I was a kid in the era of the personality cult youth leader. The church would hire a youth leader with a big personality, and the kids got attached to that personality. When that leader burnt out or moved on, half of the youth group left. By the time I was an adult working with kids, they were on to the volunteer model, where we were supposed to seek out people with "a heart for Children." That works until you can't get volunteers to staff basic meetings, and you realize that you need to pay someone again. There may be a middle ground, but it seems to go back and forth.
The model that has been quite sustainable for the last 15 years at my current church is one where the [paid] youth pastor's primary role is not to be cool; but to honour, support, train and mentor the youth leaders as they do the bulk of the work on the ground. The nature of our Friday evening youth community as a worshipping community means that preaching is also a major requirement, but the pied piper personality cult bit is not an option.

This approach works if you have the right person in the youth pastor's chair, but it needs a bit commitment from the church's hierarchy to stick with it long enough for seeds to turn into fruit. The best sign that it's working well is that the future leadership is mostly grown from within, consisting of people who are there because they want to be there rather than because they were the next person on the list for arm-twising.


I write all this not as somebody trying to justify non-involvement but as a youth leader of nearly eight years now, a commitment I choose to place as a high priority the sometimes demands I turn down other options. I would say my life is busy, but not to the point that there's no space left. I'm also aware that the balance of things as they are currently will not last forever, therefore I treat every commitment as a fixed-term deal that I consider carefully before renewing it.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Question: How many people complaining about people being "too busy" to help out are retired or do not work?
Me. Having worked a 70 hour week for nearly 40 years, I don't want to fill time again unless it is something i really feel called to do.

I am still 'working' about 40 hours per week in retirement.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
I think your use of quotation marks is appropriate - because I think "I'm too busy" is often a euphemism for "I don't want to do that."
With good reason. When i was asked to go on a rota for cleaning the church loos, having already done 30-40 hours per week church voluntary work, I am entitled to not want to do it.

Would gladly give money to pay someone else to do it - my time is worth £30-50 an hour.
 
Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :
 
I am an ICT manager (my paid job), a trade union steward, branch officer and lay tutor, a co-carer for my elderly mum, technical steward at church and sometime greeter-on-the-doors. I'm also currently mentoring someone from a neighbouring local authority and chairing our disabled employees group at work.

Clean the church? I'd like someone to clean my house, please!
 
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]

Would gladly give money to pay someone else to do it - my time is worth £30-50 an hour.
Well, yes, of course everyone says let's get professionals in to do the cleaning; we'll pay. Problem is that if we could pay the fuel bill and the maintenance on the rest of the church and the full parish share and have some left over for mission work that would be a fine idea. But as it is, where's the money going to get diverted from?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Problem is that if we could pay the fuel bill and the maintenance on the rest of the church and the full parish share and have some left over for mission work that would be a fine idea. But as it is, where's the money going to get diverted from?
Not in our Church, we don't need to 'divert' the money, we already pay our cleaners and caretakers.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
We've paid cleaners in the past...but our church is very good at paying other people to do things with money it hasn't really got, and I'm glad we stopped.

Last Sat I cleaned (I volunteer once a month) in a team of 3 white PhDs and a fit, retired Carribean guy who is much, much more typical of the church as a whole. Working together builds community - we know each other much better - and I'm glad we do it, despite the the work / childcare hassle it causes occasionally. Same goes for volunteering to take Sunday School, which is the main (OK, only) reason my wife and I manage bible study together, with the added bonus of sh*tting ourselves about not coming up with something really sh*t, at the same time. It's quite motivating.

Our church spends too much (nearly all) of its money on itself already. Since we can't fly to Africa to give out famine relief, drive to North Wales to make bowls of soup for flood victims, or print bibles for distribution in China, my vote is that we do our own cleaning and painting and give the money (to CAFOD / CA, Salvation Army, Bible Society) instead. It's what that portable means of exchange is for.
 
Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on :
 
My church has that problem too... Made even harder because many of our folk are farmers.
Two issues... Milking the cows, and driving 45 mins or more to us, their nearest church. (And fuel costs too I assume)
I guess sheep have needs too, but I don't hear about them.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
I think there are people who might participate, but the times scheduled are inappropriate for them. For example, the church I attend has a "Sermon Shapers" group that discusses the most recent sermon and the ideas for the next one. It is scheduled, as I recall, late on a weekday morning, a time when many of us are at work.

By the way, if you rely on random volunteers to clean your building, do they do a consistently good job?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I think there are people who might participate, but the times scheduled are inappropriate for them. For example, the church I attend has a "Sermon Shapers" group that discusses the most recent sermon and the ideas for the next one. It is scheduled, as I recall, late on a weekday morning, a time when many of us are at work.

By the way, if you rely on random volunteers to clean your building, do they do a consistently good job?
Yes, there's all sorts of reasons... which makes it hard to generalize on a solution.

Sometimes adding something to sweeten the pot-- even something small-- will help. So you can say, we're gonna meet and clean for an hour or so then go out for coffee, and for some folks that's appealing. For others, efficiency is more the thing so promising to be done in an hour or only have to serve 1x a month is the carrot. Finding out what precisely the obstacle is for your particular group will help you figure out what will work.

Another thing to consider is giving people a variety of ways to help, that would fit a variety of interests/ schedules. So you could have a simple form folks could use to volunteer to, for example: a. help clean b. do mailings or cut out shapes for children's class (can be done in evening at home) c. work in nursery.

Having a variety of options you're pushing for all at once sends a couple of messages-- it both suggests that we're a family so we expect everyone to pitch in, but also that we don't expect 1 or 2 people to do everything. People will be more likely to say yes to one thing under those circumstances.
 
Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
Speaking from the US and as a mom: there is a lot of societal pressure on parents, moms especially I think, to Spend Time With Their Children these days.
Here in Britain, it works the other way around. Whenever any public figure says "I want to spend more time with my family", it is understood as a euphemism for "I have made a complete trainwreck of my job, and am resigning before I get sacked".
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Can't help about youth volunteers--except maybe pay them.

But here is one suggestion about cleaning the church. Don't. If no one is willing to step forward, maybe it is not as important of an issue for your people. My guess is after a month someone will come up with a plan on how to clean the church.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
But here is one suggestion about cleaning the church. Don't. If no one is willing to step forward, maybe it is not as important of an issue for your people. My guess is after a month someone will come up with a plan on how to clean the church.
Ah yes, the old "don't do the roommates dishes and he will get the hint when we run out of bowls" trick. Never seen that one backfire...
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Our church has recently seen the retirement of two of our cleaning volunteers who are in their eighties. The problem is there is no one younger willing to take on the job.
The volunteers in their 80s didn't have a job to do in addition to volunteering. The younger people are still employed, right?

In my mother's generation a middle class wife commonly did not hold a "real" job. A family could live comfortably on one office or factory worker income. That meant lots of people had some time to volunteer.

That free time is gone, but many organizations still (mistakenly) assume there are lots of people with lots of free time.

We need to look at the issue from two directions -- how to attract volunteers, which might require better information about the work and rewards of a task, and how to change the ways we do church so not as many volunteers are needed. The days of plentiful volunteers may have shaped how we do things in ways that made sense with lots of volunteers and don't make sense with few volunteers but we've gotten so used to those ways we don't see them as optional.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
ISTM, people are too busy. However, it is often with activities they have chosen to be busy with. Note: I am not applying any value judgement to this observation.
I would also note that volunteers are often abused. Those willing to help are often burdened to the point of exhaustion. This does not help with recruitment.
 
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
I think your use of quotation marks is appropriate - because I think "I'm too busy" is often a euphemism for "I don't want to do that."
With good reason. When i was asked to go on a rota for cleaning the church loos, having already done 30-40 hours per week church voluntary work, I am entitled to not want to do it.

Would gladly give money to pay someone else to do it - my time is worth £30-50 an hour.
Completely agree. [Smile] I didn't mean to sound as though I was passing judgement on people who say it.

Retired people are often the busiest of all, because everyone asks them to do things because they think they have lots of time. Often they have grandchild or aged parent duties. Sometimes they are retired because they are burnt out and need time and space. They shouldn't feel they have to volunteer to clean toilets.

Nen - who is not retired but spends enough time cleaning toilets in her own house, thank you! [Biased]

[ 29. November 2012, 08:28: Message edited by: Nenya ]
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Work is generally more stressful these days (not least because of the requirement for everyone to be 110% perfect at everything they do, at all times), so probably when people have free time they feel they need to do purely leisure pursuits in order to destress.

Amongst people of all ages, there is also a feeling of despair that churches are still trying to operate as in the days when there were twice as many churchgoers. So those who do go to church feel overwhelmed that they are being asked to fill twice as many roles as would have been the case previously.

Perhaps instead of asking people to fit already prescribed jobs, you need instead to ask people what they feel able to offer and work your church around those abilities. Anything urgent still to be done can then be paid for.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Amongst people of all ages, there is also a feeling of despair that churches are still trying to operate as in the days when there were twice as many churchgoers. So those who do go to church feel overwhelmed that they are being asked to fill twice as many roles as would have been the case previously.
This is an important elements - the number of churches in the UK has barely budged, but the number of people attending has fallen significantly. In practice it's worse than that, because many churches have been hollowed out by people choosing relatively large congregations, leaving smaller churches with less volunteers and with the need to compete with the larger churches in what they offer - or at least that's the belief.

The other problem is the fear that if you put your hand up to volunteer, you will end up as solely responsible for it for ever. Whilst this probably doesn't happen too often, the perception of it being a danger must be a deterrent.

I also wonder if parents are taking kids to far more things these days, ballet, music lessons, gym classes, extra tuition, the list seems to be endless. This is aggravated by the 'need' to drive them there instead of letting them go on their own. It's interesting to hear that in Finland pretty much ALL children make their own way to primary school once they start at 7! And given the weather there, that's not trivial.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
ANNOUNCEMENT
++++++++++++

I have just agreed with something that ES has posted.

This may not ever happen again, so I feel the moment should be marked.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Perhaps when people say they're busy, the issue isn't so much one of quantity of time, but rather control of time. When people feel that demands are being made of them over which they have no control, then they're "busy".

One of the big changes in working practice for many people in Britain over the past 20 years is that the boundary between "work" and "home" has been eroded. Colleagues and managers are much more likely now to contact workers at home - in the evenings, at weekends, even on holiday. This means that people never feel quite separate from work, and therefore feel "busy" all the time.

This is one of the ideas in Tom Hodgkinson's excellent book How to be Idle. Humorously written, it's nevertheless full of good ideas about how people can regain control of their time. A friend gave me a copy last year, when I was already partway to deciding to reduce my contracted working hours, and some of Hodgkinson's ideas guided me through that process. The result is that, 18 months on, I'm busier than ever - but with things over which I have control, and which, if I choose, I could say no to. The sense of liberation is still exhilarating. (And yes, I still gripe about the amount of work I have to do!)
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Seems to me this is largely about the role and the way that given societies value them.

Nobody values toilet cleaning, even though it is one of the most important role in any organisation or society.

When churches give the status of ordination to the people who clean the toilets as well as those who use their mouths, wave their hands around and produce notes, maybe people will be queuing up to do the cleaning.

In fact if there was ever a church that ordained people to clean the toilets, I'd be there.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
At my previous church, we had an evening clean of the church prior to a wedding; lots of people turned up, brought cake, there was coffee, it was sociable and fun. Occasional major cleaning and polishing sessions meant that the weekly clean was less arduous. However, that was in a city church where weddings involved someone actually known to the congregation.

My present church is a pretty village church, we have more weddings of people with only a tangential connection, and I can't see that working here.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
In fact if there was ever a church that ordained people to clean the toilets, I'd be there.
I once worked at a church where many of the lay voluntary workers were "ordained" - that is, they were introduced into their role with prayer and with the laying-on of hands. Some of them opted not to be, but others found it to be a valuable acknowledgement of their work. I don't think we ever specifically did a toilet-cleaner, but I don't see why we wouldn't have.
 
Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How many people have the ability to just take time away from work though?
I think this question is the right one. In the Good Old Days, many people had a nine to five job that really was just nine to five. After leaving the office/factory/building site, you went home and had time to do things.

Today, many people have a job that takes more than eight hours a day, and there is an expectation that you'll do work (or at least answer e-mail) outside working hours.

Couple that with companies cutting down on the number of workers for "efficiency savings" and you find that the workers are working long hours without even the benefit of proper breaks during the day.

It is not surprising that they are exhausted at the end of the day and do not have the energy to volunteer.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I'm not really busy. Honestly, I'm not. I managed to fit in two part-time university degrees around everything else I do, and I'n nost studying at the moment, and the week hasn't got any shorter.

So why don't I volunteer for regular jobs at church other than on Sundays?

Because they either happen on weekday evenings or Saturday mornings.

Weekday evenings are difficult because I've got a full-time job, and it takes an hour to get from work to church, and I work later than the mostly retired people who do most churchy stuff think is appropriate for a meeting to start.

That might be generally true. There has been a gradual shift from "blue collar" to "white collar" jobs over the last century or more. And office workers work later than manual workers. 9 to 5 is still the standard, and 10 to 6 quite common, and some will work to 7 or later. And people commute more now. So once upon a time maybe most workers got home at 5 or 5.30 so that meant 6 or 6.30 was a sensible time for an evening meeting. Nowadays I wouldn't bet on most being at home till 7 or later. So if you are going to eat at home or put the kids to bed, eveniong meetings should start at 8.30. Even if you go straight to the meeting from work (as I amost always would because I don't eat till later) 7.30 is the earliest time that makes sense and 8pm better.

Also more peopel nowadays are single and fewer married. And fewer have kids. And single and childless people are more likely to work later and do social things in the envening (which means they go to bed later and get up later) than married-with-kids people. Might have made a difference.

Saturday mornings are out because I've got a full-time job, and I do church stuff on Sunday mornings, so Friday night/Saturday morning is the only time in a normal week I have a chance to get enough sleep. And I have a direct command from God almighty to Moses himself, carved on tablets of stone, to back me up on that one.

And yes, its impossible to get the vicar to understand. She seems to think Saturday morning is an appropriate time for meetings. It is the worst time in the whole week! If the business is important I'd rather have it on a weekday and take the day off work. And if its not important, I'm not going on a Saturday morning. Simple as.

And is there a special place in Hell reserved for the perpetrators of Breakfast Meetings? Not that I know who they are because I have never been to one and home I never ill.

The solution? No Idea. Some suggestions:

1) Have evening events later

2) Schedule as much as possible for Sunday and try to get church members to expect to devote all of Sunday to church. (Why not have regular group Sunday lunches? Put on events for kids in the afternoon while the adults are doing that cleaning, or discussing the plumbing, or whatever it is adults do in church meetings)

3) Make a rule that every time someone schedules a meeting before 2pm on a Saturday they have to have one of their fingers cut off with a pair of secateurs. That'll mean only the *really* important business gets put in that hole.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Tom Hodgkinson's excellent book How to be Idle.
Sounds brilliant. I have just ordered a copy. Thank you.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]

Would gladly give money to pay someone else to do it - my time is worth £30-50 an hour.
Well, yes, of course everyone says let's get professionals in to do the cleaning; we'll pay. Problem is that if we could pay the fuel bill and the maintenance on the rest of the church and the full parish share and have some left over for mission work that would be a fine idea. But as it is, where's the money going to get diverted from?
From me. Instead of using my time to do cleaning.

I am quite serious - the church wastes the talents of its members by giving them inappropriate work instead of discerning their talents.

So how about - instead of spending an hour cleaning, i work an hour and give the money earned to the church?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Even if you go straight to the meeting from work (as I amost always would because I don't eat till later) 7.30 is the earliest time that makes sense and 8pm better.
I agree - clergy who've never had 'a real job' simply don't understand.

I had a meeting yesterday, doing the church's work, at the diocesan offices. It finished at 6. Two buses home took 90 minutes (plus 15 minutes waiting for one, ten for the other = 125 mins journey time). I missed a meeting at 7.30 because i hadn't eaten since 8am so i wanted to eat and also to have my quiet time.

Some clergy guilt-trip people who miss meetings and say they aren't committed enough.

They're wrong. Many are committed to mission and resent wasting time on maintenance.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I enjoy being busy. I'm semi retired now (work two days a week) and I love filling my days. Some is charity work, some involves hobbies, some involves preparing for my two days work. Quite a bit is family stuff.

I don't feel guilty in the least if asked to do something at Church and can't fit it in. I do what I regard as enough. No one can do everything.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How many people have the ability to just take time away from work though?
I think this question is the right one. In the Good Old Days, many people had a nine to five job that really was just nine to five. After leaving the office/factory/building site, you went home and had time to do things.
I think you all are missing the point of what the man was saying. In many fields of work, community involvement is part of the job, because it helps you make contacts with perspective customers. The man giving me this advice is a real estate agent. If he just went into the office from nine to five, bought an advertisement here and there, and hoped that business would come tripping in the door, he was going to be out of business shortly. But by being active in the community, he met enough people and honed his people skills so that he became the first person someone called when they were ready to buy or sell a house. For him, an hour and a half spent at a Rotary club meeting wasn't an hour and a half that he was taking out of his work day; it was an hour and a half spent marketing himself to perspective clients.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Well, OK. But that says nothing to the majority of us who don't need to do that sort of thing for work, whose workplaces won't appreciate us buggering off for an afternoon to clean the church, and who are being accused of either laziness or not caring because of those facts.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I think you all are missing the point of what the man was saying. In many fields of work, community involvement is part of the job, because it helps you make contacts with perspective customers. The man giving me this advice is a real estate agent.
[Eek!] I may be falling for the stereotype, but if I was asked to make a list of jobs that I would not expect to be involved in community service, estate agents would be near the top of it! Somewhere just above gangsters and drugdealers.

In my experience people who do do community service of some kind through their job tend to be middle-ranking employees of very large organisations. Often public-sector, but more often very large private companies - they like the PR and the image of being a good neighbour. For example the primary school I used to be a governor of, got some computers and office equipment, and occasional volunteer work, from a well-known American bank which has a computer centre nearby. And the oil company I used to work for would allow time off for such things as well. Sometimesw even paid time off. I suspect the university I work for now might as well. The school wouldn't have of course - if you have a few thousand employees you can afford to lose a few for a day a month. If you only have twenty, you probably can't.

[ 29. November 2012, 18:06: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Oh no- the best personal marketers I know are all real estate agents. You have to be on a board, you have to volunteer, you have to send out materials to past clients, you have to do anything to be visible and get referrals. We should all learn from them- "too busy" might not be an answer as often if we all did.

As an example of a job where you wouldn't think this stuff was important but it is, my wife is a florist. You can bet that her community involvement is on her resume and that she does her best to schedule her working hours around the volunteer board she sits on- if your boss knows you are out there making contacts and hustling for business, you have job security.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Hmmmm, pond difference I think Og - over here estate agents stick to selling houses and florists stick to selling flowers.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
This is not just an issue for churches, a lot of voluntary groups are finding it hard to keep and recruit volunteers. In recent years I have known many groups to close for lack of support, including the local schookids football team.
There are many reasons for this, including:-
• One is simply that society has changed and people have a lot more options and interests to fill their time.
• We have a society in which large groups of people just don’t think of being that altruistic anymore
• For some reason a lot of people don’t like committing to anything regular
And yes churches have to be sensitive to their peoples needs, in some areas with lots of working commuters, evening meetings need to be later, however others with different working patterns need earlier meetings –I was at a church once who liked 8:00pm, my current church likes 6:30 so they can have their early nights!!. There are some places where people won’t go out in the evenings. My current church won’t do anything on Sundays after church, they are all too busy rushing off to put their Sunday dinners on for the family to come around. And I have never met anybody who thought a Friday evening was a good time for a meeting.

Its helps if you are sensitive to local needs, but problems recruiting and keeping, volunteers, are more complex .
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
you have to do anything to be visible and get referrals.
Clearly, this is the key thing for the employers who allow (or even encourage) their staff to get out and do voluntary work during work hours. I can definitely see how it would be important to estate agents or florists.

What I can't see is how that has any relevance or lesson for those of us whose bosses neither need nor care about such referrals. I work for a university - ain't one kid in the world going to choose to come here just because they've seen me cleaning the church. My previous job was in third-party company car fleet management - that company didn't even engage with the wider community because all it's customers were other companies, so they'd never have let me take time off for community projects.

I really don't think your examples of companies that encourage their staff to get out into the community have much to say to the majority of us whose companies don't.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
You've reminded me of a friend who about 10 years ago, was a very active volunteer involved in running several groups, in church and outside of church, and felt passionately about what she did..


She appled for a job and filled in her 'intersts and hobbies' on the form mentioning the youth club etc. The interviewer refused to see these as valid outside interests and he kept quizzing her about her 'hobbies' as if there were something strange or unreal and it actually went against her in the interview!!
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
We used to have a really wonderful vicar who inspired others to help out in all sorts of ways by always being there, leading by example. So if we had a church work party, you would turn up and see the vicar half way up a ladder, already dusting and removing cobwebs. If there were chairs to be shifted for a big service, he was already there shifting chairs before any other helpers arrived. Guess what - he was the vicar who always found it easy to get volunteers. There was a feeling of 'all in it together' not one person telling everyone else what to do.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
you have to do anything to be visible and get referrals.
Clearly, this is the key thing for the employers who allow (or even encourage) their staff to get out and do voluntary work during work hours....
Someone doing volunteer work for community contacts and referrals won't be cleaning church toilets, for two reasons.

1. Cleaning toilets is usually done alone, no contacts made. (In some churches many volunteer jobs are done alone. That may be fine for people needing a break from being always around people, but it's not good for newcomers needing to make friends nor business people seeking contacts.)

2. Cleaning toilets doesn't show off the kind of skills for which the business person wants to be sought out by contacts. Unless maybe s/he runs a cleaning business.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
...if we had a church work party, you would turn up and see the vicar half way up a ladder, already dusting and removing cobwebs... Guess what - he was the vicar who always found it easy to get volunteers. There was a feeling of 'all in it together' not one person telling everyone else what to do.
I don't know if "all in together" is the reason but people do like to be where the clergy person is.

We had a Thanksgiving Day meal by the church for the church, created because the clergy guy had no one to celebrate that meal-based holiday with. Lots and lots of people attended.

He left, the new guy arrived, gave the event the same promotion but also mentioned he wouldn't be there. Barely two dozen people showed up, the next year barely a dozen (all significantly disabled, and their caretaker, which suggests providing a place to go for the holiday was a real service to them).

The next year the clergy guy said he would attend. Lots and lots of people came.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
you have to do anything to be visible and get referrals.
Clearly, this is the key thing for the employers who allow (or even encourage) their staff to get out and do voluntary work during work hours....
Someone doing volunteer work for community contacts and referrals won't be cleaning church toilets, for two reasons.

1. Cleaning toilets is usually done alone, no contacts made. (In some churches many volunteer jobs are done alone. That may be fine for people needing a break from being always around people, but it's not good for newcomers needing to make friends nor business people seeking contacts.)

2. Cleaning toilets doesn't show off the kind of skills for which the business person wants to be sought out by contacts. Unless maybe s/he runs a cleaning business.
2 (a). Even if they did run a cleaning business and wanted to make a demonstrable service to a town, public toilets in a more visible location would be a better prospect than some tucked away in a church building.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I don't know if "all in together" is the reason but people do like to be where the clergy person is.
Humans are social animals. Like dogs, we like to be with the leader of our pack. It's true whichever "pack" we're considering, not just church. Most of us belong to several packs - church, family, work, various clubs and social activities etc.

The most effective leaders are the people whom other people most want to be with.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Humans are social animals. Like dogs, we like to be with the leader of our pack. It's true whichever "pack" we're considering, not just church. Most of us belong to several packs - church, family, work, various clubs and social activities etc.

The most effective leaders are the people whom other people most want to be with.
This is annoyingly true!

'Leading by example' and showing your face works very well for leaders in all settings, including the Church.

I have serious problems with Church meetings, so much so that I have stopped going to any. So many people just go because they like the ritual and detail of meetings, and the sound of their own voice. Now if they want me to do something they ask - and, if I have time and expertise, I do it.

Works well all round.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The number of churches in the UK has barely budged, but the number of people attending has fallen significantly. In practice it's worse than that, because many churches have been hollowed out by people choosing relatively large congregations, leaving smaller churches with less volunteers and with the need to compete with the larger churches in what they offer - or at least that's the belief.

The other problem is the fear that if you put your hand up to volunteer, you will end up as solely responsible for it for ever. Whilst this probably doesn't happen too often, the perception of it being a danger must be a deterrent.

The desperation to fill posts can be off-putting. My last church closed, and the local churches all know that I was an active member; when they say I'd be most welcome to join them, I'm afraid (a bit unfairly) that what they really mean is that they need a new able-bodied person to put on their rota!

For me, there's also been a dawning realisation that 'working for the church' often means putting in more than you get back. Fortunately, this isn't how everyone feels; I hope that in many churches morale is high, there's a strong sense of vision and a shared destiny, pulling together for the common good. But my experience left me feeling a little bit used. In elderly congregations, it can come across as though younger people are wanted for their labour, but not really for their ideas and intellectual contributions. This feeling may well put some people off.

But everyone has their contribution to make.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Being as I am in the midst of making a costume to be in an amateur Renaissance Madrigal Dinner" show, I am reminded of another reason we are all so busy --

Standards have gone up.

For a costume, used to be throw on some cloth add a glued together hat, call it a costume, good to go. Now, perhaps spoiled by movies ad TVs, we expect a more "accurate" (in the popular mind, not the historian's mind) costume design, even for a one evening amateur event.

Word processors have not reduced work, instead the standards went up, where it used to be normal to have a typo or two per page, now the church newsletter must have perfect typing plus attractive formatting and good illustrations so it doesn't come across as "they aren't really interested in communicating well."

Another time pressure is that we are trying to do more. When I grew up churches didn't create activities bags for children, adult welcome kits (including a mug and a pen and some candy in addition to the information about church programs). We didn't have lay people reading lessons and prayers so we didn't need a volunteer keeping track of a rota for that. Coffee was just coffee and store bought cookies, now in some churches it's a lot of food which adds to the time needed to plan, shop, prepare the food (slice the cheese), clean up.

Now we have all the volunteer needs we had before, plus these new ones, plus a web page designer and someone to maintain the Facebook page, plus probably better (more work) accounting is required, training on child safety, etc., so much more work than we used to do!

These added activities might come under the heading "standards went up," we are trying to do more because each added activity is aimed at making church more welcoming. But if you have the same number of volunteers and increasing work, there will be a shortage.

And if the number of volunteers is decreasing, one reason is that "standards have gone up" is true of all life activities, both work and volunteer. People are less able to volunteer in two or three places if each is requiring more work, so some drop scouts to do church and some drop church to do scouts, where before the standards went up they could volunteer in both.
 
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :
 
One of the problems that made me end my church volunteering was that I was expected to volunteer according to the amount of work to be done rather than according to how much time I had available. So making the tea & coffee got added to setting out the church hall chairs and then it was just come in once a week to clear up in the kitchen followed by word processing stuff for the parish magazine and so on and so forth. When someone found out I was a teacher and hinted about sunday school and youth groups I told them politely that I had only ever agreed to do a couple of extra half hours either side of the sunday service and that I couldn't take on anything else. Umbrage was taken and I was the villain of the parish.

Now I think that the only way to survive church volunteering is learning to say "no" early on. I'm not good at judging when so I get in first just in case I miss a later opportunity. If you don't start off by saying you are busy you soon will be.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
One of the problems that made me end my church volunteering was that I was expected to volunteer according to the amount of work to be done rather than according to how much time I had available.
Yup. I got scolded for "not doing enough around here" the week my habitual 20 hours a week accidentally jumped to 30 hours a week, all of the work at the request of the Methodist pastor who scolded me. I guess in his mind, because I was unemployed I owed full time to his church. (He also scolded me for doing some volunteer work outside the church.)

He's gone now. But I have never again agreed to do any regular weekly task, I don't even sing in choir anymore except seasonally. I volunteer for one day projects knowing that the "3 hours max" might be 3 hours but probably will be 5 or 6 (or 10) hours by the time they are done adding "oh yes, and of course when you agreed to do X that means you will do Y and Z, it all goes together."

To be fair, workmen who do paid jobs for homeowners complain about the same thing. They are called to fix a pipe, they plan their schedule of how many appointments they can do in one work day, they arrive to fix the pipe which will take half an hour, one hour max if there's a glitch, but the homeowner says "as long as you are here, you need to fix these other three problems because they are what caused the pipe problem I told you about."

To the homeowner, or the volunteer recruiter, the task is to get someone here who can do the job, NOT to figure out ahead of time how much work is needed and communicate the task accurately to the person being recruited.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Maybe the Church institution just needs to accept that voluntary help to keep things going is on the way out? As some others have suggested here, maybe it's the era for reducing plant, services, organizational and structural support etc. The days of a coherent voluntary community working together to achieve agreed objectives under the supervision of an official, accountable to the authority of his/her ordination and answerable for their time by virtue of a stipend are dying and going.

Either the Church outrightly becomes a paid-for professional dispenser of consumer spiritual 'goods', affordable only to the well-off. Or additionally the idea of indigenous Body of Christ witnessing communities is abandoned. And Christians just 'be' the Body of Christ by themselves, or in smaller basically unstructured groups - no charitable status, no paid officers or employees, no buildings, no societal role or accountability, no constitution - legislative, doctrinal or liturgical etc.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Maybe the Church institution just needs to accept that voluntary help to keep things going is on the way out? ...
But it's not. In cases where the church is effectively led by a pastor who puts people ahead of tasks and not afraid to get their hands dirty, there will be no trouble finding enough people to make things happen.

Reliance on the paid professionals to do everything is even less realistic, with the majority of churches also facing revenue shortfall thanks to dropping numbers of people and the rising cost of maintaining horrifically unsuitable buildings.

I do agree that if congregations want things to continue, they need to adopt sustainable expectations of what congregations are capable of committing to, and that includes switching to more sustainable buildings or renting space at a school hall. There are way too many churches that are governed by people who prefer to close their eyes and recall a rose-tinted vision of the good old days when the church was a more significant social hub over opening their eyes and seeing reality, so perhaps mandating a spread of ages among the eldership of a congregation might be a good start for denominational bodies that want to survive.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
I think what what Bob Two-owls (and some others) is saying has a lot of merit here. I've certainly found similar to be the case. I definitely have people cutting up when I'm not meeting some sort of expectation that I am available 7x24x365 to "do something". Yeah, sure, I want to spend all weekend after a full week of work catering an event, not only for no compensation but personally out of pocket (sometimes unreimbursed). Even if someone "brings the food in", there is a considerable amount of planning work and shopping for paper goods and drinks (etc.) as well as hours on my feet.

So the question the OP should be asking is not "why is everyone so busy" but brainstorming about ways to restructure the task so that things can get done even with the vastly-different 21st century resources. It likely won't be done as it was before.

I think for the OP some people would be willing to do the occasional work days (especially if leadership showed actual leadership and was there) but it sounds like these volunteers did a not-terrifically-fun job every week for decades. As noted ... volunteers do not want to volunteer if they think they might be stuck with it forever. Things with a built-in exit strategy are good. People just have less time in general with more adults holding full-time employment, many in full-time employment working well over 40-hour weeks, kids scheduled hither and yon, and more options for both service and entertainment.

Some excellent possibilities have been offered above. I'm leaning towards the combo of "let it slide and the money will likely start appearing" [Biased] .

As a meta-note from someone who has seen both successes and failures in succession planning, I will note that some people are better at grooming replacements than others (and some organizations are better at recognizing need for this than others). Successful organizations pay close attention to succession planning.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Maybe the Church institution just needs to accept that voluntary help to keep things going is on the way out? ...
But it's not. In cases where the church is effectively led by a pastor who puts people ahead of tasks and not afraid to get their hands dirty, there will be no trouble finding enough people to make things happen.

That is sometimes true. But often it isn't. The best leadership in the world is useless without a willingness to respond to leadership.

(No doubt my own failure in this area is my own fault, so I'm not talking about myself here. And if someone would like to give me the formula which sets off the flood of willing, committed untapped talent just waiting for the right example I'll happily follow it!)

But I've seen inspirational people-centred ministers very much getting their hands dirty and leading the way, offering opportunities and support etc, but more often than not just being left to get on with it. We can keep blaming the leadership for the failure of the whole Body to come to grips with building the kingdom of God but so far it doesn't seem to be of much use, probably because it is only partially true.
 
Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Someone earlier on in this thread:
Well, here's why I'm so busy:

...(Main section of post deleted)...

Posts: 23578
And the individual who posted that isn't have the highest posting Shipmate on this thread.

I'll tell you why I have less time for voluntary work than my parents did - too much time online. They also only had 3 TV channels, I have dozens. They didn't have DVDs, iPlayer, XBoxes, etc. etc. I have way more easy options for filling my time than they did.

I know there are many other factors (like working yourself to death to pay the mortgage, or not actually wanting to do the jobs that need doing), but we can't overlook the massive array of easy leisure choices we all have.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Maybe the Church institution just needs to accept that voluntary help to keep things going is on the way out? As some others have suggested here, maybe it's the era for reducing plant, services, organizational and structural support etc. The days of a coherent voluntary community working together to achieve agreed objectives under the supervision of an official, accountable to the authority of his/her ordination and answerable for their time by virtue of a stipend are dying and going.

Either the Church outrightly becomes a paid-for professional dispenser of consumer spiritual 'goods', affordable only to the well-off. Or additionally the idea of indigenous Body of Christ witnessing communities is abandoned. And Christians just 'be' the Body of Christ by themselves, or in smaller basically unstructured groups - no charitable status, no paid officers or employees, no buildings, no societal role or accountability, no constitution - legislative, doctrinal or liturgical etc.
I think your last paragraph represents the divided future of the church. There's likely to be a huge reduction in church buildings and paid staff in the future, simply because the finances and the people won't be available. So there'll be a reduced need for volunteers to look after church buildings, as more Christians meet in small groups. Maybe lay people with training will have to take on far more of the spiritual direction in these small groups.

But there will also be a number of large and influential congregations that have the critical mass to be able to survive, and attractive enough to draw in Christians from a wide area.Some of them will be able to raise funds by letting out their property during the week, and so will be able to pay for cleaners, accountants, etc.

I can't see how traditional congregations are going to be financially viable unless they take a more business-like approach to generating funds. You can't expect fewer and fewer churchgoers to give more and more time and money. How is that going to work? They either need to become more financially aware, or else ditch the traditional set-ups entirely and just have cell groups, etc.

[ 06. December 2012, 13:33: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
...we can't overlook the massive array of easy leisure choices we all have.
What's wrong with that? Just because previous generations had nothing better to do in their spare time than more friggin' work doesn't mean we should seek to emulate them.

Each day of the week I get about six hours to spend as I see fit, compared to eighteen hours either at work, travelling to/from work or asleep. And out of those six hours I have to find time for dressing, bathing, cooking and eating. I don't see why I should spend the pitiful rump of remaining day in which I can do things I actually choose to do doing stuff I don't enjoy doing.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
...we can't overlook the massive array of easy leisure choices we all have.
What's wrong with that? Just because previous generations had nothing better to do in their spare time than more friggin' work doesn't mean we should seek to emulate them.

Well, it's not a case of our parents and grandparents not having 'better' things to do. Eg, washday was a full-time occupation for a housewife without a washing-machine/tumble-drier. Vaccums were luxuries. Preparation began for dinner a lot earlier in the day, and shopping was often done on foot and pushing the pram. The door-stoop and windows were washed weekly by the family members. Pre-school kids were at home with Mum or granny; older siblings often managing the after-school child-care routines. Laborious drudgery, perhaps, but hardly less valuable than defrosting the chips for dinner and spending two hours on the Wii! Spare-time would've been much rarer - and perhaps much better appreciated in those days, I imagine.

I'm with you in rejoicing that we have amazing opportunities to do things with our free time that our older family members could only have dreamt with. But I don't think either they or we should think they were simply sitting round twiddling their thumbs waiting for X-Box to be invented. They were creating the world we've inherited, including the choices to use our free time as we wish.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
The comment about pre-planning for a volunteer to exit a position is important. Partly because no volunteer can stick around forever, at minimum we all die, and partly because any experienced volunteer has been abused by expectation that they will continue that "one month" or "one semester" job forever.

Volunteers need to be told by the volunteer recruiter before agreeing to a task what will happen at the end of the agreed term. "If you don't tell us you are renewing for another term, we will assume you are quitting and we will either find a replacement or close that program but that's our problem, not yours."

Of course, most churches don't have a volunteer coordinator.

Lots of little churches around here have a partially paid (bi-vocational) clergy, no secretary, no paid musicians, no Sunday school (no expensive materials), whatever Bible studies etc anyone wants to lead, really minimal activities, inexpensive building, 3 or 4 all-church parties per year, and the people love their church. Part of the love may be the lack of pressure to volunteer? Just come and worship and enjoy the pot luck on 5th Sundays.

A simpler way to doing church is all around us.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I only do two regular jobs at church (apart from the occasional extra help at certain times of the year) because I'm also a Host on the Ship. Which I regard as just as much an important role as working in a RL church.
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
I'm down to one regular church job e-offering co-ordinator. I occasionally lend my reading abilities to one off events. For example, I am co-narrating our upcoming cantata.
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
Not everybody gets paid to hustle. I'm paid to take care of people. If I wandered off site to try to promote the organization I work for on work hours, I'd be fired faster than you can say "Criminal negligence."

[ 07. December 2012, 01:27: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I really can't do more than I do at church - I haven't the time nor the energy. It is difficult to get the diminishing congregation to complete all the jobs needed when we all have commitments at work and with family. It always seems to be the same people who do all the work. As they say, if you want something done, ask a busy person. There will always be people who are passive passengers and I don't know how to stir them out of this. Maybe we should have a choice of helping out or opting out by paying for the privilege. Can't see that working though as the opters out either wouldn't pay up or would leave.
 
Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :
 
Marvin - I didn't say there was anything wrong with posting lots on the Ship, or playing on the XBox, or anything else for that matter. I was just saying that I seem to do more of it than my parent's did when they were my age.

I also agree that people will only volunteer for things they enjoy doing, whether time is scarce or not. If there was a voluntary task to be done in church (or in any other setting) which you really enjoyed, you would probably find the time. I find it easier to give up a few hours to play for the church cricket team than I do to go to a home group, because cricket is fun while our home groups are a bit dull. And when church things have to compete with the delights of posting on the Ship or playing computer games, they have to be damn interesting to compete.
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
We had a program in our church that served as both fundraising and excellent PR for the church in the community, but also required a massive amount of work for the volunteer who co-ordinated it (importing and selling cases of citrus fruit from Florida). The church was very dependent on the money brought in from this fundraiser but when the couple who had been co-ordinating it for a few years gave up doing it, nobody else was willing to take it on. The new pastor organized it last year, but this year I'm assuming he must have told the board the co-ordinating fruit sales was not in his job description and they'd have to find a church member to do it.

The board came before the membership and very clearly laid out the situation: we've been running this fundraiser for 30 years; we really need the money from it; if no-one can be found to run it we will have to suspend the program; everyone will be upset if we suspend it but here's your opportunity: we are telling you from the pulpit that a co-ordinator must be found or the program ends.

Someone stepped forward to volunteer within days (a newer member). The interesting thing is that when I spoke to him in church last week and thanked him for being willing to take on the position, he said that he had been overwhelmed with offers of help from church members who were all willing to pitch in and help with the program. Most people didn't mind contributing time and effort in some way -- but nobody wanted to be the one stuck with being in charge, and thus being blamed if anything went wrong (or simply didn't please someone).

I think this is often the case with church volunteering. The "busy" thing is a genuine issue, but often it's fear of responsibility, and justifiably so, because most of us who've been active church volunteers for years have been jumped on by fellow members when they perceive something wasn't done as it should be.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
people will only volunteer for things they enjoy doing, whether time is scarce or not. If there was a voluntary task to be done in church (or in any other setting) which you really enjoyed, you would probably find the time.
Hum, seems to me most church "jobs" are presented as "there's this boring chore we need to drag someone into doing long term because we need it done." It comes across as the church institution using people (using up people) for the benefit of an uncaring institution.

If we could focus on people, what sorts of things do different people jump at a chance to do, not just regard as "duty," we could present real opportunities instead of presenting "obligations."

Another problem is not knowing the difference between needs and habits. Often an activity starts because someone has an interest, whether a drama group or selling Christmas Cookies as a mini fund raiser. Then the person who was excited about drama or baking moves away (or changes interests) and the church looks for someone to drag into continuing the program.

When no one wants to run a program, it should be retired. A church can survive without a drama group, a craft bazaar, a dinner group for married couples, a Sunday School, a coffee, a choir. Know what is core essential, what is definitely enhancing, what is just nice to have. If nice to have or even enhancing disappears for a year or three before someone else wants to lead it again, fine. Cut the stress about "we have to find ushers because churches are supposed to have ushers." (Or anything else non-core.)

Although as a recent post points out, often the problem is people don't know there's a need, or don't know what is involved.
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
I'll tell you why I have less time for voluntary work than my parents did - too much time online.
When you find a church meeting I can attend during my 2 hours commuting, let me know.
 
Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I think this is often the case with church volunteering. The "busy" thing is a genuine issue, but often it's fear of responsibility, and justifiably so, because most of us who've been active church volunteers for years have been jumped on by fellow members when they perceive something wasn't done as it should be.
Oh, yes. One of my roles is projecting the hymns onto the big screen at the front of the church. If anything goes wrong (for example, last Sunday, one of the hymns from the new Methodist hymn book accidentally had a few lines missing), at least one person will always come over and mention the mistake. If everything goes right, I can sometimes walk out of the church without anyone talking to me.

Unfortunately, if I screw up, it's more public than someone else's mistakes. My response to any complaints now is that if anyone thinks they can do a better job, they are welcome to join the rota.

[ 07. December 2012, 18:59: Message edited by: Starbug ]
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
Even realizing that things should come with a way-out/end date is a good thing. I am personally hanging on for dear life until I am off the church board. I'm taking a grand sabbatical afterwards (I have a couple of Completely Different things in mind). This too shall pass! Two major transitions, both of them with ugly bumps, have taken their toll.

There are, as noted, multiple sides to this equation:

* Leadership needs to recognize need for succession planning and brainstorm plan
* Person "in charge" needs to recognize need for succession planning and be willing to "scoot over"
* Rest of group needs to be listening when call for help goes out

We have definitely found things around here falling apart after one person leaves a job (for whatever reason). I know in some cases the person doing it had a death grip and was either acting actively or passively to discourage new leadership. In some cases the person in charge is unpleasant or whiny and nobody wants to work with him/her (one person I can think of also has a bad habot of sabotaging/undermining people). In some cases the PIC doesn't have either of those problems but people assume "it's being taken care of" and don't bother thinking about doing it. In some cases there is just not a lot of interest in doing whatever it is even after the need has been communicated (although sometimes you need to think of alternate communication modes). And I think for some things it is as in Trudy's excellent story - once it has been adequately communicated and someone has volunteered to head up the effort, others are willing to help.

Part of successful leadership is to find ways for large segments (if not all) of the congregation to "be involved". Obviously this works much, much better for some tasks than others. Gift discernment should be an active part of the congregation's life. There's also a number of things that IMO come under "selfless service" - they aren't glamorous, they aren't public, they don't pad your resume - it's easier to recruit for this if prospects see that there is a top-down approach to the scutwork, get thanked in various ways, etc. (*)

* One of our new Altar Guild recruits says that she's impressed with us so far because we all pitch in and do all the work, even the scutwork - nobody swans in and does only the "fulfilling" tasks.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:


There are, as noted, multiple sides to this equation:

* Leadership needs to recognize need for succession planning and brainstorm plan
* Person "in charge" needs to recognize need for succession planning and be willing to "scoot over"
* Rest of group needs to be listening when call for help goes out

We have definitely found things around here falling apart after one person leaves a job (for whatever reason). I know in some cases the person doing it had a death grip and was either acting actively or passively to discourage new leadership. In some cases the person in charge is unpleasant or whiny and nobody wants to work with him/her (one person I can think of also has a bad habot of sabotaging/undermining people). In some cases the PIC doesn't have either of those problems but people assume "it's being taken care of" and don't bother thinking about doing it.
I agree with these points.

One could go as far to say that the jealous hoarding of one post lead indirectly to the closure of my last church. The elderly treasurer refused any offers of help, didn't train anyone up, and wasn't transparent about his processes, which were apparently not as good as they should be. The church routinely sent a large chunk of its money abroad each year to help another church - a kind gesture, but there was no accountability from the other church, and we really couldn't afford it. There were the influential voices in the congregation saying that this man was perfectly capable, and should be left alone to get on with the job.

Then the treasurer died, the money stopped being sent abroad, and suddenly, we were being told that the church finances weren't as healthy as we thought. And the post of treasuer remained unfilled; the job ended up being shared by the minister and several others, including a man from outside our church. The church closed less than ten years later.

The author David Murrow says that churches tend to be dominated by 'passive activists'. These people focus their passions on trying to keep church life the same. Even small changes often offend them. Changes in staffing or procedures must have the same effect.
 
Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :
 
I'm one who will stop volunteering at Sunday School quite happily once my 2 stop going. I think the bigger problem is that so many parents don't volunteer even when their children are there.

I'm also involved with their school, where parents are expected to get involved.

I'm a single mother who works just over full-time hours, does the shopping, cooking, laundry etc plus I study part-time.

And it's not only finding the time and energy, it's finding babysitters unless the activity is child-friendly - in which case it's probably something to do with Sunday School and I'm volunteering anyway...
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
I'm one who will stop volunteering at Sunday School quite happily once my 2 stop going. I think the bigger problem is that so many parents don't volunteer even when their children are there.
This is another problem with getting church volunteers. Everyone has an idea about who's "job" it is-- but it's never them. Particularly when it comes to Sunday School. The empty nesters say, "it's the parent's job". The parents say, "I'm home with them all day, it's the empty nesters job, I'll do it when mine are grown". The dads say "it's moms' job" and the moms say it's the dads' job. Older people think the young people should do it, young people think older people should do it.

My reading of the NT is that the teachers should teach, the preachers should preach and we should all serve.

Now I know it's not as simple as that-- for all the reasons already elaborated (including in Haydee's post). But it would help if we could begin by getting straight that it's not someone else's job. Then we can start figuring out what we can do and are willing to do with our limited resources, and how to do without what we are not willing to do.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
* Person "in charge" needs to recognize need for succession planning and be willing to "scoot over"

We have definitely found things around here falling apart after one person leaves a job (for whatever reason). I know in some cases the person doing it had a death grip and was either acting actively or passively to discourage new leadership. In some cases the person in charge is unpleasant or whiny and nobody wants to work with him/her
Many charities use "3 years and out," which is partly to get rid of mis-placed people.

Imagine a church policy of "you can be altar guild leader, or 2nd grade Sunday school teacher, or money counter for 3 years maximum." Real problems like with the treasurer would have an end date, and people would rotate into new positions creating a lot of cross training.

But many churches say "Mildred has been in charge of that task for decades and it would break her heart if she couldn't do it anymore" even when Mildred is one of the reasons others don't volunteer.

I believe in finding and using talents people want to contribute. But a talent for taking possession and keeping others out is not to be encouraged!

A church policy to rotate positions could be presented as a way to get newcomers involved, or as a way to get valuable cross training.

But a lot of churches are so sure there will be no replacement, they gladly put up with Mildred chasing off anyone who expresses interest in helping on her turf. Mildred is "essential."
 
Posted by Eleanor Jane (# 13102) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Many charities use "3 years and out," which is partly to get rid of mis-placed people.

Imagine a church policy of "you can be altar guild leader, or 2nd grade Sunday school teacher, or money counter for 3 years maximum." Real problems like with the treasurer would have an end date, and people would rotate into new positions creating a lot of cross training.

But many churches say "Mildred has been in charge of that task for decades and it would break her heart if she couldn't do it anymore" even when Mildred is one of the reasons others don't volunteer.

I believe in finding and using talents people want to contribute. But a talent for taking possession and keeping others out is not to be encouraged!

A church policy to rotate positions could be presented as a way to get newcomers involved, or as a way to get valuable cross training.

But a lot of churches are so sure there will be no replacement, they gladly put up with Mildred chasing off anyone who expresses interest in helping on her turf. Mildred is "essential." [/QB]
Ooh that one hits close to the bone. I *wish* my charity used this 'three years and out' thing (or at least 'three years and reassess'). I'm struggling at the moment with trying to raise more volunteers for a group led by folks who are amazingly dedicated but really not good at what they do and quite lacking in skills to befriend and lead other volunteers. [Disappointed] I just don't know how to go about building a group around them when they're such a blighting presence. They don't want to retire until there are people to hand over to, but I think if they did retire, I could find people much more easily.

Anyway, I think churches could learn a lot about volunteer management from volunteer managers (strange but true!). Basic principals like clear role descriptions, planned reward and recognition, a feedback process, possibly time-limited volunteering would all be helpful, I think.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0