Thread: Church version of Ramsay's kitchen nightmare? 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=025247
Posted by NJA (# 13022) on
:
With so many churches failing to bring in people, and/or lose previous customers, would it be a good idea for a proven professional to go around sorting things out?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Leaving aside the question of church as a leisure attraction in the same way as a restaurant or pub...
No.
Oh, you want to know why?
Because you don't need one to know why a given church has a congregation of three old ladies and an incontinent cat, or has a harvest festival congregation consisting of the vicar, the organist and an out of date tin of baked beans. Five minutes in the pews will usually give you a pretty shrewd idea.
The main problem generally seems to be that folk know what they need to do but have little idea how to do it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Who is this proven professional?
Billy Graham?
Christians aren't 'customers' (although they can act like it at times) and the Gospel isn't a commodity.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I have visions of a kind of Mary Portas figure going around showing churches how to sort out their notice-boards, stack their hymn books in an attractive manner, train welcome teams to smile at visitors or passers-by ...
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
If you allow the possibility that God might want the Church to be smaller, then by opposing that your imported millionaire entrepreneur would really be doing the work of Satan.
So no change there, then.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
With so many churches failing to bring in people, and/or lose previous customers, would it be a good idea for a proven professional to go around sorting things out?
No.
We already have the Holy Spirit and if we don't listen to Him, we're stuffed.
That's my deep and meaningful thought for the day ... And yes, I am being perfectly serious. The Church in the West is now a minority religion in a sea of securalism. If the penny hasn't yet dropped about this stark reality, then God help us. Actually, He will.
That's not to say we can't work in improving our presentation at times ...
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
With so many churches failing to bring in people, and/or lose previous customers, would it be a good idea for a proven professional to go around sorting things out?
Well, I'll provide a counterpoint to the earlier replies! I think there is a place for churches to seek guidance from a 'proven professional' on certain matters.
Maybe some people who give sermons / talks could benefit from training in presentation skills, and a church setting up a new youth club might find it useful to bring in some support from trained youth workers.
Is this the kind of thing you were getting at, NJA, or did you have something else in mind?
Posted by NJA (# 13022) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
... Maybe some people who give sermons / talks could benefit from training in presentation skills, and a church setting up a new youth club might find it useful to bring in some support from trained youth workers.
Is this the kind of thing you were getting at, NJA, or did you have something else in mind?
Yes, or more macro change. I know some have joined an umbrella group for guidance or sought a new pastor.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
With so many churches failing to bring in people, and/or lose previous customers, would it be a good idea for a proven professional to go around sorting things out?
Well, I'll provide a counterpoint to the earlier replies! I think there is a place for churches to seek guidance from a 'proven professional' on certain matters.
Maybe some people who give sermons / talks could benefit from training in presentation skills, and a church setting up a new youth club might find it useful to bring in some support from trained youth workers.
Is this the kind of thing you were getting at, NJA, or did you have something else in mind?
It's church, not a board meeting. Where is the sense of the numinous in presentation skills??
And what would a 'proven professional' even look like? Particularly in a church as diverse as the CoE or even the Baptist church.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
... Maybe some people who give sermons / talks could benefit from training in presentation skills, and a church setting up a new youth club might find it useful to bring in some support from trained youth workers.
Is this the kind of thing you were getting at, NJA, or did you have something else in mind?
Yes, or more macro change. I know some have joined an umbrella group for guidance or sought a new pastor.
Oh, I don't think people need umbrellas. If the roof's leaking you should get a chap round and fix it, rather than handing out umbrellas.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
We should always be ready to learn from someone else. The 'sense of the numinous' test is bit of a blind alley IMO: if you're going to so something, do it as well as you can- whether that's preaching a sermon, choreographing a full solemn Snog & Bendies, or doing something with powerpoints or a praise band. All of these require skills that can be learned and honed, and if you know someone who does them well, it makes sense to see what they can teach you (or someone else who needs to learn a bit more).
What I don't like is the idea of looking for some wonderworking 'expert' who can come in and turn everything around to follow a 'proven' model of what a 'successful' church looks like.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The main problem generally seems to be that folk know what they need to do but have little idea how to do it.
If that were the main problem, then rather obviously professional knowhow could be valuable.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The main problem generally seems to be that folk know what they need to do but have little idea how to do it.
If that were the main problem, then rather obviously professional knowhow could be valuable.
That may be so. But the Ramsey model is "we don't know what's wrong (except we're empty most of the time), please come and tell us what we're doing wrong and fix it for us". I think it's more "we know what's wrong and what we need to do but struggle to know exactly how" which is subtly but importantly different.
My analysis is of course based on a simple n=1 experience of sitting on a PCC for a year or so. Other analyses are available.
The other thing, of course, is that I'm rather put in mind of that episode of Rev where he lets the local charevo use his building...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
With so many churches failing to bring in people, and/or lose previous customers, would it be a good idea for a proven professional to go around sorting things out?
Mainstream churches already hire 'professionals', for what it's worth. I suspect that most ordinary clergy would be resentful of 'super-clergy' flying in to advise them on how to make their churches more spiritual, more dynamic, etc. But maybe not.
If you're talking about making use of advisors with business savvy, churches tend to baulk at that sort of thing. It's a bit hypocritical, though, because the big denominations surely have financial advisors to help with their investments at HQ level.
Each denomination does seem to represent a different 'business model' in the sense that some are willing and able to support tiny congregations better than others. It's easy for Anglicans to talk about the advantages of smallness when the CofE has the means to subsidise large church buildings attended by only a few congregants. For the Methodists, small congregations = closure, unless they're able to finance themselves though generating a strong rental income, which many of them (perhaps most) now do. Neither 'model' really depends on 'bringing people in', or keeping hold of the ones you have.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's church, not a board meeting. Where is the sense of the numinous in presentation skills??
And what would a 'proven professional' even look like? Particularly in a church as diverse as the CoE or even the Baptist church.
Yes, I'm with you on the sense of the numinous, but God wants us each to give of our best and develop our skills in order that we can serve him better, right? I just think training from the secular sphere might help in certain areas, including the couple I mentioned.
As for the larger-scale change that NJA seems to have in mind, I'm not so sure. Personally, I don't think churches should simply copy the management theory and structures of the secular world, but that's really just because of my 'small is best' views regarding church structure. I could easily imagine a large church with a staff team of several dozen finding it useful to get some guidance on HR issues, change management etc. Why not?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
With so many churches failing to bring in people, and/or lose previous customers, would it be a good idea for a proven professional to go around sorting things out?
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...And what would a 'proven professional' even look like?
Clue. He'd probably be wearing a mitre. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Seriously, isn't that the Bishops job? (for Anglicans/RCs at least)
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
Does anybody know how these folk are getting on?
Priest Idol
I did see the original series, which did involve various professional groups as well as advertising for a new priest.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
We should always be ready to learn from someone else. The 'sense of the numinous' test is bit of a blind alley IMO: if you're going to so something, do it as well as you can- whether that's preaching a sermon, choreographing a full solemn Snog & Bendies, or doing something with powerpoints or a praise band. All of these require skills that can be learned and honed, and if you know someone who does them well, it makes sense to see what they can teach you (or someone else who needs to learn a bit more).
What I don't like is the idea of looking for some wonderworking 'expert' who can come in and turn everything around to follow a 'proven' model of what a 'successful' church looks like.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Actually, I agree with Jade Constable on 'the sense of the numinous' ... although that would look a little different for a devout Roman Catholic than it would for a charismatic evangelical, for example. There are other examples.
At the same time, it is a worthy thing to aim for excellence in presentation. Without becoming a control freak about it. Clarity in communication is also key.
[We have several people in our congregation who are experienced am-dram players. When some of them are asked to read Scripture in church, they do so beautifully, infusing the passage with appropriate emotion and drama, but never over-doing this and certainly never showing off. (Ugh. That would have no place.) They are committed Christians and take the reading of Scripture seriously. That's just an example of excellence in presentation ... there are many others.]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
With so many churches failing to bring in people, and/or lose previous customers, would it be a good idea for a proven professional to go around sorting things out?
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...And what would a 'proven professional' even look like?
Clue. He'd probably be wearing a mitre.
Seriously, isn't that the Bishops job? (for Anglicans/RCs at least)
It's not the bishop's job to micromanage a priest's presentation skills, no.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...the Ramsey model is "we don't know what's wrong (except we're empty most of the time), please come and tell us what we're doing wrong and fix it for us". I think it's more "we know what's wrong and what we need to do but struggle to know exactly how" which is subtly but importantly different.
Good point. If a local church doesn't 'own' the problem then I'd have thought they're unlikely to embrace the solution, and as soon as the 'experts' head off, things will probably drift back to how they were before.
Whereas if a church has acknowledged the problem and at least begun to come up with a vision of how they'd prefer things to be (e.g. more young people, more older people, more support for single parents, higher quality music in the services...), then the 'experts' can come in and guide the church towards solutions.
This way, the church doesn't become reliant on outsiders who, even if they're Christians, won't have the same level of commitment as the church members. The church will hopefully be strengthened and empowered to fulfil its local mission more effectively, even once advisers / consultants have finished their work and left the scene.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
You can lead a horse to water...
Sometimes the problem is "we know what we need to do but we're not willing to do it."
Take for example a United Benefice addressing the problem of a priest having to do two main Sunday morning services at two churches six miles apart and therefore one of the services being at 9.15am which is very early for families to get to.
Suggested solution? Have a lay-led service of the word one week and a Eucharist the next so that the priest doesn't have to be in two places at once and both services can start at a civilised hour.
Response? Might as well have suggested human sacrifices and black masses.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's church, not a board meeting. Where is the sense of the numinous in presentation skills??
And what would a 'proven professional' even look like? Particularly in a church as diverse as the CoE or even the Baptist church.
Yes, I'm with you on the sense of the numinous, but God wants us each to give of our best and develop our skills in order that we can serve him better, right? I just think training from the secular sphere might help in certain areas, including the couple I mentioned.
As for the larger-scale change that NJA seems to have in mind, I'm not so sure. Personally, I don't think churches should simply copy the management theory and structures of the secular world, but that's really just because of my 'small is best' views regarding church structure. I could easily imagine a large church with a staff team of several dozen finding it useful to get some guidance on HR issues, change management etc. Why not?
I'm struggling to imagine a church with a staff team of several dozen aside from cathedrals (which are not usually parish churches anyway)! And cathedral worship is growing. I am very uneasy about treating churches like businesses or even schools - why not have inter-denomination or even ecumenical assistance for churches that need it, rather than from the secular world? Or even a booming church school helping out the associated church? Secular business and day to day church life mixing sounds a bit too unequally yoked to me, personally.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I'm struggling to imagine a church with a total membership of several dozen, never mind leadership team...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Missed the edit window - with regards to a booming church school, I mean one that is spiritually booming as opposed to being oversubscribed.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm struggling to imagine a church with a total membership of several dozen, never mind leadership team...
I have been in churches (Anglican even!) that have had to reorganise their Sunday service timetable because their main one was TOO popular! And actually the most successful one - in terms of sustainable success, certainly - is open evangelical surprisingly enough. In my opinion this was down to them doing a lot of really positive bridge-building work between various groups in the area and thus building a very diverse congregation. They also do a lot of community services (secondhand community swapshops, kids' groups etc) without them being about evangelism but about building trust.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm struggling to imagine a church with a staff team of several dozen aside from cathedrals... I am very uneasy about treating churches like businesses or even schools - why not have inter-denomination or even ecumenical assistance for churches that need it, rather than from the secular world?
Yes, I share your concern and 'unequally yoked' is a nice way of putting it. But bringing in secular expertise on specific matters just makes a lot of sense, I think.
As for large staff teams, maybe there aren't many churches in the UK with teams of several dozen, but here are two which aren't far off:
Christ Church, Winchester
Trent Vineyard Church
There must be UK churches with larger staff teams than this, and what about the North American mega-churches like Willow Creek? They must have well over 100 people on the payroll, I'd have thought.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I was speaking from an Anglican perspective - I have been to a Vineyard church once or twice but it was TOO big, it was like going to a lecture or a gig. That's not a comment on the quality of the services, only on the sheer scale of them. I honestly pray that we never see megachurches on the same scale as in the US - I think megachurch evangelicalism has really damaged evangelicalism in the US. I honestly never thought I'd say this (being a liberal Anglo-Catholic who was previously at a con-evo Anglican church which left me with some unpleasant spiritual scars) but I think British evangelicalism deserves better than that.
It's not that I think the mere presence of a person from a secular industry pollutes a church - obviously churches will always need secular industries for plumbing, building etc. To say nothing of secular teachers and governors in church schools! All of those people do vital work for churches. But I think churches being 'seeker-sensitive' or if we're more honest, 'customer-focused', leads churches down some unhelpful spiritual directions. It results in comfortable people looking for comfortable congregations to be comfortable in. The Kingdom is about building us up, not cushioning us on the way down.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
South Coast Kevin
America has loads of megachurches, and they're bigger than their British equivalents. It's an entirely different kettle of fish from the UK.
Peter Brierley lists some figures about the largest British churches. The ones you mention aren't there, so they must be a bit smaller.
http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/perspectives.php/1109?pg=all
I was reading somewhere that once you get to 250 people you have different leadership challenges, and different skills come into play. I imagine that most British churches find it very difficult to get over that hurdle. I doubt that the average British theological college is going to offer training in how to deal with such a large congregation, so ministers would have to acquire that knowledge elsewhere.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The main problem generally seems to be that folk know what they need to do but have little idea how to do it.
If that were the main problem, then rather obviously professional knowhow could be valuable.
We "know" how to fill our pews; the Annual Thinking Day service is full, Remembrance Sunday is packed, we have come close to turning people away from a standing-room only Christingle.
A full church for us is about 300. What we don't know is how to get those people to turn up on an ordinary Sunday, when the congregation averages 80-100, of whom at least half are aged over 70. We know that if we have small children being cute at the front of the church, their parents / grandparents etc will come. But we can't have a nativity play 52 Sundays in the year!! (We also know we have a slight rise in attendance in late Nov amongst families who have a daughter who hopes to be cast as "Mary"). We know a baptism bumps up numbers as friends / relatives / neighbours turn up. We know people turn up for the quarterly formal communion who don't come for any other service (including informal communion).
So we know bread and circuses fills the church. But should we really be doing that just to fill the church?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The main problem generally seems to be that folk know what they need to do but have little idea how to do it.
If that were the main problem, then rather obviously professional knowhow could be valuable.
We "know" how to fill our pews; the Annual Thinking Day service is full, Remembrance Sunday is packed, we have come close to turning people away from a standing-room only Christingle.
A full church for us is about 300. What we don't know is how to get those people to turn up on an ordinary Sunday, when the congregation averages 80-100, of whom at least half are aged over 70.
I think it's Ken who's keen on observing that the main reason people don't bother with church is they're not Christians.
I think he over-eggs the pudding a little (call on him three times and he might just appear!) and I think there are is a considerable constituency of dechurched and Christian-but-disenchanted-with-organised-religion*. If we think that church attendance is worthwhile and important, then they are a constituency it's worth engaging with.
Nevertheless, the reason that the vast majority of people who don't come to church don't come to church is because they aren't Christians. So why would they?
So there are two constituencies you are aiming yourself at - the unchurched and the dechurched. The experience seems to be that attempts to reach the former tend to net quite a lot of the latter - certainly this has tended to happen in some FE setups.
*CofE - organised anything?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
So we know bread and circuses fills the church. But should we really be doing that just to fill the church?
Goodness no. I know your comment wasn't addressed to me, NEQ, but I just want to be clear that I don't think churches should willy-nilly take on the practices and values of secular organisations. Sorry if I've given that impression upthread!
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nevertheless, the reason that the vast majority of people who don't come to church don't come to church is because they aren't Christians. So why would they?
Well, quite so. Jesus' Great Commission to his followers was that we should 'make disciples', not 'build churches'. I think it's significant that Jesus said he would build the church, not that we should do that. IMO our focus should be on encouraging one another to be disciples of Jesus (i.e. to order our lives as he did his, so our character becomes more closely conformed to his, so we naturally do good deeds - the fruit of the Spirit), and not on getting people along to our church services.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Goodness no. I know your comment wasn't addressed to me, NEQ, but I just want to be clear that I don't think churches should willy-nilly take on the practices and values of secular organisations. Sorry if I've given that impression upthread!
No, you hadn't given me that impression!
This is an issue that bothers me a lot - are the occasion full-to-bursting services actually a good thing?
Posted by sososlowly (# 17592) on
:
A couple of things, probably exhibiting my usual (high) degree of randomness:
(1) I'm a bit worried about the duality being set up here between the Church and the world. The earth is the Lord's and all that dwells therein and all that... If expertise from non-clergy (or even non-Christians) is helpful then we should use it. The challenge is to discern what is helpful and what is assimilating ourselves to a fallen world. That is a theological task.
(2) Churchgoers aren't customers. But we have some of the same needs as customers and we don't always know we're not customers (if we're new, un-churched for example). I'd argue that some basic good customer service, like clear, attractive notice boards, an up to date and informative web site, and a smile when you arrive are all things we could take from the best shops and restaurants without any danger of sidelining the Kingdom.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Goodness no. I know your comment wasn't addressed to me, NEQ, but I just want to be clear that I don't think churches should willy-nilly take on the practices and values of secular organisations. Sorry if I've given that impression upthread!
No, you hadn't given me that impression!
This is an issue that bothers me a lot - are the occasion full-to-bursting services actually a good thing?
Well, they are in the same way that if you had a brass band concert or a beetle drive or a film night or something - you'd probably get a load of people in who don't normally darken the door, and it's no bad thing, but it'd probably not go very far towards getting regular Sunday attenders.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I think people like having a reason to go to church occasionally, but going all the time is quite another matter. That involves having a strong sense of duty, which isn't a popular concept today.
Many people feel they can be Christians well enough without feeling duty-bound to hang around in a particular venue week in week out, regardless of what they're getting out of it. People want to gain some advantage in their activities, and they can't see what regular church attendance offers that they want or need.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's easy for Anglicans to talk about the advantages of smallness when the CofE has the means to subsidise large church buildings attended by only a few congregants. For the Methodists, small congregations = closure, unless they're able to finance themselves though generating a strong rental income, which many of them (perhaps most) now do. Neither 'model' really depends on 'bringing people in', or keeping hold of the ones you have. [/QB]
I don't know where youget the idea that the CofE can subsise the large buildings of local churches. The parish church bills are paid for by the congregation - I know too many congregations whose energies are tied up with keeping the building going and nothing else (but that's a different argument)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I'm not sure it's so much "getting something out of it", although if you do get absolutely bugger all out of it week in week out then you'd have to be quite extraordinary to keep it up. It's more "there being some actual point to it". I think much of what we do seems pretty pointless. I have a "duty" to attend? Why? To what end? To whose benefit?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I would like someone to give voice training to clergy and readers. I think that about a third of those I encounter are failures at using microphones or casting their voices. Professional sound and lighting experts would be nice as well and, if there's still time in the episode, a website adviser.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's easy for Anglicans to talk about the advantages of smallness when the CofE has the means to subsidise large church buildings attended by only a few congregants. For the Methodists, small congregations = closure, unless they're able to finance themselves though generating a strong rental income, which many of them (perhaps most) now do. Neither 'model' really depends on 'bringing people in', or keeping hold of the ones you have.
I don't know where youget the idea that the CofE can subsise the large buildings of local churches. The parish church bills are paid for by the congregation - I know too many congregations whose energies are tied up with keeping the building going and nothing else (but that's a different argument)
Can the small congregations I've seen really be paying for the upkeep of large, ancient buildings all by themselves? If so, they must be donating astronomical sums of money from their own pockets! Obviously, there's fundraising for specific issues, such roof repairs, etc. Maybe the funding of church properties works differently from parish to parish. I know that some churches, Anglican and otherwise, apply for access to special pots of money destined to support specific charitable activities. Lottery funding fits into this category.
Karl
As for duty, perhaps it's a Methodist thing, but there's often a sense that you should give to the church without considering any benefit to yourself. I really don't think this is a now viable way of getting people to attend church and to give their time, effort and money to church affairs. Yes, the priority is to build up the Kingdom of God, but sometimes it's not entirely clear that this is happening either. There's very little sense from the clergy that all the running around and fundraising and frustration and tolerating egos and personality clashes is of cosmic significance.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sososlowly:
A couple of things, probably exhibiting my usual (high) degree of randomness:
(1) I'm a bit worried about the duality being set up here between the Church and the world. The earth is the Lord's and all that dwells therein and all that... If expertise from non-clergy (or even non-Christians) is helpful then we should use it. The challenge is to discern what is helpful and what is assimilating ourselves to a fallen world. That is a theological task.
(2) Churchgoers aren't customers. But we have some of the same needs as customers and we don't always know we're not customers (if we're new, un-churched for example). I'd argue that some basic good customer service, like clear, attractive notice boards, an up to date and informative web site, and a smile when you arrive are all things we could take from the best shops and restaurants without any danger of sidelining the Kingdom.
While I still disagree with involving outside secular agencies - there's plenty of talent in this area within the church and they should be involved instead - I think you are right on the second point. An example - I have been to a number of Christian Unions (yes I know, not church, but near enough to be relevant here) either as a member or visiting. Some have been truly excellent - friendly, helpful, not overbearing and easy for an outsider to mix with. Unfortunately others have been cold, unfriendly to outsiders and just not a place newcomers want to be a part of. The second type describes the CU at my uni and it is haemorrhaging members, not just newcomers but established members. Certainly, a church like that (and doubtless they exist) COULD do with some outside help.
I however would not want a secular organisation to help because they would not be able to understand a church's unique needs. I do think the workings of the Holy Spirit would play a role here.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I however would not want a secular organisation to help because they would not be able to understand a church's unique needs. I do think the workings of the Holy Spirit would play a role here.
But a church's needs are not unique if you keep a tight scope on the help you're bringing in, IMO. Most churches wouldn't insist on a Christian plumber or a Christian office equipment supplier, so why insist on a Christian teacher if some people need singing lessons, or on a Christian sound engineer for your PA operator? In fact, sometimes bringing in an 'outsider' might even have advantages; a fresh perspective and all that...
And the workings of the Holy Spirit seem not to override, for example, the mumbling diction of some preachers or the overly-flamboyant and showy nature of some musicians' playing. Or any number of other technical deficiencies that could be addressed with some training. I'll be the first person to say technical excellence isn't the be all and end all, but ISTM the Holy Spirit doesn't cover our rank incompetence!
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I however would not want a secular organisation to help because they would not be able to understand a church's unique needs. I do think the workings of the Holy Spirit would play a role here.
But a church's needs are not unique if you keep a tight scope on the help you're bringing in, IMO. Most churches wouldn't insist on a Christian plumber or a Christian office equipment supplier, so why insist on a Christian teacher if some people need singing lessons, or on a Christian sound engineer for your PA operator? In fact, sometimes bringing in an 'outsider' might even have advantages; a fresh perspective and all that...
And the workings of the Holy Spirit seem not to override, for example, the mumbling diction of some preachers or the overly-flamboyant and showy nature of some musicians' playing. Or any number of other technical deficiencies that could be addressed with some training. I'll be the first person to say technical excellence isn't the be all and end all, but ISTM the Holy Spirit doesn't cover our rank incompetence!
I was thinking more of interpersonal relationship issues (to do with welcoming newcomers etc). I think it's different for technical matters.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm glad someone mentioned that Priest Idol programme referred to and linked to further up thread ...
For those who are unaware of it, it followed a struggling parish in Barnsley, South Yorkshire and its American priest. The programme hired a team of marketing consultants to help them turn things round - with what looked like initial success (although I wondered how much of that was simply because the cameras were there).
I'd be interested to hear how they'd doing a few years on.
I don't particularly have an issue with using professional consultants for particular purposes - help with fundraising, communication and so on - HR and team-building even.
What does bother me to some extent is the current emphasis on 'fun'. Come to church and praise God, it's fun ...
Now, I'm not saying we should be a bunch of miserable so-and-sos but churches, unless they are very close-knit in which case they can be prone to in-jokes and so on - tend not to be very good at fun. Saying that, I was drawn towards Christians initially by seeing how they enjoyed daft party-games and so on without getting legless first ... the kind of games I'd now run a mile from ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
The key to any of this is authenticity. It has to grow organically from within the natural social dynamics of each group ... otherwise it can look forced.
Providing 'fun' and family-times - Messy Church anyone? - may provide part of the answer but it isn't the be-all and end-all. I once read some very sobering and fascinating sociological stuff about Methodism and other non-conformist groups in Huddersfield in the 1920s.
As soon as the bus and the cinema arrived, chapel attendance dropped off remarkably quickly. Prior to that, with magic-lantern slides, sports activities and social-clubs etc the chapels provided the mainstay for many people's social lives. As soon as there were alternatives, the numbers dropped off quite dramatically.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I have visions of a kind of Mary Portas figure going around showing churches how to sort out their notice-boards, stack their hymn books in an attractive manner, train welcome teams to smile at visitors or passers-by ...
Over the pond there is an entire world like this. Cold calling consultants, trade shows for church marketing, church leaders employing teams of writers to draft their sermons, church leaders being poached, etc etc.
I'm not sure the results are all that salutary.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's easy for Anglicans to talk about the advantages of smallness when the CofE has the means to subsidise large church buildings attended by only a few congregants. For the Methodists, small congregations = closure, unless they're able to finance themselves though generating a strong rental income, which many of them (perhaps most) now do. Neither 'model' really depends on 'bringing people in', or keeping hold of the ones you have.
I don't know where youget the idea that the CofE can subsise the large buildings of local churches. The parish church bills are paid for by the congregation - I know too many congregations whose energies are tied up with keeping the building going and nothing else (but that's a different argument)
Can the small congregations I've seen really be paying for the upkeep of large, ancient buildings all by themselves? If so, they must be donating astronomical sums of money from their own pockets! Obviously, there's fundraising for specific issues, such roof repairs, etc. Maybe the funding of church properties works differently from parish to parish. I know that some churches, Anglican and otherwise, apply for access to special pots of money destined to support specific charitable activities. Lottery funding fits into this category.
No the funding of churches does not vary from parish to parish and yes each congregation does pay for the upkeep of the builidng itself. Though there are even people who sit in the pews week by week who do not realise that.
There are many congregations hostage to the needs of a building with no energy left for outreach and mission.
As you say for specific project, some times there are funding options - english heritage for example if a building is listed or historic.
But day to day running is down to a congregation and it's giving and it is getting more and more difficult for many congregations. For example One of the churches in our small group can barely find the money to fill the oil tank each winter the church is always underheated, which means more people don't come and then they get into a vicious circle of decreasing numbers and giving.
A lot of the nations listed ancient buildings are being kept and maintained by parish congregations,and in my view the congregations would be better giving the buildings to the nation and hiring the local school hall to meet in - but as I said that's a different arguement.
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on
:
It appears that the Priest idol church did v well, but was shut by fire:
http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2012-12-15/priest-idol-church-reopens/
In general, wanted to say agree with sososlowly, South Coast Kevin et al. God invented advertising, finance, voice training: yes they can all be used for wrong ends and perverted, but that doesn't mean we need not use them for good, as they were intended to be and as sososlowly rightly says. I'm surprised that those of a more catholic bent seem to be opposing this surely incarnational understanding.
Where in scripture does it say we should disdain secular methods? Did Paul shy away from approaching people where they are? Or did he become as they are to win them to Christ (1 Cor 9:20). If modern people need modern methods to draw them to Christ, so be it.
This does not mean we need abandon the Gospel. Use secular coaches to teach the way we teach the Gospel, not teach us how to form the Gospel itself. Better still, use Christian coaches! I note the medieval Minster idea - of a resource church holding specialists which can be used to assist local churches - is coming back into fashion, see the new CofE Latimer Minster congregation. Also see US 'good practice in ministry' sites such as Resurgence - where are the UK books on How to Grow your Church spiritually and numerically?
None of this need sacrifice the Gospel, or abandon discipleship. A church growing spiritually will also grow numerically (through relationship evangelism if nothing else).
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
It appears that the Priest idol church did v well, but was shut by fire:
http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2012-12-15/priest-idol-church-reopens/
In general, wanted to say agree with sososlowly, South Coast Kevin et al. God invented advertising, finance, voice training: yes they can all be used for wrong ends and perverted, but that doesn't mean we need not use them for good, as they were intended to be and as sososlowly rightly says. I'm surprised that those of a more catholic bent seem to be opposing this surely incarnational understanding.
Where in scripture does it say we should disdain secular methods? Did Paul shy away from approaching people where they are? Or did he become as they are to win them to Christ (1 Cor 9:20). If modern people need modern methods to draw them to Christ, so be it.
This does not mean we need abandon the Gospel. Use secular coaches to teach the way we teach the Gospel, not teach us how to form the Gospel itself. Better still, use Christian coaches! I note the medieval Minster idea - of a resource church holding specialists which can be used to assist local churches - is coming back into fashion, see the new CofE Latimer Minster congregation. Also see US 'good practice in ministry' sites such as Resurgence - where are the UK books on How to Grow your Church spiritually and numerically?
None of this need sacrifice the Gospel, or abandon discipleship. A church growing spiritually will also grow numerically (through relationship evangelism if nothing else).
I would be very happy to see the Minster model be used, and I think it would be a great idea. My concern is with churches being 'unequally yoked' with secular advisers.
Posted by sososlowly (# 17592) on
:
Jade,
Churches have control over the people from whom they seek help. If I were to use a secular organisation, I'd want to conduct careful due diligence to ensure that the organisation traded in an ethical way, and also ensure that they were a good "cultural fit".
But that doesn't always mean avoiding discomfort or conflict. My experience of leading change, both in church and non-church contexts, suggests that often people use the background of the messenger as an excuse for not hearing uncomfortable truths.
In my day job in retail this manifests itself in a defensive response to customer feedback or the insights of mystery shoppers.
In church, one sees the same dynamic.
I have in mind a priest I know who has just become part of a new team ministry, having been the incumbent of one of the churches in the team before the re-organisation.
That priest (awkward language to disguise gender so that this is as anonymous as it can be - sorry) is struggling with some very basic issues about working in that new team, who will do what? When will all the clergy go on holiday?
I think that's because there has been no time invested in discussing how the members of the new team are going to work together.
That team obviously need to do other things together as well as part of their coming together. I hope they pray, retreat, and share the Eucharist together frequently.
But they also need to do some bread and butter stuff which would be familiar to anyone who's ever had to form or lead or participate in a new team in a secular organisation.
And we do our clergy, and ourselves, no favours, if we eschew the wisdom that there is on this topic merely because it's secular.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
God invented advertising, finance, voice training: yes they can all be used for wrong ends and perverted, but that doesn't mean we need not use them for good... Where in scripture does it say we should disdain secular methods?... This does not mean we need abandon the Gospel. Use secular coaches to teach the way we teach the Gospel, not teach us how to form the Gospel itself. Better still, use Christian coaches!
Agreed. (With just about your entire post, but I've summarised it so as not to quote a huge block of text. Hope that's okay!) I do think it can be useful to bring in expertise from a totally different field, so as to get a fresh perspective, but I'm certainly up for using Christian coaches, builders, management consultants etc. if they're good at what they do.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sososlowly:
And we do our clergy, and ourselves, no favours, if we eschew the wisdom that there is on this topic merely because it's secular.
This, indeed. And whilst the transition to a team ministry might be an extreme example, it's also true of the everyday bread-and-butter - things like making people aware of what service to expect at what time (particularly in the game of musical services that team ministries usually play ). So you have a church noticeboard? That's nice, but is there a clear and consistent distinction between the calendar of services for the next month, the message from the vicar, and adverts for a bible study group or a concert in a neighbouring parish, or is everything jumbled together?
sososlowly is in retail, so I'm sure he knows that there is lots of money invested in the study of how people move around stores, where their attention is drawn and in what order. The people sitting in our pews are the same people - it does no harm to learn from those who have studied their behaviour.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I have visions of a kind of Mary Portas figure going around showing churches how to sort out their notice-boards, stack their hymn books in an attractive manner, train welcome teams to smile at visitors or passers-by ...
Over the pond there is an entire world like this. Cold calling consultants, trade shows for church marketing, church leaders employing teams of writers to draft their sermons, church leaders being poached, etc etc.
I'm not sure the results are all that salutary.
I've recently been reading this book - Rebuilt - which covers exactly this subject. Their description of the "failing" parish rang very true with me, until the bit where he says he got 600 people along to a meeting, but it dropped to "only" 200 when they realised it wasn't "entertainment". If we could get a remnant of 200 people to turn out to a non-worship meeting - or event to Easter Sunday worship - I wouldn't be calling the church "dying".
All the same, they do have a formula for rebuilding the church which covers all the Mary Portas things, like training the car-parking team and the welcome team and the information team. And tailoring the music to the tastes of the unchurched. And ten styles of preaching that they don't recommend, etc. etc.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Forgive me for being cynical, but I suspect the answer to the OP is, "Get them all to speak in tongues".
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
I've recently been reading this book - Rebuilt. Their description of the "failing" parish rang very true with me, until the bit where he says he got 600 people along to a meeting, but it dropped to "only" 200 when they realised it wasn't "entertainment". If we could get a remnant of 200 people to turn out to a non-worship meeting - or event to Easter Sunday worship - I wouldn't be calling the church "dying".
So are you saying they should wait until they're down to 100 people (80? 60? 20?) before they give the issue any thought? That doesn't sound very wise to me.
This is an American book, and American Christians are fortunate to have the European experience in front of them as an example of where they could end up. It's eminently sensible of them to face up to their problems before they find themselves in the position we're in.
[ 04. April 2013, 00:38: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I have no serious contribution. But the original post gave me a reaction after watching too many food network shows.
And now we see what Gordon's design team had done to renovate and redecorate the building overnight...
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...it followed a struggling parish in Barnsley, South Yorkshire and its American priest. The programme hired a team of marketing consultants to help them turn things round - with what looked like initial success ...
I was in a church that hired a consultant (The denomination recommend lots of their churches in the region sign on at $1000 a year each for 3 years of monthly meetings with him.) The suggestions were decent, nothing earth-shattering or unusual.
But the dominant voices grew up there and longed for the church of their youth, the 50s when everyone was married with kids: no single adults, gay couples, single parents, disabled children - you know, people who are "problems" because they "don't fit in."
Consultant said "do groups by interest not by demographics"; they said no, in the 50s we divided people by demographics and that's how we like it. (Literally said that reference to the 50s). Consultant said advertise, put a post card in the "welcome to town" package the chamber of commerce gives to newcomers. They said no, we're on Main Street, people can see us, they'll come if they want to. Consultant said "web page" They said "low priority, we have important things to spend our time on."
Nothing a consultant says will cause change. First the people have to want to change.
I'm currently reading a book Deep Change which talks about how *hard* change is because it's *risky*. If you change the organization, it might fail, so people resist change to cling to what they have, even when they can see that what they have is in a steady decline. Slow steady decline lets us cling to the familiar a little longer, but change rips the familiar and risks total collapse if the change doesn't work.
To many a church, change - any change - even if acknowledged as attractive to many out there, "would make us not us anymore."
Really hard to give up what we have, who we are, which is part of the definition of change.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But the dominant voices grew up there and longed for the church of their youth, the 50s when everyone was married with kids: no single adults, gay couples, single parents, disabled children - you know, people who are "problems" because they "don't fit in."
I long for a church without tosspots like the "dominant voices" you describe.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Is there a parallel between the project and the Ship's Mystery Worshipper?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I shared your concern and cynicism, Robert Armin, but NJA hasn't yet been back with that particular antidote to all ills ...
But give him time ...
I think SvitlanaV2 is right that North America is heading to where Europe is now in terms of church involvement/attendance and that they have a window-of-opportunity to do something about it ...
What I find harder to envisage is how we who are already in a spiral of decline - despite upbeat figures in some places - can reverse that.
Peter Brierley's figures are salutary. Some people seize on them and think they're encouraging - but overall they aren't.
I think it was his outfit which identified that something like 60% of all church-goers under 25 could be found in the Greater London area. Which leaves young people involved with church spread pretty thinly across the rest of the country ...
Our parish pats itself on the back when it gets 75 kids to an Easter-egg hunt ... but does it see them the rest of the year?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Our parish pats itself on the back when it gets 75 kids to an Easter-egg hunt ... but does it see them the rest of the year?
We stuffed eggs until the director laughed and said that's far too many eggs for a dozen children.
We had far more than a dozen children! There were plenty of eggs, but who are all these families - what needs of theirs are being met by the church on Easter but not on any other Sunday? Maybe if somehow we could get to know them better.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Easter Egg hunts are fun. But if you have to go to Sunday School every Sunday it's not such fun, is it? Perhaps the answer is to dish out free chocolate every week!
One study showed that British parents didn't really see much value in Sunday School attendance. They didn't see how it would benefit their children. This was compared with church schools (i.e. state schools with CofE or RC involvement), which parents seem to appreciate a lot. Parents don't appreciate religious tutoring for its own sake, but like having their children learn the core subjects in a caring environment with a gentle Christian ethos. So I suppose churches could invest more in offering help with English, ESOL, etc. I know of a Baptist church that offers this provision to the local community, and the church seem to have benefited from it.
[ 06. April 2013, 14:03: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Churches can't carry on doing things the way they've always been done.
If they do, they will close; and there is choice there, it's swiftly or slowly.
But the problem comes when "change" is put in the same sentance " happy clappy"...or "dumming down". Chnage doesn't mean that at all. It just means chnaging the way we do things.
No one wants to actively cause pain. But a dying church either needs to change and grow, or not change and die.
And all diocese have folk at Church House who can help with this process.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0