Thread: Church attendance - is this a blip or is the drop really levelling? 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=025820
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Sic inquit (thus saith the) BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22426144
A blip? Really turning the long-term decline around? Thoughts as to why? Or why not?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
One hopes it's a leveling. I suppose we'll find out when the numbers drop out of the barrel next year.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
It's probably not quite either. But it is a piece of good news for the CofE.
Some say that the process of secularisation isn't linear, but that it includes different things going on at the same time. New forms of spirituality pop up to compensate for the weakening of ties between the historical churches and their former constituencies, and old forms of spirituality may become attractive to some people who've grown weary of either spiritual novelty, or of the lack of any public spirituality at all.
In other words, spiritual novelty and the retreat of public spirituality are now the norm, and some people are inevitably going to react against the norm. So, I can imagine that with so much social change going on at the moment the practice of churchgoing at Christmas evokes warm feelings of a more stable past.
Putting that aside, though, I haven't heard much talk from Christians recently about revival. I'm not an Anglican, and maybe you do have those discussions, but I'm more likely to hear (non-Anglican) friends and family members talk about how Jesus will soon be coming back.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Especially bewildering is the sky rocketing attendance at cathedrals. What's that all about?
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
The news about increased Christmas attendances is a blip. The last time there was an increase was 2005, that was also the last time Christmas day fell on a Sunday. The Christmas trend is still downwards.
The full report contains this:
quote:
Methodological note: in 2011
a new estimation process was
used to fill in gaps of
incomplete and partially
complete returns from
parishes. The increase in
usual Sunday attendance
between 2010 and 2011 can
be attributed to missing data
in 2010.
We've changed the way we count. No conclusion either way is possible.
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Especially bewildering is the sky rocketing attendance at cathedrals. What's that all about?
I think we have covered this in detail before. IIRC the consensus was that Cathedrals offer the spiritual but not religious a bit of theatre without the danger of being asked to join a rota for anything. Even when I am in an atheist phase I often pop into the cathedral for the music and a coffee.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Full report.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
The realist in me thinks that it's pretty clear that this is just a blip, but getting out of the mentality of catastrophe for a change is nice. It doesn't seem that the UK statistics can drop much more- eventually ASA will hit that tiny percentage of people who just like waking up early to hear a lecture about loving each other and stuff with a little sentimental music.
[ 07. May 2013, 11:50: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
Though I am inclined to think it is probably a blip, I am always wary of making firm conclusions based on changes in one year's data. If you look at the longer term trend, there is at least a slowing down in the rate of overall decline from the very dramatic falls in the 1970s and early 1980s.
I did see some other stats which showed a significant increase in weekday attendance which mirrored in the rise in Cathedral attendance which has already been discussed.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
Expect the decline to start levelling off soon. The government's persecution of Christians is presently merely at the thin end of the wedge. The Church is strongest when her back is against the wall, so I hope that this latest round of persecution rallies people to the Cross.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Especially bewildering is the sky rocketing attendance at cathedrals. What's that all about?
Generalizing quite a bit, but it seems to me that cathedrals tend to offer services that are more splendid and that are recognizable as Christian liturgies. In many parishes, you get a folksy mess offered with the excuse that it's what "the people" or "the youth" (both generally projections of the clergy's own needs/wants) want.
Also, the office (which is all but vanished from parish churches) is regularly said or sung in cathedrals; Morning and Evening Prayer tend to be better services for people who aren't in the club.
Finally, cathedrals allow people to be anonymous. When attending a parish church, there is a certain amount of pressure to socialize afterward, and if you show up several Sundays in a row someone's certain to try and recruit you for some "ministry" or other. For lots of people, it takes more time before they're ready for that; some people are never ready for it.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Expect the decline to start levelling off soon. The government's persecution of Christians is presently merely at the thin end of the wedge. The Church is strongest when her back is against the wall, so I hope that this latest round of persecution rallies people to the Cross.
Don't you think the word 'persecution' is a bit strong, given the horrors that Christians have experienced at certain points in history? (Often at the hands of other Christians, I hasten to add.)
I'm perfectly fine with discussing whether Christians are being picked on more now, for example with reference to the B&B owners who were found to have broken the law when they refused a double room booking from a gay couple. But calling it persecution...?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
"Persecution" is not where we are at all. Its nonsense.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Any statistic based on a change in the way it is counted is nonsense.
Posted by dv (# 15714) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Especially bewildering is the sky rocketing attendance at cathedrals. What's that all about?
I worship in a Cathedral 20 miles from home for many reasons, including:
* Excellence in music and liturgy
* Much better "hit rate" with sermons
* Friendlier, more diverse crowd than average parish church
* Opportunity for theological/spiritual education beyond services
* Better resourced in terms of clergy
* As single man in late 40s don't feel like a freak in Cathedral unlike local parish churches which are only interested in couples and families
* Greater opportunity for service in more ways
* Less hostility to Gay people
[ 07. May 2013, 23:04: Message edited by: dv ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
"Persecution" is not where we are at all. Its nonsense.
If Indifferently is in North Korea he's got a point. Otherwise, it looks like he actually wants to be persecuted. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Expect the decline to start levelling off soon. The government's persecution of Christians is presently merely at the thin end of the wedge. The Church is strongest when her back is against the wall, so I hope that this latest round of persecution rallies people to the Cross.
Mmmm well, I'm not sure I'd call it persecution merely indifference to the cause. It's secularism no more no less. The church will continue to decline (esp when the positive effect of the new way of counting from 2010 drops off - yes we know you did it), unless it stops arguing about daft things and returns to being a radical faith (rooted and challnging and prophetic)speaking out against and being prepared to deal with, the ills of society and injustice.
Try saying it's persecution to the Christians of say, Uzbekistan: I've been there and to be a Christian is to run the risk of disappearing. When we get to that point in the UK then I'll call it persecution: mind you we won't get there - we're far too nice about such things and horror of horrors that would mean removing the Queen: seemigly she's a Christian.
By the way, how does Brenda get away with it - talking about Jesus each year on the telly at Christmas? Surely that cross on her crown is offensive to so mnay .... no one else gets that liberty!
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[QUOTE]Finally, cathedrals allow people to be anonymous. When attending a parish church, there is a certain amount of pressure to socialize afterward, and if you show up several Sundays in a row someone's certain to try and recruit you for some "ministry" or other. For lots of people, it takes more time before they're ready for that; some people are never ready for it.
How many people are like the woman I heard on the wireless yesterday. An advowed atheist she goes for the music and the singing.
Bigger numbers are not necessarily a sign of deeper faith per se. Whilst I understand some people's desire to come in, receive and go, what does that say about being committed to the body of the church? It seems to be church on our terms not on God's - pick n mix.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
How someone who's living in a country partly governed by a House where some of its members sit purely on the basis of their high status within that person's own church can claim that church is persecuted is utterly beyond me.
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on
:
But then again I often feel like persecuting some of the Christians I know, and I am nominally one myself. However, the UKIP bubble seems to have gone hand in hand with a renewed interest in British landmarks and history. The historic Chapel where I volunteer has had a marked increase in visitors in the past year and I think the Cathedral to which the Chapel belongs has had the same upturn. Most of the visitors seem to be "Spiritual but not religious" types but many enquire about the services, what happens, what it means and who can attend as if they are not hostile to the Church, it is just that the Church has never entered into their world. Cathedrals are ideally placed as the "showrooms" for people like this. Getting them into a damp (in every sense of the word) parish church may be rather more difficult.
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
It seems to me that while the statistics are not too discouraging they are hardly fantastic news!
After all the population is increasing and on the whole the church attendance is just about levelling or declining. Proportion of population it is descending, I guess. The C of E does seem to have appointed atatisticians who will adapt the counting system etc. and only push for good news, rather than address the reasons for slight decline.
Soon if someone walks into a cathedral or church to ask the way to B and Q thery will be counted as an attender entering a pastroal relationship with the clergy...
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I prefer the concept of 'gentle growth' as put forward by the Bishop of Exeter.
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
It is difficult, I think, becuase such an approach can tend to push the view that the church's success, or otherwise, is measured in attendance figures.
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
The C of E does seem to have appointed statisticians who will adapt the counting system etc. and only push for good news, rather than address the reasons for slight decline.
This has been the gripe of a number of us for years. Around the time the system was last massaged, I remember a church treasurer telling a Bishop that 'there's isn't a financial crisis: just a new way of counting money'!
Church of England statistics: first of all, why does it take until now to handle 2011's figures? If we were serious about using the statistics constructively we'd have had 2012's figures in circulation in January 2013. Can you imagine a business trying to run itself on the basis of sales figures more than a year out of date? This is supposed to be a Computer Age!
A few years ago statistician Bob Jackson made some brave attempts to analyse the statistics and tell us what was going on. They published his books, ignored his conclusions (he might have been wrong, but nobody made any serious attempt to prove him wrong!), they made him an archdeacon, then they pensioned him off!
Does the C of E deserve to survive?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Especially bewildering is the sky rocketing attendance at cathedrals. What's that all about?
Generalizing quite a bit, but it seems to me that cathedrals tend to offer services that are more splendid and that are recognizable as Christian liturgies. In many parishes, you get a folksy mess offered with the excuse that it's what "the people" or "the youth" (both generally projections of the clergy's own needs/wants) want.
Also, the office (which is all but vanished from parish churches) is regularly said or sung in cathedrals; Morning and Evening Prayer tend to be better services for people who aren't in the club.
Finally, cathedrals allow people to be anonymous. When attending a parish church, there is a certain amount of pressure to socialize afterward, and if you show up several Sundays in a row someone's certain to try and recruit you for some "ministry" or other. For lots of people, it takes more time before they're ready for that; some people are never ready for it.
Yup. For some of us, many Parish Churches are actually too friendly and too interested in our private lives; I'm not talking about our predilections for tab A into slot B stuff here, just general stuff that perhaps other people are happy to talk about with people we've only known for a few weeks but others of us aren't.
My father went to our village Baptist Church once. He refused to ever go back there because what most people consider "friendly" to him was "bloody nosey".
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
I can answer in part, some of that.
Did you know that the statistician in charge actually changed recently? I can not remember whether in the last twelve months or the twelve before that but I certainly saw the job advertised. Changes in practice in these small departments (I suspect it is an over guesstimate to think of the department as existing of three people and a dog) tend to make changes in ways of counting.
I actually for about 2 hours consider applying, then decided I did not want to work in London and I did not want to deal with CofE politics (URC ones are quite enough thank you).
Secondly another one is the return rate. To get the 2011 figures, that means the congregation have to return the figures. So that means about March 2012 they start chasing the congregations who have not returned, about September they finally get in the last of them, then and only then can they start the analysis. Oh dear St Marcion the Lesser of Moreover has an attendance of 1000 at each service. Hmm perhaps that number is wrong, now is it our entry or do we have to go back to them or St Kenny's, Hashem had reported nobody coming to worship at all. Such cases perhaps make up 0.1% of the parishes but they take a lot of time to sort.
Jengie
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
That's easy. St Kenny's could be telling the truth, so go after the one claiming attendances of 1000 who can't be.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I love cathedrals for many reasons. Firstly, my own church does not offer weekday services so knowing cathedrals offer regular daily services is a big help when I need some spiritual nourishment on a weekday. The anonymity thing is also important, and is why I'm much more likely to attend a cathedral service as opposed to a parish service on holiday. Yes, I'm one of those weirdos who goes to church while on holiday ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Along with anonymity though is the space, literal and spiritual, to dip in and out, to move away into a side chapel if things are too intense, to go at your own pace and not the pace of the bossy churchwarden in front. And on more shallow terms, the standard of music and liturgy certainly helps. However the most common cathedral for me to visit is Westminster Cathedral so I'm not sure how much this helps the Anglican figures ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[QUOTE]Finally, cathedrals allow people to be anonymous. When attending a parish church, there is a certain amount of pressure to socialize afterward, and if you show up several Sundays in a row someone's certain to try and recruit you for some "ministry" or other. For lots of people, it takes more time before they're ready for that; some people are never ready for it.
How many people are like the woman I heard on the wireless yesterday. An advowed atheist she goes for the music and the singing.
Bigger numbers are not necessarily a sign of deeper faith per se. Whilst I understand some people's desire to come in, receive and go, what does that say about being committed to the body of the church? It seems to be church on our terms not on God's - pick n mix.
The fact that an atheist is choosing to attend any kind of church is wonderful though. Faith doesn't have to be deep to be important. The 'avowed atheist' on the radio may well have a mustard seed somewhere.
I understand the importance of the local church body from the Baptist POV but you can be committed to belonging to the Church as a whole without finding what you need in your local parish church. And yes, some parish churches really are so unbearable that you can't stick it out there. What are God's terms here? That church is supposed to make us miserable? Church is for us, not for God - God doesn't need church. So church should reflect people's needs, and it sounds like cathedrals are doing that.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]
1. The fact that an atheist is choosing to attend any kind of church is wonderful though. Faith doesn't have to be deep to be important. The 'avowed atheist' on the radio may well have a mustard seed somewhere.
2. I understand the importance of the local church body from the Baptist POV but you can be committed to belonging to the Church as a whole without finding what you need in your local parish church. And yes, some parish churches really are so unbearable that you can't stick it out there. What are God's terms here? That church is supposed to make us miserable? Church is for us, not for God - God doesn't need church. So church should reflect people's needs, and it sounds like cathedrals are doing that.
1. Yes it is good. But as she herself admitted there is no mustard seed of faith there, anywhere. I'd reiterate then, that numbers do not equate to a resurgance of faith.
2. Yes I belong to the church universal too - but a universal church expressed through an individual context (it doesn't have to be your local "place"). It doesn't where one worships but for it be recognisably Christian adherence from the perspective of theology and tradition, there is the demands of discipleship and commitment. The tradition of the church would not recognise the pick and mix approach as being an authentic expression of faith. And, if we decide to boot tradition on this score, then we have to boot it on the lot.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
But what does God really require in terms of church attendance? That's the question I think. I don't think God checks attendance. Also, some people are at the stage where pick and mix church is the only kind they can face - it's how to build on that which is important, not get rid of it altogether.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But what does God really require in terms of church attendance? That's the question I think. I don't think God checks attendance. Also, some people are at the stage where pick and mix church is the only kind they can face - it's how to build on that which is important, not get rid of it altogether.
What does God require - try Micah 6:8 for a start. You can't really do that unless you're connected.
ISTM that we want our cake and eat it. Yes, some churches are rubbish and aren't worthy of the name and they come in all shapes and sizes, across all denominations.
Actually, one of the worst offenders I've ever come across was a baptist church in Guernsey that ignored our party entirely during the distribution of communion. They just walked straight by us. Add to that a frosty glare when we went in (not late), a sermon that wasn't and you can understand why for the first time ever I walked out of a church service.
The issue is this: we want to pick the bits we like and drop or ignore the rest. Meeting together is about praising God but it isn't necessarily designed to make us comfortable - far from it. That's the issue that I, as an evangelical, have with many evangelical churches: too light, too smug, to mnay "in" jokes, too frothy, too shallow, lots of silly grins but not much engagement with real life. When people do get pulled up short, today's default mode is to complain or to leave. perish the thought that something might just need sorting out in your life.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Expect the decline to start levelling off soon. The government's persecution of Christians is presently merely at the thin end of the wedge. The Church is strongest when her back is against the wall, so I hope that this latest round of persecution rallies people to the Cross.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Welcome to the Ship, Archbishop Carey! (I would apologise for outing you but it looks like you've done it yourself).
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But what does God really require in terms of church attendance? That's the question I think. I don't think God checks attendance. Also, some people are at the stage where pick and mix church is the only kind they can face - it's how to build on that which is important, not get rid of it altogether.
What does God require - try Micah 6:8 for a start. You can't really do that unless you're connected.
ISTM that we want our cake and eat it. Yes, some churches are rubbish and aren't worthy of the name and they come in all shapes and sizes, across all denominations.
Actually, one of the worst offenders I've ever come across was a baptist church in Guernsey that ignored our party entirely during the distribution of communion. They just walked straight by us. Add to that a frosty glare when we went in (not late), a sermon that wasn't and you can understand why for the first time ever I walked out of a church service.
The issue is this: we want to pick the bits we like and drop or ignore the rest. Meeting together is about praising God but it isn't necessarily designed to make us comfortable - far from it. That's the issue that I, as an evangelical, have with many evangelical churches: too light, too smug, to mnay "in" jokes, too frothy, too shallow, lots of silly grins but not much engagement with real life. When people do get pulled up short, today's default mode is to complain or to leave. perish the thought that something might just need sorting out in your life.
Micah 6:8 has zero to do with church attendance. Plenty of Christians (and even non-Christians) follow it without setting foot in a church. It's about how you live your life, not what you do with your Sundays.
I get what you're saying about being uncomfortable but the average cathedral worshipper isn't expecting the kind of 'seeker-sensitive' approach that some evangelical churches have gone down (which I don't think has worked). I don't think it's about comfort. It's about a spiritual gap that cathedrals fill but churches don't. The question is why.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Actually, one of the worst offenders I've ever come across was a baptist church in Guernsey that ignored our party entirely during the distribution of communion. They just walked straight by us.
That sounds awful. Even if they were "Strict and Particular" they should have explained just why you couldn't take Communion ... and the rest of it just sounds plain rude!
They should have a sign outside saying "Visitors Unwelcome".
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
ExclamationMark, I can see what you're getting at, but there have been times where, had a cathedral been readily to hand, I'd have happily gone there instead of my local church - of whatever stripe.
There are occasions when I feel that the only form of church service I could face would be a Quaker one - where nobody actually says anything!
Does that make my Christian discipleship and commitment any more deficient than those who love to go every Sunday and pitch into whatever is going?
Sure, the lady on the radio might be going along to the cathedral for the 'wrong reasons' but who is to say which of us are going to church for the 'right reasons'?
For all we know the person at the front leading the services and smiling and doing all the right stuff might be a right bastard outside.
As an extreme example, I know of an instance of a 'new church' leader - second in command in a large charismatic church - who was doing all the praying and prophesying and speaking in tongues and so on in the services - then driving down to the city's red-light district afterwards to spend hundreds of pounds on kinky sex. It later emerged he'd been abusing his own kids.
I'm not using this to bash that particular grouping over the head - far from it. We all know instances of people in church settings of all stripes who get up to no-good.
All I'm saying is that the outward appearance of discipleship and sanctity ain't always what it seems.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
Perhaps it is partly down to the Missional/Pioneer/Alertnative/Mixed Economy (whatever the current term for it) movement that the last AoC promoted.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The issue is this: we want to pick the bits we like and drop or ignore the rest. Meeting together is about praising God but it isn't necessarily designed to make us comfortable - far from it. That's the issue that I, as an evangelical, have with many evangelical churches: too light, too smug, to mnay "in" jokes, too frothy, too shallow, lots of silly grins but not much engagement with real life. When people do get pulled up short, today's default mode is to complain or to leave. perish the thought that something might just need sorting out in your life.
I think this is an issue in all kinds of churches, not just evangelical ones. Methodists talk about the importance of being 'challenged' in church, of not being in the business of offering mere entertainment during services. But in reality, I think almost all churches, sooner or later, identify a key core constituency of attenders, and then try to keep them satisfied for fear of losing them. Maybe they don't realise they're doing it. The 'challenging' only goes so far.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Sounds like it would be wise to export cathedral style worship to parishes.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I don't think God checks attendance.
One anglo-catholic priest in Victorian london refused to keep church attendance stats. in parish registers because 'God knows his own who come to his holy sacraments.'
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
And that's not such a far-fetched idea.....
.....identify those things that you (as an Average Parish Church) do well, and then do them as well as you possibly can. Or, to put it another way, concentrate on quality rather than trying to do everything, and perhaps doing it badly.
IYSWIM.
Ian J.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
*sigh*
My last post was in reply to Zach82's!
(but a former churchwarden of ours used to be quite creative in his recording of attendances - 'Oh, round it up to 50/70/100'.......)
Ian J.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE]That sounds awful. Even if they were "Strict and Particular" they should have explained just why you couldn't take Communion ... and the rest of it just sounds plain rude!
They should have a sign outside saying "Visitors Unwelcome".
Nope they weren't S & P - they were/are in BUGB. The service was as dire as the welcome - they were more interested i n putting bits in about their nice lunch they were going to have afterwards.
Contrast that to a baptist church in scotland where they not only made us welcome (two families totalling 9) but invited us to their bbq after the service.
In my "old" church (2000 to 2011) vintage we had people who would invite visitors home with them every week.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I well remember the lovely welcome I received at a little Baptist Church in Scotland (Oban, to be precise) somewhen in the mid-70s. They were full of the joy of the Lord, and I hope very much that they're still flourishing.
I only went there because the Episcopal Cathedral was closed that Sunday - dunno why, but it may have been due to building works.....
Ian J.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, Zach82, if you exported cathedral style worship to the parishes, you'd end up with a lot of people leaving ...
Despite what a cleric I know in County Durham says, I'm not sure that the people flocking to Durham Cathedral are previously unchurched. Most of them will be refugees from the parishes - either because they're escaping from drum-and-bass or because they don't want to be pestered onto any rostas or rotas.
A similar thing is happening on a smaller scale in semi-rural Cheshire. The medieval parish churches out in the villages have their congregations swelled by people from the towns who are fleeing dumbed-down services or liturgical innovations of various kinds - whether liberal or evangelical.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]
1. Micah 6:8 has zero to do with church attendance. Plenty of Christians (and even non-Christians) follow it without setting foot in a church. It's about how you live your life, not what you do with your Sundays.
2.I don't think it's about comfort. It's about a spiritual gap that cathedrals fill but churches don't. The question is why.
1. It's all about attitude or perhaps we say our direction. Of course Sunday is about and is included in how you live. It is the day when the greatest number of people (still) can gather for corporate worship. If you seek justice and mercy you'll want to be in an environment where you can make the best of it - with other believers.
2. It's a gap true - but not wholly so. Preference and the rise of faith as individualistic (as opposed to individual) play a big part.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There are occasions when I feel that the only form of church service I could face would be a Quaker one - where nobody actually says anything!
Even Quaker services can be controlling - enforced silence?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
We're supposed to count numbers in BUGB churches on a Sunday in December. I've never done it but always estimated the numbers. I don't see much point in it
One of the reasons I didn't go to a LEP church who called me was the fact that it counted attendance and communicants every week. Much better things to do, I'm afraid.
As Bishops Finger says - focus on quality. Focus on what you do well and don't try to do everything. Don't try and be like any other church - be yourself - that's what God's gifted and intended you to be.
On the other hand if you can't do much well and nothing much is happening, then I'd gracefully suggest some big changes are in order to prevent terminal decline (if you can by this stage).
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Sounds like it would be wise to export cathedral style worship to parishes.
Our church has the largest attendance in the whole deanery (and beyond). I'm beginning to wonder whether it is because of the relative anonymity that we get so many turning up (regulars and visitors). And we like to do things 'properly' (well most of the time, anyway). Our music isn't bad either, but obviously not as good as the cathedral. We are mid-way between cathedrals (50 miles away), so I really do think there is a need for a cathedral-like Anglican church in our area, amongst the other churches to provide variety of approach. If people vote with their feet, then we must be doing something right. And those who don't like the formality have the choice of an evangelical church just up the road, plus several of other denominations within walking distance....
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I don't suppose that making every parish a little cathedral is the best idea, but expanding the opportunities in that direction could be a good one.
I have this idea that family-sized parishes are wonderful places to worship, but perhaps they are a little intense for people who aren't used to that sort of thing. I know when I go to a new parish, I like to dodge out right after the service, and it's hard when you have to politely decline multiple invitations to coffee.
[ 08. May 2013, 21:20: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
A similar thing is happening on a smaller scale in semi-rural Cheshire. The medieval parish churches out in the villages have their congregations swelled by people from the towns who are fleeing dumbed-down services or liturgical innovations of various kinds - whether liberal or evangelical.
Do you have evidence that those are indeed significant reasons for the changing pattern of church attendance round your way?
This is going to sound snarky but I don't mean it that way - is there any research into this phenomenon or are you simply speaking from your own perspective, perhaps reinforced by a few anecdotal accounts?
The reason I ask is that I have my own suspicions as to the reasons for rising attendance at cathedrals, but they would just be suspicions (and could be totally wrong).
I wonder if it's more about the anonymity aspect that Jade Constable and Chorister have noted, which (like ExclamationMark) I don't think is a good thing. Yes, some people are uncomfortable with repeated cries of 'Oh, you must be a visitor here, you're so welcome!' but a church where you can attend Sunday after Sunday and still disappear into the crowd is missing something vital about Christianity IMO.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
If it's any indication, coffee hour is hardly a thing on most of the continent, and church attendance is on the downswing there too.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I attended my local Cathedral for a year or two, partly because of the music, liturgy and preaching, but also because I needed time to disappear into the crowd. I found that the excellent team of stewards, who are welcoming but unobtrusive, got to recognise me after a few weeks, and began to give me the occasional 'personal' word of welcome, IYSWIM.
I believe they were trained to do just this, and it seemed to me to be just what was wanted - recognition (difficult with a large-ish and floating congregation) and a non-threatening welcome. I was eventually invited, in a most charming way, to take a more active part in the services, but it was by no means immediate!
Ian J.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
A similar thing is happening on a smaller scale in semi-rural Cheshire. The medieval parish churches out in the villages have their congregations swelled by people from the towns who are fleeing dumbed-down services or liturgical innovations of various kinds - whether liberal or evangelical.
Do you have evidence that those are indeed significant reasons for the changing pattern of church attendance round your way?
This is going to sound snarky but I don't mean it that way - is there any research into this phenomenon or are you simply speaking from your own perspective, perhaps reinforced by a few anecdotal accounts?
The reason I ask is that I have my own suspicions as to the reasons for rising attendance at cathedrals, but they would just be suspicions (and could be totally wrong).
I wonder if it's more about the anonymity aspect that Jade Constable and Chorister have noted, which (like ExclamationMark) I don't think is a good thing. Yes, some people are uncomfortable with repeated cries of 'Oh, you must be a visitor here, you're so welcome!' but a church where you can attend Sunday after Sunday and still disappear into the crowd is missing something vital about Christianity IMO.
I'm wondering if the people who value anonymity in churches aren't actually going Sunday after Sunday. I bet evening weekday services for people on the way home from work, for example, would be a really popular choice - I know it's a Catholic cathedral not an Anglican one, but the early evening weekday masses at Westminster Cathedral attract lots of people for this reason.
I do think more weekday and/or evening services would be a good thing.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm wondering if the people who value anonymity in churches aren't actually going Sunday after Sunday. I bet evening weekday services for people on the way home from work, for example, would be a really popular choice - I know it's a Catholic cathedral not an Anglican one, but the early evening weekday masses at Westminster Cathedral attract lots of people for this reason.
I do think more weekday and/or evening services would be a good thing.
Yes, you may well be right about the irregular attendance. And I suppose having services on non-Sundays that people can go along to, for example, on their way home from work must be a good thing.
It's just I'm uncomfortable with what feels to me like making a commodity out of the Christian faith. I'm probably being unfair, never having been in the position myself of having other commitments / responsibilities getting in the way of Sunday attendance and commitment.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I think the majority of those involved are either going to be nominal Christians, those who are 'de-churched' or non-Christians. I don't think it's fair to hold these people up to the weekly-attendance-every-Sunday model because clearly, there's a reason they've fallen away from the church.
I don't think meeting people's needs is the same as treating church as a commodity. Church is essentially there for us anyway - God doesn't need us to go to church, God provided the church for us (same with the Sabbath). So church being shaped according to people's needs seems like a natural extension of that, IMO.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think the majority of those involved are either going to be nominal Christians, those who are 'de-churched' or non-Christians. I don't think it's fair to hold these people up to the weekly-attendance-every-Sunday model because clearly, there's a reason they've fallen away from the church.
I don't think meeting people's needs is the same as treating church as a commodity. Church is essentially there for us anyway - God doesn't need us to go to church, God provided the church for us (same with the Sabbath). So church being shaped according to people's needs seems like a natural extension of that, IMO.
Rather than 'church is there for us' I'd say 'church is us'; church is Christians gathered together for mutual support, encouragement, challenge, seeking God's will, equipping for mission and so on. Hence, if people are dipping in and out, without there being a core community of Christians who are sharing their lives and their faith in common, then I'd hesitate to even call it 'church'.
But that's really judgemental of me... Who am I to dictate what constitutes 'real church'? Ah, I don't know. It's got to be good that cathedrals (and some other churches) provide a service people can attend without fearing that they'll be press-ganged onto the coffee rota. At least these people are experiencing something of God. It's just I feel it falls so far short of what I understand 'church' to mean.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Well, for me church is about the sacraments sustaining us in order that we can be Christ to the world. So personally, I find it very difficult to consider even the most welcoming, family-like church that's preaching-based not sacrament-based to be 'real' church. To me it's like attending a very friendly lecture rather than spiritual sustenance. But, that is just me and I wouldn't say that my view is or should be the norm. We all have our biases and 'gut' feelings about church, which I think will all have to change if UK churches are going to survive.
I would agree with you about the community thing, but I think that is something cathedrals can build on and I hope they do.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
I worship at a Cathedral (or should I say *the* Cathedral?) and it rescued my faith. Cathedrals have different tasks from parish churches (really?) so it's a tricky comparison. There are a number of reasons that people attend there, but I dare say that Sublime probably plays some role. In our case, the quality of the liturgy, music and preaching is absolutely first rate. I never leave in a huff wondering "what was that unhinged wacko on about anyway?" (as I do when I find myself at the local charismatic C of E church).
I can't say enough good things about Canterbury Cathedral.
So there.
K.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
And I could say exactly the same about Kent's second (and only slightly younger) Cathedral!
Back to attendances - I've been doing some number-crunching for our parish lately, and I find that, although Sunday Mass attendance is perhaps much the same on average as it was 10-15 years ago, the number of individuals attending is very much greater. They simply don't come every week......and ISTM that this is common to many churches today. An 'ordinary' Sunday (if there is such a thing) can have anything from just 20 to 40+ in the congregation! At major Festivals, we can reasonably expect 45-55, and when we have a Family Mass with our uniformed organisations we can get up to 80+.......
Our Electoral Roll, before this year's complete revision, was 54, but that included a number of people who have left us in the past couple of years. The new Roll stands at 40, with 5 or 6 waiting in the wings, so to speak, to qualify shortly. This accurately reflects our committed adult membership, I think.
What has changed radically is the average age of our 'church family' - it is today much lower than it used to be, with perhaps a third of our Sunday congregation (sometimes, anyway) aged under 16.
All of which, perhaps, goes to show that overall figures may not reflect what's actually going on within a specific congregation......
Ian J.
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
And I could say exactly the same about Kent's second (and only slightly younger) Cathedral!
Back to attendances - I've been doing some number-crunching for our parish lately, and I find that, although Sunday Mass attendance is perhaps much the same on average as it was 10-15 years ago, the number of individuals attending is very much greater. They simply don't come every week......and ISTM that this is common to many churches today. An 'ordinary' Sunday (if there is such a thing) can have anything from just 20 to 40+ in the congregation! At major Festivals, we can reasonably expect 45-55, and when we have a Family Mass with our uniformed organisations we can get up to 80+.......
Our Electoral Roll, before this year's complete revision, was 54, but that included a number of people who have left us in the past couple of years. The new Roll stands at 40, with 5 or 6 waiting in the wings, so to speak, to qualify shortly. This accurately reflects our committed adult membership, I think.
What has changed radically is the average age of our 'church family' - it is today much lower than it used to be, with perhaps a third of our Sunday congregation (sometimes, anyway) aged under 16.
All of which, perhaps, goes to show that overall figures may not reflect what's actually going on within a specific congregation......
Ian J.
I would echo what you say. Though our numbers are much higher, as one would expect for a suburban London church, the profile has changed in the same way as you describe. The over 70s number about 10-15 a congregation of 130 -150. There seems to be a gap in the 50-70 age group.
The other feature is about midweek worship. A midweek evening Eucharist that attracted maybe 6 or so five years ago, now attracts around 30.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
That's quite an impressive increase. Under the previous regime, we had a daily Mass - quite often attended only by the priest-in-charge......
....these days, we have an evening Mass on Wednesdays and major Holydays and a morning Mass on Saturdays (which is sacristy/flower-arranging/Parish Office morning!). Average attendance at each Mass is 10-12, which is IMHO not too shabby for a small parish.
The trick seems to be to arrange for a weekday service at the time when people feel the need for it!
Ian J.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Me and the old man are members of our Cathedral congregation and for several years have deeply appreciated the beauty of the liturgy, the intimacy of the Eucharist, the glory of the music and the inspiration of the preaching. We have also been seriously impressed with the albeit very English welcome and support of a caring community. Yes, those who wish to experience God but don't want interaction with people can remain anonymous and I know several for whom this has been their salvation. Yes, it takes time to get to know others in such a large and predominately reserved group but perseverance has produced some precious relationships.
I can quite easily understand why Cathedral congregations are growing....we miss ours very much now we are based here in Kenya.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@South Coast Kevin - my observation was that it was happening on a 'small scale' - so no, I wasn't implying that a certain amount of 'flight' to more rural parishes was altering the pattern of church attendance in my area. But what I am describing is observable and comes from conversations I've had with parishioners and clergy.
About 15 years ago now, our local parish church disbanded its robed choir in favour of a more 'modern' approach and the whole choir absconded to more rural parishes. A similar leakage, on a smaller scale, has happened from the more liberal parish in town.
My wife sings occasionally in a choir in a rural parish church and few of the choir - which often outnumbers the congregation - live in the actual parish itself. They are there for the music or to escape drum'n'bass in their own parishes.
Does this happen at the expense of fellowship in the way that you see it?
Not necessarily, these people fellowship together when they meet and when they worship.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
About 15 years ago now, our local parish church disbanded its robed choir in favour of a more 'modern' approach and the whole choir absconded to more rural parishes.
But what does this say about those people's priorities? Unless many of the choir members moved to the same rural church (or to a church where they already knew some people), it suggests they considered the musical issues to be more important than taking part in deep community.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My wife sings occasionally in a choir in a rural parish church and few of the choir - which often outnumbers the congregation - live in the actual parish itself. They are there for the music or to escape drum'n'bass in their own parishes.
My beef isn't with people who belong to a church that's some way from their home; it's the dipping into and out of church that doesn't sit right with me. So your wife and her fellow choir members may well be taking part in 'fellowship in the way that I see it'.
By 'fellowship', though, I mean something more than what happens at a typical Sunday service. In my flavour of church it can take place through home groups and the relationships that should grow there.
Other churches will take different approaches but, whatever, I don't think it happens just through gathering for worship; how many opportunities for deep conversation do you get at a typical church service? And it certainly doesn't happen if people's only engagement with other Christians is through an occasional service at which they can easily remain anonymous.
Having said that, I thoroughly take on board that sometimes people can only deal with attending on an occasional, anonymous basis. I just don't think that's a situation to linger in, if possible.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Alternatively you could look at it this way: experienced singers, like experienced organists or bell ringers, have certain gifts to offer the church. If one church decides they don't require those gifts (because they have a different emphasis) but another nearby church is crying out for them, could it be that for some people (not all) the right thing to do is move to where those gifts would be welcomed, and where they can be a great blessing and encouragement to their new church?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Or you could look at it this way:
There are plenty of people, laity and clergy, prepared to say that the Spirit touches them through prose and art but these same people can argue tooth and nail against the Spirit moving through people making music.
IME many musicians find God through music, they just don't bang on about it, and because they don't buttonhole the rest of the congregation - and especially the clergy - about this experience they can be perceived as being "only here for the music", which isn't true.
I've worked in parishes where the incumbent would look in on MU meetings, chat to flower arrangers, have meetings for Sunday School teachers, but never, ever put their head round the door of a choir rehearsal or thank a choir for their commitment.
This last holy week my choir sang for 8 extra services between Monday and Saturday: their attendance average was 80%. Some of the same people also helped to decorate the church and also took part in a churchyard working party. Nothing said, no acknowledgement, just a "big thank you" to the Sunday School on Easter Day for handing out small eggs to children as they left church (eggs paid for, ironically, by a choir member).
If people who have musical gifts are slapped in the face often enough they will find somewhere else to sing. It doesn't mean they don't believe or care but that, like everyone else, there is a limit to how often they can be mistreated before they give up.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Alternatively you could look at it this way: experienced singers, like experienced organists or bell ringers, have certain gifts to offer the church. If one church decides they don't require those gifts (because they have a different emphasis) but another nearby church is crying out for them, could it be that for some people (not all) the right thing to do is move to where those gifts would be welcomed, and where they can be a great blessing and encouragement to their new church?
Sorry Chorister, I missed this. And it's a good point. All I'd say in response is that, for me, deep community is not something to be given up lightly. But I do take your point, thanks. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If people who have musical gifts are slapped in the face often enough they will find somewhere else to sing. It doesn't mean they don't believe or care but that, like everyone else, there is a limit to how often they can be mistreated before they give up.
Yes, and this too. It's never nice, feeling that one's gifts and skills are not appreciated or really welcomed..
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Indeed. And that resentment can be expressed in unusual ways. For example, it's why I didn't join the choir at our previous church. Trying to explain it is hopeless though; whatever you say everyone hears "you thought the choir wasn't good enough for you."
Our current church doesn't sing normally. However, we're looking at setting some parts of our liturgy to music (hard rock) for Greenbelt. I may be in the frame for writing these settings. If they are for congregational singing rest assured my settings will bear that in mind.
[ 15. May 2013, 09:52: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
...for me, deep community is not something to be given up lightly...
I quite agree. I look forward to hearing, then, that you and your congregation have , in the interests of deep community, moved (returned?) to your parish church
[ 15. May 2013, 10:48: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Naughty man.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
One of the reasons why choir members often get very involved in their church is that they are highly visible. So when jobs need doing, people cast through their minds thinking of faces and names and those most visible in services come to mind. The second reason is that they are some of the most regular church attenders of all - because of musical commitments they need to be there every week and often several times a week. Thus people come to depend on them for the singing plus so much more of the day-to-day running of the church.
I've heard vicars who say 'keep the choir on your side' not because they are afraid of offending them but because they can be the church's most loyal supporters. Other church attenders will quite likely take time off when it's a sunny day, when they have visitors or when they are feeling tired, but choir members have a huge sense of loyalty and don't want to let the side down by not turning up. A small congregation could potentially double their weekly numbers by running a popular and successful choir.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I second that, Chorister.
When we had an unusually warm Maundy Thursday a few years ago it seemed all the parish were gardening.
At the Evening liturgy we had PP, 3 young servers, organist, 22 choir, 5 congregation (1 a choir husband).
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I always look at the weather on a Sunday morning. "Warmish cloudy bright with just the tiniest threat of some drizzle" seems to about the most favourable for church attendance. Bright sunshine, heavy rain, high winds and (of course) snow all have their detrimental effects.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Well, it was like that in our corner of the Lord's Vineyard this morning - but we only got half our usual turnout......and that on one of the most important Holy Days of the year!
Disappointing, but no doubt the Mispers (some of whom were ill, some studying, and some on holiday) will be back next week.....
Ian J.
Posted by PRESBY DUDE (# 16035) on
:
Well, this Presby Dude has been inactive on this venerable website for a while. I might as well chime in.
I do get a tad or two discouraged about worship attendance/church participation in the so-called mainline denominations in the USA. There are some active, growing mainline congregations, certainly. However, there are so many declining churches with older or dwindling memberships, including my own.
Ah, the good old days. I remember Easter Sunday in the 1960's with 700 - 800 people sardine-packed into two or three Easter services. Last Easter, we had one service with 133 attendees. That's quite a sad drop over the decades. Of course, that's a traditional mainline service with robes, choral anthem, pipe organ, classic hymns, a bit of liturgy, stained glass, pews, people fairly dressed up, etc. --- all the things that some (I won't say "all") younger people don't seem to want in church any longer.
The ultra right-wing churches admittedly are attracting some immense crowds in the USA. I'm sorry, but their theology and their style of worship do absolutely nothing for me. The sermons are often indoctrination, and the music is ---may I say it? --- just horrible. If and when I wanted to hear that sort of music, I'd go to a bar on Saturday night. Yet the slick preachers and the rock-style praise bands do appeal to many.
I guess when my traditional, old-fashioned service - the service that's still meaningful and reverent in my mind - doesn't exist any longer, I'll have to conduct my own little service at home. I'll sing my standard hymns, read the lectionary readings aloud, pray for myself and others, and send offerings to the Salvation Army and the local rescue mission. I just know that I'll never be able to endure praise bands and
so-called contemporary worship in a "mod" church.
As I said, I know that there are some traditional congregations that are still quite vital and healthy. I only wish that were true of more!
Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on
:
I always think that falling church attendances are turned into a bigger problem than they actually are.
While they are inevitably disappointing for the church suffering losses of numbers, it strikes me that while a good proportion of those people are Christians who have died or become too ill to attend, arguably a greater proportion will be descendants of those who always went to church because it was "what one did" but had no living relationship with God.
In short, falling church attendances do not necessarily imply fewer believers, and probably imply more determination to be committed by those who remain (without taking away from the years given by those who only ever went because it was what one did but served well, if that makes sense?)
On the point re choirs, I know of three parishes which were grouped and later united and the smaller churches closed. The second-largest church in the group had a fine choral tradition, but was well beyond the point of being sustainable, and it was less than half a mile from the largest church - another parish was physically closer, but covered the other side of the road and has since been downgraded to having only a Part Time Stipendiary Minister.
When it closed, rather than move to the largest church to build a decent choir there, the choir, which consisted of people living outside the parish, disappeared to the four winds - once "their" church closed, there was no loyalty to the broader parish.
[ 03. June 2013, 12:43: Message edited by: AndyB ]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
I'm intrigued by this discussion about do you stay in a church that no longer has any interest in the gifts you have to offer because community is what matters, or do you move to a church that welcomes and treasures your gifts?
If you stop using your gifts, you'll be accused of hiding your light under a bushel. If you move so you can actively be who you were made to be and connect with God in the way that is most meaningful for you, you'll be accused of being a church-hopper.
There's responsibility on both sides. Community means the whole of who you are is embraced, not just you embrace others while they ignore you or insist you be other than you are. But also it's not a church's job to provide a way for everyone to use all their talents.
Still, if someone in the congregation has a gift and calling to become a preacher, we don't expect him or her to stay in that congregation until the current clergy-person retires, not using or developing the gift and calling. We expect them to move to a different church that needs them.
Why wouldn't that be true of anyone else with a gift and calling - to sing (after the church kills the choir), to play organ (after the church throws away the instrument), to teach Sunday school (after the church decides they don't need that activity), etc?
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I think what actually happens is that some people will feel it is right to move to somewhere where they can exercise those gifts, while others will stay and discover that they have other gifts which the church does encourage them to offer. In other words, there will be, and should be, a variety of responses. What I really don't think should happen, though, is that one of those responses should be considered superior to the other.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
some people will feel it is right to move to somewhere where they can exercise those gifts, while others will stay and discover that they have other gifts... [neither] of those responses should be considered superior to the other.
Where's the "like" button? :-)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
I always think that falling church attendances are turned into a bigger problem than they actually are.
It should be said that if you're living in Belfast, you're nowhere near the heart of the collapse in churchgoing and church vitality that has affected certain other parts of the UK.
I understand the comment about how the social churchgoers of the past have given up as fashions in respectable behaviour have changed. But when you're faced with a particular church, or even an entire denomination, that appears to be on a relentless path to irrelevancy and disintegration, it's not much consolation!
[ 04. June 2013, 19:01: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on
:
Oh, we have it here too. A whole generation of people who like to call themselves Protestants and Catholics never set foot in church apart from their own baptisms, marriages and funerals, for "Catholics" their first communions and confirmations, and for "Protestants" perhaps the annual Orange Order of service. One generation ago, most on both sides would have been regular attenders.
I have also been told of at least one village in Ireland which had several churches. They all wanted to remain independent rather than working together for survival, and in the end, every one of them closed.
My own church is relatively small. Our minister has the wit to realise that we are going to have to go and meet genuine needs in the community once our new building is complete, among both poor and professionals, because the one guarantee is that people aren't going to come to church just because we put on a special service - meet people where they are, because they won't come to us.
[ 04. June 2013, 20:30: Message edited by: AndyB ]
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
When it closed, rather than move to the largest church to build a decent choir there, the choir, which consisted of people living outside the parish, disappeared to the four winds - once "their" church closed, there was no loyalty to the broader parish.
But did the largest church actually want to build a decent choir? Had the sort of music the choir represented previously been part of the largest church's tradition? I'm sure the joining of the churches was presented as a merger of equals but that doesn't mean that it wasn't in practice a takeover. And a takeover could have made it perfectly clear that there would have been no welcome for the choir from the smaller church.
It is regrettable how often the worst of motives seem to be attributed to choirs and choir members.
Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on
:
I'm wondering how much of the closing of small churches has to do with the theology of the denomination?
In my town, all the Catholic churches offer at least 1 Mass a day, and several on Sunday, all of which are well-attended, to say the least - even the 7:30 on Sunday morning, which has about 60 congregants! I remember, from my previous days as a Catholic, that going to daily Mass was emphasized as an ideal.
The local Protestant churches offer 1 service on Sunday, and nothing else, implying (in contrast to the Catholic churches) that going to church is not, in itself, the most important thing. It seems (from my outsider perspective) that the most important thing about Protestantism is being a "member" on the role so they can count you in their statistics. This implied lack of interest in their own services spreads to the congregation, many of whom, I'm surmising, wonder why they even bother to go?
Like Catholicism, Buddhism emphasizes the community aspect of the practice. Our local Buddhist meditation center is booming, with separate groups for:
- GLBT
- People of color
- Spanish speakers
- People with disabilities
- People in recovery
They recently had to move to a new, bigger building - a growth that I'm sure all the Christian churches in the area are envying - and are the top-ranked religious organization on our local Yelp.
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
I'm wondering how much of the closing of small churches has to do with the theology of the denomination?
In my town, all the Catholic churches offer at least 1 Mass a day, and several on Sunday, all of which are well-attended, to say the least - even the 7:30 on Sunday morning, which has about 60 congregants! I remember, from my previous days as a Catholic, that going to daily Mass was emphasized as an ideal.
The local Protestant churches offer 1 service on Sunday, and nothing else, implying (in contrast to the Catholic churches) that going to church is not, in itself, the most important thing. It seems (from my outsider perspective) that the most important thing about Protestantism is being a "member" on the role so they can count you in their statistics. This implied lack of interest in their own services spreads to the congregation, many of whom, I'm surmising, wonder why they even bother to go?
Catholics are certainly unique in having the obligation to attend mass, but the fact that they generally have larger congregations (and more services) is also because there are far fewer Catholic churches.
In the UK, catholic churches make up less than 10% of the total number of churches even though they represent 28% of churchgoers - the same percentage as Anglicans who have nearly 5 times as many churches.
Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on
:
Catholics certainly are not fissiparous (my favorite word I learned on the Ship) like Protestants.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
Oh, we have it here too. A whole generation of people who like to call themselves Protestants and Catholics never set foot in church apart from their own baptisms, marriages and funerals, for "Catholics" their first communions and confirmations, and for "Protestants" perhaps the annual Orange Order of service. One generation ago, most on both sides would have been regular attenders.
Yes, but in England, this happened several generations ago.
I would advise church communities and leaders in Northern Ireland not be complacent about having lost a generation of people who went to church because it was 'what one did'. The English experience is that the numbers of people within the faith community's sphere of influence don't stabilise after this happens, but rather continue to decline.
[ 05. June 2013, 18:59: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on
:
Oh, I know. It was also the case that those who turned up because it was "what one did" were at least hearing God's word every Sunday, hopefully with a decent preacher. That's now lost.
Thankfully, because NI is behind the rest of the British Isles (nothing new there!), and the main denominations work on an all-Ireland basis, the opportunity exists to learn from everyone else's mistakes.
The question, though, is will they? Too many churches are content to confine their community interaction to flyers advertising forthcoming services which tend to get binned unread.
Our minister is big on finding out what the community needs and we are capable of offering, to make the church something that people turn to. As an example, we've already had success with English classes for immigrants - the only ones in the area, and it is translating into people wanting to find out more about Jesus, going to church (ours or another) etc. Not everybody, but a church meeting human needs can draw people to want to figure out why we're doing it, and also allow relationships to develop.
We know that services that reach out and draw people in to worship are essential (together with the infamous flyers to advertise them), but there is absolutely no point just having services and waiting for people to feel like walking in.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
Too many churches are content to confine their community interaction to flyers advertising forthcoming services which tend to get binned unread.
Our minister is big on finding out what the community needs and we are capable of offering, to make the church something that people turn to. As an example, we've already had success with English classes for immigrants - the only ones in the area, and it is translating into people wanting to find out more about Jesus, going to church (ours or another) etc.
This is totally the way forward, IMO. We just can't rely on people heeding our 'come to us' invitations, when more and more people have no concept of Jesus, church and Christianity. We've got to get out there into the community, into the places where people go about their lives.
I can't remember who it's attributed to, but an ancient Roman historian wrote of the early Christians that they not only fed their own hungry, but non-Christians too. It'd be amazing if Christians became more known for that kind of thing these days.
Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on
:
It is also risky, because people know we are a church, and while what we will offer is not conditional on becoming a Christian, they will realise that sooner or later as they get to know us, Jesus is going to come into the conversation.
Again, the trick will be to find the line between "Hello, welcome, what do you think about Jesus?" and never getting beyond "Hello, welcome, how're you" - creating a safe space and relationships where the conversations can be had without chasing people away.
I'm actually really looking forward to the meeting I need with our minister, because I'm musical director and I want to hear all about his ideas for worship and to spend time together between the two of us and with others with ideas about how our weekly worship, from beginning to end, should be conducted in the new building, whether it's a complete rethink or just tweaking. I'm not expecting to hear anything much I'm not up for doing if we have the personnel, and I have one or two ideas myself.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
Our minister is big on finding out what the community needs and we are capable of offering, to make the church something that people turn to. As an example, we've already had success with English classes for immigrants - the only ones in the area, and it is translating into people wanting to find out more about Jesus, going to church (ours or another) etc. Not everybody, but a church meeting human needs can draw people to want to figure out why we're doing it, and also allow relationships to develop.
That's great. I know a local Baptist church that's really become a safe and welcoming space for its local multiracial community through holding ESOL classes and summer and Easter clubs for children. In fact, reaching the local community was a key consideration in choosing their new minister, who's an Arabic-speaker. The church has seen a slowly increasing number of local Muslims attending services.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
Again, the trick will be to find the line between "Hello, welcome, what do you think about Jesus?" and never getting beyond "Hello, welcome, how're you" - creating a safe space and relationships where the conversations can be had without chasing people away.
Ha ha, absolutely! May God guide us all as we seek the right balance between these two extremes - and also when going beyond either of the extremes would be the best thing to do...
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0