Ship of Fools: Church Growth (latest instalment)

Thread: Church Growth (latest instalment) 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=026742

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

Here's another bit of church growth research (for those of you who like this stuff). It's focused on the CofE so covers parishes, fresh expressions and cathedrals. As we've discussed before on these boards it points up figures on trends around growth, stability, and decline. New stuff in here for me included figures about what kind of people are going where. So about 1/2 of people rocking up to fresh expressions are from a non-church background, and about a quarter of people pitching up to the cathedrals in the survey are unchurched or de-churched. Good to see some figures on cathedral church growth, and what people are finding attractive about them.

Some interesting stuff about the characteristics of leaders of growing churches, their motivations, and how lay people are involved. A lot of lay people involved in running stuff, and new people get involved year on year is something you will see in growing churches.

Plenty of other goodies in here - what can you relate to?

Anyway, you fine people can find it here .

Enjoy

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Interesting. I'll read this in detail. The first thing that struck me was the comment about 'intentionality' - being 'intentional' in what we do.

That might sound like a truism, but it's a point worth reckoning on, I think.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

A very interesting document.

It's stated that theological tradition plays no particular part in the growth or decline of a congregation. This should be a very encouraging message for a broad church like the CofE.

Some parts of the document are relevant to churches in other denominations.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Yes, interesting, but how robust are the figures?

I only ask because our local 'fresh expression' place was forever being quoted as having regular numbers of under 30s in the 80s, a youth group of 80-100 every week and 40-60 under 16s at every family worship session.

However, knowing someone who was struggling with their own parish and tried the fresh expression outfit for nearly a year, the numbers were pure invention - to the extent that the youth group now meets once a month only and may fold if it can't attract more.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, interesting, but how robust are the figures?

I only ask because our local 'fresh expression' place was forever being quoted as having regular numbers of under 30s in the 80s, a youth group of 80-100 every week and 40-60 under 16s at every family worship session.

However, knowing someone who was struggling with their own parish and tried the fresh expression outfit for nearly a year, the numbers were pure invention - to the extent that the youth group now meets once a month only and may fold if it can't attract more.

Presumably its 'fresh expression' nature flows from a recognition that 30 years on it is no longer what it was in the 80s, and something needs to be done. Patterns and the demography of churchgoing have changed hugely in the last three decades.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, interesting, but how robust are the figures?

I only ask because our local 'fresh expression' place was forever being quoted as having regular numbers of under 30s in the 80s, a youth group of 80-100 every week and 40-60 under 16s at every family worship session.

However, knowing someone who was struggling with their own parish and tried the fresh expression outfit for nearly a year, the numbers were pure invention - to the extent that the youth group now meets once a month only and may fold if it can't attract more.

It's not the model, it's the skill with which the model is appropriated in a particular context.

That's one guess.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

[coughs] having worked many years ago in a church hierarchy where numbers were Everything (God help us), there was considerable pressure on missionaries and pastors to (shall we call it) over-report the fruit of their endeavors. To the point that definitions were deliberately not standardized--what exactly constitutes a congregation? We're not going to tell you, because then we'd have to admit that one field is counting single families as congregations simply because they're geographically dispersed, while another is counting only fully-signed up, constitutionally-organized worshipping groups. In the case of youth groups, what constitutes a youth? Are we counting only 14-18 year-olds, or are we adding in the preteens--the college set--both? And how regularly are we updating these numbers? (Lots of pressure on media types to use the most favorable numbers and forgo double-checking present statistics, just in case things have changed for the worst)

This is all sin, of course, and shameful. But it happens. It happened to me. So I'd take all numbers reported in the media with a shakerful of salt, unless they're derived from a recent scientific study done by a disinterested third party.

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

Then there is the youth project that has 'contact with over 100 young people' - that is the list of those who have ever come, and may not relate to the number per week or the few regulars.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

Whilst I tend to agree with LambChopped's saline treatment of 'evangelastic' figures (real membership vs boasting membership) the survey in question seems to be based on some pretty reliable data.

The CofE has an annual census of attenders which tends not to be subject to exaggeration (for one thing, inflationary estimates may affect the parish share, a sum of money paid by each parish to the diocese central funds).

So I might be naive, but tend to think this study has some teeth, and certainly gives food for thought.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I think that's the case Felafool when it comes to 'conventional' parishes and so on in the CofE. I'd be less inclined to believe all the statistics on Fresh Expressions ...

I know it might be a cynical view but one clergyman I know tells me that almost anything can 'count' as a Fresh Expression.

'If I go to the dentist and talk to the girl on the reception desk, that counts as a Fresh Expression,' he quipped.

I wouldn't be completely dismissive of the kind of figures quoted - but would suggest that figures aren't the full story in and of themselves. The growth in cathedral attendance, for instance, does indicate that people are attending from previously unchurched backgrounds (as opposed to refugees trying to escape the Sunday school rota or drum'n'bass out in the parishes) but it also contains a lot of tourists and one-off visitors ... which is as one would expect.

On initiatives like Messy Church, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some 'double-counting' going on as these require a lot of helpers and facilitators - and most of these would be in the 'normal' service if Messy Church wasn't running.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

Gamaliel quotes a clergyman :

quote:
'If I go to the dentist and talk to the girl on the reception desk, that counts as a Fresh Expression,' he quipped.

What can I say? I know what he means, but I imagine he also knows that the remark is fatuous, and has a good idea of what 'FX' is really about.

The piece of research is entitled "From Anecdote to Evidence" and employs a multi-disciplinary and multi-agency team.

It includes the following statement:

quote:

".....from the beginning, the research teams acknowledged and
were faced with some substantial challenges with
availability and quality of data. In order to make
sure that the data and subsequent results were as
good as could be achieved, the Church of England
Research and Statistics Unit worked with the teams
to prepare the data which the Church already holds
centrally. The result is a much–improved data set
which can be further analysed in the future"

My reply to LambChopped was prompted by her assertion that we shouldn't take figures quoted in the media for granted. This piece of research hardly qualifies as that IMHO.

At least there is an attempt to analyse some evidence, along with the understanding of some of the problems in gathering such evidence. The conclusions merit some thoughtful discussion.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Can someone help me understand figure 1 on page 10 of the report? What does high/low share mean? I'm sorry to be dumb, but I can't see where it is discussed in the text.

I think there is a very significant over-count as to church effectiveness outside of the traditional forms of church - and actually this is often counting people who are just accessing free services (as they would a public library).

For example, in my town local churches put on a large jamboree for children in the Summer. Whilst it is probably true that a significant number of children attend this (to have free goes on the activities etc), I think it is hard to argue that they've all had meaningful engagement with church. It is rare for the church people who run it to even get to know the names of more than a handful of children.

As a little secondary point, I've noticed in many towns (we've been looking at moving, so we've unfortunately been through the process of looking at churches in a lot of different places), there are a lot of small churches which apparently/superficially seem very similar. How do we know that such places are not just moving people around? There is growth of the number of churches, but do we actually know that there are more people in them?

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Oops, sorry, I forgot that the report is specifically about Anglican church growth.

But maybe it is still true. Often the 'new forms' of Anglican church seem to ape various forms which already exist.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

The chart is basically suggesting there are four types of setting

High proportion of the population (share) go to Church
- High Growth Potential i.e. Middle Class Suburbs
- Low Growth Potential i.e. Rural villages
Low proportion of the population (share) go to church
- High Growth Potential i.e. Urban areas with many Christian Immigrants
- Low Growth Potential i.e. Towns and cities where there are struggling white populations

Working on this sort of model the Church should abandon the white working class sink estates! We are not strong there and there is little potential for growth.

Jengie

p.s. This is what the report says, I do not agree with it but white urban mission is the hardest sort to do.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Thanks, Jengie Jon, I thought maybe share meant something to Anglicans that it doesn't to me.

There is an interesting thing about the white working class - I wonder why it is that they don't seem to get religion.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

By and large, the white working class haven't 'got' religion for a long time and there's been a steady decline in indigenous working class engagement in church since at least the early 1800s.

Incidentally, Jengie, I don't think the report is saying that the Anglican church should pull out of white working class 'sink estates' and so on, but if we were to take a purely 'market-led' model as per that particular growth-potential matrix then that's what all churches - of whatever stripe - would be doing.

@Felafool, of course the cleric I mentioned knew he was making a sarky statement - but I'd suggest that there is more than a little truth in it - along the lines that Pydseybare suggests in a different context ...

It does seem to me that 'any contact with church' is counted by Fresh Expressions types as some kind of 'significant contact with church' even if it's simply coming along and bouncing up and down on a church-run bouncy castle every now and then ...

Of course, some contact is better than no-contact in bums-on-seats (or feet on bouncy castles) terms but if we're talking 'church growth' I suspect the impression given is that we are talking about people who are being 'churched' by the experience ...

I know that probably sounds as cynical as the cleric I quoted, but I don't mean it to be. I'd applaud many of these efforts, but I think there's a balance between getting uncritically excited about some of the results on the one hand or seeing it all as a lost cause/hopeless exercise on the other ...

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

Thanks for your comments Gamaliel. I agree with your last comment:

quote:
I think there's a balance between getting uncritically excited about some of the results on the one hand or seeing it all as a lost cause/hopeless exercise on the other ...

I'm just concerned that a report such as this immediately stirs up the cynical questioning of the data and analysis. (Not to mention the mistrust of anything the 'media' regurgitates, although as I said before, in this case I think that is an oily fish of a ruddy hue.)

I think the implications behind the cynicism is that either the CofE hierarchy is trying to put a positive spin on something, or the local churches are deliberately hyping the figures. Both are possible, but I think the report is genuinely trying to use evidence to indicate why growth might happen or why it might not. The very last page also acknowledges the grace of God in all of this.

Surely missional disciples need to understand the times and seasons, and set their sails accordingly? One thing is for sure, if we carry on doing things the way they have always been done, we'll get the same results...in this case, decline.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It does seem to me that 'any contact with church' is counted by Fresh Expressions types as some kind of 'significant contact with church' even if it's simply coming along and bouncing up and down on a church-run bouncy castle every now and then ...

In a similar way, many denominations ask for (and publish) numbers of "children and young people in contact with church" which can be frankly misleading. For instance, our church has 100+ young people who fit into this category by virtue of belonging to Guides or Scouts; but of those only perhaps 25 are ever present at church services and under 10 are regular members of the church community.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
n a similar way, many denominations ask for (and publish) numbers of "children and young people in contact with church" which can be frankly misleading. For instance, our church has 100+ young people who fit into this category by virtue of belonging to Guides or Scouts; but of those only perhaps 25 are ever present at church services and under 10 are regular members of the church community.

Why do they do that? Who, actually, are they trying to impress?

This is one of the things that drives me mad about church: lying to ourselves about things we must know are not true.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I'm not sure that it's an intentional ploy to deceive - it's just the simplest way of counting as it includes everyone who passes through your doors.

To be fair, one denomination I know publishes these figures alongside the "average number of children at Sunday worship". That is much the same as publishing notional figures of church membership or affiliation (notoriously unreliable as different denominations have completely different ideas of what these might mean) alongside average Sunday attendances.

I have to say that, when some Ministers say, "we have 100 people at church each week" or even (as happened here) "there were 2000 people at our Pentecost event", I mentally reduce the figure by a third. There is a real tendency to "talk things up", perhaps because good numbers are seen as a sign of pastoral/entrepreneurial "success".

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Maybe some are fixated with numbers.

I heard someone talking about their job with the Christians Against Poverty debt centre. They seemed to believe that it was a great bonus to state that 10 (I think, I have a poor memory for precise numbers) 'got saved' as part of the course. Clearly the fact that x people were helped with their debt problems is not enough.

[ 10. February 2014, 15:34: Message edited by: pydseybare ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I know one church that counts in a somewhat exaggerated way as a way of getting grants. Said church is definitely growing steadily in all the ways that they are counting. They just aren't showing it as simply as they try to say they are, and a grant application is a poor place for complexity.

(As you can tell, my feelings are mixed on the topic.)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Don't get me wrong, Felafool, I think it is a good and well-presented report ... but I'm afraid, as Baptist Trainfan has indicated, there is a tendency across the board to 'big things up'.

No names, no pack-drill, but I know of an instance where a parish church's expenditure (with some grant aid) on a refurbishment project was literally doubled in the report which appeared in its diocesan newsletter ...

As for the 'results' from evangelistic campaigns and so on ... just don't get me started on that ...

In this instance, I don't suspect there's jiggery-pokery going on with figures and so on - the report is sober and acknowledges where there are worrying trends - less than half of all CofE churches have children under 16 for instance ...

What I'd question is the degree to which some of the participants cited in the Fresh Expressions instances are actively engaged with church in the traditional sense ...

Not that this diminishes or contradicts/undermines the value of such experiments and initiatives ... but I think they should be evaluated in a different way than the traditional bums on pews criteria ...

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Wow. I'm not what to say about that.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Well in our neck of the woods on Saturday there were 56 children and 30 adults at the Messy Church. A few (less than 10) are regular Sunday attendees.

More come to one of the midweek children's groups (about 30), the remainder only come to Messy Church - which is actually called something else.

If we were counting for the purposes of reporting (we actually only know how many because of the name badges), then we'd have to work hard to avoid double counting.

As regards denominational surveys, these - by their nature - take place on one day each year. That may or may not be a representative Sunday. Counting includes those who "access" facilities and there will be an element then of creative accounting. Some denominations have also changed the basis of counting from people per week to people per month - unsurprisingly the decline in attendance is smaller that way.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Absolutely, pydseybare - to that and to the thing about the number who allegedly 'got saved' ... which tends to mean in many instances that they were simply directed to pray a prayer of repentance copying someone else's words ...

Don't get me started on that either ...

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

This is one of the things that drives me mad about church: lying to ourselves about things we must know are not true.

When you bring in commercial measures to evaluate churches, why would you expect the pressure to be any different?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

And I agree with ExclamationMark too ... which doesn't negate the value of the midweek and Messy Church initiatives he's citing ... but it does indicate that we need a different criteria for dealing with these.

It'd probably be difficult to administer, but I'd suggest that a more accurate way to account for the numbers in such cases would be to have a table which showed:

- Numbers at the 'regular' service.
- Numbers at the midweek youth group.
- Numbers at Messy Church (not including helpers who would otherwise be at the 'regular' service.

I'd go so far as to suggest that the overall impression of growth is a chimera. What we are seeing across the board is decline - and that applies almost everywhere - if not everywhere other than certain ethnic minority/migrant churches in some of the large cities.

Sure, individual places will be doing well and that's great, but overall numbers are down however we cut them - and this report does acknowledge that, to be fair.

So, it's not a question of being cynical but about being realists.

A realist would say that there are some encouraging signs in some places and a bucking of the overall downward trend - but there's still a downward trend.

That may bottom out eventually, I don't know.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry to double-post ...

Absolutely, Chris Stiles - and this was the point that the clergyman I quoted earlier was trying to make ...

He's not cynical about community engagement, Messy Church or whatever else - nor Fresh Expressions necessarily - what he's opposed to is the desire to quantify everything in commercial terms as if the church is a business ...

He feels that a lot of able and committed clergy are under pressure to 'perform' and to deliver the goods. He also feels that some of the more evangelical types are driven by management-speak and marketing rather than an holistic approach to the whole-person as it were ... although, very liberal though he is, he does have a lot of time for certain evangelicals.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
When you bring in commercial measures to evaluate churches, why would you expect the pressure to be any different?

Well.. because it is a religious group that claims to value truth..

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

In my view, the increase in cathedral attendance is actually quite an indictment of much of the Church in this country. Why do we think this growth has occurred? OK, there may be many different reasons, but surely we should ask what marks out cathedrals as fundamentally different from other types of church contexts. Cathedrals are a place where there is a measure of anonymity. They are places people can go without feeling hassled and put upon by religious people. Ordinary people who are hungry for God may find a cathedral setting conducive to seeking Him, without having to be entangled with the demands, politics and psychological stress of the Christian community.

If this is the case, then this type of growth is really a disappointment for the control freaks in Christendom, who rather hope that more bums on seats - or in pews - mean more money and more Christian workers at the coal face, ready to be given their marching orders. It's a kind of growth which is in a different category altogether to the growth of churches which champion close and - let's be honest, often intrusive - fellowship.

The growth in cathedral attendance is not good news for those who favour a certain view of what constitutes "church". How can such people be controlled and herded? They are looking for anyonymity. They are, dare I suggest, actually looking for God.

Perhaps, instead of Christian sociologists and Church growth analysts feeling too smug about this trend, they should actually hear what the trend is saying: many people don't like what they perceive to be Christian fellowship, but are really rather interested in God. Hence a quiet seat at the back of a large gothic cathedral, where no one will hassle me, and I can actually get my head together without some "oh so concerned" religious person breathing down my neck, and trying to control my life!

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

That's an interesting thought, EE.

I think I'd agree there is a lack of introspective religion. I'm not sure how many people are really looking for that.

I can also imagine that many would say that people who go to Cathedrals to avoid 'fellowship' are not real believers.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
When you bring in commercial measures to evaluate churches, why would you expect the pressure to be any different?
Well.. because it is a religious group that claims to value truth..

Of course - but even if on average they were slightly more truthful, that would still leave a lot of wiggle room.

This corruption of nature doth persist, and all that.

[ 10. February 2014, 16:12: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
That's an interesting thought, EE.

I think I'd agree there is a lack of introspective religion. I'm not sure how many people are really looking for that.

I can also imagine that many would say that people who go to Cathedrals to avoid 'fellowship' are not real believers.

I don't know why you mentioned "introspective religion" in response to my comment, considering that I never referred to anything like that. Seeking God is not 'introspective', if that's what you think, unless you think God is not an objective reality, but merely a description of some aspect of one's own internal state.

Furthermore, I would not say that people who go to cathedrals are necessarily avoiding fellowship, but rather the wrong kind of fellowship. There is a certain kind of 'fellowship' which gets in the way of fellowship with God, and I would say that some of those who promote it are not always in a right relationship with God.

But my main observation about these statistics is that we cannot assume that growth in certain church contexts is an endorsement of the health of the Church generally. That, I think, would be very naive.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I don't know why you mentioned "introspective religion" in response to my comment, considering that I never referred to anything like that. Seeking God is not 'introspective', if that's what you think, unless you think God is not an objective reality, but merely a description of some aspect of one's own internal state.

That isn't what I meant. I was attempting to give a name to the kind of contrast you expressed between cathedral worship (which you seemed to characterise as being essentially 'anonymous') and fellowship (involved?). I certainly did not mean to imply anything about the objective reality of the deity.

quote:
Furthermore, I would not say that people who go to cathedrals are necessarily avoiding fellowship, but rather the wrong kind of fellowship. There is a certain kind of 'fellowship' which gets in the way of fellowship with God, and I would say that some of those who promote it are not always in a right relationship with God.

Right, I think I understood what you meant, but you appear to have misunderstood my understanding as being criticism. It wasn't. I just thought it was an interesting point to discuss.

quote:
But my main observation about these statistics is that we cannot assume that growth in certain church contexts is an endorsement of the health of the Church generally. That, I think, would be very naive.

Fine.

I'm not sure I can be bothered to discuss things with you if you are going to jump down my throat.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In my view, the increase in cathedral attendance is actually quite an indictment of much of the Church in this country. Why do we think this growth has occurred?

Because there is still a role for traditional, attractional church done well. This is beyond the capabilities for most parishes but Cathedrals have the clout to be able to put on a great service, with well rehearsed choral music, art etc. and provide a focus for large regional events. It taps into the residual memory of national Christianity and is a good point of contact for some. The report acknowledges this.

The problems is when the local priests are supposed to replicate this in ten church benefices all by themselves. Or, in the case of the some evangelical traditions, trying to imitate Spring Harvest Big Top/ Soul Survivor or what ever with two small speakers and a handful of three chord wonders on guitar 50 weeks of the year.

For regular congregants at a Cathedral there are still plenty of opportunities for proper fellowship and service in even bigger flower rotas etc. There is a way into genuine Christian community because Cathedrals are run on much the same voluntary lines as anywhere else.

FX and Pioneer ministry goes way beyond the regular church boundaries. These movements are seeking to multiply and be church where there is none. It goes to people who are not attracted to an existing offering of church. There is many an evangelical congregation that is inward looking and declining.

Any church is only one generation from extinction. The church survives through multiplication and by being contextual. Being contextual often means redefining what church is and allowing those who are not currently numbered on the electoral role to define what being church is for them.

Cathedral worship is here to stay as part of a mixed economy of worship because one size does not fit all. Sometimes ancient practices are the right fit and may be reinvented.

Fresh Expressions are likely to become an increasingly important part of the mix. But remember, the Book of Common Prayer was fresh once upon a time!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In my view, the increase in cathedral attendance is actually quite an indictment of much of the Church in this country. Why do we think this growth has occurred?
Because there is still a role for traditional, attractional church done well. This is beyond the capabilities for most parishes but Cathedrals have the clout to be able to put on a great service, with well rehearsed choral music, art etc. and provide a focus for large regional events ...

The problems is when the local priests are supposed to replicate this in ten church benefices all by themselves ...

But isn't there something horribly consumerist in all this? Something which conceives Christianity as something which one passively enjoys? And won't this ultimately lead to the complete collapse of ordinary local churches in small communities?

Perhaps I am too "Baptist" - but doesn't Paul's notion of "the Body" suggest involvement as the sine qua non of authentic church life?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I've 'been' a Baptist, Baptist Trainfan and would by no means 'knock' what you're saying ... but I can certainly understand the appeal of cathedrals.

If I lived in a cathedral city I'd probably attend one myself.

I don't think anyone here is saying that it's the only way or the 'right' way or anything of that kind - simply that it's part of the mixed economy that, like it or not, we have ended up with for historical, cultural, theological and a whole lot of other reasons.

One might equally accuse the Baptist option of being 'consumerist' or the Methodist, the URC, the Salvation Army, the Orthodox ...

As soon as there are a multiplicity of options and not one single, monolithic one then we are all running the risk of 'consumerism' to some extent or other it seems to me.

I'm not sure I'd see the apparent growth in cathedral attendance as an 'indictment' on the rest of the church/es in the way that EE suggests, but I can understand the point he is making.

I don't know how many of us here saw that documentary series on cathedrals recently?

The best one, to my mind, was the one about Wells Cathedral. They had interviews with regulars who included all viewpoints from the very evangelical - but someone who now wanted liturgy and tradition and yet acknowledged their debt and respect for evangelicalism and 'gathered' churches - to the very liberal and heterodox to the downright 'out there' new-agey ...

I found myself wondering how a conventional parish church or a gathered, non-conformist church could possibly accommodate such a wide selection of people and views ...

The reality is that they probably couldn't ...

Whether one regards that as a good thing or a bad thing depends on where one stands.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think there are different ways of 'doing' community and engaging with community ... intentionality can be expressed in different ways.

The problem, I think, with the more 'congregational' approach is that, despite its strengths, it can become very claustrophobic if you're not careful.

There was a point in the mid-80s when I was effectively cut off from almost everything else because of my so full-on involvement with church. It took over.

So I can well understand the appeal of cathedrals. They provide room to breathe ...

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Fresh Expressions are likely to become an increasingly important part of the mix. But remember, the Book of Common Prayer was fresh once upon a time!

But the point about Fresh Expressions is that it's an ethos, rather than a specific method, right?. A specific way of doing church services or being church in the broader sense might be fresh and relevant here and now, but irrelevant and ineffective in a few years' time (or indeed at the present but in a different place).

ISTM Fresh Expressions as a general approach is absolutely the way forward for the UK, given that fewer and fewer people are familiar with the basics of Christianity. The attractional approach, perhaps illustrated by cathedrals and similar churches, is fine for drawing in people who still have a positive regard for Jesus and Christianity, but for those who are ignorant of or even hostile towards the faith, I think it's obvious that a different approach is needed.

Posted by DOEPUBLIC (# 13042) on :

Intriguing discussion with intriguing parameters.
The tension between a community and individual perspective. Anecdote or research. The tension between a digitally, discrete measurement and a continuous analogue one. Reflected in the balance of Spirit and Truth.
Too me simple truths of the farmer are being traded for those of the multi-national industry.
Performance figures of athletes and soldiers, when the quality of crop is not ensured.
Failure to sit together, because people are too busy running and fighting. Making stands and conquering territory. I choose no longer to attend church since I found it unsafe for me.

[ 10. February 2014, 17:38: Message edited by: DOEPUBLIC ]

Posted by DOEPUBLIC (# 13042) on :

.......Does that make me a fresh expression... Or expressionless?

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

When I first got involved with a froup of Fresh Expression trainees three or so years back there was a recognition from the gals leading the group (they were gals with some blokes helping out from time to time) that whilst there were some cracking FEs getting people seriously thinking about faith, they were some pretty flaky ones knocking around as well. My impression is that the quality bar is going up a notch or two. Looking back on the research I see they've been asking questions about how much effort's going into 'discipling' people who rock up to FEs. I'd like more detail on what that means in reality, but see some significance in the fact the question's being asked.

I was brought up in a Christian world where joining church meant 'getting saved then added.' You had to sign a contract 'get saved' before you could go through a membership course (and usually get baptised) before you were 'in.' FEs, along with other missional communities in other contexts are OK with you 'getting added' before you get saved. First off you are invited to join a community where, amongst other stuff, you get to explore faith. In a post-Christian society I reckon that's a decent enough space to start.

I don't know too much about communities in Cathedrals, but from this thread plus the few people I know who are involved with 'em they are big buildings housing a lot of smaller communities (choirs, discussion groups, social action stuff). The whole idea of the big building was to remind you how great God is and they have an attractional quality about them which helps plenty of people explore spirituality. At some point in my own spiritual journey I'd like to get involved with a Cathedral - the mission potential is massive - and I reckon I'd learn a stack of stuff about how people share their faith in a Cathedral context.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In my view, the increase in cathedral attendance is actually quite an indictment of much of the Church in this country. Why do we think this growth has occurred?
Because there is still a role for traditional, attractional church done well. This is beyond the capabilities for most parishes but Cathedrals have the clout to be able to put on a great service, with well rehearsed choral music, art etc. and provide a focus for large regional events ...

The problems is when the local priests are supposed to replicate this in ten church benefices all by themselves ...
But isn't there something horribly consumerist in all this? Something which conceives Christianity as something which one passively enjoys? And won't this ultimately lead to the complete collapse of ordinary local churches in small communities?

Perhaps I am too "Baptist" - but doesn't Paul's notion of "the Body" suggest involvement as the sine qua non of authentic church life?

I have several years at a Baptist church under my belt and several other non-conformist types too. I'm thankful for that heritage being in the mix.
I have rarely attended a Cathedral and am more likely to see proceedings at a Royal Wedding or some such televised event.

Consumer church can happen in any context. It is countered by having a sense of mission. Of reaching a stage of maturity that realises that we need to leave our comfort zone and reach out to those on the outside by breaching the barriers on our side. To boldly go...

Besides what is authentic church life? Or should that be discipleship? A call to follow Christ isn't a call to be like one of us.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

A lot depends on what you mean by 'getting saved' of course - that isn't necessarily going to be there in the traditional evangelical sense in a cathedral context, Truman White ... but that doesn't mean that the people involved aren't engaged in the faith ...

I think South Coast Kevin has raised an interesting point about the appeal of cathedrals being more towards those with a positive view of the Christian faith in the first place - although I'd suggest that they can also appeal to people who have a less defined view of spirituality ... new age-y and 'ley line' types as well as people with a Christian background.

As to what is likely to appeal to people who are completely unchurched and who haven't the faintest idea of what church/Christianity etc looks or feels like ... well, I don't really know what the answer is to that one.

It seems to me that whatever style or expression it is - whether a 'Fresh Expression' or a more traditional one - authenticity and genuine concern for people is the key.

You can have the most 'relevant' style imaginable (however you imagine it) but if that authenticity isn't there then you can forget it ...

I think Truman White makes an interesting point about the quality improving as the Fresh Expressions thing continues ... that's encouraging - but I also feel that the 'better' we get at things then some of the authenticity might be compromised ...

I think however we do church there's always some kind of compromise or trade off. Where we draw the line on that is the tricky part.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Bro James

quote:
Presumably its 'fresh expression' nature flows from a recognition that 30 years on it is no longer what it was in the 80s, and something needs to be done. Patterns and the demography of churchgoing have changed hugely in the last three decades.

Sorry Bro J, you mis-read me - perhaps I expressed myself badly too:

What I meant by

quote:
...having regular numbers of under 30s in the 80s, a youth group of 80-100 every week and 40-60 under 16s at every family worship session ...

was around 80 people under the age of 30, not number in the 30s during the 1980s - sorry!

What concerned my church-shopping mate was that the FE model was being widely quoted as a massive success, with its minister happy to be criticise surrounding parishes for 'failure to mission'. Old pal was so puzzled they did their own head-count and quickly discovered the numbers being claimed for the FE outfit were complete fiction.

Since the mate had this experience our area has also been on the receiving end of an FE plant - and we too are being told of huge numbers (especially for youth events) which don't tally with the reality on the ground.

Now I know this is only 2 but - is there a pattern here?

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

Fresh expressions covers a wide range of things.

Creating positive experiences of churches can plant seeds/create a periphery. Messy church at our church does have unchurched people, but I don't think all that many. But even if it could be reaching more people, I still think it's valuable anyway in helping fellowship of christians/kids who do go.

Other types do evangelism through relationship/building community. As Truman says upthread, belonging may come before believing. These need a lot of commitment over a long time. For example, this one in Bristle. It sounds really worhtwhile, but superficially might sound less like instant success than a messy church. Or pioneer ministers.

I started going to church at St Bride's Fleet Street, 'cos I wanted to hear nice music. It started me on a journey to faith. I was anonymous and liked it, but eventually I wanted different things. It's important to have different places/styles/people (all things to all people so some might be won for Christ).

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Maybe some are fixated with numbers.

I heard someone talking about their job with the Christians Against Poverty debt centre. They seemed to believe that it was a great bonus to state that 10 (I think, I have a poor memory for precise numbers) 'got saved' as part of the course. Clearly the fact that x people were helped with their debt problems is not enough.

The reality is that churches that want to do social outreach without building up their core membership are living on borrowed time. Forget St. Paul's embarrassing references to salvation if you like, but churches can't function if they neglect recruitment. That should be obvious.

I admit, I didn't pay great attention to the figures in this report, because I didn't imagine that they'd indicate any sort of great turnaround for the church. Where Christians have a vision and are working hard and courageously in faith there are bound to be successes. But putting figures on that must be hard, especially with the fairly new and fluid movement that is FE.

quote:

I've noticed in many towns (we've been looking at moving, so we've unfortunately been through the process of looking at churches in a lot of different places), there are a lot of small churches which apparently/superficially seem very similar. How do we know that such places are not just moving people around? There is growth of the number of churches, but do we actually know that there are more people in them?

What kind of churches are they? The historical churches aren't doing a huge amount of planting, and if they are they won't be trying to duplicate what's already available. Any duplication will be historical. OTOH, if these are newly established charismatic congregations, they don't seem to mind a degree of competition. I suppose it proves that there's a market in place for what they have to offer. And some churches are geared towards particular ethnic groups, even though they might be theologically similar to churches that are already present.

BTW, sorry if this is a nosey tangent, but you said on an earlier thread that you didn't believe in going to church, so why do you need to go 'looking at churches' if you're moving house?

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

To be fair to the Christians Against Poverty person, the whole ethos of CAP is to use debt relief as a means to evangelism

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The reality is that churches that want to do social outreach without building up their core membership are living on borrowed time. Forget St. Paul's embarrassing references to salvation if you like, but churches can't function if they neglect recruitment. That should be obvious.

Well I'm not sure it is that obvious. There is a dangerous parallel between church and business in the language you are using here, I think.

At a fundamental level, I think, it is God who is in charge of the church (or the individual church), not we who belong (whatever that means).

There is a life of movements, including birth, growth, expansion and death. I don't think there is any reason to believe that any given church congregation is immune from death.

quote:
I admit, I didn't pay great attention to the figures in this report, because I didn't imagine that they'd indicate any sort of great turnaround for the church. Where Christians have a vision and are working hard and courageously in faith there are bound to be successes.

I don't see faith in this way. Success is something only to be ascribed to God. We are called to be obedient, not successful.

quote:
But putting figures on that must be hard, especially with the fairly new and fluid movement that is FE.

I don't have anything useful to say about FE.

quote:
What kind of churches are they? The historical churches aren't doing a huge amount of planting, and if they are they won't be trying to duplicate what's already available. Any duplication will be historical.

Well my observation is that they're recent churches, often very or broadly charismatic, often meeting in school or village halls, often with a single strong leader. From the outside, the differences in origin and theology are less than the similarities of practice. From what I hear, people move fairly easily between these groups (some are part of denominations or networks, others seem entirely independent).

It appears that this is often the model that Anglican plants also often reflect.

quote:
OTOH, if these are newly established charismatic congregations, they don't seem to mind a degree of competition. I suppose it proves that there's a market in place for what they have to offer. And some churches are geared towards particular ethnic groups, even though they might be theologically similar to churches that are already present.

I think there is a convergence within the charismatic and/or evangelical middle which means that there is a large number of Christians who think this is the 'correct' way to do church - possibly influenced by New Wine, various church planting movements, GOD tv and whatnot. As far as I'm concerned, there is actually a reduction in 'choice' of church types with many churches converging upon this from different directions.

quote:
BTW, sorry if this is a nosey tangent, but you said on an earlier thread that you didn't believe in going to church, so why do you need to go 'looking at churches' if you're moving house?

Yeah, that's an impressive bit of memory. The only answer is that it is complicated. I've never stopped attending church, but I feel totally disengaged and wonder why I bother. I wouldn't go if it was just about my feelings.

Posted by Pia (# 17277) on :

Just a couple of thoughts on cathedrals. [Disclaimer: I attend my local cathedral as my 'home church' so am not entirely objective.]

First of all, not all cathedrals are in tourist cities or tourist attractions in their own right. I'm sure it's true that the congregations at Wells or Canterbury or wherever are boosted by 'passing trade', but that's certainly not true everywhere.

And secondly, re. anonymity, I think it's important that for some (nervous returners, as I was a few years ago) that very anonymity can be as effective in getting people through the door and encouraging them to come back as bouncy castles or doughnuts and coffee or any other welcoming technique. The trick - and where there has been real growth my sense is that this must be happening - is to help people to move (in their own time, within their own comfort zone) from a desire for anonymity to a desire to belong. For me this happened over the course of a year or so. For others it may be quicker or take longer. But there must be a path towards belonging, towards involvement, towards commitment. For myself, I found a welcome that overcame my nervousness and enabled me initially to feel known and accepted, then to feel part of things, and gradually actively to take a part in things. It helped that my (hitherto unchurched) daughter also found a welcome that was warm and encouraging enough for her to ask of her own accord to be baptised.

So it seems to me that anonymity may be just a way in, different from but similar in effect to messy church or cafe church or whatever, but it's vital that a church which aspires to grow (not in order to tick the numbers box on some form or other but in order to bring people to God) engage not only with what brings people through the door but what makes them stay - not as spectators but as participants.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
There is a dangerous parallel between church and business in the language you are using here, I think.

At a fundamental level, I think, it is God who is in charge of the church (or the individual church), not we who belong (whatever that means).

There is a life of movements, including birth, growth, expansion and death. I don't think there is any reason to believe that any given church congregation is immune from death.

[...] Success is something only to be ascribed to God. We are called to be obedient, not successful.

[...] I think there is a convergence within the charismatic and/or evangelical middle which means that there is a large number of Christians who think this is the 'correct' way to do church - possibly influenced by New Wine, various church planting movements, GOD tv and whatnot. As far as I'm concerned, there is actually a reduction in 'choice' of church types with many churches converging upon this from different directions.

Regarding obedience to God, the Bible does say that sharing the Good News is one of our duties. God may or may not bless the work with fruitfulness, but if we don't do it then we'll never get the chance to see, will we?

God will bless whom he wishes, as you say. He blesses churches of all kinds, as the above report claims, but the blessings aren't always the same. The churches that evangelise may be blessed by growth (whether in absolute terms or in relation to the whole), but other churches are blessed in other ways.

I hope you (or your churchgoing family members) manage to find a suitable church. You could try the Methodists, as they're less likely to be charismatic evangelicals. Or you could find a CofE church that offers a traditional Evensong service.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Regarding obedience to God, the Bible does say that sharing the Good News is one of our duties. God may or may not bless the work with fruitfulness, but if we don't do it then we'll never get the chance to see, will we?

I don't accept that adding new members to a congregation is a duty nor is it a blessing. Hence I can't answer this.

quote:
God will bless whom he wishes, as you say. He blesses churches of all kinds, as the above report claims, but the blessings aren't always the same. The churches that evangelise may be blessed by growth (whether in absolute terms or in relation to the whole), but other churches are blessed in other ways.

Again, you are using blessing language which I do not accept.

quote:
I hope you (or your churchgoing family members) manage to find a suitable church. You could try the Methodists, as they're less likely to be charismatic evangelicals. Or you could find a CofE church that offers a traditional Evensong service.

Thank you for your goodwill, but with respect you don't know what you are talking about (because you've obviously got a very flimsy understanding of the theology I hold and the problems I have with church).

[ 10. February 2014, 20:51: Message edited by: pydseybare ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

pydseybare

Forgive me. When you said that God was 'in charge of the church' and that 'success is something only to be ascribed to God' I thought you were referring to God as the author of blessings. Clearly not.

You're quite right: I have no idea what your theology is. Of course, the average church won't have much clue either.

[ 10. February 2014, 21:02: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
pydseybare

Forgive me. When you said that God was 'in charge of the church' and that 'success is something only to be ascribed to God' I thought you were referring to God as the author of blessings. Clearly not.

I'm not sure how to answer that. You appear to be linking two things which in my mind are not linked - God is in charge of the church (whether it lives, survives or dies), that he alone is responsible for bringing people in. Things that are commonly described as blessings are not blessings. And our responsibilities are to be obedient rather than to be blessed.

quote:
You're quite right: I have no idea what your theology is. Of course, the average church won't have much clue either.

That doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

@Pia

I was, well, touched by this:

The trick - and where there has been real growth my sense is that this must be happening - is to help people to move (in their own time, within their own comfort zone) from a desire for anonymity to a desire to belong

Brave move - glad it's panned out well for you and yours.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pia:
Just a couple of thoughts on cathedrals. [Disclaimer: I attend my local cathedral as my 'home church' so am not entirely objective.]

First of all, not all cathedrals are in tourist cities or tourist attractions in their own right. I'm sure it's true that the congregations at Wells or Canterbury or wherever are boosted by 'passing trade', but that's certainly not true everywhere.

And secondly, re. anonymity, I think it's important that for some (nervous returners, as I was a few years ago) that very anonymity can be as effective in getting people through the door and encouraging them to come back as bouncy castles or doughnuts and coffee or any other welcoming technique. The trick - and where there has been real growth my sense is that this must be happening - is to help people to move (in their own time, within their own comfort zone) from a desire for anonymity to a desire to belong. For me this happened over the course of a year or so. For others it may be quicker or take longer. But there must be a path towards belonging, towards involvement, towards commitment. For myself, I found a welcome that overcame my nervousness and enabled me initially to feel known and accepted, then to feel part of things, and gradually actively to take a part in things. It helped that my (hitherto unchurched) daughter also found a welcome that was warm and encouraging enough for her to ask of her own accord to be baptised.

So it seems to me that anonymity may be just a way in, different from but similar in effect to messy church or cafe church or whatever, but it's vital that a church which aspires to grow (not in order to tick the numbers box on some form or other but in order to bring people to God) engage not only with what brings people through the door but what makes them stay - not as spectators but as participants.

Yes- spot on. And, yes, it is extraordinarily tricky-- to get the timing just right-- to know when to "be friendly" and when to allow space. But I think this is key to much of what we're discussing.

Posted by Pia (# 17277) on :

[Smile]

My aim now is to try, in a small way, to help replicate my experience for others.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Following on from my earlier comments, here is an old thread that discusses the issue I raised concerning cathedrals and the value of anonymity.

It may be of some use in this discussion.

[ 10. February 2014, 21:24: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

I think I'd respect them more if it wasn't...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

pydseybare

Would you say that 'Church growth' is an unsuitable topic for church communities to be interested in, and that reports such as the one mentioned in the OP shouldn't be produced? After all, what's the point of even thinking about it if it's all entirely up to God? Should churches deliberately try not to influence their surrounding communities in any theological way?

quote:
You're quite right: I have no idea what your theology is. Of course, the average church won't have much clue either.

quote:
That doesn't bother me in the slightest.

I want to de-personalise the above comment, and ask why someone might go to the trouble of church hunting if they weren't bothered 'in the slightest' about discovering any commonality (or mutual understanding) between themselves and the churches they were looking at. I find myself wondering whether churches should completely give up on any attempts to be intelligible or meaningful to the people who might visit them, and also whether individuals should ensure that theology is disregarded when looking for a church to attend.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
pydseybare

Would you say that 'Church growth' is an unsuitable topic for church communities to be interested in, and that reports such as the one mentioned in the OP shouldn't be produced? After all, what's the point of even thinking about it if it's all entirely up to God? Should churches deliberately try not to influence their surrounding communities in any theological way?

I'm not interested in telling people that they shouldn't be doing research. In fact, I think the report is quite interesting.

My problem is with the focus, which you appear to be encouraging, which sees church as a commercial production, with success measured by the number of converts. I don't believe that is the message of Jesus Christ.

I think we influence our communities most by being authentic and obedient.

quote:
I want to de-personalise the above comment, and ask why someone might go to the trouble of church hunting if they weren't bothered 'in the slightest' about discovering any commonality (or mutual understanding) between themselves and the churches they were looking at.

I can't answer this. As I said, it is complicated.

quote:
I find myself wondering whether churches should completely give up on any attempts to be intelligible or meaningful to the people who might visit them, and also whether individuals should ensure that theology is disregarded when looking for a church to attend.

I suppose it depends what those terms mean. But I can't answer your underlying question - namely why I attend church whose basis I fundamentally disagree with - to your satisfaction.

[ 11. February 2014, 07:24: Message edited by: pydseybare ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
My problem is with the focus, which you appear to be encouraging, which sees church as a commercial production, with success measured by the number of converts. I don't believe that is the message of Jesus Christ.

I think we influence our communities most by being authentic and obedient.

This is a thread about church growth. I think church growth is a good thing. It's not the only thing, and it shouldn't occur at the expense of other very important things. (Indeed, I'm well aware that church growth can be problematic in a number of theological and sociological ways.) But in itself it's not a sign that the church has become a 'commercial production'.

Regarding 'being authentic and obedient', for some churches, engaging in evangelism is part of their DNA; it's what they were founded for. In their understanding, that's what God wants them to do. However, I will agree that many denominations have other, stronger callings and should probably focus more closely on those. Every part of the body has a contribution to make

Most denominations do tend to become less evangelistic over time.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
his is a thread about church growth. I think church growth is a good thing. It's not the only thing, and it shouldn't occur at the expense of other very important things. (Indeed, I'm well aware that church growth can be problematic in a number of theological and sociological ways.) But in itself it's not a sign that the church has become a 'commercial production'.

Growth is not associated with God's blessing. See the 7 churches of Revelation.

quote:
Regarding 'being authentic and obedient', for some churches, engaging in evangelism is part of their DNA; it's what they were founded for. In their understanding, that's what God wants them to do. However, I will agree that many denominations have other, stronger callings and should probably focus more closely on those. Every part of the body has a contribution to make

Most denominations do tend to become less evangelistic over time.

I don't believe in this understanding of Christianity and do not accept that evangelism is a 'thing' in the way you are indicating here.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Pydseybear

How do you make sense of the Great Commission (sorry hosts it links to Oremus for NRSV)?

Seriously though I would put more stress on "making disciples" than many and stress the need for people to grow, I can easily see how people get from that to numeric growth.

The question is not whether you believe numeric growth is important but whether you can see why others might.

Jengie

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Growth is not associated with God's blessing. See the 7 churches of Revelation.

Absolutely, but lack of growth isn't necessarily an indication of blessing either. The command is one of proclamation, and more proclamation will in general lead to more growth than less proclamation.

Just because churches can grow for bad reasons, doesn't mean that good reasons for growth can't exist.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Absolutely, but lack of growth isn't necessarily an indication of blessing either.

That's true. Blessing has nothing to do with church growth or otherwise. Indeed, according to the beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, God's blessings are almost entirely the opposite of those usually announced in church.

quote:
The command is one of proclamation, and more proclamation will in general lead to more growth than less proclamation.

I totally reject this statement. In fact verbal proclamation usually leads to less people living disciplined and authentic Christian lives rather than more.

quote:
Just because churches can grow for bad reasons, doesn't mean that good reasons for growth can't exist.

So tell me, is it better to have a growing church which is all-about-itself or a dying church which is all about discipleship?

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Pydseybear

How do you make sense of the Great Commission (sorry hosts it links to Oremus for NRSV)?

Seriously though I would put more stress on "making disciples" than many and stress the need for people to grow, I can easily see how people get from that to numeric growth.

The question is not whether you believe numeric growth is important but whether you can see why others might.

Jengie

I take it to mean being authentic and being obedient, carry ones cross, denying oneself, walking humbly and doing justly.

The only reason I can see for a focus on numerical growth is an unfamiliarity with the biblical text they claim to hold as scripture. And a (un)healthy dose of self-deception.

[ 11. February 2014, 13:16: Message edited by: pydseybare ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Growth is not associated with God's blessing. See the 7 churches of Revelation.

Oh well, that's straightforward. All we need to do then is keep away from those churches that are growing. That certainly wouldn't be a problem where I live! Most areas have their share of declining or stagnating congregations, even in the kinds of middle class suburbs mentioned in that report.

quote:
I do not accept that evangelism is a 'thing' in the way you are indicating here.

It's true that many people have issues with 'evangelism' as a word or a concept. Maybe you see your definitions and reasons as utterly different from everyone else's. Fair enough. Each to his own, and all that.

A personal theology is one thing, but it's unreasonable to hope that churches and church reports will give much thought to your distinctive understanding of Christianity, authenticity, obedience and evangelism if they don't know what your understanding is. Until you're willing and able to explain your thinking clearly and simply it won't have much traction. The churches (and Christians such as myself) will continue in the ignorance that you ascribe to them.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

A personal theology is one thing, but it's unreasonable to hope that churches and church reports will give much thought to your distinctive understanding of Christianity, authenticity, obedience and evangelism if they don't know what your understanding is. Until you're willing and able to explain your thinking clearly and simply it won't have much traction. The churches (and Christians such as myself) will continue in the ignorance that you ascribe to them.

I'm not sure you've been reading what I said. Why on earth would I be interested in 'traction'?

So tell me, do you expect (and would SoF really allow space for) every new person on this website to explain in depth their theology to you? I'm not prepared to spend time writing a pamphlet for your benefit - plenty already exist, try starting with something from George Fox.

The one line version is that I believe 90% of what we understand as Christianity is total garbage.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
... In fact verbal proclamation usually leads to less people living disciplined and authentic Christian lives rather than more. ...

Have you any evidence for that bizarre assertion?

quote:
So tell me, is it better to have a growing church which is all-about-itself or a dying church which is all about discipleship?

Those are neither opposites nor alternatives. If a church is merely increasing bums on seats and not making disciples, it's deluding itself and the diocese if it thinks it is actually growing. And it's difficult to imagine a church dying if it really is making disciples, rather than merely rabbiting on about how discipleship would be a good thing if we had any.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Those are neither opposites nor alternatives. If a church is merely increasing bums on seats and not making disciples, it's deluding itself and the diocese if it thinks it is actually growing. And it's difficult to imagine a church dying if it really is making disciples, rather than merely rabbiting on about how discipleship would be a good thing if we had any.

I refer you to the many examples throughout history of churches who died but were faithful.

Getting people through the door and along to services is not a measure of anything. By using the language of blessing, all that is happening is self-deception.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I'm not sure you've been reading what I said. Why on earth would I be interested in 'traction'?

Because you've been criticising churches? What's the point of criticising something if you don't give two hoots about it and don't expect anything to change? Isn't life too short?

quote:

So tell me, do you expect (and would SoF really allow space for) every new person on this website to explain in depth their theology to you? I'm not prepared to spend time writing a pamphlet for your benefit - plenty already exist, try starting with something from George Fox.

The one line version is that I believe 90% of what we understand as Christianity is total garbage.

There. That wasn't too hard, was it?

On a previous post you accused me of not knowing what I was talking about. I think it's a bit unfair to accuse someone of ignorance in such a brusque fashion, and then refuse to enlighten them in any way. Again, I don't see the point of that. But on a positive note, at least I now understand your style a little better, and will know how to respond, or not, in future.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

Just wondering if we can shift this on a bit. There's stuff in the report about the characteristics of congregations and communities that are growing. Discussions about church growth usually include some stuff about quantity and characteristics and I reckon the report tries to do this since both issues are important.

What to do make about the individual characteristics of the communities mentioned in the report and the way they combine? Do you reckon there are some factors which, combined, are more important to a church growing in numbers and influence than others?

And is there anyone who put some of this research together having a sneaky look at this discussion?

[ 11. February 2014, 15:25: Message edited by: Truman White ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I refer you to the many examples throughout history of churches who died but were faithful. ...

Please could you furnish some examples then? I can't off-hand think of examples of churches that died despite being faithful - as distinct from those that were wiped out by invading Turks etc.

Besides, if passing on the faith to those around us and that come after us, is not an important part of being faithful, how so?

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Please could you furnish some examples then? I can't off-hand think of examples of churches that died despite being faithful - as distinct from those that were wiped out by invading Turks etc.

I'm sure you can think of a few.

Churches in Iraq. There you go, there is a recent example.

quote:
Besides, if passing on the faith to those around us and that come after us, is not an important part of being faithful, how so?

Again, I think you put a link between faithfulness and numerical growth that is unwarranted.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

Churches in Iraq. There you go, there is a recent example.

On what basis are you judging them to be faithful (and in fact more so than is the average elsewhere).

In fact, if churches are people, the church of Iraq still exists - mostly in Syria and Jordan.

[ 11. February 2014, 16:28: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I'm sure you can think of a few. ...

But I was asking you. You were the one that made the assertion.

The situation of the Christians in Iraq is dreadful. It is particularly bad that a major contributory cause of this situation is a military campaign set in motion by people who claim to be Christian. Fortunately, as yet, it is too soon to say whether the church in Iraq will die. I hope it does not.

If it does however, it will not die for being faithful. It will die from being wiped out or driven elsewhere by hostile enemies - as in my analogy of 'invading Turks'

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
On what basis are you judging them to be faithful (and in fact more so than is the average elsewhere).

Persevering to the end in the face of outside pressures. Why what criteria would you use to say that they're not faithful?

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

If it does however, it will not die for being faithful. It will die from being wiped out or driven elsewhere by hostile enemies - as in my analogy of 'invading Turks'

Excuse me. I didn't say that they would die out for being faithful, I said that they died out despite being faithful.

You and others appear to be engaged in constantly moving the goalposts. I said that I didn't believe growth was a worthy goal and that obedience was more important - and that faithful churches can die.

Whether the church dies because of 'invading Turks' or anything else is besides the point that I'm making.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

How do you make sense of the Great Commission (sorry hosts it links to Oremus for NRSV)?

This wasn't addressed to me but I think the so-called Great Commission was added to Matthew, or, at least, wasn't one of Jesus's actual words..

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Persevering to the end in the face of outside pressures. Why what criteria would you use to say that they're not faithful?

You can persevere in all manners of belief without necessarily being faithful. I'm not sure to what extent having to emigrate constitutes 'persevering to the end' either.

My own acquaintance with Iraqi Christianity - seems to suggest that it's much like Christianity everywhere, with multiple fissiparous strands (various Orthodox and Syrian Strands, some Catholic and fewer Protestant groups) with the normal problems of syncretism, struggles with orthodoxy etc.

Your argument sounds like some variant on a 'no true scotsman' one.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
You can persevere in all manners of belief without necessarily being faithful. I'm not sure to what extent having to emigrate constitutes 'persevering to the end' either.

A lot of them died, having been directly targetted by militants. And I think the suggestion that those who emigrated did not perserve in faith is pretty offensive.

quote:
My own acquaintance with Iraqi Christianity - seems to suggest that it's much like Christianity everywhere, with multiple fissiparous strands (various Orthodox and Syrian Strands, some Catholic and fewer Protestant groups) with the normal problems of syncretism, struggles with orthodoxy etc.

Your argument sounds like some variant on a 'no true scotsman' one.

I'm not sure you understand the
no true scotsman fallacy. Perhaps you can explain how it applies in this case.

But again, you're using a measure of Orthodoxy that I do not share. Orthopraxy is far more important to me than Orthodoxy.

[ 11. February 2014, 16:42: Message edited by: pydseybare ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
What to do make about the individual characteristics of the communities mentioned in the report and the way they combine? Do you reckon there are some factors which, combined, are more important to a church growing in numbers and influence than others?

I found it encouraging that several of the seven 'ingredients strongly associated with growth in churches of any size, place or context' (page 8 of the report) are things which I consider important. It suggests I'm not way off beam with my thinking!

In particular, I'm thinking of 'willingness to self-reflect, to change and adapt according to context', 'involvement of lay members', and 'being intentional in nurturing disciples'. I've long been convinced that reflection on and adaptation of how we 'do' church is vital for us to share the gospel in a relevant way, and this report gives some support to that view.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Orthopraxy by whose standards, though, pydseybare?

Surely it should be both/and rather than either/or?

Who determines what constitutes orthopraxy in this case?

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of sympathy with what you're saying - that faithfulness and obedience trumps 'growth' and that growth in and of itself isn't necessarily a sign of anything significant. Totally agree.

But then, the general thrust of this thread appears to take the need for church growth (or maintenance at least) for granted.

Sure, the churches could become extinct here as anywhere else - and North Africa is generally given as the paradigm example of a region that was once largely Christian which is now otherwise ... due to Islamic invasion.

I've heard the churches 'blamed' for this - infighting, unfaithfulness ... even, by some extreme Anabaptist types - for neglecting the rigorous approach of the Donatists and accepting a more wishy-washy and compromised Catholic approach ...

I really don't see what's to be gained from that kind of speculation, to be honest. Why do we have to find 'reasons' and apportion 'blame'?

It happened. Whilst we might be able to find reasons and lessons from it, we don't gain much by pointing the finger at this, that or the other person, party or tradition involved. I'd take a similar view of the Great Schism too, good and bad on both sides - it's what we do know that's important and how we seek to heal divisions ...

Meanwhile, whilst I have some sympathy with what you appear to be trying to say - I also agree with Truman White's point that things could move on so that - whatever our views of 'growth' as being desirable or otherwise - we consider the factors and characteristics of the congregations/settings involved and how they apply ...

Does that makes sense?

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Orthopraxy by whose standards, though, pydseybare?

Surely it should be both/and rather than either/or?

Who determines what constitutes orthopraxy in this case?

Laying the cards on the table, the only orthopraxy that matters to me is loving our neighbour and serving them sacrificially. I know for a fact that many of the Iraqi churches were orthoprax in that sense.

quote:
Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of sympathy with what you're saying - that faithfulness and obedience trumps 'growth' and that growth in and of itself isn't necessarily a sign of anything significant. Totally agree.

But then, the general thrust of this thread appears to take the need for church growth (or maintenance at least) for granted.

Sure, the churches could become extinct here as anywhere else - and North Africa is generally given as the paradigm example of a region that was once largely Christian which is now otherwise ... due to Islamic invasion.

I've heard the churches 'blamed' for this - infighting, unfaithfulness ... even, by some extreme Anabaptist types - for neglecting the rigorous approach of the Donatists and accepting a more wishy-washy and compromised Catholic approach ...

I really don't see what's to be gained from that kind of speculation, to be honest. Why do we have to find 'reasons' and apportion 'blame'?

It happened. Whilst we might be able to find reasons and lessons from it, we don't gain much by pointing the finger at this, that or the other person, party or tradition involved. I'd take a similar view of the Great Schism too, good and bad on both sides - it's what we do know that's important and how we seek to heal divisions ...

Meanwhile, whilst I have some sympathy with what you appear to be trying to say - I also agree with Truman White's point that things could move on so that - whatever our views of 'growth' as being desirable or otherwise - we consider the factors and characteristics of the congregations/settings involved and how they apply ...

Does that makes sense?

Yes, but unfortunately I don't have time to reply to your other points here at the moment.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Fair enough, I think we'd all agree with orthopraxy of that kind and I'm sure you're right that many Iraqi Christians were - and are - practising that.

'Obedience is better than sacrifice,' and so on ...

I don't see anyone here claiming that loving one's neighbour and self-sacrifice and so on is optional and up for grabs though ...

So I don't see how a concern for church growth and a concern for orthopraxy are mutually exclusive - unless one wants to see growth at all and any costs - never mind the quality, feel the width ...

But I don't see anyone here advocating that ...

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Just returning to these points:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Sure, the churches could become extinct here as anywhere else - and North Africa is generally given as the paradigm example of a region that was once largely Christian which is now otherwise ... due to Islamic invasion.

I've heard the churches 'blamed' for this - infighting, unfaithfulness ... even, by some extreme Anabaptist types - for neglecting the rigorous approach of the Donatists and accepting a more wishy-washy and compromised Catholic approach ...

I don't accept this. As I said, I do not consider numerical growth to be related to God's blessing (or lack of), hence I don't think it is helpful to blame anyone. Bad churches survive, good ones die. Neither way should be taken as a sign of anything, in my view.

quote:
I really don't see what's to be gained from that kind of speculation, to be honest. Why do we have to find 'reasons' and apportion 'blame'?

I think we're just into forms of self-deception and one-upmanship. We like to believe that God really loves little old me and is judging nasty old you for your crappy theology. I'm convinced it doesn't work like that.

quote:
It happened. Whilst we might be able to find reasons and lessons from it, we don't gain much by pointing the finger at this, that or the other person, party or tradition involved. I'd take a similar view of the Great Schism too, good and bad on both sides - it's what we do know that's important and how we seek to heal divisions ...

I don't really have an opinion on that. I'd probably disagree fundamentally with those on both sides of the debate.

quote:
Meanwhile, whilst I have some sympathy with what you appear to be trying to say - I also agree with Truman White's point that things could move on so that - whatever our views of 'growth' as being desirable or otherwise - we consider the factors and characteristics of the congregations/settings involved and how they apply ...

Does that makes sense?

I think that is only possible if you subscribe to the idea that numerical growth is a sign of something divine and/or good (and/or blessing). If you don't, then it is really a mechanistic human measure of human achievement which seems to discount the divine altogether.

Fundamentally I believe that there might well be great worth in an expensive church operation (whatever that might mean) in an area which does not experience growth, and might even result in closure. In that circumstance, some might see that as a failure - or a validation of what is 'known to work'. But my view is that might have been exactly what God wanted to happen at that time in that place. Human measures of these things are therefore next to useless.

[ 11. February 2014, 19:30: Message edited by: pydseybare ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

Churches in Iraq. There you go, there is a recent example.
On what basis are you judging them to be faithful (and in fact more so than is the average elsewhere).

In fact, if churches are people, the church of Iraq still exists - mostly in Syria and Jordan.

And California, among other places. Xty in Iraq might well follow Xty beyond the Oxus, or that of Carthage. There was a guarantee that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church, but nothing was said about particular congregations. Sometimes, as I used to tell auditors in my former RL as a bureaucrat, the numbers are irrelevant.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
You can persevere in all manners of belief without necessarily being faithful. I'm not sure to what extent having to emigrate constitutes 'persevering to the end' either.
A lot of them died, having been directly targetted by militants. And I think the suggestion that those who emigrated did not perserve in faith is pretty offensive.

Well, some would find your wholesale dismissal of other churches to be equally offensive - furthermore you specifically stipulated that they had 'persevered to the end' - as a some kind of marker.

That some of them died doesn't necessarily mean that they 'persevered in the faith' does it? People die for all sorts of reasons, and people die whilst holding all sorts of odd beliefs.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Of course numbers aren't necessarily a guarantee of anything - I'm not suggesting they are.

I completely agree that a church that struggles and eventually ceases to exist (in the temporal realm) is by no means invalidated by that - any more than a thriving church up the road is somehow 'better' or more validated - as it were - in the eyes of God.

Seen from the divine perspective, who knows what efforts and initiatives hold the greater value or otherwise?

All that said, I don't think that it is 'wrong' in and of itself to want churches to flourish and grow. It doesn't mean that we are falling prey to one-up-manship, carnal comparisons and so on.

It can do, but it doesn't necessarily follow. All these things are provisional and everything we do is tainted - we are fallen human beings - so it's unrealistic to expect perfectionism and complete purity of motive and intention ...

Some of the better hagiographies are pretty upfront about the failings and short-comings of various Saints - for instance.

The same applies to collective groups of believers as it does to individuals.

I found the CofE report interesting and thought-provoking - and I agree that if we aren't careful we can get into a rather 'worldly' or carnal numbers game ...

I still maintain that I don't see that happening among our fellow Shipmates here. I might not feel entirely comfortable with some of the language used but I wouldn't accuse Shipmates as diverse as Truman White, South Coast Kevin, SvitlanaV2, Jengie Jon and Chris Stiles of being driven by a 'market-led' approach ...

All of them, in their various ways, seem to be interested in deeper issues rather than a numbers-game. They've said as much and I take them at their word.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

I seem to remember some thought provoking stuff from Bob Jackson's "Hope for the Church" (Church House Publishing: London, 2002)

Here are some notes I made, from Chapter 2 "Bums on seats - why they matter":

Jackson responds to some common objections to actively seeking the numerical growth of the church:

1. It's not about the church it's about the kingdom. To concentrate on getting more bums on seats in church is to fail to focus on what Jesus was all about, namely the coming of God's Kingdom (God's will being done on earth as it is in heaven). While the church is not the same as the kingdom it is not irrelevant to the kingdom. The church is a foretaste of the kingdom, a pilot project, a [the main?] agent of the kingdom and therefore to neglect the church in the name of the kingdom is a mistake that is likely to hinder the cause of the kingdom.

2. It's not about quantity, it's about quality. An obsession with numbers is wrong-headed, what counts is the quality of church life and the faithfulness of Christians to Christ. This sets up a false antithesis between quality and quantity. Jackson talks of preventing the demise of the church by offering a better quality product and greater choice. Improve quality and quantity will follow. "Quantity matters and quality is the solution to it." (p19)

3. Small is beautiful. The search for numerical growth overlooks the fact that smaller churches are often more faithful and effective. But a larger church is more likely to have more significant impact on society. And anyway this is a false antithesis: why not work for a church that is both large and faithful?

4. The church is meant to exist for others. The primary calling of the church is to care for others not to market itself, actively seeking numerical growth is to become self-obsessed. But the greatest thing the church can do for others is to introduce them to love of God in Christ which is to be found in the worshipping community of God's people, the church. If the church declines to the point of non-existence how then can it care for others?

This is not to deny that an obsession with numerical growth for its own sake is not dangerous. Making numerical growth our primary focus can lead to a driven church, people being manipulated and the gospel being corrupted. But when put in a proper, broader, more holistic context there are good reasons to give attention to numerical growth.

Jackson offers four reasons:
1. Increasing numbers is could in fact be a sign of a healthy church - one that is getting things right, which leads people to wanting to join.

2. To see individuals being reconciled to God is a worthy aim and the number who belong to church is one of the best indicators we have of whether or not this is happening.

3. The more people who belong to the church, the more likely it is to be able to have a positive impact on society.

4. The media and the population at large might take more interest in a healthy growing church than they do in a church that is seen to be in decline.

Notwithstanding the concerns about an unhealthy fixation on numbers, I think the task of disciples is to make disciples, which implies some form of replication.

As the OP report points out, and as we have been reminded, there surely is some worth in considering characteristics of those church communities which actually seem to be growing and perhaps making disciples.

I don't think that to do this is to fall foul to the lastest marketing ploy or corporate leadership spin. I think it's about seeing where the wind is blowing and setting sails!

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

Another slant on numbers is to say that, assuming you reckon becoming a Christian is a good idea, a church that people are joining is a blessing to the community from which the new members are drawn.

A missional perspective says numbers are important, not because they are a proxy validation of how many gold starts God wants to give our church, but because people coming to faith changes the character of the ethnic, geographicsl or interest communities they are part of.

When the church grows, it's the world that gets blessed.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

@Felafool - sorry mate, didn't read your post carefully enough and ended up repeating your point (good point).

On the bit about characteristics of growing churches, was there anything in the report you didn't recognise - or anything missing?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

I think it's important to ask why certain churches are growing. To talk about "church growth" in an unqualified way is not a perceptive analysis and interpretation of the statistics.

We've all heard about transfer growth, which, of course, is a zero sum game, and demonstrates some kind of issue relating to doctrine or practice. But even non-zero sum game growth - that wonderful phenomenon of the unchurched becoming churched - should not be interpreted as an unqualified blessing on UK Christianity in general. As I pointed out earlier, cathedral growth may imply some kind of aversion to the kind of Christian practice evident in most other churches.

Statistics can obfuscate as much as reveal the reality on the ground. It all comes down to interpretation. It is quite possible that the phenomenon of hordes of the unchurched (by which I do not necessarily mean 'non-Christians') darkening the doors of cathedrals, for example, is not necessarily saying "we think the Christian Church is great", but rather "we think quite a bit of the Christian Church is dodgy, but we are happy to be part of this kind of churchmanship".

The important questions are:

1. Are we interpreting the data correctly?

2. If so, are we learning the lessons that flow from the data?

The sad truth is that the Christian Church in this country could be in an appalling state in God's eyes, and yet we can manipulate statistics to deafen ourselves to what He is saying. One thinks of the 'successful' church of the Laodiceans...

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

The sad truth is that the Christian Church in this country could be in an appalling state in God's eyes, and yet we can manipulate statistics to deafen ourselves to what He is saying. One thinks of the 'successful' church of the Laodiceans...

Absolutely - and there has been plenty of debate on the topic in this thread.

We've had discussion on the church growth movement before - I remember a previous thread on Willow Creek - and a lot of the critiques raised in that thread would also fit here.

There's a kind of subtler HTB'isation of evangelicalism that is going on as well, recently commented on here:

http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/the_new_centre_of_british_evangelicalism

Though I'd not be as happy about a lot of those tendencies as the author appears to be.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

While churches must surely be encouraged to faithfully proclaim the Gospel within the community they are set in, the faithfulness of that church's life will be of no consequence if the parish folds and it's building stands empty for five or ten years.

The message that scenario sends to the immediate community is not one of new hope in Christ, but that the C/E is a relic of history and can be ignored.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

@Truman White

quote:
On the bit about characteristics of growing churches, was there anything in the report you didn't recognise - or anything missing?

The bit that caused me to blink was the stuff on team ministries and combined churches...generally they are more likely to decline, it seems, which is worrying since this is the direction the diocese seems to be heading.

I was also interested in the clergy characteristics which may not foster growth - 'empathy' 'persistence' and 'managing'. Sadly these may be qualities which make a good pastor but perhaps not an apostle/ church grower.

I think these two observations are interrelated, and back up the ingredients listed which may lead to growth, particularly leadership, purpose, and reflection & willingness to change.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
While churches must surely be encouraged to faithfully proclaim the Gospel within the community they are set in, the faithfulness of that church's life will be of no consequence if the parish folds and it's building stands empty for five or ten years.

Really. You really believe that faithfulness to God is of lesser importance than whether a building is being used in 10 years time. Excuse me for profoundly disagreeing with you.

quote:
The message that scenario sends to the immediate community is not one of new hope in Christ, but that the C/E is a relic of history and can be ignored.

Or the message might be seen to be that some are more interested in a building than serving the God they claim to believe in.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
I was also interested in the clergy characteristics which may not foster growth - 'empathy' 'persistence' and 'managing'. Sadly these may be qualities which make a good pastor but perhaps not an apostle/ church grower.

Interestingly that chimes in with these recent observations by the Moderator of my URC Synod.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Hey up, no need to jump down my throat...thank you? We're not at war you know, in fact we haven't even been introduced.

So let me explain Why I said what I said:

Faithfully proclaiming a certain style of Christianity, whilst at the very same time also refusing to allow a new manner of proclaiming that very same truth ...has led to five crumbling edifices littering our community and three of those wrecks are Anglican.

Their continued depressing presence reduces house prices in the immediate area and speak volumes to the community of the state of our established church specifically and Christianity in general.

So excuse me if I count proclamation and faithfulness to be something of a Not Quite Exact Science.

This thread is neatly linking in with the thread about Clergy. On the one hand the cry goes up "Oh Help! We haven't enough Clergy coming through!" while (as has been pointed out on that thread), at each and every deanery pastoral committee folk sit round and scratch their heads as we try to loose yet another .5 of a stipendiary.

But if any one of four neighbouring churches faithfully proclaims the truth In The Manner They Always Have Done, three of those churches will not have another stipendiary minister. Sadly it really is as simple as that.

(come to think of it, even if they do change drastically, two of 'em won't anyway...which gives some convoluted sense to the mumblings at PPC time of " Nothing changes while I'm here, you can do what you want once I'm gone")

The situation is a bitch, but lets not fall out over it eh?

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

I'm wading through the report now but can someone enlighten me?
It seems to be saying ( very much simplified )that one person + many church buildings/centre= not ideal conditions for growth.

Am I missing the part where maybe one stipendiary + many church buildings/ centres + non stipendiary &/or Reader &/or selected, trained lay leadership = Could maybe equal conditions for growth ........????

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That's a fair point, Ethne Alba - that part of the report sounded very generalised to me and it didn't say what was meant by leadership ... ie did they mean clergy in the ordained sense, a mix of lay-leaders and ordained clergy ... or what?

I suspect it would be difficult to present and quantify given the breadth of understanding about leadership/ministry and so on within the CofE - and whether it's seen in sacerdotal terms or in managerial terms ... or both ...

My guess would be that they're referring to ordained clerics serving a wide area and having a number of churches to look after and preside at ... the sort of thing that happens a lot in rural areas.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
I was also interested in the clergy characteristics which may not foster growth - 'empathy' 'persistence' and 'managing'. Sadly these may be qualities which make a good pastor but perhaps not an apostle/ church grower.
Interestingly that chimes in with these recent observations by the Moderator of my URC Synod.

Ah, I'm currently reading another book by Alan Hirsch, the author mentioned in the above link. Just yesterday, in fact, I read this comment about how having pastoral and teaching leaders is not enough:

quote:
We believe it is absolutely critical to broaden our concept of ministry from the traditional pastor-teacher models to at least the fivefold understanding of ministry giftings described in Epthesians 4:1-16 (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors / shepherds, and teachers, hence the acronym APEST). This does not diminish the irreplaceable roles shepherds and teachers play in the life of the church, but indicates that if we want an untamed, missional Christianity, we simply have to embrace a more missional form of ministry as well.

The shepherd and teacher are basically maintenance ministers - they maintain health in an existing community. What is needed for missional impact beyond the congregation are the more generative ministries associated with the apostolic, prophetic, and evangelistic giftings.

From Untamed: Reactivating a Missional form of Discipleship, p144.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

pydseybare

Following the exchanges with Ethne Alba, a bit of Hostly advice.

Quite rightly here, we allow vigourous criticism of ideas and arguments to be found in the posts of other Shipmates.

In your first response to Ethne Alba, you inferred too much, criticised a personal value you thought you saw expressed in the post. But it wasn't. You were reading between the lines. And so what was intended as a criticism of a post crossed the line into Commandment 3 violation territory.

In general if you think you do see a value to criticise, but one which is not overtly expressed, you can always ask a question e.g. "does this mean that you see the preservation of buildings as more important than expressions of faithfulness?". Provides an opportunity for clarification first.

That way you avoid misunderstandings as well as Hostly attention. Purg Guideline 5 says "Be courteous in your debating style".

B62, Purgatory Host

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Thanks Gamaliel, glad it isn't just me not finding that.

One stipendiary having responsibility for one church is rare hereabouts. So the idea of having a team (or a grouping or a mission partnership or how ever else one might want to term such matters...) with only one stipendiary clergy doing the whole lot is either crazy, or non sustainable ISTM

I am presuming though that most teams/ groups/ mission partnerships are raising their own local leadership? Be that NSM/ OLM/ Reader/ Lay Minister

And is the point in this report that having a grouping of church buildings/ centres, but only having one stipendiary clergy causes a lack of identifiable leadership?

Could one idea be to allow each centre in a grouping situation to have their own minister/ leader (under the authority of the stipendiary)?
Might that work better?
And yes that's a big ask for a stipendiary who maybe isn't used to working collaboratively but surely that's the way it's going to go?

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

Ethene Alba: The impression I get from a lot of multi-parishes is that it's a way of keeping things the same except with clergy spread more thinly like marmite.

It probably doesn't have to be a recipe for decline but I guess that it looks that way statistically because it is used frequently as a way of managing decline.

Do you have multi-teams with one priest or groups with a few? The latter may be a more sustainable way?

Raising up leaders locally is important anyway and all the more when stipends are dwindling. I think, however, that it''s a feature of a healthy growing church (broadly speaking).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don't know enough about the nuts and bolts of the CofE to know how it works in practice ...

On the Ephesians 4 ministries and so on ... well, been there, done that - it was all very de rigeur with the restorationist 'new churches' back in the day ...

There seems to be a resurgence of interest in what tends to be called 'apostolic' ministry - which is different to people calling themselves 'Apostles' on their Facebook profiles ...

I think the principle is a sound-one though ... but I can't say I've ever been satisfied by the way that so-called 'apostolic' and 'prophetic' ministry has worked out in practice among those groups which use that kind of terminology ...

These terms are used in the historic episcopal Churches though, but in a different way ...

That said, none of the CofE clergy I know believe that the episcopal ministry 'works' in the way it should though ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry to double-post but I've been thinking about EE's point further upthread about people voting with their feet in favour of one form of service or style over another ...

He felt that people migrating to cathedral style worship, for instance, might not be something to regard in a positive way - but instead some kind of indictment against other ways of doing church ...

I can see what he means - and the same argument was used, back in the day, when people started to migrate from more 'traditional' forms of church into the new and exciting 'house churches' ...

Back in the early '80s there was a veritable industry of 'should I stay or should I leave?' debates ... should people leave the traditional denominations and join one or t'other of the various 'new church streams'?

In the end, the question resolved itself as many people realised that they could do the same sort of thing - if they so wished - and remain within existing structures to a certain extent.

And, of course, the 'new churches' themselves became more established and 'stable' if you like ...

To be honest, whilst I can see EE's point I'm not sure about how we should interpret these things ...

It may not necessarily be any indictment on anyone else at all if people go to cathedral style services or to non-cathedral style services for that matter ...

Given the small numbers we're talking about in the greater and overall scheme of things and high levels of indifference among the population at large - I'm not sure it makes a great deal of difference within the small Christian constituency as a whole ...

Nobody, whatever style or tradition of church they've involved with, is seeing growth on any great scale - the overall pattern is one of decline.

Whether a few hundred people are going to this or that cathedral or a few more people are going to this that or the other Fresh Expressions outfit or wherever else is interesting but something of a blip given the downward trajectory overall.

I don't wish to be a Job's Comforter but we're talking about sustainability and survival, I think, rather than 'growth' in any meaningful sense.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the Ephesians 4 ministries and so on ... well, been there, done that - it was all very de rigeur with the restorationist 'new churches' back in the day ...

As I have in fact said to my esteemed Moderator!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
I'm wading through the report now but can someone enlighten me?
It seems to be saying ( very much simplified )that one person + many church buildings/centre= not ideal conditions for growth.

Am I missing the part where maybe one stipendiary + many church buildings/ centres + non stipendiary &/or Reader &/or selected, trained lay leadership = Could maybe equal conditions for growth ........????

What you've summarised in your first paragraph is something I've read about previously. When a minister has several churches to look after, growth is unlikely. (My experience of this is in British Methodism rather than the CofE.)

I can understand why this is so. Growing a church is surely extremely hard work, and ideally it requires the attention of someone who is totally committed. As much as I admire the Methodist clergy I've known, I can't see how the required level of effort can be given when you have two, three, four or five churches to look after, each with its specific problems. Moreover, if you as a minister focus on growing one of those churches but not the others, how is that going to look?? I presume ministers are discouraged from showing favouritism!

Regarding using trained lay leadership to serve the role of growing congregations, this would be be problematic. Congregations with ordained clergy find it very difficult to see any layperson in the congregation as equivalent in authority and importance to their minster. This is the case even in more lay-led denominations like the Methodist Church. And consider the clergy themselves; they want the laity to be committed and involved, yet they also want their own role and calling to be distinct.

What would happen if the new members of a growing church didn't identify with the minister at all, but always turned to the lay leader who'd supported them, nurtured their faith, and given them time and attention when then minister was probably busy doing other things? And how would the minister feel if the growth of 'his'/'her' church was seen both inside and outside the congregation to be almost exclusively due to the leadership of another person? Some would accept this in joyful humility, but ministers are only human; some would undoubtedly feel jealous. I think the ministers themselves would need training in how to cope with the anxiety that their own status was under challenge.

As for team leadership, I read somewhere that when churches reach about 250 members, the leadership structure does need to change in order to grow further.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Juggling this thread and preparing supper, but have steadfastly resolved not to mention the word Apostle at the next deanery synod meeting
[Big Grin]

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

(Supper can wait!)

Tomsk:
"Keeping things the same" sounds... interesting. Although whilst some churches can indeed afford to(roughly) do exactly that, any church that is in decline might want to reconsider that as the most sensible option available to them.

"Managing decline?" Well that can be a very real, pastoral, hand holding exercise as a body of Christians in a church building go through their Winter and hopefully on into a new Springtime~ as new folk come onto the PCC and some fresh options are considered. It can be.
Only who is going to hold the hand?
A stipendiary? Only with a time limit attached...

My own situation?
As the saying goes: "It's complicated."

Gamaliel: Ah, but how should the episcopal ministry 'work"? And does the answer fit within the C/E routes and methods?

SvitlanaVZ: Two words, Collaborative Ministry.
It can be done; each centre of worship can have their own leaders identified by the people, selected by the diocese, trained and authorised/ licensed/ ordained for ministry.

I've seen it happen in many places and ....As Long As each local leader can work in collaboration and in humility with their colleagues and under the overall leadership of their stipendiary...each individual church centre can have their own (almost) person 'what does'
( I'm vague about the right word to use there, sorry)

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Regarding using trained lay leadership to serve the role of growing congregations, this would be be problematic. Congregations with ordained clergy find it very difficult to see any layperson in the congregation as equivalent in authority and importance to their minster. This is the case even in more lay-led denominations like the Methodist Church. And consider the clergy themselves; they want the laity to be committed and involved, yet they also want their own role and calling to be distinct.

I'm chuckling as I read this because of another thing I read the other in that book I mentioned upthread (Untamed by Alan and Debra Hirsch):

quote:
I really think that ordination is a doctrine of devils! ...If one wanted to destroy the sheer transformative power of the body of Christ as a people movement, then the creation of the clergy-laity divide is nothing less than a stroke of demonic genius.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[from] Untamed by Alan and Debra Hirsch):

quote:
I really think that ordination is a doctrine of devils! ...If one wanted to destroy the sheer transformative power of the body of Christ as a people movement, then the creation of the clergy-laity divide is nothing less than a stroke of demonic genius.

Yes!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Which, is the reason, of course, Garasu that groups like yours which don't go in for any clergy/laity divide are bursting at the seams and growing like billy-oh, sweeping all before them ...

[Big Grin]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

My non-conformist take is that churches with a priesthood (even a tacit one) attract more people because they allow laity to delegate chunks of their spiritual responsibilities to someone else, and this (protestations of the priesthood of all believers by some notwithstanding) is more comfortable than having to engage with the issues oneself.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
(

Gamaliel: Ah, but how should the episcopal ministry 'work"? And does the answer fit within the C/E routes and methods?

I have absolutely no idea. I'm simply repeating what I've heard clergy of all stripes say ...

To be fair, the local evangelical vicar here seems more appreciative of the Bishops hereabouts than others I know of a more liberal or more Anglo-Catholic persuasion ... but that might simply be because this Diocese is fairly evangelical in tone.

The complaints/criticisms I've heard from other clergy are along the following lines:

- Bishops (and Archdeacons) only come to preach and officiate and that on special occasions. They ought to sneak in a the back unannounced and simply get a feel for things as they really are ...

- Bishops are too pragmatic and pass things on the nod because they are seen to 'work' rather than giving due weight and consideration to the theological implications ...

I could go on, but that's about the top and bottom of it.

I grew up in the Church in Wales but dropped out as a teenager, so most of my Christian pilgrimage so far has been in various forms of Free Church and independent evangelical charismatic-dom ... until about 7 years ago when we moved to where we live now.

I've always maintained good relations with Anglicans though and often visited Anglican churches when I was on the independent side of things.

I've never got that involved with our local parish, it has to be said - beyond doing the church magazine and helping out with bits and bobs ... it's never quite worked out for me as I've moved beyond traditional evangelical/charismatic-dom ... I'm kind of post-evangelical with some further-up-the-candle leanings.

So I'm not really sure how Anglicanism functions other than on a parish level ... I've had some contacts with the Deanery through a voluntary scheme I'm involved with but I haven't the foggiest idea what Bishops do and don't do ... other than confirm people and so on.

I've had experience of restorationist new church/house-church 'apostles' and 'prophets'. I know how they function ... or functioned ...

I don't think that episcopal or 'apostolic' ministry should in any way function like it did in those circles ...

I'd run a mile from anything like that ...

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

In the conservative Evangelical circles I (used to) move in, there was definitely an ordained priesthood (albeit defined differently to other churches). Having observed a lot of various small churches, the tendency seems to be towards strong pastors rather than away from them.

In fact, I'd be hard pressed to think of anyone that doesn't have a form of priesthood. Even brethren who avoid paid pastors often have an elder who has given up paid employment to work on pastoral issues full time.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

'New presbyter is old priest writ large,' as the old Anabaptists used to say ...

I must admit, from my experience, leaders in smaller and independent style churches are far more authoritarian and 'episcopal' in the over-bearing sense than anything I've seen in the more historic Churches ... although it's certainly possible to find control-freakery there too ...

Appearances can be deceptive. I know far too many independent evangelical/charismatic types who'd look at a priest or vicar in a cassock or in vestments and think, 'Look at that bastard, who does he think he is ...?' when their own ministers/pastors are about as control-freakish and authoritarian as it is possible to be without being Genghis Khan ...

The mileage varies, of course ...

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which, is the reason, of course, Garasu that groups like yours which don't go in for any clergy/laity divide are bursting at the seams and growing like billy-oh, sweeping all before them ...

My church specifically and the Vineyard movement as a whole seems to be doing quite well (numerically speaking, at least) as far as I can tell...

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which, is the reason, of course, Garasu that groups like yours which don't go in for any clergy/laity divide are bursting at the seams and growing like billy-oh, sweeping all before them ...

No. It isn't.

(Although I've seen at least one sociological projection which suggests that we'll outlast the Anglicans!)

My point is theological: if the cost of growth is a clergy/laity divide, then it is too high.

(And I know you've been told this before, but the smileys don't make your posts "okay"!)

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

[DEOPUBLIC, your posts make for a whole other thread in themselves and have made me think, thank you]

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

I guess we talk of what we experience.

Our church started taking baby steps towards doing a few different things and our Bishop dropped by! He chatted, asked questions, was genuinely interested and then prayed with us.

So I am a massive fan of Bishops because my experience is a good one.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'New presbyter is old priest writ large,' as the old Anabaptists used to say ...

I must admit, from my experience, leaders in smaller and independent style churches are far more authoritarian and 'episcopal' in the over-bearing sense than anything I've seen in the more historic Churches ... although it's certainly possible to find control-freakery there too ...

These people all sound like 'clergy' to me. If it looks like duck and quacks like a duck, etc....

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My non-conformist take is that churches with a priesthood (even a tacit one) attract more people because they allow laity to delegate chunks of their spiritual responsibilities to someone else, and this (protestations of the priesthood of all believers by some notwithstanding) is more comfortable than having to engage with the issues oneself.

I agree with you that the very normativity of the clergy/laity divide says something about the willingness of Christians from quite an early period to delegate religious duties and concerns to specialists so that the majority don't have to deal with them to the same extent.

One article I came across makes the interesting point that even in pre-modern periods when Christianity moulded European societies fairly deeply it demanded an extreme and "unworldly" degree of commitment that only a select few lifelong devout people could live up to on behalf of the others. Popular religion was condemned by theologians and clergy, but the idealised Christianity of the pulpits and convents couldn't pervade the 'pragmatic preoccupations' of lay Christians, due to Christianity's 'inner constraints as an "unworldly", spiritualising religion'. I think this challenge remains today and is excacerbated by 'secularisation'. The concerns of some - evangelicals and more liberal Christians alike - that church growth too often leads to bad theology the adulteration of the gospel are pretty well part of the same thing, ISTM.

[ 13. February 2014, 21:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The thing is, Garasu, whatever we think about the clergy/laity divide, I don't believe that it's a major factor in restricting church growth.

As South Coast Kevin says, his particular church group is doing relatively well in numerical terms, but call them what they will, they still have 'clergy' ... they just don't call them that.

All churches, even the Plymouth Brethren as pydseybare points out, have people - paid or unpaid - who are apparently released from other duties and from secular employment to devote themselves to church work ...

That's the same in any kind of voluntary organisation when it gets above a certain size ... you'll find people employed by the Boy Scouts movement, by Golf and Cricket clubs ... you name it.

I'm going to start another thread on the 'If only' syndrome ... you know how it goes - if only we had this, if only we had that ...

It happens across all Christian traditions. 'We'd have revival if only we could have more signs and wonders ...', 'We'd get a lot further forward if we all used the same Liturgy ...', 'It'd be great for everyone if we acknowledged his Holiness the Pope ...' or whatever else it might be.

I'm getting rather fed up of it.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As South Coast Kevin says, his particular church group is doing relatively well in numerical terms, but call them what they will, they still have 'clergy' ... they just don't call them that.

In what sense does the Vineyard movement have 'clergy', Gamaliel? Yes, we have people with titles like senior pastor and the like, but I can't think of anything they're permitted to do that others aren't. You don't need a title or to be on the church payroll to speak at Sunday gatherings, lead Communion, lead children's work, lead music, lead prayers, lead a home group, represent the church at things like Churches Together etc.

Indeed, us so-called lay people are strongly encouraged (at least in my church) to get involved in the various ministries and activities of the church, or to start our own things up (e.g. an arts and craft group that meets at the church's community space). Have I misunderstood what you're getting at, Mr G...?

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I know I'm going to sound like I'm arguing with myself, but I'm not sure the divide Gamaliel describes is solely about whether someone is paid as whether there is a special priestly role that they have.

I think there is a difference. Personally, I'd prefer it if there were no paid employees (although recognise the practical difficulties of this) - but even if there are, they do not have to act like they're anything special.

I know of at least one denomination who chose leaders by lot. Food for thought.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes - I think so.

I'm using 'clergy' in the broader sense not in the sacerdotal/sacramental or more priestly sense ...

I'm not for a moment suggesting that the leaders, pastors, elders or whatever they call them in the Vineyard do stuff which other people can't ...

But what I am saying is that things are nowhere near as spontaneous as some might like to think - I'm not suggesting your good self on this score.

The point I'm making is similar to that made by pydseybare - that, like it or not, all churches have some form of 'clergy' whether they call them that or not or whether their function differs in some way from the clerical functions found in the more historic Churches ...

Equally, I would suggest that all churches above a certain size have bishops too - in a translocal only they might not call them that ...

I'm certainly not suggesting Vineyard = wrong, historical churches = right ... in this respect nor am I making onerous comparisons.

All I'm saying is that however we cut it, once we get beyond a certain size we inevitably have to form some kind of institutional structure.

There's no way around that.

That guy you keep quoting who seems to think that the apparent clergy/laity divide is responsible for all the ills ever to befall Christianity is going over-the-top it seems to me because, whether he realises it or not, he's more than likely acting like some dirty great big bloody Pope in his own circles ...

Pardon the language but I'm making my point rather hyperbolically ...

Because things look laid-back and spontaneous doesn't mean that this is how they really are ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
You don't need a title or to be on the church payroll to speak at Sunday gatherings, lead Communion, lead children's work, lead music, lead prayers, lead a home group, represent the church at things like Churches Together etc.

Indeed, us so-called lay people are strongly encouraged (at least in my church) to get involved in the various ministries and activities of the church, or to start our own things up (e.g. an arts and craft group that meets at the church's community space). Have I misunderstood what you're getting at, Mr G...?

I never said otherwise, South Coast Kevin. As it happens, I do a fair bit of the sort of thing you've mentioned in our own parish and I'm not even on the Electoral Roll ...

I don't know any church of any tradition - however 'High' or 'Low' where 'lay-people' don't get involved with a lot of this stuff ... the only thing they don't do in the more sacramental churches - as has been discussed on other threads - is preside at communion.

The rest of it is all up for grabs.

Anyway, that's not the point I'm getting at. I'm simply saying that the Vineyard has ministers/leaders and structures and so on and so forth just like everyone else has - the only difference is the way this might be worked out ... and there's probably nowhere near as many distinctives about the Vineyard as might appear at first sight.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

But Gamaliel, clergy-laity and scripted-spontaneous are two separate issues. I want to know what you mean by 'clergy', because if you simply mean paid leadership figures then, yes, my church and the movement it's part of have clergy.

But I don't see that definition as particularly useful, even if (like pydseybare) I'm attracted to the concept of churches having no paid employees at all. IMO the idea that clergy are permitted to do certain things (leading Communion is the obvious one, ISTM) that non-clergy are not, except in emergencies, is pretty key to the definition of 'clergy'. That's what sets up the clergy-laity divide, I think; you're clergy so you can do certain things, I'm laity so I cannot.

EDIT - Cross-post of major proportions... [Big Grin]

[ 14. February 2014, 09:25: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My non-conformist take is that churches with a priesthood (even a tacit one) attract more people because they allow laity to delegate chunks of their spiritual responsibilities to someone else, and this (protestations of the priesthood of all believers by some notwithstanding) is more comfortable than having to engage with the issues oneself.

This hits the nail on the head, I think, regarding a less obvious but very important aspect of the clergy-laity divide. Do we look to the clergy (or 'clergy', if they're not explicitly identified as such) to meet our spiritual needs, or do we take responsibility for this ourselves and see our role as being part of a mutual, 'one-another' approach to having our spiritual needs met?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Primarily I am thinking about paid leadership figures etc ... but not exclusively.

I'm not saying that these kind of roles/positions are good, bad or indifferent - simply that they are inevitable once whatever kind of group it is - whether religious or secular - gets beyond a certain size and operates across several sites or locations.

If you and I set up a Pet Protection League of some kind tomorrow and it gathered momentum, then sooner or later we would have to pay people's expenses or employ administrators, leaders, fundraisers, lobbyists etc etc

That's the point I'm making.

I don't have a big issue about who can or who can't 'do communion'. I've 'done communion' myself when I was among the Baptists. I don't preside at communion in my current setting, an Anglican parish, nor would I expect to if I went to a more sacramentally inclined church ...

I don't lose any sleep about that either way.

That's not the point I'm making.

I just don't see how these idealised all sweetness and light churches you seem to envisage would be any purer, 'better' or more effective if they were all run by principled volunteers than if they were run by people who were paid in some way ...

If we look at the NT we see both ... sometimes the Apostle Paul earned his living making tents, at other times he relied on financial support from the congregations he ministered to ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Do we look to the clergy (or 'clergy', if they're not explicitly identified as such) to meet our spiritual needs, or do we take responsibility for this ourselves and see our role as being part of a mutual, 'one-another' approach to having our spiritual needs met?

Why can't it be both?

I really don't see how the idea of having 'clergy' of some kind (whatever we call them) precludes us taking responsibility ourselves nor detrimental to a mutual 'one-another' approach ...

To be brutally blunt, I would never go to our vicar for counselling or prayer support or something of that kind because I don't think I'd want that kind of relationship with him - lovely chap though he is. There are other people I'd go to for that.

That doesn't mean there aren't other things/aspects where I wouldn't work closely with him on ...

You're setting up a false dichotomy.

Again.

[code]

[ 14. February 2014, 09:43: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
In what sense does the Vineyard movement have 'clergy', Gamaliel? Yes, we have people with titles like senior pastor and the like, but I can't think of anything they're permitted to do that others aren't. You don't need a title or to $STUFF

Except in reality I bet the senior pastor does do the vast majority of $STUFF, even if everyone is theoretically allowed to do it, and even if in practice they have a go from time to time.

Plus don't underestimate the importance of setting nebulous things like 'direction'. Just because a church has no visible power structure, doesn't mean a hierarchy doesn't exist.

quote:
Do we look to the clergy (or 'clergy', if they're not explicitly identified as such) to meet our spiritual needs, or do we take responsibility for this ourselves and see our role as being part of a mutual, 'one-another' approach to having our spiritual needs met?

And sometimes the vicar is not the best placed person to do this - which to be honest tells me a lot about the denomination/church - but at some point I want someone who has put a modicum of thought and training to offer pastoral care. We are the body of Christ, but not every part is interchangeable with every other part.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

(treading v carefully, but going there anyway!)

Knowing a fair amount about both the Vineyard and the C/E, the recent exchange up-thread just makes me laugh out loud.

You guys are both right.

It's all theory though.

Every day, each of us individual Christians gets up and dressed ....and every day we attempt to get to the evening without being utter idiots and failing to represent Christ as we know we should.
Or maybe it's just me?
Maybe I'm the only one who feels that life (for everyone and especially for the church that I am part of) would be a whole lot better if I could just not be such a persistent numpty?

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My non-conformist take is that churches with a priesthood (even a tacit one) attract more people because they allow laity to delegate chunks of their spiritual responsibilities to someone else, and this (protestations of the priesthood of all believers by some notwithstanding) is more comfortable than having to engage with the issues oneself.

And I'd say having been on both sides - and now in the CofE - that I prefer a church with a priesthood because I have observed what happens when you think anyone can preach/teach/lead based solely on how much they love Jesus, or perhaps on how much they want to do a particular role, rather whether or not they are suited to or qualified for it.

There's a reason the Apostles spent several years in full-time training before getting to run the church themselves.

[ 14. February 2014, 13:27: Message edited by: seekingsister ]

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

+ clergy are so full of administrative tasks right now, that most would love to have folk on board to self-start some new initiative.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

We have 'Mission Communities' here now (fairly similar to Team Ministries, with groups of churches voluntarily opting to work together, with a pool of priests/readers). I swear it takes several months to work out the rota for who does what, by which time it's needs revising and work has to start all over again! Surely, the clergy and readers have better things to do than organise the merry-go-round?! The latest 'Church Growth' report does seem to indicate that many churches grouped together, under a limited number of staff, isn't the most efficient way to nurture growth. The danger is that nobody knows who anyone is, half the time.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

So bringing some of this stuff together, mind if I pose a question? From what you've read on the report, and erudite contributions from shipmates, what might your own church do different that would make it more likely to grow more?

[ 15. February 2014, 08:17: Message edited by: Truman White ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

'Do differently,' Truman White, 'Differently ...'

[Big Grin]

Well, they could meet together regular, do outreach and evangelism regular ...

[Razz]

Serious ... ly, in my own parish church's case I suspect it simply needs to do what it's already doing as it is engaged with activities that build a periphery - various tots and kids' groups, a Job Club, Messy Church and so on. It also runs an Alpha course once a year and a biannual crafts-fair/open day thing with all sorts of activities going on - which is well attended.

Some of these things aren't my bag, but that's not the part, they are useful initiatives in raising the profile and engaging with the community.

It would seem from the report that regardless of style and churchmanship, some kind of community engagement is a common factor for growth and development. That sounds almost too obvious to state, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth stating ...

As far as the actual services themselves go ... well, we have a mixed economy set-up with a more 'traditional' (by which read snake-belly low traditional) service at 9am and a more family-oriented or quasi happy-clappy service at 11am.

I only go to the 9am these days and only when I'm leading the prayers or on those occasions where my wife is playing the organ ... so I probably only go about once or twice a month. The other Sundays I stay at home or else visit t'other parish in town by way of a change. It's not an ideal arrangement.

It isn't really my bag there at all, but to be fair, they are doing some good stuff, both at the yoof end and with the elderly with their mid-week coffee and communion and other groups aimed at the elderly. My mum-in-law loves those and they are a life-line for her.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
So bringing some of this stuff together, mind if I pose a question? From what you've read on the report, and erudite contributions from shipmates, what might your own church do different that would make it more likely to grow more?

I would like to see each church being assigned a 'person with special responsibility for', so that instead of a rota with a merry-go-round, there would be one person in each place (not necessarily stipendiary) who everyone would get to know and who would be the assigned first port of call. Even if others on the team visited occasionally, it would start to plant some deeper roots.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Something happened recently which has seriously challenged my views on all this. I was in another part of the country and we went to church on the Sunday morning. This was in a fairly large and not particularly picturesque village in a rural but not remote or backward part of the country. I know nothing will please everybody, particularly not Shipmates, but it would be difficult to fault what was on offer.

The church was warm. The service was Common Worship, Holy Communion, Order 1, nicely done, dignified but without too much fuss or formality. The hymns were a mixture of new and old. The sermon was excellent, clear, straightforward, a message targetted at modern angsts, impeccably orthodox and expressed in a way that virtually anybody would be able to understand. The church felt comfortably full rather than dwindling. The congregation was clearly committed to what they were doing, and was friendly to visitors.

Altogether, if I were a Mystery Worshipper, it would have got a good rating. I would certainly have wanted to go there again. I would be feeling fairly confident about the health of the kingdom in that place.

However, my host pointed out that even with what was being made available to the inhabitants of that community, only 4-5% of them were there. Even allowing for irregular attenders and people who go elsewhere, belong to chapels, RCs etc, 90% of the inhabitants aren't worshipping God, and don't appear to be interested in doing so. It's difficult to get any impression that they think they need to, might be any better off for doing so, or at risk of wailing and gnashing of teeth if they don't.

Normally, my reaction would be to say, 'what can we do to change this?' Different shipmates would have different remedies, from no vestments, to everybody becoming Roman Catholic and joining the Society of St Pius X. I still think that in most contexts, this is a valid question.

But what do you say? In this building, Sunday by Sunday, and with a fairly typical selection of midweek meetings etc., the well is providing a ready supply of fresh and clear water. Even with that available, nine tenths of the local residents, nice people I'm sure, aren't interested, aren't thirsty. Does there come a time, when if people don't respond to the gospel, it isn't the church's fault, it's theirs?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, yes ... but I don't think it 'does' to get too reductionist about this -

On the one hand we could say, 'men loved darkness because their deeds were evil' and suggest that the remaining 90% of people in that community are all wicked reprobates ... therefore whatever the churches do or don't do it won't make any difference unless the Holy Spirit convicts them of their sin ...

'I sang a dirge and you did not mourn, I played the pipe and you did not dance ...'

To an extent - without being all Calvinistic on this one - I do think there's something in that. However we cut it, people generally aren't interested in Christianity/church per se ... unless something happens to make them change their minds or unless they've been socialised into it from an early age.

Even the argument that people are 'spiritual' in a broader sense - New Age-y stuff etc - doesn't hold water I don't think ... that sort of thing only tends to attract a minority of people - at least in the full-on engagement sense.

The fact is, however we cut it, the forces of secularism have essentially won - at least on the public level.

For whatever reason - and it isn't all the fault of the various churches - Christian stuff is largely invisible or irrelevant to most people. It simply doesn't cross their minds.

On the other hand, we could turn on the blame-game and start going down what I've called the 'If only ...' route ...

As you say, 'If only we didn't have vestments/paid clergy/a clergy-laity divide ... or whatever else then ...'

Or, if only everyone was RC/Orthodox or a member of the independent charismatic group round the corner ...

Or ...

Someone I know argues that the more indifferent society as a whole becomes, the more 'extreme' Christians will have to be to get noticed ...

I'm not sure I like the sound of that - but if that 'extreme-ness' was expressed in love for neighbour and service towards the poor, marginalised and downtrodden - rather than, say, particular antics in church on a Sunday morning ... then perhaps ...

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Yes, so many suggestions are cosmetic (what the priest, church, choir, seating looks like) rather than addressing deeper concerns - people really aren't that interested in the whole faith/religion caboodle. Changing the pews to chairs isn't really going to help with that.

A few years ago (leading up to the Millennium, which may be significant in itself) there appeared to be a strong movement to blaming church choirs. If only they could be got rid of (and replaced with modern worship bands) then all would be well. It happened in several places, where choristers and organists became very much 'persona non grata' but, looking at their membership numbers, post-choir, they have - if anything - gone down.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

This Church Times article makes some good points on Church Growth (specifically in the Anglican church) - the cartoon isn't bad either!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The carton is good, and it probably reflects the feelings and experiences of many people on the Ship, but it also leaves out one of the most visible reasons for church decline: churchgoers keep dying. This is simply because most of them are older than the population at large. Fewer people are entering church life at a young age, which means there aren't so many to drift away or grow disillusioned a few years later or in mid-adulthood.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The carton is good, and it probably reflects the feelings and experiences of many people on the Ship, but it also leaves out one of the most visible reasons for church decline: churchgoers keep dying. This is simply because most of them are older than the population at large. Fewer people are entering church life at a young age, which means there aren't so many to drift away or grow disillusioned a few years later or in mid-adulthood.

The report makes a similar point about youth in the church. And people who become Christians in their late teens early 20s tend to stick with the faith.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That's interesting ... I came to faith in my late teens/early 20s ...

Not that this means anything by way of a trend ...

Nor does it mean that I'll stay the course - 'he who endures to the end ...'

But it's a statistic I've heard before. I wonder how it's arrived at?

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's interesting ... I came to faith in my late teens/early 20s ...

Not that this means anything by way of a trend ...

Nor does it mean that I'll stay the course - 'he who endures to the end ...'

But it's a statistic I've heard before. I wonder how it's arrived at?

Quoting from memory - reckon I got that from Mike Breen. When I come across a ref I'll post it.

BTW - any chance you can post without a space between each line? Less white space makes suff easier to read (and let's face it mate, I should know all about white space….)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Fairy snuff. I tend to leave lines between my sentences and short paragraphs because I can have a tendency to go on and on and on ... I need to learn brevity. I reckon that people might be fazed by big chunks of text. It seems that the opposite is the case and that they're fazed by the white space.

I can't win.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fairy snuff. I tend to leave lines between my sentences and short paragraphs because I can have a tendency to go on and on and on ... I need to learn brevity. I reckon that people might be fazed by big chunks of text. It seems that the opposite is the case and that they're fazed by the white space.

I can't win.

No. You are right. Line breaks and paragraph breaks make text easier to read, not harder.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fairy snuff. I tend to leave lines between my sentences and short paragraphs because I can have a tendency to go on and on and on ... I need to learn brevity. I reckon that people might be fazed by big chunks of text. It seems that the opposite is the case and that they're fazed by the white space.

I can't win.
No. You are right. Line breaks and paragraph breaks make text easier to read, not harder.

Rather a tangent, this, but while we're on it, I find the same thing that Truman White does; posts with a line space between every sentence are pretty well unreadable because every line space breaks up the flow of meaning and makes the text completely disjointed. In contrast, the post quoted above from Gamaliel was far easier to read. But I also agree that more than (say) 10 lines of unbroken text can be daunting.

So, I suggest that Gamaliel could indeed win by composing text in paragraphs of a few sentences at a a time, with a line break between each paragraph. [Smile]

Angus

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Chorister's point, re a focus of unity, is I think well made. We're human. We like to know that someone knows what's going on when we are all together, and if each different person does stuff differently...actually it unsettles congregations.

Were I a Bishop (and I'm not!) I'd listen carefully to the other stuff that Chorister says as well. All this stuff applies across church traditions; the current situation hits us all, equally.

But ask a church to maybe contemplate changing the ways that Anything is done.... and (short of a Parish Share Debate), one has a riot on one's hands.

Because "Why Should We?"

My guess is, answer THAT question and all the rest comes easy.............

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Rather a tangent, this

hosting/

Yes it is. Comments on other posters' punctation, layout and so on, are utterly irrelevant to the thread, so please desist. Starting a fresh thread on the topic (outside Hell) is not recommended either.

/hosting

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fairy snuff. I tend to leave lines between my sentences and short paragraphs because I can have a tendency to go on and on and on ... I need to learn brevity. I reckon that people might be fazed by big chunks of text. It seems that the opposite is the case and that they're fazed by the white space.

I can't win.

You always win some mate [Biased]

. Thanks for the response.

BTW - if there was one thought from this thread you reckon one or both of the churches you're involved with would appreciate, what would that be?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Good question. The best thing they could both do is listen to me, of course ... [Big Grin]

I'm not sure of the answer, to be honest. The evangelical parish will probably continue to do well among its particular constituency. I think they would feel vindicated by the comments/findings in the report about community involvement - although I do think they miss/overlook some opportunities in this respect that don't quite fit with their evangelical paradigm.

They would also undoubtedly like the 'intentionality' comments and the thing about being committed to a particular style or tradition or worship and aiming to do that well - although from what my wife tells me (I wasn't there this morning) the drums were bashed rather dreadfully this morning ...

This would probably encourage them to be less mix-and-match and aim for greater consistency across both the 9am and 11am services. This is happening already, I detect, with the vicar introducing what he calls 'prayer ministry' with 'trained' people being on hand to pray with anyone who might wish to be preyed upon .. ahem, I mean prayed for ...

With the more liberal parish, well, sometimes I think they're not really that bothered whether people turn up or not. I suspect that may change in future if or when the current incumbent moves on. All that said, I think they'd pick up on some of the community engagement aspects and their building is well placed to offer opportunities for that sort of thing ... it's increasingly used as a concert venue, for instance and the acoustics and ambience are excellent for that.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

With the more liberal parish, well, sometimes I think they're not really that bothered whether people turn up or not. I suspect that may change in future if or when the current incumbent moves on.

If may ask, why do you think this will change in future? Is it unlikely that they'll get a similar kind of vicar?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I can't say too much without identifying where I am.

They'll get the same 'kind' of vicar, undoubtedly, but not all clergy in that particular tradition within the Anglican communion would take the same approach as this one does ...

He's a personal friend, but I don't go along with all of his views/ways of doing things and my theology is more conservative than his would be.

But that's by the by.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

That's interesting. IME of Methodism, ministers come and go, and they each have their own distinctive way of engaging with the wider community, but this isn't normally couched in the language of evangelism. I wouldn't necessarily expect an incoming minister to be more evangelistic than the one before.

BTW, has anyone mentioned Back 2 Church Sunday yet? Has it had much traction in any of the churches Shipmates have heard of? I don't think it's mentioned in the link. Like most new initiatives, it seems to work best in churches that are already on a fairly successful trajectory. I'm reminded of Matthew 13:12, 'For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.'

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Back2Church Sunday might at least teach folk how to welcome with a handshake and looking one in the eye.....

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Back2Church Sunday might at least teach folk how to welcome with a handshake and looking one in the eye.....

Let's hope so! Certainly it seems like a good opportunity for pastors / ministers to remind people of how important it is to be welcoming and open to newcomers, visitors and guests.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

SvitlanaV2 - I'm not necessarily suggesting that a new incumbent in that church would couch their outreach/community engagement activities in the language of evangelism ...

I don't really want to discuss that particular instance on line, to be honest. However, the point I was trying to make was that the mileage varies within each tradition on these things ...

Some 'liberal catholics' mightn't be evangelistic in the way this is understood by evangelicals, for instance, but they may be more 'evangelistic' within the terms and framework that they might use.

If that makes sense.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I suppose it could be said that everything a church does is evangelism, even if that term is never used. Renting out the church building for concerts or for Weight Watchers groups, etc. is all part of making the church space less scary and alien to the wider community. Foodbanks and suchlike may have the same effect, but for less privileged people.

Whether these activities contribute to church growth depends on how we're calculating such growth. Maybe they subtly help to disseminate a more positive attitude towards Christianity and church communities, which is presumably something positive in itself. But they're unlikely to attract more than a handful of people in to listen to sermons. It would be interesting to see if anyone's done any research on this.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Whether these activities contribute to church growth depends on how we're calculating such growth. Maybe they subtly help to disseminate a more positive attitude towards Christianity and church communities, which is presumably something positive in itself.

In some ways a lot of these activities are valuable insofar as they promote a positive attitude towards Christianity amongst the church community (and their children) itself.

Often, engagement with this sort of church can at least stop people leaving - or make them more likely to stick around as they enter their teens - as there is a kind of semi acceptableness in a societal normative sense to their particular church.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Not necessarily, the church I'm thinking of has hardly any teenagers or young people with kids - it has some, but not many.

I think in many parts of the country we're seeing increasing polarisation between the full-on evangelical type churches and those which take the kind of approach that SvitlanaV2 has mentioned here.

There are some both/and types. Equally, the sort of clergy I'm thinking of wouldn't believe that coming into a church and listening to sermons was the be-all and end-all either ...

They'd say there were more interested in spirituality in the general sense and wherever it was to be found ...

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Not necessarily, the church I'm thinking of has hardly any teenagers or young people with kids - it has some, but not many.

I'm not talking about the intentions of the particular leaders involved (assuming you were responding to my post) merely the second order effects.

Such churches can be more socially acceptable than the conservative charismatic outfit down the road or whatever.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

It's fashionable in certain circles (and here on the Ship, too) to criticise evangelical churches that seem to take a very commercial attitude towards church life and growth.

However, it occurs to me that liberal and moderate churches are often - and will increasingly have to be - very business-minded in the sense that keeping their doors open often requires them to maximise the letting potential of their buildings. Small Methodist congregations that have maintained their existence and their properties are almost always funded to a considerable extent by these means. Yet this seems to be taken for granted; very few Christian books or websites try to advise British churches on how to do this successfully. This seems to be a grave mistake, because Church growth isn't normally served by church buildings closing; the opposite is true.

Not every congregation is realistically going to have a vision to work directly for physical growth. Of those that do, many will fail. But there may still be value in a small congregation in a cavernous historical building continuing its 'presence in the community'. Their engagement may still, very occasionally, bring a few new people into the church to help run things as time goes on. But putting it bluntly, none of this can happen if there's no money coming in.

The theologians should be writing books about where the Holy Spirit is in all of this.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I think it can be very hard to predict whether being business minded will help or not. One of the churches I attend got itself rather deeply into a long-term death hole by trying to be business minded. They rented out so much of their building because they needed the money that it was very hard to do any ministry. It took a pastor and deacon who were more interested in doing ministry than surviving to take some of the space back and start using it. Now the church is doing better financially than it has any time the last ten (probably 20) years. I think the budget is barely in the red at all--as good as it will get for a church that pays the bills with grants and donations from elsewhere--and the congregation is back up to previous levels, maybe higher.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

This is why churches need good advice. But it's rarely available.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Agreed, and to be fair to the United Methodist Church*, that may be one advantage of a connexional system. I'm sure it was not an accident that Pastor C was sent to that church. The bishop and cabinet knew she had done something similar at the previous church where she served, so probably expected her to do about what she did. And certainly there was conference advice about how to do it.

*Since I am very aware of its failings.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

Deckchairs. Titanic. The lede (or at least the context) was very heavily buried. "(statistics show a decline of 9% in all age average weekly attendance over the past decade)."

If you went by the survey, you'd assume that more churches were growing than shrinking. You'd also assume that they took all reports at face value - they might have.

And what did they find? Engagement breeds engagement. Vicars can't cope if spread too thin. Fresh Expressions can come up with good numbers. All not exactly rocket science - and more to the point they should all come out of the handbooks for running any successful social club.

I'm personally of the view that the Church will keep losing the young until it regains the moral high ground. It's currently lost it among the young against most people this side of the BNP thanks to various Dead Horses issues. And the vision point needs to come from the top - Webley going after Wonga was a good start, let down by the Commissioners. But the CofE has one real advantage; a massive pulpit. It needs to use it.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I'm personally of the view that the Church will keep losing the young until it regains the moral high ground.

I think church membership is largely in reversion to the historical mean. I don't think the various hot topic issues are the primary issue that young people might look elsewhere - even if it is their spoken rationale. People who end up believing find a spectrum of ways of handling those issues - be it unspoken/vocal agreement to unspoken/vocal disagreement. Scandals have a marked, but relatively local effect if you look at things statistically.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Couple of generalisations coming up, but going there anyway:

Youngsters:
* hate being embarrassed and sometimes church can just be embarrassing for them.

* like to have a sense of belonging.

* don't like being tutted at, alienated or having stuff done "at" them.

I guess it's for each church to work out how to include in the way that works for everyone

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I turn 25 this week so I fear I don't count as 'a youngster' anymore! But I basically agree with Justinian on this.

Dead Horses are a huge, huge issue to young people. Aside from young people who are religious conservatives themselves (CUs anyone?), the CoE is seen as a backwards, homophobic and misogynistic institution by most non-members I know (and tbh by a lot of younger members themselves!). It is absolutely the first thing they think of when someone mentions the church. Given that most conservative religious young people are in non-CoE churches (aside from maybe the odd strongly conservative diocese, Sussex springs to mind), the leadership can't rely on them and even amongst evangelicals the tide is turning.

Just from my own experiences of the Student Christian Movement, most members are Methodist (by a significant majority, and most are ministers' children), followed by the Church of Scotland and the URC. The CoE/SEC followed by the RCC come next, along with the Quakers and the evangelicals (yes we have some!). Anglicans (rather than people who attend Anglican churches because it's their nearest/student church) are a distinct minority. It is the same in CUs IME, although more Anglicans than Methodists there!

I don't know how much of that is helpful. For most of my Christian life (non-Christian parents) I have been in Sussex which perhaps skews things because churches there are so much more conservative than the average CoE church, aside from Brighton obviously but I never lived there.

[ 18. February 2014, 18:47: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

In the long run, the different factions of the CofE may have to agree to part ways over some of these DH issues, either formally or just in the sense of individuals moving on to churches where they don't have to be in conflict with others. I think the question for this thread is whether this will add to overall growth or decline.

Growth could occur if some of the more tolerant people outside the CofE see the more conservative members leaving and they themselves enter the CofE as a result. OTOH, the loss of the conservatives might not be sufficiently matched by more tolerant people coming in.

If it's the more tolerant people in the CofE who find themselves leaving, the 'rules' are unlikely to change any further in a tolerant direction and the CofE will become increasingly dominated by more conservative people.

I'm wondering what the other denominations will do. Should the Methodists, URC or other mainstream historical churches* become publicly committed to opening up on some of the DH issues they might have something to gain from any liberal exodus from the CofE. So far, though, these smaller denominations have been disinclined to commit themselves strongly one way or the other, and they're also very reluctant to step into the limelight. The last thing they seem to want is to become newsworthy, but without that they won't attract much interest.

(*I don't see the Quakers or Unitarians as mainstream in this conversation, although they're the most liberal groups re the DH issues. Maybe if the British Quakers introduced a few 'programmed' meetings they might attract some liberal Christians who wanted to worship in a more conventional way?)

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Aside from young people who are religious conservatives themselves (CUs anyone?), the CoE is seen as a backwards, homophobic and misogynistic institution by most non-members I know (and tbh by a lot of younger members themselves!). It is absolutely the first thing they think of when someone mentions the church.

Yes, to an extent - but again I doubt that the thought process works in straight lines here.

After all, evangelicals - generally relatively conservative - have had quite a bit of relative success bringing in the completely un-churched, and empirically it doesn't appear that all of these new people are social conservatives.

I think people frequently dissociate their feelings about the church at large - with their feelings about a particular group of people they have just encountered

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Aside from young people who are religious conservatives themselves (CUs anyone?), the CoE is seen as a backwards, homophobic and misogynistic institution by most non-members I know (and tbh by a lot of younger members themselves!). It is absolutely the first thing they think of when someone mentions the church.
Yes, to an extent - but again I doubt that the thought process works in straight lines here.

After all, evangelicals - generally relatively conservative - have had quite a bit of relative success bringing in the completely un-churched, and empirically it doesn't appear that all of these new people are social conservatives.

I think people frequently dissociate their feelings about the church at large - with their feelings about a particular group of people they have just encountered

Hmm, given my experience of conservative evangelical churches that are successful in evangelism, it's more to do with keeping everyone so busy with social activities that they don't realise the nastier doctrines until they're too far in to easily quit.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0