Thread: Grey haired churches 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=029179
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
According to this report the decline in the Church of England is continuing apace, and even accelerating. The suggestion is that, as older people die, they aren't replaced. Since my retirement to the Kent coast earlier this year, I've joined a "high" Church of England church with very healthy numbers for a small town, usually 80+ on a Sunday. The dedication of the clergy and congregation alike is outstanding. The welcome is like joining a family and, dare I say it, the spirituality of the place is awesome.

Yet at 61, I would say I'm below the average age for the church. There are a few young familes who bring around 8 kids who go off and do drawings during the sermon, but looking round, it's a sea of grey hair. I feel very lucky to have found such a church in a small town, but i wouldn't think there'll be many people there in 20 years unless some sort of unlikely revival occurs. The same report suggests that, even in this most secular of ages, most other Christian denominations are holding their own.

At this rate, within a generation,just a few cathedral services will be available for Anglicans. If you were to advise the Archbishops on how to plan for the future, any ideas?
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Many (most?) Church of Scotland congregations are facing the same issues. I was recently asked to take part in a service as they wanted to include a "youngster." I'm 51!

We average about 100 on a Sunday, and we have some extremely active members who are over 75 (indeed, one very active member who is over 90!) but I do wonder where we will be in ten years time. Mind you, I wondered that ten years ago, too, and we're still going strong.

Financially, bequests from elderly members who have died have kept us afloat for the last few years, and I suspect will keep us going for the foreseeable future, so that is one advantage of having a lot of elderly congregants. [Biased]
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
There will of course be a never ending supply of elderly people, and so it does not necessarily mean a decline in church numbers in ten or twenty years' time if the congregation are grey haired now.

There are three main factors which will affect the future:

The first is whether there are so many generations of 'unchurched' people that there is little likelihood of their ever attending or showing any interest in Church. All the local churches can do is to keep reaching out to their communities, in love.

The second is whether or not there will be a revival of Christianity. This means that those in the church communities now must be determined not to sit back and watch their Church die, but to listen to and follow God's guidance into new areas of evangelism.

The third is whether there will be sufficient funds to continue at all, let alone in the same way as it has done so far.

Enjoy your church. Long may it continue to be available to you.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I suspect that the effect of the secularisation of education in the 1970s in the UK will remove the pool of people with a knowledge of church with any desire to return to church in their old age.

It's the flaw in Back to Church ideas - there is a steadily reducing pool of people to return to church as we continue on.

Churches aren't necessarily helping themselves. Locally, there was a lot of chuntering about the uniformed groups only coming for Harvest, Remembrance, Christingle and Mothering Sunday services, but I know as a Guide Leader, the groups weren't being made welcome. If you don't get them in as a captive audience when you can and make them welcome, there's no warmth to want to return in the future.

This year all the GirlGuiding Groups missed Mothering Sunday as nobody invited us. I did e-mail the clergy a couple of weeks before and point out we had not been told the service was happening; still no invitation.

The last two had been so horrible (I nearly Mystery Worshipped one to show how bad it was - taking 20 minutes of running around before the service actually started, two sermons, who knows why? seriously painful feedback on the sound system, when it was working, ... - it went on.) that I really didn't feel inclined to organise the girls to attend another such service.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
When the vicar has a young family, it certainly seems to help. Especially if they are gregarious, outgoing and are happy to have the other young families around for regular fun days. There are approximately the same number of children in our church now as there were 25 years ago - the difference is that the present group come with their parents rather than mostly with their grandparents. Thus, the missing age range is returning.

There does seem to be a perennial anxiety in churches that only old people will mean the church dying out in a generation. And yet nobody in our thriving U3A group is at all worried that everyone is over 60!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I've just said something familiar on the parallel thread about people not attending regularly.

If in stead of being you, you were a worthy citizen who was not a regular churchgoer, what is there be about your church that would make you want to go there? What could there be? What should there be?

Given the choice between staying in bed on a Sunday morning, buying a Sunday paper and reading the various bits of it with your family over a leisurely breakfast or going to your church, is there anything about your church that might give it the edge over the competition?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
For what it's worth, here's why I go (I think [Biased] ).

First, because it's the one and only place where I can reliably talk/hear about God on a regular basis. Conversations down the pub are great, but not to be scheduled. Ship of Fools is great, but not face to face, and not in my neighborhood for joint worship/talking/coffee/community service. Church is there, and nobody is going to give me the stink eye or the hairy eyeball if I want to talk about something in John or Exodus that interested me, as opposed to, say, the latest scandal or the sports news.

Second, that's where I can access the Lord's Supper. Yes, I know private group communions are all the rage for some people, but the trouble there is that they are taking place among like-minded, we-like-each-other people. I don't really want that. I want to be up at the communion rail next to my friend and my annoying neighbor and the noisy little kid who's driving me up a wall. I want to be with the whole people of God, even my enemies, rather than unchallenged by having communion and worship only with my best buds. How the hell else am I going to grow?

Third, I go for the relationships I have with certain individuals. Church is the one place where I can easily establish friendships with people a generation or more different from me in age. Also with people from other cultures, socioeconomic status, etc. It isn't going to happen at school, where most people are age mates. Nor at work in most cases, which tends to be "people like me" much more often.

Fourth, I go because it's the one place I'm not socially required to be a cynical bastard. Irony and detecting-the-evil-motive-behind-everything is de rigeur in most places I frequent. It's nice for a change to be able to just say something my other friends would consider totally naive and naff (like, "Let's have a bake sale for the tornado victims!" Discussion of whether that is an effective choice may ensue, but at least nobody will be mocking.).

There are probably more reasons.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've just said something familiar on the parallel thread about people not attending regularly.

If in stead of being you, you were a worthy citizen who was not a regular churchgoer, what is there be about your church that would make you want to go there? What could there be? What should there be?

Given the choice between staying in bed on a Sunday morning, buying a Sunday paper and reading the various bits of it with your family over a leisurely breakfast or going to your church, is there anything about your church that might give it the edge over the competition?
I don't think a worthy citizen is going to want to come to church--the home of the naff, the embarrassing, the earnest, the socially unacceptable, the poor, the old, the young, and the ugly--unless he's already drawn to the Lord of the church. That will counterbalance "Shine, Jesus, Shine" and the lousy coffee and day-old donuts. Also the guy with a mullet and the woman who says "Ay-ay-ay-MEN!" in that annoying voice. I don't think anything else will, though.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Given all that, I do sometimes marvel at the fact that we have a congregation (however miniscule) at all, at all......

[Eek!]

Ian J.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Churches are emptying here too (Canadian prairies) and have been for some time. People of all ages, but particularly the young have always been searching for meaning, but today churches don't give them what many other things do, so they do those others things.

I think most people today think that churches promote basically fairy tales and fantasy which is done better in media and books, and makes far fewer requirements for them to accept the party/church line.

Parishes are closing all the time here, and I expect we'll be left eventually with the cathedral and one other church that has an arts centre attached. The cathedral will remain because it has the finances to do so. The arts centre will fund the other church, though I see almost no connection between the church and arts centre. They can't offer enough yoga classes, dance/exercise/mindfulness and painting/other art lessons. The people attending one don't attend the other.

Thus, it seems to me that if people are trying to find themselves and meaning through physical movement and artistic pursuits, and these activities are a really good draw for younger people, perhaps a whole different approach to church is required.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I feel very lucky to have found such a church in a small town, but i wouldn't think there'll be many people there in 20 years unless some sort of unlikely revival occurs. The same report suggests that, even in this most secular of ages, most other Christian denominations are holding their own.
I think the Methodists as a group started ageing at an earlier stage, so their age profile is already higher than the CofE's. They could be reaching the point at which ageing is being overtaken by serious shrinkage, i.e. dying. This is hardly a better situation to be in!

It must be very hard for 'grey haired churches' to deal with the issue you highlight, because the cultural references points and expectations of one, two or even three generations of non-churchgoers are so different from those of the people who are already attending. The current congregation of such a church would have to be aware of a strong spiritual burden to abandon their own comfort zone for the sake of any newcomers they were trying to attract. Most congregations don't feel such a burden; they just want a few more 'young people' to keep things going more or less as they are. I also think some clergy don't want to risk upsetting their regular attenders by seriously trying to appeal to a very different and less reliable constituency.

Church planting is probably the best way of dealing with the problem, I understand. It's easier to pursue a new vision with a small core group of enthusiastic people on their own than to try to change the culture and traditions of an established congregation.

(I'm not saying that new churchgoers never like grey haired churches, however defined. But ISTM that the supply is much greater than the demand. And too few of these churches would be able to offer the high quality spiritual and pastoral nurturing that many unchurched younger newcomers would require to make their involvement worthwhile.)
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
It is as Svitlana says, very difficult to 'import' younger people into an ageing congregation while keeping both groups happy. Churches certainly can't afford to alienate older people!

I know of several heaving churches, all evangelical. Could higher churches learn something about mission and evangelism from evangelicals? I'm not saying to become evangelicals, but using their strategies. Put it this way - I'm looking at a lot of pastoral assistant jobs at the moment. The difference in quality between those made by evangelical churches and those by other churches is incredible. I'm far from an evangelical but they are absolutely brilliant at what they do.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
It is as Svitlana says, very difficult to 'import' younger people into an ageing congregation while keeping both groups happy.
I'm thinking that's cultural, not natural. We divide people by age group from early, the 5 year olds and ten years olds are put in separate rooms and told they have separate interests. When I was a kid all the neighborhood was expected to play together, if only because if the 20 year olds did not include the 10 year olds, there weren't enough to form a pickup game!

Now people are intentionally taught they have nothing in common with outside their age group.

Can we think of ways to help people delight being with a broader range of people? Then incorporate some of those ways into the church? Be a little counter cultural in ways that help us all enjoy people as people instead of as age group.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Now people are intentionally taught they have nothing in common with outside their age group.
I think that's a pretty big generalization. It is not my experience at all, either in church or in the community at large.

Sure, there are some things that tend be age-specific, such as Sunday School for children, which has as much to do with learning development as anything, and youth group, but there is little age delineation among adults. And there are plenty of opportunities for interaction between people all ages, worship being a prime opportunity.

Slight tangent: I'm always a little baffled by the concept of "family services" as a Sunday morning option. That's not part of my experience. In my experience, all worship services are "family services," with the "family" being the entire congregation —the "church family," as it is often called in these parts. Young, old and everything in between.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:


Can we think of ways to help people delight being with a broader range of people? Then incorporate some of those ways into the church? Be a little counter cultural in ways that help us all enjoy people as people instead of as age group.
Some mainstream British churches do manage it, of course, but our age profile is likely to be even steeper than it is in the mainstream American churches, so the problem is more difficult to address.

On the positive side, churches are actually one of the most socially mixed environments available. Improving things will be hard, though, because like attracts like. Younger people do tend to congregate in churches where they find other younger people. Christian parents with young children often avoid 'grey haired churches' for churches that have good children's work.

Young adults are also more likely to attend large churches, whereas most British churches are small. And the majority of British worshippers in their 20s are attending churches in London, which means churches elsewhere are seriously disadvantaged, both in terms of manpower and being used to dealing with the needs and expectations of young people.

Some CofE churches benefit from being attached to a good local school, with children more likely to gain entrance to the school if they and their parents attend the church. This probably improves the demographic of the churches involved, but many people find the ethics questionable.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
The "intentionally teaching" people to stick with their age-mates is maybe too strong, but there is a weird insistence (at least in this culture) on one's age-mates being the natural and proper people for one to hang out with. I can't tell you how many teachers and social work/counselor types got all concerned because my son had no friends who were precisely his age. They were all a year or more younger or older. This seemed unnatural and dangerous to them--and was linked by them to an autism diagnosis.

We get this attitude in churches too when Sunday schools insist on segregating children by age/grade level. Some people got visibly uncomfortable about the idea that a young teen was more interested in the adult lectionary class than in the milk-and-water grade-appropriate Sunday school class he was supposed to be attending instead. And yet none of us adults would have gone to something of that nature or quality...

Then college comes, and suddenly the whole age-segregated thing falls apart. I watch my current host congregation struggling to figure out what to do once the teens graduate from high school. They've been kept apart from adults for so long, and now how are they to be integrated? The usual answer is NOT to integrate them, but rather to build yet higher levels of age segregation (thus the attempt to start a college Bible study, a young adults group, etc. etc. which generally fails because the young adults in question are going sixty-eleven different ways in their lives and have less in common with their age-mates now than with any random group of strangers)
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I've always felt that people are attracted to different church experiences at different times of their lives. In my teenage years I tended to gravitate to the Hillsong style of worship where there were lots of young people, noise and socialisation.
In my early years of being a parent, I really didn't go to church very often as it was all too difficult with 3 young children. Once I resumed attending, it was to a middle of the road Anglican church with traditional services and a great choir that I joined enthusiastically. There was a good mix of ages at that church.
Sadly, a new minister arrived with a teenage family and he set about demolishing the style of service. He openly stated that he wasn't interested in ministering to the older members if the congregation, he installed a pop music group in place of the magnificent organ and choir and virtually alienated most of the congregation.
I left to join an Anglo Catholic parish which was not something I had ever experienced before. I very soon grew to love the quiet contemplative style of worship and have been there ever since. Yes, the congregation tends to be grey haired, but the young people go to my previous church. I have a theory that we move on to different experiences as we mature and what suits at 15 doesn't suit at 25 or 50. I don't feel any despair re the future of the church for these reasons, although I am very concerned at the growing atheist antagonism to Christians.
 
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :
 
From experience, I would say that archbishops are entirely unavailable. So I would suggest to them that they listen to their flock and walk among them rather than remain aloof.
 
Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on :
 
What the survey that started this thread is actually saying is that fewer people are identifying as religious when questioned. That has very little to do with active church attendance, and rather reflects the societal change that has made it generally socially acceptable to deny religious affiliation.

Fifty years ago, in England at any rate, if you were asked for your religion but had none, it was the done thing to reply "C of E". It meant you avoided awkward questions and made it quite clear you were not RC or Jewish. Nowadays the same people say 'none'. Less hypocrisy, but about the same number in the pews.

Like other organisations that rely on volunteers, the church may have to get used to the idea that a larger proportion of its recruits will be retired people, of whom there is a permanent supply. If the church is there, offering companionship and the possibility of a worthwhile occupation, those with time on their hands will probably come along (but the competition from other groups is, in many areas, fierce).
 
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :
 
I don't think that Christian planners, speculators and forecasters should rule out black swan theory .

Black swan theory calls people not to rule out the unexpected. Although a revival causes major controversy, it is impossible to predict church attendance without giving it some credence. But revival or no revival, we should practice what we preach and trust in God.

[ 01. June 2015, 07:28: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
..., and these activities are a really good draw for younger people, perhaps a whole different approach to church is required.
Perhaps a whole different younger people is required. If Church keeps on bending over backwards to attract young people (or old people, for that matter), then it will end up with a slipped disk. Church is to a large extent what it is, it can be no other. Read scripture, share communion, sing praise, pray - trying to dress that up with all sorts of clownery isn't going to make any difference in the end. If the content is not what people want, the packaging ultimately will not matter.

What the churches in the West are facing is the task of shoving a camel through the eye of a needle. We are rich now, we cannot be bothered. If you are looking for people that will bring in the young generation, then look no further than your beloved politicians trashing your social system. Unemployment and social misery will grow church attendance. If people have something to pray about, they will find a church.

And yes, the grim reaper will continue to herd the elderly into churches, even those who had little to do with church for most of their lives. It's the same principle, really. As you get old, the financial security blanket gets stripped away - for many literally but for all metaphorically. You cannot take your money with you, and so at some point people will look to other ways to ensure a good (after)life. If the possibility of death is present to you, then you do have something to pray about.
 
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
..., and these activities are a really good draw for younger people, perhaps a whole different approach to church is required.
If the content is not what people want, the packaging ultimately will not matter.
Marketing gurus have a mantra 'content is king'. This is true.

However.

If you wrap gold in newspaper and then offer it to people freely, they are going to be inclined to refuse the gift or say that the gift contains nothing but dung.

Christ himself had a hold on the importance of image - he dressed in a long white robe and presumably looked his best. This is not a principle which all Christians emulate. There is a cool carelessness in being so genuine and looking so archaic, but it is not a cool carelessness which attracts many people.

Content may be king, but the content is not perceived as being pure, 100 carot love.

[ 01. June 2015, 07:42: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
 
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :
 
I mean 24 carat. (I never said I was cool).
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

Then college comes, and suddenly the whole age-segregated thing falls apart. I watch my current host congregation struggling to figure out what to do once the teens graduate from high school. They've been kept apart from adults for so long, and now how are they to be integrated? The usual answer is NOT to integrate them, but rather to build yet higher levels of age segregation (thus the attempt to start a college Bible study, a young adults group, etc. etc. which generally fails because the young adults in question are going sixty-eleven different ways in their lives and have less in common with their age-mates now than with any random group of strangers)
Our younger youth group (age 11-14) stays in the service about once a month precisely for this reason, the older youth (age 15-18) always stay in the service unless they have something special on. The older ones do meet together in the evening though. Children are well integrated into the congregation and aren't suddenly dropped when they get older. But this is also helped by all our services being very integrated. We don't have family services, all are accessible (being NFI we are as likely to have adults dancing in the aisles as children), we have an open table with grape juice available, the informality means children can freely wander and it's not unusual for the minister to pick up his crying child whilst giving the notices. Our worship is signed so children who cannot read can do the actions. Our ordinary bible study groups meet in local homes and socialise together and are very mixed in age and circumstances.
I'm guessing our main church demographic is 30-50 years but we have people from all ages, abilities and walks of life. A quarter of our congregation is under the age of 18 (our congregation is approx 500 people over 2 identical morning services with coffee in between). One recent Sunday we had 120 under 11s. As mentioned above, it is easier to attract children if you already have them and more enjoyable for them too - our children can choose which activity they do so no endless colouring in for those who prefer puzzles. We also have more helpers due to our younger congregation.
But I think the real key to a growing church is not about children, it is about accepting and loving people of all types. I identify with what Lamb Chopped said earlier about the types of people in a congregation, that is what community is about. Our children are an integral part of the church family, just as everyone else is, no matter what their age, ability or background. I came to this church from a very broken Anglican parish church and the reason we stayed was because the sense of community was striking, even on that first visit.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Part of the problem is that when 'occasional' worshippers come to regular services they often don't recognise what is going on and feel out on a limb.

My late partner was not a church regular, and I have relatives by marriage and friends who are of the "religion - none, so CofE" persuasion.

I actually talk to them about why they don't go to church and, if they try or get to go for any reason, what they find appealing or off-putting.

One of the things that all of them describe as 'weird' is The Peace - that and being given a service booklet that doesn't explain things or which is then largely useless because things happen that aren't mentioned in it.

Other moans/ complaints/ thing that baffle include When I mention these to most clergy they either laugh or just dismiss them out of hand - but as and until the powers-that-be actually try to find out why people don't come they won't get it right when trying to attract them in.

It is also apparent that church schools could (should?) be doing an awful lot more to help keep the parents who start to attend to 'get the place'. My own children were in a minority of less than 10% who kept going to church once they had started at their CofE secondary school. In fact, our willingness to give a school place based on attendance only to accept that, having got the place, the family disappear thereafter is viewed as the church being a 'soft touch' (at best) by the children and a bunch of pathetic losers (at worst) by the parents. If we care enough about church going when awarding places, why do we cease to care once the child is at the desired school?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Christ himself had a hold on the importance of image - he dressed in a long white robe and presumably looked his best. This is not a principle which all Christians emulate. There is a cool carelessness in being so genuine and looking so archaic, but it is not a cool carelessness which attracts many people.
Christ was a carpenter's son, and he was on the road a lot. He would have worn something that could take the wear and tear - and dirt - of being on the road. It doesn't look like he had a change of clothes with him, so I'm guessing his clothes were a compromise between "travel ready tough" and "can wear this to the synagogue". Basically, I bet Christ was wearing the equivalent to our jeans today. There are various discussions of Christ's dress out there, like this one. If that's accurate, then he would have worn sandals, a head covering (either a turban or a slouch hat covering the neck), an inner seamless long robe fixed with a girdle and poncho-like mantle with tassels. In the account of the transfiguration, we read "... and his garments became white as light". (Mt 17:2) So they weren't white as light originally. We can speculate that a complete change of colours (say from red to white) would have been described more extensively. So my guess is that his clothes were the "natural colour" of linen or similar fibres (so somewhere between ivory, ecru, tan, and grey), and in the transfiguration these colours temporarily "brightened up". So I do not think that Christ "looked his best" in the sense of competing in the fashion stakes with the high priest of the temple. There's no reason to assume that He was sloppy about his appearance, but He likely didn't "dress to impress" either.
 
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Christ himself had a hold on the importance of image - he dressed in a long white robe and presumably looked his best. This is not a principle which all Christians emulate. There is a cool carelessness in being so genuine and looking so archaic, but it is not a cool carelessness which attracts many people.
Christ was a carpenter's son, and he was on the road a lot. He would have worn something that could take the wear and tear - and dirt - of being on the road. It doesn't look like he had a change of clothes with him, so I'm guessing his clothes were a compromise between "travel ready tough" and "can wear this to the synagogue". Basically, I bet Christ was wearing the equivalent to our jeans today. There are various discussions of Christ's dress out there, like this one. If that's accurate, then he would have worn sandals, a head covering (either a turban or a slouch hat covering the neck), an inner seamless long robe fixed with a girdle and poncho-like mantle with tassels. In the account of the transfiguration, we read "... and his garments became white as light". (Mt 17:2) So they weren't white as light originally. We can speculate that a complete change of colours (say from red to white) would have been described more extensively. So my guess is that his clothes were the "natural colour" of linen or similar fibres (so somewhere between ivory, ecru, tan, and grey), and in the transfiguration these colours temporarily "brightened up". So I do not think that Christ "looked his best" in the sense of competing in the fashion stakes with the high priest of the temple. There's no reason to assume that He was sloppy about his appearance, but He likely didn't "dress to impress" either.
Then aren't so many of us Christ-like?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
There are a number of theories - notably Jungian psychology and its developments - that suggest that "spirituality" tends to be more a concern for people in the second half of their lives. Certainly in my experience, it's the 35+ people who start to ask "deep questions" about themselves, their relationships, What It's All For, and so on.

And yet, when these people go to church, what do we find?

We find much of the effort, most of the money, most of the talent, being aimed at attracting the under 20s. Youth group, but no philosophy club. Messy Church, but no Serious Spirituality. All Age Worship, but no Meditation Class.

And since many of us are mature, intelligent, articulate (and sometimes, yes, demanding) people, maybe this is why, even if we do set foot in a church, we tend not to do so twice.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think that's true - and also that part of the success of the young, vibrant evangelical churches in - mainly - university cities is that they're drawing on young people who are looking for a sense of community.

Student life can be quite isolating and back in my studenty days I found the kind of 'family atmosphere' offered by the warm, vibrant evangelical churches to be very attractive for that reason.

Our vicar keeps saying that the 'missing generation' where we are - small town of around 15,000 people semi-rural/suburban - are those in their 20s and 30s. This is hardly surprising.

Young people go off to university and often don't return - they gravitate to the large cities in the north and north west or else go down to London. Some come back eventually - but by and large, the town has a gap in that age group - not just the churches.

I can't for the life of me think what the churches can do to attract this kind of group. Where the 'growth' is happening is among younger families with kids and with the elderly who appreciate the fortnightly mid-week 'coffee and communion'.

Which is fair enough.

It leaves people like me out in the cold but I've been around long enough to know how to fend for myself and find spiritual nourishment as and where I can.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
We find much of the effort, most of the money, most of the talent, being aimed at attracting the under 20s. Youth group, but no philosophy club. Messy Church, but no Serious Spirituality. All Age Worship, but no Meditation Class.

And since many of us are mature, intelligent, articulate (and sometimes, yes, demanding) people, maybe this is why, even if we do set foot in a church, we tend not to do so twice.
That's totally on the money. Furthermore, in our societies at least, the 30ish age group brings with them the little children.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

And yet, when these people go to church, what do we find?

We find much of the effort, most of the money, most of the talent, being aimed at attracting the under 20s. Youth group, but no philosophy club. Messy Church, but no Serious Spirituality. All Age Worship, but no Meditation Class.

And since many of us are mature, intelligent, articulate (and sometimes, yes, demanding) people, maybe this is why, even if we do set foot in a church, we tend not to do so twice.
Part of the reason for that is that under 20s (well, under 16 anyway) do need some degree of adult supervision/oversight to their activities. That requires an investment of personnel. While adults can arrange their own meditation class/ philosophy club if they are interested.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Part of the reason for that is that under 20s (well, under 16 anyway) do need some degree of adult supervision/oversight to their activities. That requires an investment of personnel. While adults can arrange their own meditation class/ philosophy club if they are interested.
That's true only to an extent. There are several reasons that adult newcomers to church might not arrange these things for themselves:
1. It doesn't occur to them that this is something that Church might do. (They're new, remember?)
2. They haven't the expertise, and could do with some leadership from the Church leaders.
3. They've got day jobs, and while they might have time to turn up to such things, they don't have time to do the prep.
4. The Church is still full of arsey clergy who say "Why does the vicar have to arrange everything?" and then get all jealous and pouty when someone else does.

There is another factor which is part of my own experience, and that's that I find a lot of what goes on in church (apart from the actual celebration of the Eucharist, in which in theory the clergy do as they're told and say the words that are put in front of them) is just downright patronising. A good sermon, for me, should never assume that people are theologically knowledgeable, but it should assume that they're intelligent, because most are. Yet again and again - I've been pretty peripatetic the last few years - I feel I'm being talked down to, pontificated at, or just bored senseless. (At least with the latter I can entertain myself seeing how many heresies and other ineptitudes the vicar can cram into ten minutes.)

Is it any wonder that I groan inwardly at the prospect of a Sunday morning in such an environment? Is it any wonder that I would rather go to a Mindfulness evening at one of the three Buddhist centres within walking distance of my flat, rather than suggest that one of the local churches organise one?

[ 01. June 2015, 17:27: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There are a number of theories - notably Jungian psychology and its developments - that suggest that "spirituality" tends to be more a concern for people in the second half of their lives. Certainly in my experience, it's the 35+ people who start to ask "deep questions" about themselves, their relationships, What It's All For, and so on.

And yet, when these people go to church, what do we find?

We find much of the effort, most of the money, most of the talent, being aimed at attracting the under 20s. Youth group, but no philosophy club. Messy Church, but no Serious Spirituality. All Age Worship, but no Meditation Class.

And since many of us are mature, intelligent, articulate (and sometimes, yes, demanding) people, maybe this is why, even if we do set foot in a church, we tend not to do so twice.
I've come to the view that the 'mature, intelligent, articulate' churchgoers really need to be starting meetings like this themselves. The clergy are too busy to do it, even if they like the idea.

I don't know if this sort of independence is expected or encouraged in the CofE, but I do know it's always hard, whatever the denomination, to start something new. There's always criticism from someone, but if you want something doing, you really do have to do it yourself.

The 'young people' have a pass if they feel unprovided for, because older leaders have to arrange meetings and activities for them. And since youthful Christianity is so very fragile in this country, paying special attention to young people's needs is highly desirable. But older churchgoers should really be able to organise themselves (unless they're really aged and fragile).
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Logical to go to the Buddists for mindfulness anyway as it's clearly up their alley. For a newcomer to arrive and ask for new programs to be organized for them would be a bit strange. But when I wanted my church to do more meditation, I asked pastor if I could help organize it. She apologized for not having the time to organize it herself, and was glad to bless the enterprise. If I wanted our pastor to organize everything we did, I'd have to start fundraising to get us more pastors! I have a feeling the same could be said of many churches.

On the other hand, it is often very hard to get people to organize things. Starting the meditation thing was really hard considering how long we did it for. Maybe we really do need more pastors to organize more things, at least in some churches. I know our church did hire a deacon even though we didn't even kind of have the money to pay his salary. Part of his job was to fund raise his salary, and almost seven years later, he's instituted many very successful programs that have improved our church greatly and even brought new members.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
..., and these activities are a really good draw for younger people, perhaps a whole different approach to church is required.
Perhaps a whole different younger people is required. If Church keeps on bending over backwards to attract young people (or old people, for that matter), then it will end up with a slipped disk.
How pray tell, shall we get a world of different young people? I don't know how.

quote:
IngoB
Church is to a large extent what it is, it can be no other. Read scripture, share communion, sing praise, pray - trying to dress that up with all sorts of clownery isn't going to make any difference in the end. If the content is not what people want, the packaging ultimately will not matter.
Nonsense. And it is dangerous nonsenses. Just how many centuries after Latin ceased to be generally understood did it take the Roman church to start in vernacular languages. Just how long after Shakespeare died did the Anglican church see fit to stop with the thees and thous? These are trite examples, but they illustrate the problem: very, very slow to change anything. I'm sure a few of us have been on a Vestry/parish council. How long do simple, very simple things take to change even in a local church?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've come to the view that the 'mature, intelligent, articulate' churchgoers really need to be starting meetings like this themselves. The clergy are too busy to do it, even if they like the idea.

... if you want something doing, you really do have to do it yourself.

[/QB][/QUOTE]

I'm coming to this conclusion too. There is a 'theological society' not too very far from where I am which meets to consider various more 'in-depth' issues and from what I can gather it attracts largely retired people from a range of church backgrounds.

Ok, so it isn't catering for anyone still in employment or too busy during the day - they have lunchtime meetings if I remember rightly - but it is at least an example of people shifting for themselves whilst remaining loyal to their respective congregations.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And yes, the grim reaper will continue to herd the elderly into churches, even those who had little to do with church for most of their lives. It's the same principle, really. As you get old, the financial security blanket gets stripped away - for many literally but for all metaphorically. You cannot take your money with you, and so at some point people will look to other ways to ensure a good (after)life. If the possibility of death is present to you, then you do have something to pray about.
I don't know. Awful lot of 70+ year olds I know have no interest in church, having left it when they first left home.

(I wonder if part of the problem is church was presented as a duty, or necessary to be socially acceptable, external behavioral compliance reasons instead of laying groundwork for personally believing God matters.)

What I mean is, I hear a lot of comfortable assumption - "they'll come back when they have kids" (but mostly the Boomer's didn't come back, and their kids have never been in a church so they have no "back" to come to); "they'll come when they get old" - if that's true I guress 70s isn't old enough? None of my friends who dropped church in college have "come back," nor their siblings. Insignificant sampling I admit, but at what age is this coming back supposed to be happening?

Or are we using "they'll come back" as a self-satisfying excuse to do nothing, assume we are perfect as is and the problem is wholly them, make no effort to find out where people are spiritually, what they perceive to be their spiritual needs, what they find offputting about church, how they perceive the Jesus story? You know, reach out beyond our walls to get to know our neighbors.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Part of the reason for that is that under 20s (well, under 16 anyway) do need some degree of adult supervision/oversight to their activities. That requires an investment of personnel. While adults can arrange their own meditation class/ philosophy club if they are interested.
That's true only to an extent. There are several reasons that adult newcomers to church might not arrange these things for themselves:
1. It doesn't occur to them that this is something that Church might do. (They're new, remember?)
2. They haven't the expertise, and could do with some leadership from the Church leaders.
I actually wasn't talking about newcomers. Your comments would definitely apply to newcomers, I was speaking more to why there are more activities targeting youth as opposed to older persons.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Awful lot of 70+ year olds I know have no interest in church, having left it when they first left home.
I did not at all intend to suggest that all, most or even just a large minority of elderly will still go to Christian churches in the near to medium future. All I intended to say was that just like other hardships, old age presents significant challenges that motivate people to turn to religion. And while Christianity is still dominant, or at least strongly present, in the local religious "marketplace", it will have such people come to church "for free" (without fancy marketing exercises or special adaptations). Furthermore, unlike other hardships, this one is inescapable for all - and hence is probably the most consistent source for church membership. That is why many churches are grey haired rather than simply closed.

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Or are we using "they'll come back" as a self-satisfying excuse to do nothing, assume we are perfect as is and the problem is wholly them, make no effort to find out where people are spiritually, what they perceive to be their spiritual needs, what they find offputting about church, how they perceive the Jesus story? You know, reach out beyond our walls to get to know our neighbors.
Frankly, I cannot stand that sort of talk. I am a convert, but I didn't need anybody to reach out for me and change their act to pander to me. What I did have the luck to encounter when I was reaching out is some people who had their act together, who were convinced of what they were doing, who found meaning in it for themselves, and did it for themselves. If I didn't join them, then that was my loss, not theirs, to them. I like that. I respect that. I would have respected that even if I had decided against it.

You know what I was looking for when I got religion? Enthusiastic amateurs and professionals, people who had something going that I wanted a piece of. Role models, but not in the "show me your saints" sense. Role models in the sense of the man or woman at the fitness studio or martial arts centre who is putting in the work and makes you think "if s/he can do that, then I can, too". You don't need an Olympian athlete for that, in fact, that probably would be too much. You just need somebody doing their thing, convincingly, because they are convinced.

Jesus loves me, but so does Buddha or even Ronald McDonald - if I give their businesses my fiver on Sunday instead. What makes a difference is people to whom it makes a difference, going places where I want to go. Offer me that, and I don't particularly care whether you serve it with cheese or not.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've come to the view that the 'mature, intelligent, articulate' churchgoers really need to be starting meetings like this themselves. The clergy are too busy to do it, even if they like the idea.
It occurs to me that perhaps people are doing this for themselves - but at the Buddhist shack down the street, not at the parish church.

But without getting bogged down in the details of what older people might want from church, my real point is that a lot of the time there's little or nothing that's appropriate to older people. And I hate to say this, I really do - but as a 50-something churchgoer (often a "mystery" churchgoer) I get the impression that a lot of clergy can't really be bothered with us.
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Part of the problem is that when 'occasional' worshippers come to regular services they often don't recognise what is going on and feel out on a limb.

One of the things that all of them describe as 'weird' is The Peace - that and being given a service booklet that doesn't explain things or which is then largely useless because things happen that aren't mentioned in it.

Other moans/ complaints/ thing that baffle include
I was an occasional attendee for several years - and indeed, most of the time I was the only non grey-hair in the congregation (of around 35). Many of the above points didn't apply because the church had a BCP service with no 'peace' element. In fact, I had to ask a clergy friend what it was when he mentioned it, and when I later came across it at a different church I was horrified. Luckily the congregation there was small as well and only one person 'accosted' me.

Apart from the 'peace' though, I did know about communion, etc., from childhood attendance (I just sat that out and told churchwardens who asked that I was 'fine, thanks'). I did feel out on a limb, but the service booklet followed the service totally so that wasn't a problem. Also, there are very rarely children in the congregation. I was worried about the 'third degree', but mostly got away with it by beetling away as soon as the service was over.

So why am I an ex-attendee? The rector left, there was a year's interregnum, I didn't like the stand-in, and the new rector has altered the service from standard BCP to modern lectionary (although still doing a BCP service, apparently) and I'm concerned that he will also have brought in the 'peace'. As an atheist but Christian sympathiser I always feel odd and out of place. It is very difficult to get up the nerve to face it again, even though I want to (sometimes).

A lot of what I enjoyed during my attendances was the BCP element, the archaic language, and in this case the old-fashioned everything. Obviously I wasn't going to become a believer, but I did put a bum on the pew and money in the collection so I suppose my attendance was worth something!
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:


My late partner was not a church regular, and I have relatives by marriage and friends who are of the "religion - none, so CofE" persuasion.

I actually talk to them about why they don't go to church and, if they try or get to go for any reason, what they find appealing or off-putting.

One of the things that all of them describe as 'weird' is The Peace - that and being given a service booklet that doesn't explain things or which is then largely useless because things happen that aren't mentioned in it.
[...]
I suppose the issue here is who the church is actually for. If we see church as for 'insiders', then the fact that strange rituals occur is normal. If we want church life to be immediately understood to visitors, that's another matter.

I believe the Americans have 'seeker services' or churches that try to remove the mystery for newcomers, whereas some strict denominations make it quite clear that church is for believers, and there's no truck with 'belonging before believing'. Both approaches seem to work in their way. The trouble is that most mainstream churches hover between both attitudes, which doesn't seem to work well.

I find it interesting that mosques don't try to make everything immediately clear to visitors. Indeed, visitors are probably not allowed in to 'worship' unless they present themselves properly and behave correctly once inside. Yet people do convert to Islam.

quote:

It is also apparent that church schools could (should?) be doing an awful lot more to help keep the parents who start to attend to 'get the place'. My own children were in a minority of less than 10% who kept going to church once they had started at their CofE secondary school. In fact, our willingness to give a school place based on attendance only to accept that, having got the place, the family disappear thereafter is viewed as the church being a 'soft touch' (at best) by the children and a bunch of pathetic losers (at worst) by the parents. If we care enough about church going when awarding places, why do we cease to care once the child is at the desired school?
Do the kids and parents really want to be 'kept'? What do they expect or hope the church to offer them? If they haven't begun to feel part church of life in all the time they've attended under sufferance, then it sounds as if they still see themselves as outsiders, waiting for other people to 'do things' to them and for them.

Has their been any research on the kinds of churches that manage to keep a significant proportion of the families that arrive in order to get a school place? I suppose those congregations that were already evangelistic would have had more success. More youth work for older kids is probably attractive. But such things require resources and enthusiastic, noncynical (rather than time-serving) manpower.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I keep hearing about these parishes where 'significant' numbers of families apparently turn up in order to get a school place - but haven't any direct experience of any such ... to the extent that I almost believe them to be mythical ...

But I'm sure they do exist.

Can any Shippies shed any light on them? I've not had any direct experience of Anglican (or other) churches where this happens.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I've encountered a few (and of those few, most ended up becoming Christians anyway) but nothing I would call a 'significant' number.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Its most prevalent where there is a CofE secondary school but also in urban areas where there is a choice of primary school.

In the case of our local secondaries the choice is pretty stark: there is a CofE comp (now an Academy!), a Roman Catholic comp (also now an Academy), 2 mixed 'Community Colleges' which seem to be in and out of special measures as if stuck in a revolving door, and 2 high schools (comps), one for boys, one for girls; the boys' high is also almost permanently in special measures and has a reputation for particularly nasty bullying.
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm coming to this conclusion too. There is a 'theological society' not too very far from where I am which meets to consider various more 'in-depth' issues and from what I can gather it attracts largely retired people from a range of church backgrounds.
A group of older folks started one of those round my way about 20 years ago which is still going strong. However, it is still treated rather patronisingly by the "arsey clergy," (thanks Adeodatus) who talk about it as though the old dears are past it and isn't it good that they can witter away together. I'm not a member of it, but I know a fair number of its members, and they are all lifelong church goers, a high proportion of clergy and lay preachers - I doubt they witter.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
I think people are overlooking one key way in which religions historically have stabilised themselves against cultural competitors, often against cultural competitors that were way stronger than them (including Islam in the West today): requiring endogamy, or in a strongly patriarchal system, at least requiring endogamy for women (women must marry into the same religion).

One simple reason for Christian dispersion is that modern Christians marry all and sundry, with essentially no requirement for conversion of the non-Christian partner. (The contemporary RCC has a bullshit version of endogamy, which requires raising of the children as RCs. In practice, the lack of a requirement of conversion of the adult partner means that the religion of the children is generally up for grabs.) Chances are that compromises between the married partners concerning religion mean that the children grow up with a much weakened religious identity, or even none.

I think the simple mechanism of endogamy is what has given some religious groups incredible staying power, like the Jews, and the lack of it is what fatally weakens Christian numbers in the West (now that many people there are not Christian). As Christianity is reduced to a minority, I bet we will see the rise of de facto endogamy among them as stabilising mechanism against further shrinkage.
 
Posted by mstevens (# 15437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Part of the problem is that when 'occasional' worshippers come to regular services they often don't recognise what is going on and feel out on a limb.

My late partner was not a church regular, and I have relatives by marriage and friends who are of the "religion - none, so CofE" persuasion.

I actually talk to them about why they don't go to church and, if they try or get to go for any reason, what they find appealing or off-putting.

One of the things that all of them describe as 'weird' is The Peace - that and being given a service booklet that doesn't explain things or which is then largely useless because things happen that aren't mentioned in it.

Other moans/ complaints/ thing that baffle include When I mention these to most clergy they either laugh or just dismiss them out of hand - but as and until the powers-that-be actually try to find out why people don't come they won't get it right when trying to attract them in.

It is also apparent that church schools could (should?) be doing an awful lot more to help keep the parents who start to attend to 'get the place'. My own children were in a minority of less than 10% who kept going to church once they had started at their CofE secondary school. In fact, our willingness to give a school place based on attendance only to accept that, having got the place, the family disappear thereafter is viewed as the church being a 'soft touch' (at best) by the children and a bunch of pathetic losers (at worst) by the parents. If we care enough about church going when awarding places, why do we cease to care once the child is at the desired school?
As an atheist I'm not a natural churchgoer anyway, but this sort of thing is definitely a problem and I can't agree with you more.

Churches seem to have an image of themselves as welcoming that's totally contradictory to anyone's actual experience.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I hate the third degree with a passion. It's the main reason why I rarely go to a Protestant church in Africa.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think the simple mechanism of endogamy is what has given some religious groups incredible staying power, like the Jews, and the lack of it is what fatally weakens Christian numbers in the West (now that many people there are not Christian). As Christianity is reduced to a minority, I bet we will see the rise of de facto endogamy among them as stabilising mechanism against further shrinkage.
I believe studies show that British children with two committed Christian parents are 50% likely to become Christians themselves. Children with 1 Christian parent are 25% likely to become Christians themselves.

Islam has much higher rates of transmission. As you know, Muslims expect (or at least have high hopes) that a non-Muslim who marries into the family will become a Christian. Conversely, even the clergy in the mainstream (Protestant) denominations aren't necessarily expected to have committed Christian spouses.

Unfortunately, adult female churchgoers face the reality that unmarried Christian men are underpresented in the church, which means most Christian women who want to marry will have to take a nominal Christian husband at best. This appears to be the norm in Methodism, and is fully accepted. The alternative is to meet your future spouse at a uni Methsoc, or go on to attend one of the bigger, wealthier Methodist churches with a youthful contingency. There aren't many of those.

One argument for planting (Protestant) churches aimed at younger people, then, is that they might actually meet other Christians to marry. I appreciate that young people at popular evangelical churches may already feel too much pressure in this regard - but all they have to do in that case is switch their membership to a 'grey haired church', where this really won't be a problem.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
SvitlanaV2: I believe studies show that British children with two committed Christian parents are 50% likely to become Christians themselves. Children with 1 Christian parent are 25% likely to become Christians themselves.
Suppose that Adam and Belle are committed Christians. Charles and Donna are not.

Case 1: Adam and Belle get married. Charles and Donna get married. Both couples have four children. Two of Adam and Belle's children (50%) become Christians. Neither of Charles and Donna's children become Christians. Result: 2 Christian children.

Case 2: Adam and Donna get married. Belle and Charles get married. Both couples have four children. One of Adam and Donna's children (25%) becomes a Christian. One of Belle and Charles's children (25%) becomes a Christian. Result: 2 Christian children.

Conclusion: it doesn't matter if we marry a Christian or not.

[Razz]

[ 05. June 2015, 13:08: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I believe studies show that British children with two committed Christian parents are 50% likely to become Christians themselves. Children with 1 Christian parent are 25% likely to become Christians themselves.

Islam has much higher rates of transmission. As you know, Muslims expect (or at least have high hopes) that a non-Muslim who marries into the family will become a Christian. Conversely, even the clergy in the mainstream (Protestant) denominations aren't necessarily expected to have committed Christian spouses. ...
I don't think this is comparing like with like.

If you are a nominal Moslem, you are a Moslem. Some imams might prefer you were a more committed Moslem, but you are still a Moslem. You identify and are identified as one. Your children will be Moslems. It's much the same in Northern Ireland. Everyone is Protestant or Catholic, irrespective of belief. The statement 'I'm a Catholic atheist' isn't nonsense there.

In the past, it was taken for granted that everyone in England was Christian except for the Jews. Christianity was for many people a matter of identity not belief. People who didn't go to church were baptised just the same. They assumed that being English meant you were Christian. They were part of the same package, more or less completely overlapping categories. The notion that most people are not Christians and one is only a Christian if one is really committed, was largely in abeyance from about 400 until the 1960s.

Even the churches, whether in the 1350s or the 1950s put most of their efforts into getting nominal Christians to take faith more seriously. Their preaching often took it for granted that people had some idea of the basics. They just needed to be challenged.

Many Moslems, even here, assume that all indigenous English people are Christians, in the same way as they are Moslems. To Moslem eyes, being Christian and being Western are part of the same package. In Moslem terms, the bulk of their English neighbours are bad Christians, rather than not Christians at all. In Moslem terms, Christianity is successful in maintaining peoples' identity as Christians because when two largely secular people marry, the bride wears white, people drink champagne, they make speeches and the couple don't become Moslem. Likewise, a Moslem who marries out will probably be assumed to have turned Christian rather than turned nothing.

In Moslem eyes, one reason why Christianity is found wanting, is that it takes the blame for the prevalent low level of sexual morality in the west. What we'd condemn as a depressing symptom of the apostasy of modern life, Moslems will assume is 'that's how Christians live'.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
In the past, it was taken for granted that everyone in England was Christian except for the Jews. Christianity was for many people a matter of identity not belief. People who didn't go to church were baptised just the same. They assumed that being English meant you were Christian. They were part of the same package, more or less completely overlapping categories. The notion that most people are not Christians and one is only a Christian if one is really committed, was largely in abeyance from about 400 until the 1960s.

Yes and no. The radical nonconformist groups, such as the Independents and Baptists, which arose around 1600, would have strongly supported the idea of the "covenanted community" and personal faith. Their view would have been "you're not a 'real' Christian unless you opt in", in contrast to the prevailing view which said, "Of course you're a Christian unless you opt out". Having said that, routinisation down the centuries meant that this distinction was largely lost. I suspect that it was always less strong in Methodism, which of course was later and had its roots in Anglicanism.

quote:
Even the churches ... often took it for granted that people had some idea of the basics. They just needed to be challenged.
I'll agree with that. One of the strong points of modern Anabaptist theology is that is challenges these ideas of "Christendom", still common among older (British) Christians.

[ 05. June 2015, 14:58: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Enoch
quote:
Even the churches, whether in the 1350s or the 1950s put most of their efforts into getting nominal Christians to take faith more seriously. Their preaching often took it for granted that people had some idea of the basics. They just needed to be challenged.
Its touching that you think this belief has changed - but IME most CofE clergy really don't get that the majority of people under 30 have little or no idea of what you call the basics. I've lost count of the number of times that my PP has expressed shock that a funeral congregation doesn't join in with the Lord's Prayer, or that a wedding congregation will carry on talking, texting, etc, etc during the service.

In fact, you'd be lucky to find many who'd heard of Genesis and, if they had, would assume you meant the band that had Phil Collins as a drummer.

While clergy deny this level of ignorance there is no helping the church: the bishops will keep babbling on about 'mission' and preaching to the (more-or-less) converted.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Absolutely true - although I think that, to many people, the band "Genesis" is as archaic and unknown as the Biblical one.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
In Moslem eyes, one reason why Christianity is found wanting, is that it takes the blame for the prevalent low level of sexual morality in the west. What we'd condemn as a depressing symptom of the apostasy of modern life, Moslems will assume is 'that's how Christians live'.
What "Moslem eyes" are you talking about here? Sure, some Wahhabist in Saudi Arabia may think that everybody in the UK (but for Middle Eastern immigrants) is Christians. But I rather doubt that Muslims living in the UK are all so blithely ignorant about the general faith situation in the UK. Perhaps the 1st or even 2nd generation of immigrants remains so isolated within their own sub-community that they can think that. But in Germany at least the 3rd to 4th generation of (mostly Turkish) Muslims are entirely clued in about the wider society - or at least not significantly less so than other Germans of a comparable age and social group.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:


If you are a nominal Moslem, you are a Moslem. Some imams might prefer you were a more committed Moslem, but you are still a Moslem. You identify and are identified as one. Your children will be Moslems. It's much the same in Northern Ireland. Everyone is Protestant or Catholic, irrespective of belief. The statement 'I'm a Catholic atheist' isn't nonsense there.
What I was getting at is that in Britain Islam as a religion is transmitted more successfully from parents to children than Christianity. There's obviously a cultural aspect to British Islam, but the religious aspect seems to be a high priority for most Muslims here.

http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/News-and-Events/News/Pages/Muslims-pass-on-faith-to-children-at-higher-rates-than-Christians.aspx
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think the simple mechanism of endogamy is what has given some religious groups incredible staying power, like the Jews, and the lack of it is what fatally weakens Christian numbers in the West (now that many people there are not Christian). As Christianity is reduced to a minority, I bet we will see the rise of de facto endogamy among them as stabilising mechanism against further shrinkage.
I believe studies show that British children with two committed Christian parents are 50% likely to become Christians themselves. Children with 1 Christian parent are 25% likely to become Christians themselves.

Islam has much higher rates of transmission. As you know, Muslims expect (or at least have high hopes) that a non-Muslim who marries into the family will become a Christian. Conversely, even the clergy in the mainstream (Protestant) denominations aren't necessarily expected to have committed Christian spouses.

Unfortunately, adult female churchgoers face the reality that unmarried Christian men are underpresented in the church, which means most Christian women who want to marry will have to take a nominal Christian husband at best. This appears to be the norm in Methodism, and is fully accepted. The alternative is to meet your future spouse at a uni Methsoc, or go on to attend one of the bigger, wealthier Methodist churches with a youthful contingency. There aren't many of those.

One argument for planting (Protestant) churches aimed at younger people, then, is that they might actually meet other Christians to marry. I appreciate that young people at popular evangelical churches may already feel too much pressure in this regard - but all they have to do in that case is switch their membership to a 'grey haired church', where this really won't be a problem.
The lack of single Christian men is going to be interesting from an, ahem, Dead Horse perspective.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What I was getting at is that in Britain Islam as a religion is transmitted more successfully from parents to children than Christianity. There's obviously a cultural aspect to British Islam, but the religious aspect seems to be a high priority for most Muslims here.
It will be interesting to see if this continues, though, through the generations, especially if Muslim families who originally hail from (say) Bangladesh become more subsumed into British culture and "marry out" into other social groups.

My feeling is that the picture in 50 years' time will be rather different to today's. It would be interesting to know how many British Muslim parents are wringing their hands and saying that their children are abandoning their faith.

Interestingly (I hope), my background is 100& Jewish - but I feel no relationship to the Jewish community. My parents were secularised German Jews who related to "Germany" rather than "Judaism". That took a knock in the Hitler era, of course. They raised their family as MTR CofE, and that seemed perfectly natural even if - as it may have been - it was part of a subconscious desire to become "British".
 
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

What I was getting at is that in Britain Islam as a religion is transmitted more successfully from parents to children than Christianity. There's obviously a cultural aspect to British Islam, but the religious aspect seems to be a high priority for most Muslims here.

http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/News-and-Events/News/Pages/Muslims-pass-on-faith-to-children-at-higher-rates-than-Christians.aspx [/QB]
Religion is one of the ways in which members of an immigrant population can stay in touch with their origins and maintain a sense of community with each other and with their friends and family "back home". We see a similar effect in the boom in RC church attendance by Polish migrants, and in the past by the various waves of Irish & Italian migrants.

As the immigrant community becomes more integrated with the indigenous population, this effect generally diminishes as the need for such self definition reduces.

The British Muslims I have known over the years are no more or less likely to be "believers" than non-muslims, but their religion is more important to them as a source of cultural identity.
 
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :
 
One thoughtful believing muslim of my acquaintance identified a particular problem with mosques importing their imams from Pakistan rather then raising up British (or long-term immigrant)religious leaders. These men, he said, don't speak English, live "in a religious dream world" and have nothing to say to the younger generation of British-born muslims.

I asked him if he thought this made the young muslims more vulnerable to extremists. He replied "Possibly, but mainly it just turns them off being muslim".

Grey-haired mosques may soon be an issue?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
The rate of Muslims marrying out is going to increase, but I think this, as well as a more agnostic/atheistic cultural Islam, will predominate mostly in London and in intellectual circles.

The reason is that outside of these contexts, many Muslim communities are becoming increasingly socially segregated from white society, not less so. Muslim men were more likely to marry white, non-Muslim women back in the 60s and 70s than they are now, because few of their own women had come over at that time.

The movement of white people away from certain parts of the Midlands and the North predates the arrival of Muslims, but it has continued apace. It's obvious in my own city, and it means that many Muslims don't get to mix a great deal. Moreover, young Muslims are often more religious than their parents, with this sometimes leading to Islamic radicalism.

Finally, the Muslim population is much younger than the indigenous non-Muslim one, and the 'Muslim' birth rate, although declining, is higher. Muslims will continue to immigrate into the country, and will mostly head to comfortable multicultural areas rather than largely homogeneous places where the pressure to integrate into a dominantly secular environment is strong. The new arrivals will probably replenish the religious vitality of those already here.


http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/05/census-analysis-shows-christianity-in-dramatic-decline-whilst-a-youthful-muslim-pop ulation-is-on-the-rise
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The rate of Muslims marrying out is going to increase, but I think this, as well as a more agnostic/atheistic cultural Islam, will predominate mostly in London and in intellectual circles.

The reason is that outside of these contexts, many Muslim communities are becoming increasingly socially segregated from white society, not less so. Muslim men were more likely to marry white, non-Muslim women back in the 60s and 70s than they are now, because few of their own women had come over at that time.

The movement of white people away from certain parts of the Midlands and the North predates the arrival of Muslims, but it has continued apace. It's obvious in my own city, and it means that many Muslims don't get to mix a great deal. Moreover, young Muslims are often more religious than their parents, with this sometimes leading to Islamic radicalism.

Finally, the Muslim population is much younger than the indigenous non-Muslim one, and the 'Muslim' birth rate, although declining, is higher. Muslims will continue to immigrate into the country, and will mostly head to comfortable multicultural areas rather than largely homogeneous places where the pressure to integrate into a dominantly secular environment is strong. The new arrivals will probably replenish the religious vitality of those already here.


http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/05/census-analysis-shows-christianity-in-dramatic-decline-whilst-a-youthful-muslim-pop ulation-is-on-the-rise
This Guardian article suggests that muslims are experiencing the same problems as other religions - whilst many are happy to be cultural muslims, they don't actually believe. This confirms Charles' thought.

Tubbs

[ 10. June 2015, 15:47: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
IME, Muslims who don't attend the mosque still keep Ramadan and abstain from pork. Whereas Christians who stop going to church don't really have many other practices to anchor them to their faith.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Like non-observant Jews who still keep Hanukkah and fast during the High Holy Days.

But non-observant Christians do attend weddings and funerals and may even pray and take communion during same.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
This Guardian article suggests that muslims are experiencing the same problems as other religions - whilst many are happy to be cultural muslims, they don't actually believe. This confirms Charles' thought.

Tubbs
I did in fact see this article before I posted my thoughts, but I dealt with it by saying that agnostic and atheistic British Islam is a largely a development among intellectual Muslims. I think this is particularly so among those who spend a lot of social time with non-religious white people. I don't think it can be a significant phenomenon among the many Muslims who live and mix mainly with others of the same faith.

Working class Muslims and working class white non-Muslims seem to have an interesting relationship with one another. I don't get the impression that white working class culture is sufficiently cohesive and influential in most cases to counter the impact of Islam among Muslim immigrants, but I suppose there is an erosive effect if a few Muslims move to white working class neighbourhoods and feel isolated and lonely without the support of their faith and family networks.

IME of 'grey haired churches' of the urban MOTR type there's no particular desire to see the decline of British Islam. Relations are usually okay, which is a necessity in a multicultural community. Some churches or individuals are even involved in interfaith work, which seems to be a rather 'grey haired' undertaking on the Christian side. There tends to be little expectation that Muslims will convert to Christianity - though I do know of one Anglo-Catholic church with such hopes.

Evangelical churches in urban areas are different; IME they do at least feel they ought to be reaching out to Muslims with an evangelistic goal, whether or not they're doing so successfully. But I think there are Christians of all kinds who have a certain admiration for Muslim religious devotion, and who recognise a distant kinship with them as 'people of the book'. And I think there's an unspoken awareness that the alternative to Islam is frequently not Christianity, but the indifference of secular society.

[ 10. June 2015, 22:02: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0