Ship of Fools: Where is everyone....?

Thread: Where is everyone....? 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=029180

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Another thread addresses the question of ageing congregations, but at Our Place the problem is slightly different....

....we have a handful of The Usual Suspects who come to church pretty much every Sunday, but the rest of our Electoral Roll (60+) seems to attend on a much more infrequent or irregular basis. We have a very mixed economy - three or four young families, some teenagers (!), some students (!), a fair few middle-aged peeps (some married and others singletons), and a handful of older folk. If most people came to our Sunday Eucharist most weeks, we'd have 40+ in church, but as it is, we're lucky to get 25.

It's not that people have abandoned us, moved away, died, become Jedi, or gone off in a huff - it's just that attendance at Church - even amongst the 'committed' - seems to be a low priority. I do acknowledge, of course, that for some, pressures of work or family are a problem, but this irregularity does seem to be getting worse.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is now becoming common in the C of E - how is it for you, whatever denomination you belong to? And is this a UK-only phenomenon?

Ian J.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Although our attendance rates are higher than the OP example, I have noticed a similar pattern. There really isn't any pressure these days to develop, or sustain, weekly church attendance. Interestingly, the prayer book only talks about a handful of days of obligation, so I'm not sure when the expectation to attend weekly really kicked in.

There are certainly a lot of other options available on Sundays now, compared with in the past. There might also be a backlash against the pressure, amongst the really keen Christians of a generation ago, that weekly attendance at church really was the minimum, and that one should attend all manner of bible studies, prayer groups, etc. on top of that requirement. Anyone remember the perjorative term 'Backslider' - used to accuse the less committed?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I suppose the question we don't ask is, 'is the church I go to so exciting that I look forward to Sunday and wakes up on Sunday morning thrilled by the thought that today I can go and meet God there'?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

maybe rephrase that? Like maybe, "Is my knowledge of/desire for/relationship with (choose your preference) God such that I'm willing to commit to something that will benefit it?" (for values of church which DO benefit it, obviously--I imagine some don't)

The reason I'm rephrasing is because I don't think an external pull (like "exciting" services) is going to produce anything lasting or worthwhile; and I don't think churches should be aiming for entertainment. (the other extreme is also bad, of course--but I don't look for constant excitement in my 30 year marriage, either)

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

We have almost 700 on our Roll, with roughly 100 present on an average Sunday. Of that 100 I'd guess about 60 are every week attenders, with a further 80 who attend every other week. We do have some shift workers who couldn't come every week even if they wanted to. Then another maybe 300 who turn up once or twice a year; either to the Remembrance Service, which is always packed, or to Thinking Day, or to one of the Christmas services. Add on at least 50 elderly who live in residential care homes (we have a rota of services at three different homes).

That leaves about 200 totally unaccounted for.

We're Church of Scotland.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Hmm...now I come to think of it, we too have a number of different (albeit sometimes overlapping) congregations viz;

Sunday morning - at present 20-30 adults, with maybe up to 8 under-16s in addition on a particularly Good Day;
Monthly Saturday morning Walsingham Cell Mass - up to 14 adults on a GD;
Monthly Saturday evening Crafty Church (like Messy Church, but tidier, and for a slightly older age-group i.e. 7s-12s) - up to 20 children on a GD;
Monthly Friday afternoon Eucharist at sheltered flats - up to 12 elderly adults on a GD.

I wonder how common this kind of fragmentation is, too?

Perhaps it's not so bad after all - but I'd really like to see less of the Pew family and the Wood family on a Sunday morning.......

Ian J.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I did read in a sociological text somewhere that 'regular attendance' at church is less regular than it used to be. I think published stats on churchgoing often refer no longer to weekly attendance as 'regular', but refer to fortnightly or monthly attendance.

There are other things to do now on Sundays now, that's true. Also, I think people feel more committed to attending when they feel that church is 'family' - i.e., when they want to catch up with friends. I think CofE congregations have been less likely to cultivate this sort of feeling than other Protestant churches, though this is changing now, I feel.

Strong church relationships can be problematic in themselves; when they break down people are probably more likely to give up church altogether, but in a world where spirituality can be accessed in so many ways, and where church worship can easily be disappointing (we expect so much these days!) good friendships perhaps provide an impetus for people to turn up when they otherwise might not bother.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I do know that my young-adult daughter and son do not go to church, even though we took them to church every Sunday in childhood. However, this may change when they have kids of their own.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

The local mainline churches I know consider monthly as "regular."

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I do know that my young-adult daughter and son do not go to church, even though we took them to church every Sunday in childhood. However, this may change when they have kids of their own.

Why do you think this is so? I'm genuinely curious. If they are unmarried, do you think it's because they feel less welcome as a single adult than a couple with children would be?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

They are busy doing other things: jobs, social life, grad school. Church is not a part of their -life- somehow.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
They are busy doing other things: jobs, social life, grad school. Church is not a part of their -life- somehow.

Not a part of? Or not the whole of?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
maybe rephrase that? Like maybe, "Is my knowledge of/desire for/relationship with (choose your preference) God such that I'm willing to commit to something that will benefit it?" (for values of church which DO benefit it, obviously--I imagine some don't)

The reason I'm rephrasing is because I don't think an external pull (like "exciting" services) is going to produce anything lasting or worthwhile; and I don't think churches should be aiming for entertainment. (the other extreme is also bad, of course--but I don't look for constant excitement in my 30 year marriage, either)

Maybe they got little or no benefit from it? After trying for years?

Madeleine L'Engle once wrote that church, as such, could have the opposite effect on her from what's intended.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

There was some detailed research into patterns of (C of E) church attendance done in the Wirral some years ago. What became clear was that "regular" church attendance included weekly, fortnightly, and monthly. On any one Sunday, you'll have a mixture of "every weekers", "every other weekers" and "once a monthers", with all sorts of random visitors and occasional attenders. This has all sorts of consequences.

a) Although the numbers attending services may remain steady from week to week, the actual people will vary considerably. So you can't just assume that people will have heard last week's sermon. So sequential sermon series become difficult. The same applies to things like learning new hynns and songs. You can't just say "we learned this last week, so you should all know it."

b) It makes it much harder to keep track of people. If someone isn't there for a few weeks, is that because there is a problem, or are they just intermittent attenders? It can easily be a couple of months before someone's absence is noticed.

Since moving to the western side of Canada, this phenomenon is even more noticeable. People come and go all the time. Absences of a month or more are regular - going on cruises, visiting children and grandchildren, avoiding cold winters or hot summers. I am seriously considering having a yearly wallchart, so that people can mark up when they are away, so that we can differentiate between "away seeing grandchildren" & "missing for unknown reason". I recently found that someone had been in hospital for two weeks and no one knew. We all thought they had gone visiting.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
maybe rephrase that? Like maybe, "Is my knowledge of/desire for/relationship with (choose your preference) God such that I'm willing to commit to something that will benefit it?" (for values of church which DO benefit it, obviously--I imagine some don't)

The reason I'm rephrasing is because I don't think an external pull (like "exciting" services) is going to produce anything lasting or worthwhile; and I don't think churches should be aiming for entertainment. (the other extreme is also bad, of course--but I don't look for constant excitement in my 30 year marriage, either)
Maybe they got little or no benefit from it? After trying for years?

Madeleine L'Engle once wrote that church, as such, could have the opposite effect on her from what's intended.

Surely that could happen. I just don't think it applies to the majority of people.

I am also no doubt overly sensitive to various IRL critics who have given us grief about the fact that church isn't as much fun as watching Youtube. I keep wanting to say to them, And do you never brush your teeth... visit your mother. . . Attend classes unless those experiences are as fun as Candy Crush?

I'm afraid my frustrations are showing.

[ 01. June 2015, 04:36: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I go to an Anglican church in a small country town of about 2000 people. There is a Pentecostal church focused on the young and families, there is a Catholic church, there is a Uniting Church with an older congregation, and there is my church, where I at 48 am one of three people I know to be under 70.

I attend this church because I don't like a particular singer at the Catholic Church, my wife doesn't want me to go Pentecostal (and I probably wouldn't like it), and the Uniting Church only has monthly communion. I'm a practicing ecuminist and I like going to church, I get alot out of the quiet and biblical service and hymns. I'm a BCP fan (and a Uniting in Worship fan for that matter).

But I haven't been for 6 weeks because I accepted work on a Sunday for a limited time, and could go to church with clients at work. Often I miss church too because I work on Saturdays and get home at 11pm, then have to take a tablet that takes a while to kick in. Sometimes 9am is a tough ask on a Sunday. Sometimes I find that I've just fallen out of the church habit.

But this is what I like: People know my name. They keep to the lectionary. They preach the lectionary. They always have communion. There is plenty of space for God.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

The ELCA stats look at the number of people who use the facility on a weekly basis. That not only includes worship attendance on Sunday, but Sunday School attendence, and any and all mid week programmes. When we started including all this our way up. However, we have always had a strong attendence record for a church our size.

I would agree that a worship service does not need to be entertaining, but I would argue it does need to be spirit filled. By that I mean you just don't go through the motions for the sake of the motions, but that your worship should have a purpose. You want to offer adoration, you want to confess your faith, you want to give thanks and you want to offer supplications.

We tend to change the liturgy we use every three months just to keep things fresh. Same outline, same chants, for the most part , just different music.

We also feel permitted to give feedback during the sermon. The sermon often becomes a dialog between preacher and congregation. Our pastor is very good at controlling the dialog. It is usually him asking the question and congregation giving the response. Once in a while he will get a zinger in a response. Like today we were talking about rules we like to impose on ourselves. Pastor made the remark about next thing people will want us to do is to kiss the feet of the pope. I said audibly yes as a joke. He picked up on it right way and agreed maybe we could do it for this pope. Everyone was laughing. And then we settled down for a good discussion on the Trinity.

Entertaining? No I do not want to be entertained, But I do like to have fun with worship (in moderation). There is a difference.

I think that is why my congregation has high attendance for worship.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

But this is what I like: People know my name. They keep to the lectionary. They preach the lectionary. They always have communion. There is plenty of space for God.

And I thought that this world and everything in it was in God, given that He is infinite and we are not. Show me a space without God.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

But this is what I like: People know my name. They keep to the lectionary. They preach the lectionary. They always have communion. There is plenty of space for God.
And I thought that this world and everything in it was in God, given that He is infinite and we are not. Show me a space without God.

Yes. That's something that happened to me. Church too wordy now for me, when the fields and streams speak of God.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

And then there are those who left because the idea of a GOD no longer made any sort of sense.
The number, folks, is getting bigger, I suspect.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

One of my bugbears is the question "how do we attract people to church?" coming up at a church committee meeting.

We know how to attract people to church - if we have a special service, such as Remembrance Sunday, or Christingle, we are coming close to being standing room only.

What we don't know is how to attract people to "normal" services.

We circulate earnest articles about how to get people to take that difficult "first step" into church, ignoring the fact that, literally, hundreds of people have already taken that "first step" to attend a baptism, or to watch their small son or daughter take part in a one of the services attended by the uniformed organisations. And then they go away for a year until the next service which seems relevant to them.

If we were able to count the number of unique visitors we have to our church over the course of a year, it would be in the high hundreds; lets say a round thousand. Of that thousand, on any given "normal" Sunday, we have 100 in the church.

(Our church holds 350, packed tight, so we couldn't cope if all 1,000 did turn up, but fortunately for us the Remembrance Sunday congregation is discrete from the Christingle crowd.)

Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :

I think that some practical things that churches can do include creating an informative website for people. So many churches don't have a website and as a result do not appear to be very welcoming. There is a church nearby in which there is a CCTV camera inside the church to stop would-be thieves. I don't think this sends out the right messages. I see other churches with barbed wire around them and spikes on their roofs. It sends out a mixed message.

However much we may say that the stereotypes of Christians as aloof, judgmental, condescending and hypocritical are, this is the popular perception. And as a result there are people everywhere except the churches. Even Ikea on a Sunday is busier. And it is partly because people go to church and leave feeling worse than they went in. I know that churches fight hard to prevent this from happening and they do many things right, but you did ask for opinions on how to make things better.

[ 01. June 2015, 07:08: Message edited by: Alyosha ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Church too wordy now for me

Me too. I go in spite of the verbiage out of loyalty to the other people but I can't say that it 'feeds' me.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

It seems to me that attendance must be affected by what the denomination teaches about attendance - the purpose of it, the nature of it etc.

For me, it is intensely freeing to know that my attendance is an act of devotion, no matter what - whether I'm happy, sad, interested, bored, loving or unloving, in a state of grace or not - attending is better than not attending.

Beyond that, I suppose it is the very simplest expression of our mission - to witness to each other simply by being together.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

How to 'attract'? Don't - invite them because of a special reason or anniversary and keep inviting them.
My own shack employsm this and while it doesn't work with many and certainly not with any for all of the time, it does help and we know it has ended up turning 'occasional' families into regular worshippers.

Occasions we invite people to mark with a return to church include:

anniversary of baptism (every year until 12 years old) sent to the child
invite also sent to the Godparents reminding them of occasion
anniversary of marriage to all couples for first five years at least
annual 'Marriage Sunday' when all couples married for the last 5 years, plus any who have booked for this year and the next, are invited
annual Marriage Celebration Tea Party (with short service)
invite to church everyone for whom we've taken a funeral service on the Sunday nearest the anniversary
everyone who has had a funeral at church in the last 5 years invited to the annual All Souls' Requiem, plus all those who attended last year
church celebration for fathers

All of that in addition to the monthly family service; Christingle; special effort for Mothering Sunday; Rogation walk with blessing of cattle, fields, etc; harvest; Come-and-Sing carols.

When service booklets were produced they were first shown to a non-churchgoer and their views were taken on-board and amendments made as necessary.

No, we're not perfect, but we manage to keep an average Sunday attendance of 9-10% of parish population when adding up children at Sunday School, the 8 o'clockers and main service - and bearing in mind we have a number of second homes that is quite good. We've also recently added a monthly Evensong to the list and so far that is showing good numbers and some people who don't come to the other services; what happens in the winter will be interesting.

Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :

The last time I invited someone to church he said that he liked it but found it too cliquey. Clearly this must be just my denomination but there really is that perception with all churches.

Some people see churches as a kind of Mafia family. And sometimes they literally are families in which the church leaders are related. Nepotism and cronyism may not be sins, but sometimes, when they are insular, they alienate others and cause that cliquey, gang-like mentality. Churches are clearly not a meritocracy but people are not used to that.

They simply do not feel listened to and many of them feel blamed that they do not attend. You can't guilt them into going and play on their consciences - the reward for going has to be greater than the reward of going shopping or doing the hundred and one other things that people do on a Sunday. The complaint 'I'm too busy and don't have time to go to church' is not always an empty excuse.

I understand that it is not usually the Christian's fault either - that we really are trying our best. A lack of success may either make us want to blame each other or else be in denial that there is a problem at all.

People are searching for love and that love can best be expressed in a people who practice what they preach and who are not condescending towards those outside 'the gang'. But gang fights against gang and this is as off putting as the fact that going to church is simply not seen as cool.

So some Christians will say that the reason is that many churches do not share the full gospel. And by 'the full gospel' they mean repentance and sin and hell. But the last I heard, the gospel was the story of Christ's life (and repentance and sin and hell shouldn't be taboo, but they are not the gospel).

People relate to stories, so it is these which should be used in churches. Tell stories, tell the story of Christ. Why won't this attract people?

When I first became a Christian I longed for my church to simply talk about Christ. About his life, who he was, what he did. That kind of gentleness is so lacking in places. But that kind of gentle storytelling can change a mind better than any sledgehammer of a sermon on hell, sin and repentance.

Every week many of us do the same things and I think the problem is that many of us are in denial that there even is a problem. And that may not be our fault, but do we listen to those with half-decent ideas? Or do you have to be a Christian leader to have any kind of voice?

[ 01. June 2015, 10:11: Message edited by: Alyosha ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I suppose the question we don't ask is, 'is the church I go to so exciting that I look forward to Sunday and wakes up on Sunday morning thrilled by the thought that today I can go and meet God there'?

In a quiet way, yes. But I am bit of a saddo like that.

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
The last time I invited someone to church he said that he liked it but found it too cliquey. Clearly this must be just my denomination but there really is that perception with all churches.

Some people see churches as a kind of Mafia family. And sometimes they literally are families in which the church leaders are related. Nepotism and cronyism may not be sins, but sometimes, when they are insular, they alienate others and cause that cliquey, gang-like mentality. Churches are clearly not a meritocracy but people are not used to that.

They simply do not feel listened to and many of them feel blamed that they do not attend. You can't guilt them into going and play on their consciences - the reward for going has to be greater than the reward of going shopping or doing the hundred and one other things that people do on a Sunday. The complaint 'I'm too busy and don't have time to go to church' is not always an empty excuse.

I understand that it is not usually the Christian's fault either - that we really are trying our best. A lack of success may either make us want to blame each other or else be in denial that there is a problem at all.

People are searching for love and that love can best be expressed in a people who practice what they preach and who are not condescending towards those outside 'the gang'. But gang fights against gang and this is as off putting as the fact that going to church is simply not seen as cool.

So some Christians will say that the reason is that many churches do not share the full gospel. And by 'the full gospel' they mean repentance and sin and hell. But the last I heard, the gospel was the story of Christ's life (and repentance and sin and hell shouldn't be taboo, but they are not the gospel).

People relate to stories, so it is these which should be used in churches. Tell stories, tell the story of Christ. Why won't this attract people?

When I first became a Christian I longed for my church to simply talk about Christ. About his life, who he was, what he did. That kind of gentleness is so lacking in places. But that kind of gentle storytelling can change a mind better than any sledgehammer of a sermon on hell, sin and repentance.

Every week many of us do the same things and I think the problem is that many of us are in denial that there even is a problem. And that may not be our fault, but do we listen to those with half-decent ideas? Or do you have to be a Christian leader to have any kind of voice?

Great post,Alyosha. This expresses my thoughts on the subject much better than I ever could.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think there's some kind of 'disconnect' now - right across the board in terms of churchmanships and traditions - and we've yet to work out a way around that.

For instance, our local parish, very evangelical, seems to work on the premise that regular, weekly attendance, home-groups, Bible studies and social activities mid-week - and lots going on (even at the risk of stretching the small number of regular volunteers to the limit) is somehow 'the norm' ...

It's not at all 'geared up' to the occasional attender or people like me who've seen it all before and aren't really bothered about going to 'comedy nights' where everyone is exhorted to invite friends and family - nor any of the other social events for that matter.

I have a social life outside of church, thank you very much - I have no desire to attend sub-standard and half-baked attempts to 'have fun' at church ...

Nor am I that interested in going to any of the so-called 'growth groups' nor the prayer meetings - because both of them do my head in and I can't sit through the 'Lord, we really just ...' prayers and the dumbed-down Bible studies.

I recognise that this puts me out on a limb and the kind of friendships that SvitlanaV2 has alluded to are unlikely to develop.

Time was, back in my full-on charismatic evangelical days when virtually all my non-working, non-family moments (as it were) were taken up with church activities.

Now, with the kids grown or growing up, I'm far more involved with non-church activities ... creative writing groups, I chair an arts committee, I'm on the town council ...

All of which I see as much of an outworking of my faith as attending church services.

I really wish they would follow the lectionary at our parish church. I'm not in the least interested in the vicar's silly preaching themes which are simply the same old-ground pietistic stuff I heard years and years ago as a student.

If they followed the lectionary, I could at least dip in and out and know where I 'was' - because I'd be following the readings at home in my daily devotions.

As it is, other than the prominent feasts and festivals, you'd get no idea where you were unless you attended every single week.

Ok - that's just me - it's not the same for the families with young kids who go to the Messy Church stuff and those who seem to enjoy the various social events that I wouldn't touch with a barge-pole ...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I'm not sure how typical we are, but I reckon our regular attendance is about 30 Sundays a year. We have a far flung family, key members still at work, and so keeping in touch requires us to be away from home for either long weekends or a week at a time. often the visits have to be arranged or rearranged at short notice, because of work complexities.

For these reasons, we came off all church rotas to avoid making promises we were unable in practice to keep. Our church membership is a 40 year thing, we have a lot of affection for the members and get as often as we can.

I've found analogous stories amongst our friends. A regular Sunday commitment is becoming more difficult for many. Apathy and indifference have very little to do with this in our experience; it seems to be much more a fact of life in our mobile, flexible-working-hours, society. I think these sociological factors may be more important than service content.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think Alyosha makes a good point that people are searching for love, but I'm not sure that I would look for it in a church. I used to be very involved in a central London church, and helped the rector with loads of things. But it was a curiously lonely place, although no doubt for some people it was important. I don't see a lot of church activities as about intimacy, but then not everybody wants that. And then God - well, it depends on where you think he/she appears. The rector used to say that God was hammering on the door, trying to get in, well, not really.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

But this is what I like: People know my name. They keep to the lectionary. They preach the lectionary. They always have communion. There is plenty of space for God.
And I thought that this world and everything in it was in God, given that He is infinite and we are not. Show me a space without God.

Show me a space where we have time and prompts to see the God whio is there. That's Church.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Enoch:

quote:
I suppose the question we don't ask is, 'is the church I go to so exciting that I look forward to Sunday and wakes up on Sunday morning thrilled by the thought that today I can go and meet God there'?

Steady on, old chap - remember we're British*...

Subdued but dignified handclap, that's the ticket. None of this leaping about shouting "Hallelujah!" [Two face]

I do look forward to Sundays, as a matter of fact. If I don't go to church for some reason (illness, holidays, whatever) I feel like I've lost my anchor. But how to get that across to someone who doesn't go to church already?

*well, some of us are.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I have a horrible feeling that I'm going to throw a spanner into the polite works of this thread. For I must be honest: as a serving Minister, dedicated to leading and “building up” the church, I find this erratic attendance both disheartening and soul-destroying. During the week people blithely inform me, “Sorry, Pastor, but you won’t be seeing us this Sunday”, and my heart progressively sinks until, on Sunday morning, I sometimes wonder why I bother turning up at all, and why people expect me to lead worship “come rain, come shine”, when they themselves do not apparently have that commitment.

But why has this come to pass? I don’t think that there is one single reason. One is clearly the great variety of uses to which Sunday is now put; while Saturday is the day for shopping and domestic chores, Sunday seems to be the preferred day for all sorts of activities, especially in the summer. And one can’t really begrudge that, as one certainly wouldn’t want to return to the dreary Sunday afternoons so beautifully portrayed in “Hancock’s Half-Hour” over 50 years ago. Alongside that, of course, are the demands made by employers for flexible rostering of their staff; Sunday is now a work day for many.

I think there are some other issues involved, of course. People are increasingly mobile so can easily go off to visit an “attraction” or family members than once was the case. Equally, families have become much more geographically spread out, so a visit to see the grandchildren doesn’t just mean popping round the corner to the next street but a journey of many miles. (I sometimes do think that “family” has become the new religion of some folks; I know that the Church should promote family life but it sometimes appears to me have become too sacrosanct. But I digress).

I wonder, though, if there are deeper underlying issues. One is that present-day culture extols “choice” rather than “duty” – so “going to church” requires making a conscious decision every time, with it having to be weighed up against other options for the day. In the past no thought was required: attendance at worship was “what one did” or one’s “bounden duty”; other activities for the day had to be fitted in around it. I think this was particularly true in Nonconformist households, and possibly for Catholics too (although perhaps with slightly different motivations).

Coupled to this is the sense that Christianity has virtually become a “leisure” or “discretionary” interest, increasingly part of one’s private world. I go to church; you go walking in the country; she goes to watch football. I think that this is to be decried, as to me the Faith means far more than that. But, somehow, that attitude does seem to have seeped in to so many Christians’ thinking – you may, of course, disagree!

In a sense what we need to get back to is of faith being absolutely fundamental and important to us – and worshipping together being seen as basic to that. The writer to the Hebrews exhorted his readers to “not forsake gathering together, as some do” – considering he was writing 2000 years ago, he was remarkably prescient!

Of course I’d not want our churches to become cult-like in pressurising members to attend. But IMHO a laissez-faire approach has somehow crept in to all but the strictest, or newest, churches; while I recognise all the many points that have been raised upthread, it does seem to come down to a question of commitment and priorities, as we all manage to do the things we want to do.

I could say more: for instance, about churches adapting the timing of their services to make them more “user-friendly” – though what is better for some will inevitably less convenient for others. There is also, as others have hinted, something to do with the quality of worship; if our services can be so constructed that they reek of the numinous and touch the infinite from start to finish, they might be more attractive, especially in our modern culture which so values experience. (Having said that, there is something about church life which is also very down-to-earth and mundane; we are not in the business of lifting people to the seventh heaven or the Mount of Transfiguration, at least not every week!)

Yes, I know I've ranted. So here is a story to finish. A senior Baptist Minister of my acquaintance began his sermon by saying, “I sometimes think that the Devil invented caravans”. Of course the whole congregation – doubtless thinking of being stuck behind a slow-moving car and caravan on a twisting road – sat up and listened. He then explained how, in his former church, one man used to inform him every Easter that he and his wife would be out with their caravan virtually every weekend until the Autumn, and wouldn’t be at church. The point of the sermon was this: how can a church build up any sense of community and shared purpose if people are simply not present?

For being part of a church is not just what “I” do; it’s about being part of the Body of Christ. And that does need our time and commitment.

[ 01. June 2015, 13:14: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

There was a time when church was the essential venue for social connection. The people you met at work (if you worked) were one group, and your neighbors were another. But there were very few other ways to meet people. (You can see this in period fiction. What did the teenaged Laura Ingalls Wilder do when she wanted to meet people? She went to the church social.)
Nowadays if you are a young person overtly or covertly looking for connection you have many, many other avenues, many that don't even involve getting up out of bed. You can stay in your room and swipe right.
And that is why I believe my kids do not go to church. They have other social outlets.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

As churchgoing has declined, so it will decline. Let me unpack that with an example. Since the vast majority of members are not church-goers, when does my cycling club hold its main club rides? Why, Sunday morning of course. When the largest number of members are free.

Which would present me with more of a dilemma were not our church's services (a) only twice a month, and (b) at lunchtime.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

And, if young people don't go to church, then where do young people go to meet other young people (in the flesh)? Well, not to church. So it's a chicken/egg phenomenon.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Or indeed especially in the flesh...

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

What is seen as wrong with the Church telling people that it is wrong not to attend on Sunday, without a good reason?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
What is seen as wrong with the Church telling people that it is wrong not to attend on Sunday, without a good reason?

The fact that we tend to respond with "Really? Says who?"

Which is actually my response. Who says it's wrong? Why?

[ 01. June 2015, 13:45: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

It's up there with visiting your parents. It's obvious why it's wrong not to.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by KarlLB

quote:
As churchgoing has declined, so it will decline. Let me unpack that with an example. Since the vast majority of members are not church-goers, when does my cycling club hold its main club rides? Why, Sunday morning of course. When the largest number of members are free.

Got it in one.

When I was growing up (late 50s-60s) there was nothing to do by way of 'going out' on a Sunday morning other than church; even in the afternoon activities were strictly limited to perhaps a sports club or maybe the cinema (though ours only opened at 6pm on a Sunday). Face it, Sundays in my youth were, likely as not, pretty dull.

The church of the time thought that all those people were there because of conviction and made precious little attempt to entertain or enlighten - and some of that attitude is still prevalent among clergy and ministers.

The clergy, in particular, need to face the fact that churchgoing is seen as a 'leisure activity' (look at any 'lifestyle' survey and that is where they put churchgoing or religious activity) and, as such, is up against other leisure activities - cinemas, shopping, sports clubs and activities, etc, etc, etc. So we're asking people to choose to come to us, rather than do something or go somewhere else.

And in many churches what do they find if they venture in? A physically cold building (possibly with areas obviously uncleaned and untidy), uncomfortable seating, out-of-date instruction booklets (probably tatty too), amateurish music, stumbling announcements about events comprehensible only to those already 'in-the-know'; and the whole thing capped off with an appeal for money.

Faced with that, would you venture in? Chances are most of us would creep away and hope to escape without notice.

All that before we even get onto the image of the organisation - anyone for headship, etc?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
I thought that this world and everything in it was in God, given that He is infinite and we are not. Show me a space without God.
Show me a space where we have time and prompts to see the God whio is there. That's Church.

Yup, out in the woods, that's where time stops and you know God. [Smile]

One problem is, many churches think all people are the same and should respond the same way to whatever it is they offer, so if formal smells & bells liturgy (or dancing in place with hands in the air) turns you off, "there's something wrong with you. You need to change. you need to be like us." Church becomes a scolding place, by looks if not words.

I'd like to see more acceptance that different personalities engage with God differently, and even some guidance which style of church you might fit well in.

But also, and here I'm reacting to the news that "my" church is making a CD of the band doing familiar songs so we can use it in summer when the (hired) band leader goes on vacation, I'd like to see more invitation to "try your hand" at various things. I'll bet several in the congregation would enjoy being in a summer band or try leading one week. But to the security minded "we have to know everything will be perfectly smooth" it's too risky.

Similarly, how hard or easy is it for a lay person to start an interest group, like maybe a Christian philosophy discussion group? Many churches have high barriers, in the local TEC only seminary grads lead an adult Bible study, in my other church there are four key holders and if none of them wants to attend you can't have the group in the building and can't mention it in the bulletin if it's not in the building.

An inviting environment is not a greeter at the door, it's making it easy for people to get involved in ways they value. To me.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
It's up there with visiting your parents. It's obvious why it's wrong not to.

No it isn't. If it were, you'd not have to try to persuade people.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
It's up there with visiting your parents. It's obvious why it's wrong not to.

I think this gives some insight into why people don't go to church. To be told that you ought to, is a right turn-off. And I spent my working life saying to people that it's OK not to see your parents, and it's OK to see them. I blame postmodernism.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
I thought that this world and everything in it was in God, given that He is infinite and we are not. Show me a space without God.
Show me a space where we have time and prompts to see the God whio is there. That's Church.
Yup, out in the woods, that's where time stops and you know God.

Well it's not only church, of course. I had an intensely prayerful time walking my dog through the park the other morning. But that's what church is there for, and what it does, done properly- whatever your church style. (And if your preferred place for finding God is the woods, I think you run the risk of having a very rosy and disneyfied view of nature. I'm with +Charles Gore, who said that going to the zoo made him an atheist in five minutes- and I don't think he meant that to be a comment on the rights or wrongs of keeping animals in captivity.)

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

But you know, if we actually believe all this stuff--that God became a man, that he came to rescue us, that the church is a new thing he is doing on the earth and is more like a body than a social club--that we are God's witnesses, God's servants, sent to act in the world--then why wouldn't we go to church, along with a whole lot of other lifestyle changes? Church somewhere, somewhen--I'm not going to say that a particular congregation might not be toxic or that an individual Christian might not have excellent idiosyncratic reasons for avoiding church. But if the whole lot of us across the board really believed all this stuff, there'd be no question of classifying church as a leisure activity. It would make people spurt coffee through their noses to read it.

That's why I'm thinking that the primary trouble (Yes, there are lots of others) is that by and large we don't (as a group) tend to take "all that stuff" seriously. YMMV and all that. But if only 10 to 15% of a congregation's membership is turning up on a Sunday, and there's not been some major earthquake or something, well, damn.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
I thought that this world and everything in it was in God, given that He is infinite and we are not. Show me a space without God.
Show me a space where we have time and prompts to see the God whio is there. That's Church.
Yup, out in the woods, that's where time stops and you know God.

Well it's not only church, of course. I had an intensely prayerful time walking my dog through the park the other morning. But that's what church is there for, and what it does, done properly- whatever your church style. (And if your preferred place for finding God is the woods, I think you run the risk of having a very rosy and disneyfied view of nature. I'm with +Charles Gore, who said that going to the zoo made him an atheist in five minutes- and I don't think he meant that to be a comment on the rights or wrongs of keeping animals in captivity.)

But this strikes me as absurd. You are defining certain places as proper places for God, and others as not proper. Eh? It just sounds circular to me, or an argument ad populum.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I think IngoB is right, people don't go to Church because they are not bothered with God.

They may have been enthusiastic once, but that has waned into a 'take it or leave it' attitude.

I know, because this is very much my attitude. I still go because I love the people there and it's great socialisation for my Guide Dog puppy. She is well and truly into it and even stands and sits when we all do! Godly Dog.

God? I talk to him now and again, but he doesn't respond.

(eta, I think I have confused threads, but the point is the same)

[ 01. June 2015, 15:34: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

No I'm not, quetzelcoatl. Certainly any place may be a place where God is encountered- people have, I believe, encountered God in extermination camps- but I am saying that some places can be made deliberately conducive to an encounter with God. That is what organised worship is, or should be, about (and places that have been regularly prayed in over time do have a particular ambience- "A serious house on serious ground" as i think Larkin puts it- I'm quoting from memory).

[ 01. June 2015, 15:37: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
No I'm not, quetzelcoatl. Certainly any place may be a place where God is encountered- people have, I believe, encountered God in extermination camps- but I am saying that some places can be made deliberately conducive to an encounter with God. That is what organised worship is, or should be, about (and places that have been regularly prayed in over time do have a particular ambience- "A serious house on serious ground" as i think Larkin puts it- I'm quoting from memory).

Deliberately conducive? Well, I will bite my lip.

Here is Addison:

I AM always very well pleased with a country Sunday; and think, if keeping holy the seventh day were only a human institution, it would be the best method that could have been thought of for the polishing and civilizing of mankind. It is certain the country-people would soon degenerate into a kind of savages and barbarians, were there not such frequent returns of a stated time, in which the whole village meet together with their best faces, and in their cleanliest habits, to converse with one another upon indifferent subjects, hear their duties explained to them, and join together in adoration of the Supreme Being. Sunday clears away the rust of the whole week, not only as it refreshes in their minds the notions of religion, but as it puts both the sexes upon appearing in their most agreeable forms, and exerting all such qualities as are apt to give them a figure in the eye of the village. ('Sir Roger at church', Spectator, 1711).

Beautifully written, of course, but I wonder if you can see the rot setting in here, in terms of your encounter with God.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Well now, those essays were affectionately humorous imitations of the views of a particular kind of country squire, weren't they?

[ 01. June 2015, 15:53: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

More like an excuse to wear their Sunday Best.

Clothes are far cleaner and easier to wear these days. Looking smart-ish is no big deal.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There was a time when church was the essential venue for social connection. The people you met at work (if you worked) were one group, and your neighbors were another. But there were very few other ways to meet people. (You can see this in period fiction. What did the teenaged Laura Ingalls Wilder do when she wanted to meet people? She went to the church social.)
Nowadays if you are a young person overtly or covertly looking for connection you have many, many other avenues, many that don't even involve getting up out of bed. You can stay in your room and swipe right.
And that is why I believe my kids do not go to church. They have other social outlets.

Yes. Similarly, church was also often the primary place to make useful economic or political connections, whereas again, today, there are better ways to do that.

Given that the purpose and intent of the Church is none of those things, it may be that the decline in attendance is not so much a negative as simply a refining of purpose and intent. Those who remain are those who are clear on the purpose and eager to be a part of that. Doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to focus on attracting those on the fringes, but does suggest IMHO that we shouldn't do so in the same ways we did in the past (drumming up another social activity or opportunity to make business contacts)-- partly because it doesn't work, but more so because it only distracts from our core purpose.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I would add- missed the edit window- that I don't think that encountering God and encountering your neighbours displayed at their best are incompatible with each other in fact, quite the reverse, especially if we understand 'displayed at their best' in its broadest sense.
Francis Spufford describes the average CofE Sunday morning congregation after the service- rather different from Sir Roger de Coverley's villagers, it's true- as a rather various group of people balancing their coffee cups and biscuits and making conversation about anything at all except religion but crucially and perhaps without articulating it trying to see each other as God sees them. IME that can be very true.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Well now, those essays were affectionately humorous imitations of the views of a particular kind of country squire, weren't they?

Yes, a beautiful blend of affection and comedy. But doesn't it say something about the English religion? We could go to Austen as well, but maybe it's unfair to cite satire.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I would add- missed the edit window- that I don't think that encountering God and encountering your neighbours displayed at their best are incompatible with each other in fact, quite the reverse, especially if we understand 'displayed at their best' in its broadest sense.
Francis Spufford describes the average CofE Sunday morning congregation after the service- rather different from Sir Roger de Coverley's villagers, it's true- as a rather various group of people balancing their coffee cups and biscuits and making conversation about anything at all except religion but crucially and perhaps without articulating it trying to see each other as God sees them. IME that can be very true.

Well, one of my old tutors used to say that the English were immensely intimate people, hence the cup of tea as a social lubricant, now coffee, maybe. I agree with that. There you are, you have converted me.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Of course, what makes that Addison passage that you shared with us so effective is that it does contain a deal of truth. But in a fallen world, that's not doing badly. And I am sure that, even without the lubrication of coffee, you and I would have no difficulty trying to see each other as God sees us. [Smile]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Of course, what makes that Addison passage that you shared with us so effective is that it does contain a deal of truth. But in a fallen world, that's not doing badly. And I am sure that, even without the lubrication of coffee, you and I would have no difficulty trying to see each other as God sees us.

Well, old Joe had this amazing facility for balancing between accuracy and exaggeration, with a kind of delicate surface tension over it all. It's incredibly hard to copy, for sure.

I just wonder if it exposes something rotten in English religion, see also Mr Collins in Emma, and most of the Austen vicars, except in Mansfield Park, when supposedly Jane had been bitten by the evangelical bug, and the critics of vicars are themselves satirized as modern vandals, (Crawfords). But it's not news that 18th century religion was partly fashion.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

It is also worth bearing in mind with Austen that her father and two of her brothers were vicars and she often wrote to amuse her family.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
It is also worth bearing in mind with Austen that her father and two of her brothers were vicars and she often wrote to amuse her family.

She was also clever at hiding/revealing her hatred at various aspects of life. I would think that the hypocritical vicar might be one target, along with crap mothers.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
What is seen as wrong with the Church telling people that it is wrong not to attend on Sunday, without a good reason?

Well we did. We anglo-catholics talked about 'Sunday obligation' but we do no better than MOTR in having many who turn up about once every 3-4 weeks.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
some places can be made deliberately conducive to an encounter with God. That is what organised worship is, or should be, about...

As someone quoted Madelaine L'Engle upthread, church can have the opposite effect. I come home from church stripped of any sense that God is interesting or matters; a month of regular attendance turns my personality deeply irritable or temporarily turns me unto an atheist. When I hear "You must go to church" what I hear is "we want to take God away from you."

I mostly stay away because I really do believe Jesus matters, and I dislike the church stripping me of that awareness.

As to

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
if your preferred place for finding God is the woods, I think you run the risk of having a very rosy and disneyfied view of nature. I'm with +Charles Gore, who said that going to the zoo made him an atheist in five minutes-

Thanks for the example of belittling someone for not loving formal church. That kind of judgmental dismissive ignorant statement convinces the non-church goer that church rejects them, nothing to see here, just scoldings for being real.

Why not instead, when running into someone who claims to love God and dislike church, try to learn more? Might be eyeopening to understand how one can see God in and through the bear that invaded the camp at night, the hailstorm huddled in a tent, the near fall into a boiling hot spring, the ticks and mosquitoes with their deadly diseases, the deadly poisonous snake crossing the trail two feet in front of you, the big cat print beside your tent in the morning, and awareness every year some people are killed by wildlife on this month long trail you are hiking.

Maybe those who become atheists at awareness of the violence of nature have a Disneyfied view of God from all that safe hymn singing and coffee in church? [Smile]

I accept (however puzzled) that some people best connect with God in/through formal church; why can't church lovers accept that some people best connect with God in a wholly different environment?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Great post, Belle Ringer.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

That was a cheap shot of mine. In mitigation, I may say that people belittling (as i see it) church hurts and annoys me as much as my belittling (as you see it) your manner of worship plainly hurts and annoys you. But, sorry, Belle Ringer.

[ 01. June 2015, 19:47: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
It's up there with visiting your parents. It's obvious why it's wrong not to.

I only visit my parents once or twice a month.

Posted by frin (# 9) on :

When I was a student, a friend commented that the church she went to thought of her as 'vaguely committed' because she went to it on 1 in 3 sundays, whereas she felt fully committed to that church as she went to it on all the sundays that she was in the city. That seemed a typical pattern for most of my student friends.

A couple of years later it struck me that the big change happening in the churches was that the baby boomers had also fallen into the same pattern - they were always at church unless on a cruise, visiting the grandchildren, away looking after their parents. As families extend across more generations and a greater geography, this effect becomes more visible.

The most elderly congregants keep the old pattern of in church every sunday, with a few exceptions for long planned holidays. But for the majority of a congregation, there are regular reasons for not being at home and that filters through for church attendance. I suspect if you ask your irregular attenders what they do on other sundays, it probably is not 'have a lie in'.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

At our church, we have a couple who moved into the area about 12 months ago. They are quite committed to the church and one of them is now on the Parish Council. If we see them at church two weeks running, I am surprised - especially in the summer months. They are both keen bowlers (of the lawn variety!) and so many weekends are spent playing or officiating in tournaments.

(Who am I to say to them - "you should be at church on a Sunday morning, rather than fraternising with all those godless heathens"?!)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

I accept (however puzzled) that some people best connect with God in/through formal church; why can't church lovers accept that some people best connect with God in a wholly different environment?

Most people aren't called to be hermits. For most people (even people like me who are basically antisocial introverts), I think a worshipping community is important, and I think worshipping in community is important.

That doesn't necessarily require formal liturgy, or a special building, but it does require a community of fellow Christians.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

I accept (however puzzled) that some people best connect with God in/through formal church; why can't church lovers accept that some people best connect with God in a wholly different environment?
Most people aren't called to be hermits. For most people (even people like me who are basically antisocial introverts), I think a worshipping community is important, and I think worshipping in community is important.

That doesn't necessarily require formal liturgy, or a special building, but it does require a community of fellow Christians.

But that neatly avoids Belle Ringer's question. Maybe some Christians don't accept that there are other means of contacting God. I wonder if this connects with shrinking church attendance, that no other approach is even countenanced? My way or the high way.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
That was a cheap shot of mine. In mitigation, I may say that people belittling (as i see it) church hurts and annoys me as much as my belittling (as you see it) your manner of worship plainly hurts and annoys you. But, sorry, Belle Ringer.

Fair enough. [Smile]

Took me years on the Ship to accept that some people really do look forward to going to church! I guess it's human to kinda assume others are "like me" so their motivations for doing (or not doing) something are what mine would be?

In discussions of "why aren't people coming to church," it can be hard to focus on how do others think, engage, order competing values and what are the benefits of their ways instead of the usual dismissive accusations "they are lazy, they don't want to get up," etc that don't help identify the real issues.

Besides, if people are dismissing and devaluing God, maybe there's a basic mis-education out there about who God is? Can the church can work on addressing that in the public sphere? Most of my atheist friends rejected God because of who they were taught God is. (I, too, reject that God.)

How does a church help teach the culture about God's greatness, gentleness, firmness, amazing love, in a culture that teaches a brutal, ineffective, or irrelevant god through movies, comics, novels, TV etc?

I would say most of my younger generation friends don't specifically reject God, they never give the concept of a god any thought; if there is a God that seems to be irrelevant.

Communicate the relevance of God to our lives today, and people who catch on will look for ways to address that relevance; some may look to church. I think trying to attract (or guilt) people to church is backwards.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I dunno ... there are so many variables here and everyone's different so I'm not sure if there is any easily identifiable set of answers to the questions you're posing, Belle Ringer.

All I can say is that however we cut it, if people are true to their convictions then the 'authenticity' of that will shine through in some way - whether people chose to accept or reject it, to ignore it or to explore it some more.

I recently had lunch with a chap I work with freelance now and again. One side of his family is strongly evangelical - in a rather traditional, full-on 1950s conservative evangelical kind of way. He finds them very off-putting ... yet, at the funeral of one of his cousins - who'd died at an untimely age - he'd been blown away by what he'd seen as the depth and integrity of his relatives' faith.

You can see that it had made a marked - and I would say indelible - impression upon him - for all the clumsiness of the approach and the out-of-synch old-fashionedness of the whole thing.

Or, perhaps because of that as well as inspite of that.

Whatever the case, it was clear that the over-riding impression had transcended any intrinsic naffness in the delivery or the 'packaging' if you like.

My colleague had seen something he took to be very, very real - and openly said that he was now on some kind of spiritual quest whereas he hadn't been up until that moment - and some other recent occurrences that had made him think.

I don't know how we 'translate' that into programmes and methodology - I'm not sure we can. But whatever the case, this chap had clearly been deeply affected.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Currently attending church every week is a struggle due to the combination of chronic illness and living in a rural area (my church not being my local church). I still love church - there are lots of Christians/interested people out there not physically able to get to church (or their local church is very unsuitable), but the parish priest coming to administer the Eucharist is not really what they want or need.

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
What is seen as wrong with the Church telling people that it is wrong not to attend on Sunday, without a good reason?
Well we did. We anglo-catholics talked about 'Sunday obligation' but we do no better than MOTR in having many who turn up about once every 3-4 weeks.

The pragmatic problem with telling people that they should turn up every Sunday is that the ones you need to impress that on won't be there on the Sunday that you choose to tell 'em!!
Anecdotally, it seems that a lot of parents have problems with Church vs kids sports activities.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Anecdotal maybe, but certainly true as far as Our Place is concerned.

My gut feeling is that this is simply something we have to live with, however much I personally may deplore the (apparent) lack of commitment of other people (and who am I to judge, anyway?)! Their lives and circumstances are not mine.

Our p-in-c says that he doesn't worry too much as long as (a) the Sacraments are celebrated, (b) the Word preached, and (c) those who are ill - or missing for a week or so - contacted and/or visited. At least the latter is not too hard a task, given a small congregation to start with....

Ian J.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The Bible doesn't lay down many rules about Christian rituals. Obviously, far more detail is given about Jewish ones. This means it's pretty well left to tradition, to groups of Christians, and ultimately to individuals, to decide exactly what they're going to do.

So the 'duty' to go to church every week seems to be more of a social or a legal imperative (depending on the culture in question) than a biblical one. I think the habit is primarily important because it strengthens the bonds between members of the Christian community, but in theory, all the benefits of churchgoing could take place away from what we call 'church'.

Communion is sometimes described by Anglicans here as the key purpose of the church gathering, but AFAIK the CofE doesn't generally present Communion as a reason why the lay Christian should worship more often. And the Protestant churches don't either - which makes sense, because many of them don't offer Communion every week. Some churchgoers make a special attempt to get to a Communion service, but are they better attended than other services, on the whole?

As things stand, I feel that church communities have been inarticulate for centuries about why weekly churchgoing is seriously important for every Christian. This may be because they're never been entirely clear about the reasons themselves. The most obvious reasons for going don't necessarily seem to be the most 'spiritual', which may explain some of the hesitancy.

[ 04. June 2015, 22:58: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
It's not that people have abandoned us, moved away, died, become Jedi, or gone off in a huff - it's just that attendance at Church - even amongst the 'committed' - seems to be a low priority. I do acknowledge, of course, that for some, pressures of work or family are a problem, but this irregularity does seem to be getting worse.

I was a regular until the choir director moved rehearsal from Thursday evening to Sunday morning at 8 am. I dropped out of the choir, and soon found that singing was the only thing that had been keeping me in church. I haven't attended regularly for about a year.

I have continued to support the church financially, however, and I suppose that's why I'm on the list of people to be personally solicited to contribute to the capital campaign. There is apparently no list of people to be personally asked why they are almost never in church anymore, so I'm not motivated to increase the frequency of my attendance.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
quetzalcoatl: Church too wordy now for me

(This is rather funny coming someone who is regularly on the Ship [Smile]

)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
quetzalcoatl: Church too wordy now for me
(This is rather funny coming someone who is regularly on the Ship )

You mean that the Ship is like a church? Well ...

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

So the 'duty' to go to church every week seems to be more of a social or a legal imperative (depending on the culture in question) than a biblical one.

I believe the lack of specific biblical imperatives re church-going (altho there are one or two) has more to do with the difference of a communal society vs. a highly individualistic one, rather than a lack of significance to the ritual itself. In a very communal society there would be no need to urge people to spend time in community-- the benefits are obvious. This can still be seen in many parts of the world that are more communal than we are-- e.g. parts of Africa and South America, where 4+ hour church services are the norm, and eagerly attended.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

So the 'duty' to go to church every week seems to be more of a social or a legal imperative (depending on the culture in question) than a biblical one. I think the habit is primarily important because it strengthens the bonds between members of the Christian community, but in theory, all the benefits of churchgoing could take place away from what we call 'church'.

...As things stand, I feel that church communities have been inarticulate for centuries about why weekly churchgoing is seriously important for every Christian. This may be because they're never been entirely clear about the reasons themselves. The most obvious reasons for going don't necessarily seem to be the most 'spiritual', which may explain some of the hesitancy.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think the habit is primarily important because it strengthens the bonds between members of the Christian community, but in theory, all the benefits of churchgoing could take place away from what we call 'church'.

I would rather just broaden my definition of "church" to include other, less formal, gatherings of Christians.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

...As things stand, I feel that church communities have been inarticulate for centuries about why weekly churchgoing is seriously important for every Christian. This may be because they're never been entirely clear about the reasons themselves. The most obvious reasons for going don't necessarily seem to be the most 'spiritual', which may explain some of the hesitancy.

While I don't agree that the reasons for attending church are not all that "spiritual", I agree that we haven't done a good job of articulating the, which is the whole problem in a nutshell.

[ 05. June 2015, 16:04: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
quetzalcoatl: Church too wordy now for me
(This is rather funny coming someone who is regularly on the Ship )
You mean that the Ship is like a church? Well ...

Yes. Including it's wordiness.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

In my experience here, church is no longer cultural.

The old prevailing culture included church attendance. For socialising, for living, for the norm. Hence the disparaging term 'cultural Christians'.

These days Church is not the norm. Those who go, don't go out of civic responsibility or pattern. But theoretically have a greater commitment to the church.

Me, well my theology moved away from the church.
I am tired of the judgemental shallow ignorance presented week after week in the pews.

I prefer my judgemental deeper ignorance.

But seriously, it is only that I care about some of the congregation that keeps me attending infrequently at all. I give at work, and I am not sustained in the church- merely asked of more and more. I have no more to give.

If you want me back regularly, make me a community to be proud of and feel a part of. And no, I will not make it for you. that is not where I am at currently.

[ 06. June 2015, 02:11: Message edited by: Patdys ]

Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :

Just this. For me church is everywhere I am with people, and life itself has become my perpetual hymn of praise to my Saviour.

Things that lift my spirit more often happen outside church buildings than inside. Three white cockatoos just wheeled past my window, weaving in and out of each other and calling raucously - somehow the Trinity came to mind and this made me smile.

I feel utterly at home among any group of Christians who attempt to worship in spirit and in truth.

It is never about my comfort when I attend a church service: it is about being open to however God chooses to stretch my understanding that day. I have found that I do miss the liturgy and the sacrament of my cradle faith if I tarry too long elsewhere, so eventually I return to a more formal mode of church. I attend monthly in order to serve and to receive word and sacrament in time honoured fashion. But I have "church" experiences all the time in other organisations where I volunteer.

It is my experience that churches are best kept at arms length to survive them well. I have witnessed churches being torn apart by personality issues, and I know from friends in other denominations that this is not uncommon. I am not even sure that the form of church we have today is what Jesus would want for us.

Loving it in its present form is very challenging. I look forward to seeing significant change in the near future, but I do not underestimate how difficult that will be.

BL. Going on with God, come what may, and often despite what is happening in church.

[ 06. June 2015, 03:35: Message edited by: Banner Lady ]

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I think it has become very difficult for Joe Blow to decide to come to church when there are much more attractive things to do and the media is constantly telling him that there is no God, that He is just an imaginary friend. To swim against the tide takes great courage and I can see why young people in particular would prefer not to jump in at the deep end. In my city, we too are having to compete with so many other activities that the community has decided can only take place on a Sunday - indeed, there have been fun runs around the streets which entailed closing off street access so that we were unable to enter the church. The attitude of people was "well, can't you just cancel church for once?"
My daughter, an infant school teacher, asked her class to draw a church and several children didn't even know what a church was. I really don't know the answer as society has changed and as someone else said church is seen as an optional leisure activity rather than something as essential as attending work/school.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Baptists (and other Christians from the 15th/16th century Separatist tradition) strongly support the idea of the Church as a "Covenant Community". This does seem to imply a certain discipline in making the effort to sustain that community, including attendance both at Worship and Church (Members') Meetings.

IMO Baptist are possibly better than most at regular church attendance; however participation in Church Meetings has ben on the slide for at least a century, probably due to them turning from an exciting encounter with the guiding Holy Spirit to the boring bureaucracy of official reports and Minutes.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I really don't know the answer as society has changed and as someone else said church is seen as an optional leisure activity rather than something as essential as attending work/school.

This is the bottom line of this thread, as far as I'm concerned.

The problem is that too many Christians prefer to bemoan the fact and hope that church will one day become essential again ("a Revival is coming!") rather than accepting it and making the necessary adaptions that will encourage people to come back through the doors. What was it St Paul said: "to the Romans I am a Roman, to the Greeks I am a Greek" or something similar? Well maybe to the 21st Century Western World we need to be a bit more 21st Century Western World?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I suppose we do. Lord, how I hate the 21st century western world. But it's the one we're stuck in.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Yep. But the only way to change it is to engage with it.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Indeed, however much some of wish we didn't have to.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

I think there are many people out there who hate the 21st century western world and are desperately looking for a radically different way of living, but the church is not really offering it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

One of the things that has struck me recently as I have consciously 're-engaged' with people I knew from my more full-on 'restorationist' charismatic days -- not that I have consciously avoided these people but I know live in a different part of the country -- is how many of them still have their faith yet aren't engaged in church in any formal sense.

'There's only so many sermons you can listen to,' one said to me the other day.

All traditions have issues with what we might call 'spiritual formation' and also retention. The Methodist mother of a former work colleague stopped going to church in her 60s on the grounds that she'd attended so much in your youth that this had built up a 'bank' of attendance, as it were - and so she no longer needed to carry on doing so ...

[Confused]

It's easy to laugh at instances like this, but I do think they illustrate a deeper malaise. I'm not entirely convinced - contra Baptist Trainfan - that the 'church meeting' in Baptist/Congregationalist terms was any more pneumatic or exciting 50 or 100 years ago than there are today - although I suspect he's right to some extent as there would have been something of a 'frisson' involved in making your own collective decisions in a world where you were pretty much 'told' what to do in most working and social environments ... 'pull that lever on that loom, heft that bale ...'

That's not to knock the concept of the 'church meeting', simply to suggest that it's no longer as 'radical' or exciting as it may once have seemed.

A friend of mine who is involved with theological education in one of the 'new church' networks complained recently about his encounter with some Anglicans - it was in connection with developing some training modules based on CofE models - who'd sniffily observed that they'd been involved with the Christian Union at university but had since 'moved beyond all that ...'

I could understand his distaste for their attitude, but put it to him that for all the sniffiness and snobbery, could it not be that they had a point? When you drop a stone into the CU tub it's not long before you hear the clang as it hits the other side.

I suspect part of the problem - across all traditions and churchmanships - is that people feel that they've exhausted everything there is on offer when it comes to church attendance and services. There are indeed, only so many sermons you can listen to ... and for those who go in for formal liturgies, that can quickly pale unless you catch the liturgical 'bug'. Many do, of course, but for all those who find depth and meaning in the repetition of familiar words and repeated cycles of themes and patterns, there are equally plenty who tire of it and so turn up only occasionally.

I don't think there's any easy answer - nor do I think it's an issue of apportioning 'blame' necessarily ... because each and every style and form of church has its own equivalent of this tendency.

There's a legitimate spectrum, though, it seems to me, between those 'covenanted' churches where fellowship can become so close and overwhelming that people hardly have any kind of life outside of church - and the kind of pop-in 'filling station' approach you find in some of the more sacramental churches.

There are equal and opposite dangers at both ends of the spectrum. How we strike the right balance and configure our services and modus operandi to the more fluid conditions of 21st century life, I don't know. But it's worth a try ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think that's true Touchstone ...

I'm not sure how the churches can, collectively, demonstrate a radically different way of living unless they became outrageously different to everyone else in an Amish-like sense -- and that would simply be to introduce a different set of problems.

I'm convinced, though, that many people are spending far too much time in the pews and not enough out involved in the world ...

That's a different problem to the one the OP has identified. The OP is all about why there are so many people missing on a Sunday ... one might equally ask why Christians are missing from stuff that goes on in their communities week by week ...

I well remember reading an article in the Baptist Times by a minister who'd got involved in some kind of social-activism in his community. The bulk of those involved were leftward leaning types on a pretty broad spectrum from moderate left-of-centre types through to full-on Marxists. One of the latter observed to him that whilst it was great to have him on board as a Christian minister, where was the rest of his congregation?

Now, I'm not saying that social activism or leftwing politics are necessarily the right forum for everyone ... but you get my drift.

If all we are doing is gathering on a Sunday then it doesn't matter how exciting, boring, contemporary, ancient or whatever else our services are - nobody's even going to notice us.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
I think there are many people out there who hate the 21st century western world and are desperately looking for a radically different way of living, but the church is not really offering it.

I think so too.

Part of my own take on church attendance/ membership is that it equips me to live my life and especially my attempts to represent Christ to all the people I encounter.

So perhaps part of what we need to address in the church is how to get ourselves to a place where we can make it clear that we offer something of value in equipping people for daily living, something more than self-help techniques, something almost mystical and full of wonder, yet immensely practical too:
ie loving God and our neighbour

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Banner Lady:
I feel utterly at home among any group of Christians who attempt to worship in spirit and in truth.

Me too.

I used to attend Church Sunday on Sunday for a period of about 8 years so no doubt would have been regarded as one of BF's "Usual suspects", (not sure that terminology is the best way to keep committed worshipers BTW).

Having come to Christ through something of a life crisis, Church was like a Hospital to get over myself. I go to Church less frequently now so it could be argued... why keep going to hospital once a person has been made better.

Also I see the Church, for some unknown reason, producing a high rate of depression in it's attendees. So if I feel my own anxiety levels are increasing then that becomes a reason for staying away. There may come a day when I'll cease formal worship altogether, but at the moment I content to support an organisation,albeit infrequently, that supported me when I needed it.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I go to church to receive the sacrament in the company of other Christians. At my church, the sermons are usually interesting, and the music is good, but that's just the icing on the cake.

Moo

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
I think there are many people out there who hate the 21st century western world and are desperately looking for a radically different way of living, but the church is not really offering it.
I think so too.

Part of my own take on church attendance/ membership is that it equips me to live my life and especially my attempts to represent Christ to all the people I encounter.

So perhaps part of what we need to address in the church is how to get ourselves to a place where we can make it clear that we offer something of value in equipping people for daily living, something more than self-help techniques, something almost mystical and full of wonder, yet immensely practical too:
ie loving God and our neighbour

Or perhaps it's about the fact that those people have something to offer the community, something valuable and essential, rather than what the Church has to offer them. Perhaps we're so focused on figuring out what sort of incentives to offer for good attendance that we forget to let them know they are needed (and not just for their $$).

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Or perhaps it's about the fact that those people have something to offer the community, something valuable and essential, rather than what the Church has to offer them. Perhaps we're so focused on figuring out what sort of incentives to offer for good attendance that we forget to let them know they are needed (and not just for their $$).

I apologise if it sounded like I was writing off people who would not count themselves as part of the church. That was not my intention at all.I have worked alongside such people to try to transform several situations. It was more about the fact that the church (on a good day and with the wind behind us!) can be a wonderful source of the strength to do this work.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I agree with something Lamb Chopped said some days ago. I think she's got an important point.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
maybe rephrase that? Like maybe, "Is my knowledge of/desire for/relationship with (choose your preference) God such that I'm willing to commit to something that will benefit it?" (for values of church which DO benefit it, obviously--I imagine some don't)

The reason I'm rephrasing is because I don't think an external pull (like "exciting" services) is going to produce anything lasting or worthwhile; and I don't think churches should be aiming for entertainment. (the other extreme is also bad, of course--but I don't look for constant excitement in my 30 year marriage, either)

It isn't about the Church. It's about God.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Or perhaps it's about the fact that those people have something to offer the community, something valuable and essential, rather than what the Church has to offer them. Perhaps we're so focused on figuring out what sort of incentives to offer for good attendance that we forget to let them know they are needed (and not just for their $$).
I apologise if it sounded like I was writing off people who would not count themselves as part of the church. That was not my intention at all.I have worked alongside such people to try to transform several situations. It was more about the fact that the church (on a good day and with the wind behind us!) can be a wonderful source of the strength to do this work.

I didn't hear you as writing people off at all. I just heard it more of "we need to do more things to entice them to come to church." All of which is well-intentioned, of course. But it implies that church is some bitter pill that people have to be induced to take. And it reduces it all to a very consumerist mentality: "what's in it for me?" But I think part of the motive for church-going is, for many, a sense of being needed rather than a sense of needing. That you are important to the community (even the odd, quirky ones of us that challenge the community) and something is lacking when you're not there (and not just the $$ you put in the plate). This could be done in a very manipulative way, of course ("if you're not here, who will teach the 2 year olds/ serve the coffee/ sing in choir"?) but it can also be done in a way that just helps people feel appreciated and know that they make a meaningful contribution that is noticed.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
I didn't hear you as writing people off at all. I just heard it more of "we need to do more things to entice them to come to church." All of which is well-intentioned, of course. But it implies that church is some bitter pill that people have to be induced to take. And it reduces it all to a very consumerist mentality: "what's in it for me?" But I think part of the motive for church-going is, for many, a sense of being needed rather than a sense of needing. That you are important to the community (even the odd, quirky ones of us that challenge the community) and something is lacking when you're not there (and not just the $$ you put in the plate). This could be done in a very manipulative way, of course ("if you're not here, who will teach the 2 year olds/ serve the coffee/ sing in choir"?) but it can also be done in a way that just helps people feel appreciated and know that they make a meaningful contribution that is noticed.

Blimey, I'm communicating badly!
I wouldn't dream of trying to entice anyone to come to church- that sort of thing leaves me cold nowadays.
I think being part of the church community can be about needing and being needed: sometimes one, sometimes the other and sometimes both together.
I also think this is about God as Enoch says and not solely about church.
But church on a good day can be a place where we encounter God and receive strength to live in this world and make a contribution to our community- be that within the church or further afield.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Hmmm Enoch ... it sounds very pious to say, 'it's not about the Church but about God' - but seeing as how we're told that the Church is the 'body of Christ' - who IS God - then I'm not sure we can separate the two that easily ...

'How can one love God, whom he he has not seen ...'

I John 4: 19-20

http://biblehub.com/1_john/4-20.htm

However we cut it, there is a corporate dimension to this whole thing ... which is a challenge in and of itself, of course.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I think it is right, that the church cannot compete with the culture. There is always someplace more entertaining, somewhere better to meet chicks, better to socialize, that has better singing, better food, better lectures, better counseling, better Easter Egg hunts. If the church fights on that kind of ground, it will lose. We need to find the strong place -- the thing that the church can do, that nobody else can do.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

This study suggests that regular churchgoers in the USA are happier than less regular attenders, or non-attenders.

Correlation is not causation, as some will no doubt remind us, but maybe church leaders should start to emphasise stats like these in their publicity.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I wouldn't. I think Brenda is right. If the church attempts to compete with the world on its own terms, it will always lose. That includes self-improvement plans and ideas to increase happiness.

In the end, the only thing the church has that the world has not, is Jesus Christ as a living reality, as present Lord and Savior. Out of that reality the sacraments flow, and also whatever is good in our service, action, worship, fellowship. Take Christ away and there is no reason to keep in contact with the church--or at least, no reason that cannot be met equally well by a club, service organization, etc.

I come to church because, for all its flaws (and they are legion) it is the one place/group which focuses on him.

[ 07. June 2015, 02:13: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Gamaliel, I hope I'm not just being pious. I'm agreeing with Lamb Chopped yet again, and with Brenda. They've both put what I feel about it very well. For all its failings and mine, both of which are many, I come to church because church is about God. If that were not so, I wouldn't bother. It is the body of Christ. It is where, I hope, he is present.

Following from this, I also believe that if our primary conviction is not that that's what we're here for, rather than keeping the choir, our pet form of liturgy or a building on the road, providing somewhere to dump the kiddies for an hour or two on a Sunday or even being nice, then we are wasting our time and his.

There's also no reason otherwise why anyone should come through our doors.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well yes - I agree with all of that, Enoch - and with Brenda's and Lamb Chopped's posts.

I think I may have been at cross-purposes - for which I apologise.

I s'pose I'm thinking of those people I know who say, 'Church is all about God and I can meet him here in my own home so don't need to bother ...'

Well, yes, you can, but that's not how the scriptures present church - at least not from my understanding of it.

I'm not suggesting that you were claiming such a thing, but your comment put me in mind of this sort of thinking.

To all intents and purposes, I think we're all of a mind and pretty much on the same page here in terms of what the purpose of Church is and so on.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
In my experience here, church is no longer cultural. The old prevailing culture included church attendance. For socialising, for living, for the norm. Hence the disparaging term 'cultural Christians'.

<lots of snipping>

I give at work, and I am not sustained in the church- merely asked of more and more. I have no more to give.

If you want me back regularly, make me a community to be proud of and feel a part of. And no, I will not make it for you. that is not where I am at currently.

I think that there is still an element of cultural Christianity as those who do build community are likely to build their culture around it. Locally there are some social groups who support each other well, young families who became friendly through doing a lot with their children and an older group whose children had all grown up together and still socialised.

However, that doesn't help people who move into the church outside the age of child rearing and/or don't fit within the other existing groups. And although there are opportunities to get involved in running events, serving on committees, taking on church duties, it doesn't necessarily mean that those newcomers will become absorbed into the existing social groups. There aren't enough newcomers to build their own groups.

In my experience the move towards more lay involvement in running churches has some pitfalls:

Those, like Patdys and me, who are working in challenging circumstances in the community, attempting to be salt and light and all that jazz, don't have the energy to provide the worship on a Sunday. We were rather hoping to come along and be fed. So increasingly shrill demands for more and more engagement in running the services just, in my case, along with a number of other things, led to burn out and giving up on church;
Lay led services are not always models of co-ordination and theological understanding. Why should they be? the laity hasn't had the ministerial training. And these services can add to the confusion of visitors to churches, as mentioned by l'organist above.

I gave up a while back. One of the factors was that, other than the main service, where I was rarely not on duty one way or another so had very little space to myself, there was nothing for me without me running it. The BCP 8am service oasis had unfortunately become the responsibility of a curate with some "interesting" quirks which made it too difficult for me to stop grinding my teeth and attend to the service.

At the same time the Church of England wasn't covering itself with glory with the women bishops and same sex marriage debacles, and I was finding myself it too many debates about the role of the church and wondering why I was still a member of an organisation that I disagreed with in so many ways.

Posted by VirginiaKneeling (# 18414) on :

Weeelll....jumping in here.....I can only speak for myself, and somewhat for my kids. I am an irregular attendee now for numerous reasons. I used to be there faithfully every Sunday, for years as a chorister and sometime lector, then as a charter member of a startup congregation. Then my life changed drastically; I separated from my (now late) husband, took a traveling job, we divorced, I moved and accepted a job working weekend nights. That, obviously, pretty much put a crimp in Sunday churchgoing. Fast forward 7 years--I am now retired, in yet another location, in a permanent relationship with a gentleman who was raised, and remains, unchurched. I do not attend the Episcopal church I was raised in because of a desire not to make his former wife uncomfortable, so instead I attend a local Lutheran church. I like the pastor very much, and I have attempted to become at least somewhat active, but after a year and a half I still do not feel like part of the congregation. There is a small group of women who have been friendly, but otherwise people are pretty cliquey. Well, It's a small town *shrug* What you gonna do? My attendance is dropping off, sadly.

As for my kids, my oldest, a high-functioning autistic who lives on his own, is uncomfortable with church in general but does sometimes go to a small Baptist church with his support person. My second, a two-time Iraq veteran with PTSD issues, has become a Christmas and Easter kind of guy. My daughter married a man who was raised Jehovah's Witness but is extremely lapsed and was never baptized. Her oldest son is a baptized Episcopalian but the younger one has not been baptized. They don't go to church. They keep talking about it, but he works out of town during the week and is only home on weekends, and somehow other things take precedence.

And that's our family's story.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

It's probably very bad of me, but there's one advantage to having a less-than-stellar worship "experience" on Sunday, which is that you get fewer entertainment-seekers. Which makes it a bit easier trying to get on with things like teaching/learning, service to others, etc.

Once upon a time we were--shock of shocks!--the only thing for people in our community to do on a Sunday morning, and so the entertainment seekers showed up in droves. (It's amazing what lack of the English language will do to immigrants in the pre-Youtube age.)

Don't get me wrong, we were glad to see everybody. But it got a bit wearing when the "mixed multitude" a la Moses and the Exodus started getting all complain-y about aspects of the church that were frankly not up for alteration. It's a church, people. I do realize you are here for purposes unrelated to God. But wouldja please let those of us who are here for those purposes, get on with it without your criticism? Meh.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

As I've got to rub shoulders with people from a broad range of traditions and churchmanships, I don't think this tendency is confined to any single expression ... but it is common to all.

It may manifest itself differently in different traditions ... burn-out in charismatic/Pentecostal settings on the one hand, indifference or nominalism within some of the more sacramental scenes ...

But the end result is the same - people are 'missing' from regular, corporate worship.

Whether their absence is positive or negative, good, bad or indifferent depends on a whole range of factors and depends very much on the circumstances. Some people might be a heck of a lot better off not attending church regularly - others may actually be 'achieving' a great deal more in 'kingdom' terms through wider engagement with the world around them ...

Others might simply be pootling around doing other things ... and with all stations and spectrums in between.

We have to look at each case on its own merits.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Here is an example of the type of freedom that I think will appeal to many people who are being turned off by the same old routine.

https://youtu.be/rQS-1Y3F9ys

The point is about 2/3rds of the way into the sermon; however, if not the freedom to laugh and the give and take between pastor and congregation.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

....being wrong obviously.

It's wrong not to sit through a concert interrupted by a lecture. As wrong as neglecting your elderly parents.

Obviously.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Some people might be a heck of a lot better off not attending church regularly - others may actually be 'achieving' a great deal more in 'kingdom' terms through wider engagement with the world around them ...

Others might simply be pootling around doing other things ... and with all stations and spectrums in between.

We have to look at each case on its own merits.

I once read that modern evangelism calls for a lot of investment in close relationships, which requires long periods of emotional and even practical engagement with individuals. If 'we have to look at each case on its merits', before or while pursuing 'friendship evangelism', that places an even greater burden on churches that want to evangelise seriously. Why make all the effort if the people approached probably don't really need the gospel, and/or the life of the church?

Friendship evangelism has a bad rep, of course, but relatively few British churches seem to have the energy and/or the manpower for it now anyway. Friendship without strings, engaged in by moderate churches as part of the 'service to the community' is easier to pursue and more ideologically acceptable, but on its own it doesn't stem church decline and promote growth. It doesn't solve the problem of churches that want to be socially engaged but have too few members and too little money to make much of a difference.

I suspect that your post was more about Christians who decline or reduce their engagement in church life rather than about evangelism, but I do think the perspective you're talking about (which most of us share, to some extent) must have a detrimental effect upon evangelism and upon church life.

[ 14. June 2015, 17:05: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes - I was thinking of church involvement and regularity of attendance rather than friendship evangelism as such - but I certainly take the point you're making, SvitlanaV2 -- and would agree with with you're saying here.

However, I would say that in some settings - students in a strange city, say - or among migrant communities, the kind of close relationships we're talking about here can and do develop very quickly.

My eldest daughter has been au-pairing in Italy this last year and I've been struck by how many apparently strong relationships she's developed - almost apparently overnight - with German au pairs, students on exchange visits and so on - that she's met in the small Italian city she's been living in.

There's not been any kind of church or faith connection in that - but had there been I can certainly see how 'friendship evangelism' in that kind of context would work very quickly and naturally.

I can see what you're saying about the kind of slow, dogged, community service type approach that most 'moderate' or MoR churches are involved in not necessarily leading to church growth or evangelism ...

I think that's certainly true.

Conversely, I think much of what passes for evangelism among many evangelicals is fairly flash-in-the-pan ...

Although there are obviously exceptions to that and I don't think we can apply generalities here ... there are just far too many variables.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

I think sometimes there's an imbalance between the style/feel of the community work/community relationships and the style/feel of the church - IME churches building relationships with the local community does best and leads to growth when going from xyz community project to church feels more seamless.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Gamaliel

There are lots of opportunities, true, but they all require a great deal work for a church that's facing the realities of our age and culture. (I was thinking of evangelism as part of a church's communal vision rather than individuals witnessing on a freelance basis, as it were. Both are important, but the former prioritises the development of a particular church.)

Most churches don't have access to young people for missions at home or abroad; few inner city churches will feel confident in dealing with the spiritual, cultural and practical needs of asylum seekers, for example, or of Muslim neighbours living in well established communities, close-knit communities.

The evangelical churches I know best face the same sorts of challenges as other churches, but it's interesting how one can sense a change in their evangelism strategies in the city centre context. There's less street preaching by church groups, fewer young Christians sent on the prowl for 'recruits', fewer big rallies to pray for mass conversions. Pastors write in urban magazines that 'revivals' are out of date. Local life is where it's at. Flash-in-the-pan clearly isn't the thing here, but perhaps it has an extended life elsewhere.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I think there has been a paradigm shift within the evangelical constituency - although one still encounters revivalist rhetoric in places.

Certainly nowhere near as much as there was 15 or 20 years ago. But the mileage varies and some settings are more prone to it than others.

I quite expect to see a lot of charismatics settling down into a kind of principled pietistic pragmatism which will involve them in the sort of activities that some of the more traditional churches would be doing if they had the resources. Who knows? there could even be some interesting collaborations ...

I can think of several instances from a while back but I'm not sure if they represent a trend.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I think it is right, that the church cannot compete with the culture. There is always someplace more entertaining, somewhere better to meet chicks, better to socialize, that has better singing, better food, better lectures, better counseling, better Easter Egg hunts. If the church fights on that kind of ground, it will lose. We need to find the strong place -- the thing that the church can do, that nobody else can do.

Rightly or wrongly, the group of churches in my town have produced a leaflet, itemising all the things the churches do which save the social services money - such as care for the lonely, bereaved, parenting groups, etc. It all adds up to quite a tidy sum. I'm not too sure whether it has made a difference to how people view the church, but in recent years churches have tended to keep modestly quiet about the use they are to society.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

All of which may be true, but frankly that is part of the CofE's problem: it has done pretty well turning itself into a watered down, amateur social services outfit - but is that what a church is or what the primary purpose of a church should be?

A shame it has sold out, but the play on at the Donma Warehouse at the moment (Temple by Steven Waters) sums it all up beautifully: pretty obviously a take on the Occupy group at St Paul's and Giles Fraser's role at the Cathedral, it poses the question not only of what the role of the church should be but also whether or not we have some (many?) senior clerics for whom pastoral work is a closed book.

And there are various strands within the CofE that struggle with ordinary, day-to-day parish work: look no further than HTB which may be right-on with Alpha, etc, but has little time and precious little to say to those in its cure who are cradle CofE.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

And there are various strands within the CofE that struggle with ordinary, day-to-day parish work: look no further than HTB which may be right-on with Alpha, etc, but has little time and precious little to say to those in its cure who are cradle CofE.

But churches that cater to cradle CofE people wouldn't be able to help the kind of folk who go to HTB, would they? Each church has its own ministry. In central London it can't be hard to find other churches that do more 'normal' CofE things for more 'normal' CofE people. And there are surely plenty of CofE priests and writers who can speak to and for this more mainstream constituency.

Churches are often more diverse places than we realise, but in a pluralistic and postmodern age I don't see how the CofE can expect every single church to cater to every single kind of need. The breadth of churchmanship in the denomination surely offers lots of opportunities to reach out to different kinds of people in different ways.

[ 16. June 2015, 16:30: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Based on some of the examples above, perhaps my TEC parish isn't doing too badly! (It is in southeastern US, which is reportedly more of a church-going area than elsewhere.)

Reported # of members = 450 (though some of those are probably deceased)

Avg Sunday attendance = 35-50 at 8 am; 150-175 at 10:30, so somewhat less than 50% (More in Advent & Lent; less when fave football teams are playing out-of-town, but w/in driving dist.)

Daily mass attendance = 3-10
Friday 'LadyMass' att = 6-10*
Wednesday Mass for Healing att = 12-20*
* some overlap here

Plusses include excellent & varied preaching - always lectionary-based; good music at 10:30 + occasional Evensongs; priests who keep up with who's there and visit the missing. The rector quotes a mentor as saying 'A home-visiting parson makes a church-going parish.' Both priests and people are friendly and welcoming to visitors and new-comers.

Minuses include an aging building and less-than-adequate contributions.

All in all; a place I am proud to be part of, and eager to invite friends to experience.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Here is one thing that some churches do: praying when you go into surgery. My brother-in-law is pastor at a Lutheran church in central Texas. Much of his time is spent in hospital rooms, saying prayers over people who are going in for gall bladder or whatever. He assures me that this is an essential part of his job; if he is not there just as they roll old Mrs. Johnson out for her operation, he might be fired the next day.
It must be a Texas thing, because they don't do that around here (mid-Atlantic). And it does not sound like something that an organization other than a church could ever do.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0