|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Good vicar = growing church?
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Archbishop Justin Welby gave the Thought for the Day† and was interviewed on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme this morning*. He said and will undoubtedly be widely quoted as saying:
quote:
"The reality is that where you have a good vicar, you will find growing churches"
Doesn't this put all success and failure of churches on the minister alone, ignoring any other factors?
So the priesthood of all believers and the joint ministry of the church is worthless? Doesn't that make a mockery of the work of those Dioceses trying to move this on?
And what about the influence of the church community on what happens? You can't have a poisonous church or a congregation that holds back ministry?
Is growth really the only measure for judging churches?
Surely this is a recipe for cult leadership and all the problems with that?
* The interview starts at 2:31 into the link here, the quote comes at 2:35.
† Thought for the Day is at 2:41
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I responded to this on twitter, without knowing who had said it. The problem is that this statement, taken out of context, simplifies a very complex situation.
In particular, if you define a "good" vicar as a vicar whose church is growing, then this is the case by definition. So a growing church will be presided over by a vicar, who will be defined as good, because the church is growing.
In fact, I think there are many good clergy - not just CofE - who are presiding over churches that are not growing.
In essence, it comes down to definitions - what do you mean by "good" vicars, and "growing" churches? If you define these as equivalent, then this is always the case. It is trite.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Whether having a good vicar will always result in church growth is somewhat debatable. What is almost certainly true is that having a bad vicar will result in church decline, however that might be measured.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm reluctant to agree with Jolly Jape
Situation normal? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Yes I agree - what is "good" and what is "bad"?
Are they both measured by adherence to rules (and bigging up a hierarchy beyond the power of elastic) or by an abundance (or lack) of grace?
What may be more telling is the fact that some churches grow because o their links to a good school, others because leaders mobilise the whole fellowship and work with their context, not against it.
Decline can result from shifts in population, aging fellowships reluctant to change and poor/unresponsive/uninvolving leaders. It can also just happen.
Not a good direct correlation to make Justin.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
However a tweet pointed out that they'd encountered growth during an interregnum - so
no vicar = church growth
This one has hit Twitter from a number of sources with a couple of other quotes I didn't highlight, but winced at as I listened to the broadcast:
quote:
CofE "needs to be very clear about its intention of growing its numbers. It doesn’t happen accidentally"
Church Times is highlighting that one
and quote:
"Church needs to be very flexible in how it engages locally & clear on how it will grow its numbers"
BBC Radio R4 put that one out.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
What he says is demonstrably true. Where there is a good vicar the Church grows. Though both “good “ and “grow” need to be looked at.
For me as a start good implies a heart for Christ, spiritual maturity, humility, the gift to discern and grow the gift of the whole church but especially the leadership of that church and somewhere deep the call/gift to lead.
Growth must mean MORE than bums on pews, but that does not distract from the truth that is does mean bums on pews (It also needs to be noted that many “large” churches are hotbeds of heresies and spiritual abuse so numbers per se are not “the answer”). True growth comes I think through discipleship. Through prayer and bible study. We cannot give away what we have not got. Working with God, where God is calling us to work.
Three more things, on a bit more of a negative slant. Many “good” vicars inherit terrible situations. Either created by their predecessors or years of congregational infighting and power battles. All that needs to be sorted before growth can start, that which does not bear fruit must be cut off. Therefore sometimes to achieve “growth” the leadership must prune/cut/ create numerical decline.
Secondly you can be the best “good” vicar in the land but if you choose to work alone or do not have peer support group or are not accountable (to your leadership team) then you will succumb to insanity. Either self inflicted of just the battering of the father of lies. Seen it too often.
Lastly PLEASE GOD ALMIGHTY will diocesan leadership hear what ++Justin is saying. Get behind the clergy, genuinely support and challenge them, pray for them and lead them in their discipleship. (Instead of re-inventing one hundred ways to be a horses ass every year, he said unkindly and with undue feeling)
But on the whole big thumbs up to the guy for saying it. Trouble is most churches are to hung up on women’s bits, men’s bits, whose turn it is to defrost the chicken, the servers / choir / flower / worship leader rota, ordering oil for the candle/boiler, de-scaling the urn, parish share, those feckers in the next door parish who happen to be in the same group as us, what the vicar did, what the vicar did not do, whether we should give £100 to the blind dogs ........................... ad nauseaum to actually remember what we are here for. A “good” vicar should constantly remind us what we are here for, trouble is some won’t like it (including at time said vicar). “Sir we would see Jesus.”
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rowen
Shipmate
# 1194
|
Posted
What about tiny teeny churches in remote Australian mountains, where folk drive two hours on a dirt road to get to church, and where the minister's parish is four hours drive by five hours drive wide...
I think I am a good minister, at least people tell me that.... But we will never have growing churches. The population is too small, and the area to remote.
In fact, my denomination puts senior ministers in places like this.... Because why should the cities get all the good clergy? And the really needy and needful parishes get the rest ?
--------------------
"May I live this day… compassionate of heart" (John O’Donoghue)...
Posts: 4897 | From: Somewhere cold in Victoria, Australia | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Sort of what Pyx_e said - but while Welby mentioned churches in 'difficult' districts, he seemed to equate 'good' with effective rather than holy. His emphasis on leadership seems to ignore those who work collaboratively.
Also as someone said above, churches grow duringf interegnum - ours did.
I think we have a 'good' vicar but how does one account for the fancy that he runs two churches - one of growing, the other is declining? Is he only a 'good' vicar when he is at our church?
No - there are lots of factors about the willingness to change among the two congregations and the fact that lay leadership is seen very differently in each church.
So maybe growth depends on 'good' congregations and maybe Welby's vision is too clericalised.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
As with any discussion of metrics (and certainly that is what growth would be), one must be certain that the metric actually is an accurate measurement of what it purports to represent. On the face of it, growing would suggest increasing numbers. But does that mean the church is healthy? Or does it just have good PR, excellent after service coffee service, a hot vicar, or any of many other attractions.
Unfortunately, too often that sort of metric is exactly what is being looked at, without any digging into what it really is telling us.
(In my non-internet life, I deal with business metrics and spend much of my time discouraging adding more metrics and explaining that no, that doesn't mean what you think it means.)
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Yes I agree - what is "good" and what is "bad"?
Are they both measured by adherence to rules (and bigging up a hierarchy beyond the power of elastic) or by an abundance (or lack) of grace?
And what about those of us (like EM and myself) who are in "congregationalist" set-ups where we are hired, paid and fired by the local church rather than the wider denomination? Does this place all the onus on the Minister to be an "ecclesiastical entrepreneur" (as certainly does happen in many of the "new" churches)?
And does it mean that, when we wish to move, the potential "calling" church will assess our quality merely by looking at the quantitative statistics? There is some suggestion that this may be the case.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I understand that the clergy don't normally get any training in how to grow churches, and they aren't selected with this skill in mind. So it would be a bit unfair to imply that they can't be 'good' unless they suddenly develop this ability out of nowhere.
OTOH, it's noticeable that many books and articles about church life and health are aimed at church leaders, namely the ministers. There's an implication that ministers as leaders are the ones tasked with generating the right environment for growth. Managing a very large church is apparently different from managing a small one, and it calls for particular leadership and teamworking skills.
The interesting thing is that many clergy don't see themselves as leaders, though, which represents a long-standing challenge in many church environments. There are many external reasons for church growth, but even if your church relies on providing access to 'good schools', etc., I find it hard to believe that the practical business of sustaining that growth is going to be successful in the long term under a minister who doesn't want to be a 'leader'. But as I say, 'the system' attracts and creates the type of clergy that it wants, and fits them into a structure of its own devising, so it makes little sense then to turn around and criticise the clergy.
(I should add that I haven't read the Archbishop's comments in context. I'm just using the OP as a springboard for my thoughts.)
[ 31. December 2013, 14:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
As others have already said, the simplistic equation is deeply misleading if you do not add in all the qualifying factors.
It is possible for a church to be growing numerically and yet not have a "good vicar". Admittedly, such growth is unlikely to be sustainable over a long period of time, but I suspect we all know of churches where numbers have grown under a dictatorial and intolerant leader.
Lack of growth is NOT an indicator that the vicar is not "good". Nor is it inevitable that a "good vicar" will bring growth (in numerical terms). There are just too many other factors to bring into consideration. For a start, I would like to see how Welby's "good vicars" would cope in urban priority areas or sinkhole estates. Too many vicars are thought of as "good" simply because they stay in the safe, middle-class suburban areas where church growth is much easier to accomplish.
I could go on, but it would just make me depressed. As far as I can see, this is just another example of how Welby is "Cameron Mark II": an Old Etonian who is strong on impressive sounding statements which - when examined - don't actually have any substance behind them.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Just a quick thought - Jesus told his first followers to make disciples, and he also said that he will build his church. I've read a few things building on this point, i.e. that Christian leaders, ministers etc. should put their efforts into helping people become committed followers of Christ (disciples, not simply attenders of church services) rather than on getting more people into the church.
The natural, inevitable outflowing of the focus on discipleship (so the idea goes) will be that these disciples will then be effective sharers of the good news and, in time, will begin to make disciples themselves.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I overhead a comment the other day from someone who is heavily involved with the local 'Churches Together' group and was feeling fairly frustrated with the whole thing. He explained to the person he was talking to (I was ear-wigging) that one of his frustrations involved the clergy/ministers thinking that it was their congregations' job to do the outreach etc rather than theirs ...
I must admit, this puzzled me.
I'd have thought, like Kevin, that their role should, ideally, be a pastoral and 'spiritual formation' one whereby people would be discipled/equipped to live more 'effective' Christian lives (however we quantify that) themselves ....
Not to run the churches and do all the outreach themselves ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The person I was eavesdropping on was a Methodist, incidentally ... and involved with quite a successful youth/outward-bounds type outfit with a Christian ethos and flavour.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Yes I agree - what is "good" and what is "bad"?
Are they both measured by adherence to rules (and bigging up a hierarchy beyond the power of elastic) or by an abundance (or lack) of grace?
And what about those of us (like EM and myself) who are in "congregationalist" set-ups where we are hired, paid and fired by the local church rather than the wider denomination? Does this place all the onus on the Minister to be an "ecclesiastical entrepreneur" (as certainly does happen in many of the "new" churches)?
And does it mean that, when we wish to move, the potential "calling" church will assess our quality merely by looking at the quantitative statistics? There is some suggestion that this may be the case.
Only the other day I was thinking about the congregationalist churches in regards to this.
It seems inevitable to me that in a congregationalist scenario, the minister is more likely to be proactive about church growth because a growing church will secure their own job and income, and will also provide an impressive record for when they go looking for their next church. It probably also means that the congregation itself is more positive about the need to attract new members, because they know that if they don't, they may not be able to afford a minister.
By contrast, in churches such as the CofE and the Methodists, etc., there seems to be no particular personal benefit for a minister to work hard for church growth. They'll be working harder but receiving no more pay. More people around = more conflict and antagonism, demanding ever more of your time! The chance of securing a 'good' post afterwards won't be connected to the growth of your current church. In fact, IME leading a struggling church towards closure can leave the way open for a minister to move on to a much nicer, healthier church....
I'm not trying to be antagonistic here; I know there are pros and cons to all types of church government. But I suspect that, taking all other factors into account, some forms of institutional church structure may be more likely to generate (or simply to nurture the desire for) church growth than others, particularly in current conditions.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
SvitlanaV2, I'm sorry, but this is just another one of your wild punts and flights of fancy.
Don't you think that the future of Anglican clergy might not also be determined by how well or how badly they are doing or are perceived to be doing in their current incumbency?
It varies according to churchmanship but I don't see Anglican clergy being any more or less 'career-ist' than their counterparts in congregational settings.
To be frank, I think you're doing a disservice both to ministers in congregationalist settings, like Baptist Trainfan and ExclamationMark, and to CofE clergy ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
So you think I just make all my ideas up? Hmmm. Maybe I'll have to start posting more links. This longish essay refers to the challenges of CofE structures, whilst mentioning, as I did, that there are many other factors:
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/anvil/26-2_123.pdf
Welby himself saw fit to comment on the need for 'good' CofE clergy to grow their congregations, so he clearly thinks some encouragement is needed, although I'm sure we'd all agree that there are some who are doing fine already.
I don't know what focus has been given to the structures of those churches that are experiencing the most growth. But it seems from the stats that, at this point in time, those with a more congregationalist structure are experiencing more growth on the whole. The URC is an obvious exception.
My point is basically that structures may present a challenge or an opportunity, and that human nature works in concert with them, not in isolation. We're all human, even the clergy. But there's always hope. We have to work with what we have.
pydseybare
Yes, at the end of the day, all institutional churches need money to pay for the upkeep of their building, or their minister's (or ministers') salary, or both. Churches may be short of money when there are too few people in the pews contributing, or when those present give too little. But different kinds of congregations can tolerate different levels of giving and different levels of physical involvement. People usually live up or down to their needs and to the requirements made of them.
[ 31. December 2013, 16:01: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, I'm not suggesting that you make all your ideas up. Far from it. But I'm afraid, from my perspective of course, you do seem to indulge in sweeping generalisations from time to time.
Instances?
The assertion that there's an elitist clergy/laity divide that is preventing Anglican clergy and Free Church ministers from sharing the insights of Higher Criticism with their congregations.
That might be the case in some instances, but it by no means fits the complex reality of what's going on.
Evangelical clergy/ministers wouldn't be teaching these things because they don't believe them, for a kick-off.
There are lots of other factors involved. It doesn't all come down to some nefarious clergy/laity divide.
Similarly with this issue you've raised here. The local evangelical vicar where I live is working his guts out. Is he doing that because he thinks he'll be recognised and go on to bigger and better things?
Or is he doing it out of conviction and because a sense of urgency comes from the Gospel as he understands it?
Whether we agree with him or not, I'd suggest that his hard work and commitment - and sometimes almost 'driven' nature at times - derives from his convictions rather than concerns about making a name for himself or getting a 'better' ecclesiastical job at some point.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yes, at the end of the day, all institutional churches need money to pay for the upkeep of their building, or their minister's (or ministers') salary, or both. Churches may be short of money when there are too few people in the pews contributing, or when those present give too little. But different kinds of congregations can tolerate different levels of giving and different levels of physical involvement. People usually live up or down to their needs and to the requirements made of them.
Yes, that's true. I just don't think this should be what Christianity is about. It appears to have degenerated into a competition where the forms of religion that survive are those that have the most (and/or most affluent) congregations.
Paid staff and expensive buildings seem to me to most often be a problem - rather than a resource - for institutional forms of Christianity in most situations in the UK today.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Just a quick thought - Jesus told his first followers to make disciples, and he also said that he will build his church. I've read a few things building on this point, i.e. that Christian leaders, ministers etc. should put their efforts into helping people become committed followers of Christ (disciples, not simply attenders of church services) rather than on getting more people into the church.
The natural, inevitable outflowing of the focus on discipleship (so the idea goes) will be that these disciples will then be effective sharers of the good news and, in time, will begin to make disciples themselves.
Yes, I think you're broadly right. ++William Temple makes much the same point somewhere in his "Readings in St John's Gospel", although I haven't the time to look it up now.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Oh, Jolly Jape, how could you?
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm reluctant to agree with Jolly Jape
Situation normal?
You know very well that this isn't true. I do agree with you at times.
Particularly when you happen to agree with me ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
churches such as the CofE and the Methodists, etc., there seems to be no particular personal benefit for a minister to work hard for church growth. They'll be working harder but receiving no more pay.
I look forward to the introduction of Performance related Pay for clergy.
I will probably work the same way it did for us teachers - take your timer away from what really matters and concentrate on what 'they' misguidedly think makes you a 'good' teacher.
Like Welby's 'good' vicars.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
The way Archbishop Justin is being quoted out of context and then accused of saying something else that someone wants to denigrate him for is on a smaller scale but on a par with the way the media treated Archbishop Rowan over his remarks about Sharia.
Nobody, surely, would disagree that where you have a good vicar, you are likely to get a growing church.
His sentence was one among many. He did not say that numerical growth, bums on seats, is the only measure of growth. Nor did he say that this was the only measure of quality in vicars. Nor did he say that any growth in your church is dependent on your having a super vicar - hard luck on the rest of you. Nor did he define a 'good vicar' as one who runs the show solo. Nor was any of this even at the core of the interview.
Besides, are we saying we don't want vicars who are any good? Or that we don't want growth? Or that if we do want growth, that this should only be the sort that doesn't involve more bums on seats, that we can have any sort of growth as long as it doesn't involve bringing home the lost sheep, or saying publicly that they might be lost and need finding? Or that finding and rescuing the lost isn't part of our commission any more? Or that we don't want the Lord to add any more to our number (viz various references in Acts)?
It's much more significant historically that an Archbishop of Canterbury should publicly describe a Pope as this year's 'Man of the Year'. How often has that happened since 1529?
Furthermore, the discussion about the role of banks in society, and whether they accept responsibility for that role was saying something important.
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch
I could go on, but it would just make me depressed. As far as I can see, this is just another example of how Welby is "Cameron Mark II": an Old Etonian who is strong on impressive sounding statements which - when examined - don't actually have any substance behind them.
Miaow
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
... Growth is utterly a misnomer. Christianity would be in far better health in the UK if all the churches were locked closed, all the ministers fired and all the structures removed.
There was a time, many years ago, when I would have sympathised with this. I would have thought, 'clear the stage; start afresh; root and branch; let the true light of the gospel shine uncluttered by the accumulations of the centuries; go back to the Book of Acts'. I now think that's nonsense. If one cleared to the decks and started again, most of the sheep currently in the sheepfolds would be eaten by wolves. Nor would the world around us be able to hear our message.
On the other hand, if it was Susan Doris who had said this, I'd assume she meant it so as to achieve a quite different result.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The assertion that there's an elitist clergy/laity divide that is preventing Anglican clergy and Free Church ministers from sharing the insights of Higher Criticism with their congregations.
The article is right that liberal theology (that used to be called 'higher criticism) has become the preserve of university educated people but he seems to think that Robinson's Honest to God is where the rot started.
People are more educated these days. If preaching had taken up Robinson's themes, the faith would be more credible today.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I suppose that depends on whether you think that God solely works through the church (or Church or the CofE or whatever), Enoch.
I don't think growth is a good thing, sign me up to that particular belief, however you define growth.
But, much though the church, Church or even CofE may sometimes get in God's way, would he be able to work as readily in society outside the church if there was no church at all to provide that leaven? Besides, it seems to be the way he has chosen to do things.
What do you really mean when you say you don't think growth is really a good thing? Particularly if you say 'any sort of growth' rather than the more usual grumble that one person doesn't value the sort of thing somebody else calls growth. A blanket belief that any sort of growth, however defined, isn't something you want, is quite unusual.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The assertion that there's an elitist clergy/laity divide that is preventing Anglican clergy and Free Church ministers from sharing the insights of Higher Criticism with their congregations.
That might be the case in some instances, but it by no means fits the complex reality of what's going on.
Evangelical clergy/ministers wouldn't be teaching these things because they don't believe them, for a kick-off.
I said on that thread that I wasn't talking about evangelical ministers. I said that I was talking about my experience, which is with more MOTR, more liberally oriented ministers. I referred specifically to Methodist examples, but maybe I should have looked for some from non-evangelical Anglican sources as well. I'm sorry if you thought I was talking about all ministers, everywhere, at all times. That certainly would have been a sweeping generalisation.
I'm not going to do a re-run of the clergy/laity divide debate, but I don't think it's something that's been simplified here, least of all by me. I've said several times that the clergy work to build up the church. I'm a churchgoer myself and I've served formally in the church so how could I deny that?
On the current thread I'm limiting myself to talking about how I think institutional churches might grow, so I shan't be getting into a discussion with pydseybare about how all the churches in the UK ought to close! Sorry, pysdeybare!
quote:
The local evangelical vicar where I live is working his guts out. Is he doing that because he thinks he'll be recognised and go on to bigger and better things?
Or is he doing it out of conviction and because a sense of urgency comes from the Gospel as he understands it?
I don't believe the two things are necessarily mutually exclusive. People want to serve God, but they also want their work to be recognised by men, generally speaking. I don't think it's improper to acknowledge that. Some environments, I feel, make it easier for their work to be recognised, though I admit that there are many ways this can happen, not just through monetary means.
My earlier post above wasn't a denial of the work of the Holy Spirit. Maybe the Holy Spirit can work though human desire? I hope it can, because there are few if any 'pure' spaces where it could work otherwise. IMO.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Nobody, surely, would disagree that where you have a good vicar, you are likely to get a growing church.
As I said above, only if you define these two terms recursively - that is, dependent on each other.
There are occasions where you have a good vicar - however you define that not relating to a growing church - where the church is not growing - however you want to define that - because of a whole lot of other local reasons, because of history, because of who knows what.
The problem is the expression as it has been reported will be read as meaning a vicar worth keeping on is a vicar of a numerically increasing church.
The problem is, anyone can increase numbers in a church - put tenners on the pews each week, or preach nice, positive stuff that tells the congregation that they are all fine.
The truth is, in the UK at least, the church is in decline - at least numerically, and in other ways as well, I believe. Good clergy are those who are dealing with this, and changing the way they do church. It will not necessarily be seen as "growing".
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - thanks for the clarification, SvitlanaV2.
I won't be curmugeonly and point out that the article you referenced didn't, as far as I can make out, indicate anything about whether ministers of congregational settings are motivated by different considerations to those that might motivate Anglican and Methodist clergy as far as evangelism goes ...
Oh, sorry ... I just did ...
But I can see the point you're making and agree that it could be both/and rather than either/or ... and that most of us will have mixed motives to some degree or other ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The article is right that liberal theology (that used to be called 'higher criticism) has become the preserve of university educated people but he seems to think that Robinson's Honest to God is where the rot started.
People are more educated these days. If preaching had taken up Robinson's themes, the faith would be more credible today.
I haven't yet read the article. But I could certainly point you to several churches in this area (more or less) which have intelligent preaching that is not afraid to grapple with the difficulties of faith.
But are they growing? No. Is that because they are perceived as "elitist", or because their worship is not lively enough, or because people are looking for simplistic answers? I honestly don't know, but I certainly can't put it down to incompetent ministers.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Let me suggest a different reason why it is not the clergy job to grow the church. How long do clergy stay in a pastorate? My experience suggests that a decade is a long pastorate even for Anglicans.
How long do members stay with a congregation. There is a goodly turn over of a few years but the long tail is much longer. One lady I asked how long she had been going to the church said "two hundred years" alright that is exceptional but most congregations have a sizable minority who have been attending for over twenty years.
If you want long term and sustained growth then the people who are driving it need to be the local members. Indeed my experience suggests if these congregational members do not like a clerics changes they just wait to the next vacancy and then revert to former practices.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Sometimes a church can grow where the vicar is not really coping, but the whole church is pulling together and working really hard to keep the show on the road. Such efforts are down to teamwork, which ensures that one person's weaknesses are another person's strengths - the church can make a difference when people work together.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Well as a general rule I agree with Welby, and get rather fed up with the "do not touch the Lord's anointed' attitude that allows too many incompetents to continue in the ministry.
Admittedly, most of my experience has been in the free churches, and I have suffered under "preachers" whose sermons were incoherent rambles and whose main area of activity was to drink tea in members' homes.
In one particular church one hopeless minister was followed by a second turgid reformed minister and then after many years got decent pastor. Lo and behold! the church is now growing.
Maybe I'm influenced by my ex baptist minister brother who believed that he could not grow the church, he was not worth employing, and he didn't object to the idea that he was employed by the congregation.
YMMV but if Welby is able to apply some quality standard, I would applaud him.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Well as a general rule I agree with Welby, and get rather fed up with the "do not touch the Lord's anointed' attitude that allows too many incompetents to continue in the ministry.
I don't think the continuation of incompetents is unique to the church. The problem may lie in the assumption that we have to have someone in charge...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I won't be curmugeonly and point out that the article you referenced didn't, as far as I can make out, indicate anything about whether ministers of congregational settings are motivated by different considerations to those that might motivate Anglican and Methodist clergy as far as evangelism goes ...
Oh, sorry ... I just did ...
But I stated in my post that the article was about the CofE rather than about churches that ran congregationally. Uunderneath the link I said that I wasn't aware of studies that connected congregationalist approaches to church growth, but that according to the stats (see Wiki, etc.) the churches that are growing the fastest at the moment appear to be those that are run in this way (i.e. 'independent' churches).
I understand that correlation isn't necessarily causation, as the saying goes. But it's interesting that Fresh Expressions are deliberately being created to exist outside parish and circuit boundaries and structures.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
If what the archbishop suggests is true, then perhaps it is indicative of a sermon-as-main-focal-point approach to the Sunday gathering.
I've been arguing for years that sermons put us in this predicament, where the pastor becomes the focus. It's time that Protestants (and Anglicans, too) to work on removing the sermon emphasis from their liturgy. The easiest ways to do this: shorter sermons, and allowing others (e.g. drama put on by children's group) to occasionally replace the priest's sermon.
I don't argue with the archbishop. Charismatic preachers have been drawing crowds all the way back to the very beginning. But we can't just hire charismatic people to be our church leaders. I'll leave it at that for now.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
Olaf, in the CofE it doesn't need to be 'the priest's sermon' because there is a long-established body of lay people, Readers who are trained and licensed as lay ministers with a central calling as ministers of the Word. Whatever else Readers do they are meant to be at least competent preachers. There are possibly more Readers in the CofE than stipendiary clergy but they are often underused and sometimes resented by clergy. When a church grows in an interregnum it points to 'good' lay workers, including people who can lead worship competently and preach well.
[ 01. January 2014, 06:45: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
I agree with ++Justin. That is as long as e do not equate growing and large. What of those who have been called to minister in a rural area, which in the C of E will mean several church buildings in a parish with a very large area with a small congregations at the mant services they have to take each week.
Yet the number of church attending Christians in these rural areas is typically higher than in the cities with a mega church if you measure per head of population.
When a large church loses people it can do so at a phenomenal rate. A church which once has 250 in its congregation but has dwindled to 110 in 5 years will still be seen as large in C of E standards.
As long as we don't equate large with growing I agree.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
If your services are badly led and your preaching is awful people will leave.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If your services are badly led and your preaching is awful people will leave.
Which just shows how shallow people are. Preach to them things they want to hear, and they'll come. Preach the gospel and they'll leave.
I was thinking of style really - a lot of sermons are just plain boring.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
