When to close a service?
magnilo
Shipmate
At what point does an Anglican service of public worship - a service of Holy Communion for example - become untenable? At what point - if at all - should the priest and PCC consider closing the service?
Should the PCC set a figure for attendance as part of such considerations? What is the role of the parish priest in a situation where a service is in consistent numerical decline? Is faithfulness to the bitter end the best policy? Or should the priest and the PCC risk causing pain to the faithful remnant? Is there ever a point where the benefits of closing the service could rightly be considered to outweigh the sense of loss that closing the service would inevitably cause?
Are there other options? Has anyone seen such a service revived or renewed in a parish? If so, how? What steps did the PCC take? How long did those steps take? What factors should a PCC consider if it decides that closure is not an option?
Should the PCC set a figure for attendance as part of such considerations? What is the role of the parish priest in a situation where a service is in consistent numerical decline? Is faithfulness to the bitter end the best policy? Or should the priest and the PCC risk causing pain to the faithful remnant? Is there ever a point where the benefits of closing the service could rightly be considered to outweigh the sense of loss that closing the service would inevitably cause?
Are there other options? Has anyone seen such a service revived or renewed in a parish? If so, how? What steps did the PCC take? How long did those steps take? What factors should a PCC consider if it decides that closure is not an option?
Comments
I learnt a lot from being there (even occasionally as the only one apart from the Officiant ).
You have to be very extroverted and be able to take responsibilty (practically and in the Service itself) as well as deal with disappointment and feeling let down
It got too much in the (bitter) end.
So I would suggest that the minister starts by considering the pastoral needs of that handful. If they can be better/as well/adequately served by another solution, then the minister should surely then go on to discussing with the handful whether that other solution will work for them.
And having come to some sort of agreement (or if not agreement, then at least understanding) surely that's the time to bring the wardens/PCC/elders/whatever formal governing body is in place into the discussion - essentially to rubberstamp what the people who are affected have agreed.
Yes, this is what the priest in charge is doing, I think. He seems to be aware that such a change will likely lead to genuine feelings of loss and possibly hurt among the half dozen or so regulars. These regulars are very rarely in the sanctuary together and their attendance is less than weekly (between fortnightly and monthly), but they are friends outside of the liturgical context. The difficultly, as I see it, is that these faithful few probably would be better served by another solution, but they are somewhat unlikely to see that themselves. What to do?
On the other hand, the emotional cost of losing the service would be significant for a few people because it would mark the end of a chapter in the life of the church, the second service being a "family service" which was started about 20 years ago and therefore, from a certain perspective, still a 'new' idea.
In my curacy church we had die hard prayer book society types at the early service and often 25-30 of them hiding in the back pew or behind the many pillars. This made working out how much to consecrate quite hard. They mostly legged it before I could get to the door at the end of the service so I never got to know them but the numbers showed that we were meeting a real need. Maybe I should advertise ‘BCP done well and the vicar understands if you don’t want to speak to anyone.’ That might get the numbers up.
No, I thought not. The type of costs you're talking about are hard to quantify aren't they? Maybe that's why it's so hard to address such issues in the life of a faith community; the costs are so subjective that it ends up being a real emotional minefield.
Yes, this is one of the options we're considering, although it runs a bit contrary to recent episcopal ad clerums instructing us to "re-imagine inherited models of church" in order to "reach the missing generations" and whatnot.
What's the turn-around time between your morning services?
Glad to be completely out of it and to have come to an equilibrium about the whole time. So I remember all the fun and frolics but am not eaten up about the finale. Like quite a few other things in life, really...
We had an experimental early said Communion on Sundays with a non-Eucharistic "All-Age" service which lasted for a couple of years, but which stopped when the PCC decided All Age should be Eucharistic. Again, no-one, other than me and the vicar, were attending the early service after the sudden and unexpected deaths in quick succession of two other people who did attend regularly and the moving away from the area of the third who was then unable to attend either the Evensong or the early Communion due to lack of buses at those times on a Sunday.
I miss both services for different reasons and would support their return if it were feasible in the future, but now is not the time for either service in the life of my parish and we are better putting our energies into the main morning service, the one other regular mid-week communion service. Plus Messy Church.
I imagine it might, actually, if you advertised it widely/ cannily enough.
It might even turn out to be part of a strategy to meet the imperative described by magnilo to "re-imagine inherited models of church" in order to "reach the missing generations".
- that in a number of places, abandoning a service only happens when (entirely literally) no one is going to it who doesn't have to be there: services keep going for a congregation of one, but not for a congregation of zero. This at least makes consulting with the congregation easier, and my next point below superfluous:
- there seem to be particular things that congregants value about service: I think we've variously mentioned timing, company and language, and location is probably among a number of factors that could be added. So should consultation try to find what the congregation really value - and see if there is any way to take those features forward, but in a more practical and sustainable way? I.e. could the jolly 10am family Eucharist congregation cope with BCP communion once a month if the 8am BCP communion was dropped?
I will be sorry to see the service go as I do love the challenge of the 5 min homily and Cramner’s words have a great rhythm. I suspect my gender has something to do with the lack of people coming in for BCP. Cramner’s prose works well whether you are soprano or deep bass but I’m in quite a conservative Diocese and that may have an impact. We are revamping our publicity so I hope I’m proved wrong.
There is certainly some evidence that "BCP done well" is garnering interest among certain millennial constituencies, but for parishes in other social demographic situations (such as my own perhaps) I doubt it would make much headway. However, it may gain some traction among older de-churched people. The problem, I think, is that such people are in themselves a bit of a dying breed, especially in my context where the church has never really been part of the cultural furniture.
Yes. This is the case, at least in part, in my context. One option we're considering is a 3.00pm service of Holy Communion (Common Worship), but it might be worth exploring the addition of an occasional BCP service. But that probably wouldn't better serve those with non-believing spouses. It's a genuine quandary.
The current practice here is to preach the same sermon at both morning services (9.00am and 10.30am) but employing slightly different sermon illustrations in order to better contextualise the message, but I'm really not sure it's a very effective strategy. I'm not very keen on the idea of preaching a 5 minute message. It may buy a bit more time for the turnaround between services, but I worry that it might starve the already dwindling congregation of what's been feeding them thus far. I really don't know.
It may also be that shortage of clergy means that an 8am service (say) can no longer be sustained on a weekly basis, and one of our neighbouring parishes now has an early Eucharist only on the first Sunday each month, when the 10am service is non-Eucharistic.
The parish concerned is in vacancy, and clergy are thin on the ground in our neck of the woods, but at least weekly Eucharistic worship is being maintained.
A second parish did away with all their 8am services when they went into vacancy, but their new Vicar has re-introduced an 830am Eucharist on Family Service Sunday (once again, the first Sunday - easy for people to remember, I guess!).
AFAIK, neither church has a large congregation at the monthly early services, but Canon law is being obeyed, and the people given the opportunity for Holy Communion every Sunday.
I found it very peaceful to arrive and set up, quietly greet whoever showed up, and offer Eucharist simply, without fuss, without assistance (I did the readings, lit the candles, etc.). If no one came I sat in silence for a while, and then said private Morning Prayer. Oddly it was a good preparation for the 10 o’clock, which by contrast seemed busy, fussy and tiring.
Now the early service has been eliminated, and those three parishioners no longer attend. That is indeed a pity. As a priest I found it a sweet obligation to serve their needs, even if the numbers weren’t meeting some predetermined threshold. I do think we might recall that the Son of Man came to serve, not to be served.
Also, I'm really not sure that the simple provision of a BCP Communion service is a particularly Christlike expression of priestly service, just as I'm not convinced that sporadic and solitary attendance at an 8.00am Holy Communion is a particularly biblical model of discipleship.
While any priest's ministry may encompass many things, for me being present for them was important. The hour or so I made available was only an hour in a week of many acts of priestly service. I could not turn my back on them by saying that hour might have been used for "more important" reasons since for me, nothing was more important that being present for them.
I guess one could just decide that for oneself, but there’s also the option of allowing the word the inform our decisions, as I’m sure you’d agree.
Fair enough, but I wouldn’t be comfortable with that level of insouciance regarding the spiritual welfare and maturity of Christ’s flock, or myself for that matter.
This is very a laudable sentiment, but I don’t think it’s intrinsically a more Christlike form of service than, say, seeking the lost.
Discipleship is indeed important. But I should note that the three attending early service were not exactly slackers. One, in her late 70’s, was very involved in the parish’s weekly, free evening meal for any in the community who wished to come. She also ran the parish thrift shop, the proceeds of which supported grocery store gift cards for giving to those having difficulty making ends meet, and provided special holiday grocery gift cards as well. Her companion in hiding behind the pillar was 96, and daily bathed, cleaned house and cooked meals for a neighbor who was 100. The former warden who made no responses daily cared for his disabled grandson so the boy’s mother could go to work and not bear the expense of carers. Might they have attended the sung service later in the day? I suppose so. But clearly they have not done so now that the early service is gone.
And I will admit that in retirement on those Sundays I am not filling in somewhere, I prefer to attend a simple, said early service myself, to fulfill my obligation, to have quiet, reflective prayer without the high energy of sung service with Sunday School going out and coming in, and a crowded parking lot to maneuver out of.
Full marks to BabyWombat and other priests who see this as an important part of their ministry as servants.
The two parishes I mentioned earlier cancelled or curtailed their Early Services mainly AIUI because of the sheer difficulty of getting able and willing clergy, but I now see that one of them runs an 8am service of lay-led 'Morning Prayer' on the third Sunday each month, though I can't say how many avail themselves of this provision. The main service on that day is the customary 10am Parish Communion....
Historically, the current early service (9.00am) was moved from 10.00am in order to make way for a new family service. The previous pattern had been an 8.00am BCP service and a 10.00am ASB Eucharist.
Over time the “new” family service has become the larger congregation of the two. The 9.00am, comprised primarily of the former 10.30am ASB congregation has dwindled from about 25 regular attenders to an average of 4 or 5 from a list perhaps 8-10 people.
So my question is this. Is it ever appropriate to close a service in order to focus one’s energies on making another service as accessible as possible for the whole church and newcomers alike? At present the 10.30am service could do with more time to prepare, for the musicians to set up and perhaps a pre-service prayer meeting led by the clergy. Is this a reasonable request for one congregation to make of another? Or should another solution be found?
Is it *ever*? Almost certainly, yes - there will be times when the needs of the many are more important than the needs of the few.
Is it *in this case*? On the information that we have, I would suggest that the answer is no. It seems that over the years there has been quite a change of tradition at your church. The early service (if I have understood you properly) is the last vestige of the church's old style of worship. Withdrawing it will mean not just withdrawing a service for the handful who do attend, but withdrawing an opportunity for currently unchurched people who may find the old style an easier gateway to faith than the new style.
You need to consider opportunities as well as the immediate situation.
Interestingly, this was at the instigation of the PCC during an interregnum when it specifically called, in its parish profile, for an evangelical minister to take the church in that particular direction.
The situation - as it now stands - has been inherited by the current minister. So, in some respects, despite the considerable timescales involved, the church is experiencing the logical outcome of decisions made well before the current minister's tenure.
Of course, this doesn't mean that the minister can abdicate his pastoral responsibility towards the longer-standing congregation, but it should also be acknowledged that the writing has been on the wall for that congregation (barring a miracle) for some considerable time.
We have two real regulars, and two or three who are once or twice a month, a handful of occasionals, and sometimes visitors.
In a nearby village to us there are two churches, one Anglican, one Methodist. Both buildings need considerable sums spending on them to make them safe and then cost effective to run, let alone modernised for the 21st century. Having no virtues at all, the Methodist building would be the logical one to close.
Each church has about 12 attendees from time to time. Each church has a service on alternate weeks. Some members attend both churches. There is no point at all in keeping both open. If they amalgamated their resources, especially the human ones, they might make a better impact together than separately.
I am sure this latter could be repeated all over the country.
I'd have thought that priests with young children would rather be free during the day on Sunday (not that that is usually an option); not usually much happening early Saturday evening and in any case they would be either saying Evening Prayer or writing a sermon at that time. What would canon law have to do with it? It's an additional service, not the main Sunday worship. Liturgically Saturday evening is part of Sunday.
A good number of post Reformation communities started to count the 'Sabbath' from midnight to midnight and this led to the demise of Saturday evening services.
In the continuing post Reformation Catholic church one has to remember that the continued use of the Latin language in the liturgical services meant that First Vespers was not the big draw which it might have been at one time.
In the 1950s the continuing Catholic church allowed for the first time Mass to be celebrated in the evening. Since then Saturday evening has been a popular time for the first Sunday eucharists.
The Church, however, tries not to get too hung up about EXACTLY WHAT TIME is the time to begin the Sunday services. Many people understand that it is between 12 noon on Saturday and midnight on Sunday.