For "plant" read "takeover". Holy Trinity, Boar Lane, Leeds, used to accommodate the local Polish Orthodox community until it died out (about 30 years ago).
I suppose you can console yourself with the thought that, Boris having conquered the Evil Covid Beast, you will soon be able to do away with social distancing, booking slots etc. ...
But @Aravis is outside Johnson's jurisdiction. It's Drakeford's terrain, who's been a bit heavy handed but has done a better job.
Meanwhile, All Hallows' Leeds continues to faithfully serve its local community (both students and non-students) by using such radical ideas as being inclusive and welcoming to everyone and not discarding those deemed not productive enough to be 'passengers'. For all the Stalinist and Maoist comparisons I've seen, there is more than a hint of the 'workshy' category going on here. Frankly it all makes my blood run cold while also making me furious on behalf of the many churches doing the unglamorous work of supporting their parishes day-in, day-out without feeling the need to abandon it all and plant somewhere else so they can get a bunch of nice middle-class students and families instead of those already on the margins. There are *so* many ways to support smaller and/or rural congregations in outreach without trying to build some kind of evangelical empire.
Looking at the chart in the recent CofE document linked above, the background of attendees at the "resource churches" is illuminating.
38% have transferred from a local church
24% are new to the area, but churchgoers
10% go in addition to their own church
14% are lapsed churchgoers
5% are members of the plant team
In other words, all of this money and effort is being spent to potentially add just 9% to the number of brand-new churchgoers and maybe bring back another 14%.
I bet the churches that have lost the 38% - those who have transferred - are not happy.
Depends what those 38% are like... they might be glad to be rid.
Seriously though, people moving from one church to another happens and in some cases, frankly, the fault lies with the church they move from. And sometimes there is no fault as such, just irreconcilable differences. And not always in theology or even style of service.
However the problem is where the growing congregations at these places are presented as evidence that these places are being successful in mission, which is how they're being sold.
It's what I've always suspected about this initiatives, having been one of the 10% attending alongside my own church, out of interest to see what is going on.
The more the CofE plays these games, the less they are making the church anything I want to return to, ever. The statistic that would be interesting is the number of people who were church members now leaving the church temporarily or permanently for whatever reason. Possibly broken down by reasons:
church changed to something no longer felt a part of, and stopped attending;
church holds views I cannot sign up to;
did too much, burned out and was seen as a useless passenger, so left;
no vicar for 18 months interregnum so stopped attending when all services were lay led services of the Word;
rural church used to attend is now part of a huge team with erratic irregular services so never remember when there is a service at this church;
church here is now mostly a satellite to another church 10 miles away and there are no bus routes to get there on a Sunday;
I bet the churches that have lost the 38% - those who have transferred - are not happy.
Depends what those 38% are like... they might be glad to be rid.
Seriously though, people moving from one church to another happens and in some cases, frankly, the fault lies with the church they move from. And sometimes there is no fault as such, just irreconcilable differences. And not always in theology or even style of service.
However the problem is where the growing congregations at these places are presented as evidence that these places are being successful in mission, which is how they're being sold.
Yes, fair comment. Our Place lost about 6 people some years ago, when they crossed the Tiber. Frankly, we were indeed glad to see them go, as they were born trouble-makers (one of them even sent me poison-pen letters, accusing me of being some sort of Fifth Columnist, sent in by the Bishop to convert everyone to the idea that Wimmin Priests were OK...).
Your final paragraph is pertinent, and the figures show clearly that this business of success in mission is to a certain extent a Hideous Fib.
Frankly it all makes ... me furious on behalf of the many churches doing the unglamorous work of supporting their parishes day-in, day-out without feeling the need to abandon it all and plant somewhere else so they can get a bunch of nice middle-class students and families instead of those already on the margins. There are *so* many ways to support smaller and/or rural congregations in outreach without trying to build some kind of evangelical empire.
And the brand-new "River Church" in Ipswich is also looking for staff: https://networksuffolk.org.uk/2021/05/river-church-vacancies/ Wouldn't it be nice for most of us to have a full-time "Operations Manager" and even a part-time "Worship and Creative Pastor"? Admittedly this does seem to be being done with greater co-operation from existing congregations than in many places.
In other words, all of this money and effort is being spent to potentially add just 9% to the number of brand-new churchgoers and maybe bring back another 14%.
Does that strike as a good return in investment?
I have recently been part of two online Baptist groups which have discussed Resource Churches with an Anglican representative from the movement. Given that most Baptists are Evangelicals and see both Mission and Church Planting as "good things", the atmosphere was notably hostile. The biggest issues were people transferring to the "exciting new church", the lack of consultation with other churches, and fact that these churches tended to go after the student/young professionals "market" while apparently neglecting needy areas.
Of course it was a self-selecting group so may not be representative of all Baptist ministers.
It's what I've always suspected about this initiatives, having been one of the 10% attending alongside my own church, out of interest to see what is going on.
The more the CofE plays these games, the less they are making the church anything I want to return to, ever. The statistic that would be interesting is the number of people who were church members now leaving the church temporarily or permanently for whatever reason. Possibly broken down by reasons:
church changed to something no longer felt a part of, and stopped attending;
church holds views I cannot sign up to;
did too much, burned out and was seen as a useless passenger, so left;
no vicar for 18 months interregnum so stopped attending when all services were lay led services of the Word;
rural church used to attend is now part of a huge team with erratic irregular services so never remember when there is a service at this church;
church here is now mostly a satellite to another church 10 miles away and there are no bus routes to get there on a Sunday;
any other reasons.
Well yes.
Some six or seven years ago - maybe more, time flies so fast - we left our local parish church because we had the only children there, and despite my being in my 40s then we were still the youngest by decades. Raising this always comes across badly but the reality is there was a massive culture gap. We'd been therefore doing the kids' work and needed a break; no-one stepped into the breach, and with our youngest primary age having both ASD and ADHD it just wasn't workable.
Which is where the whole thing gets a bit interesting. The place for us at that point was - erm - a FE, outside the Parish System. That unfortunately died the death earlier this year through simple attrition.
Now we're not going anywhere. Our local Parish church has now fully drunk the Girls Have Cooties CoolAid, we've been a couple of times to the next one along (a couple of miles away) but it's been so dry with the Covid restrictions that we've actually decided to give it a miss for a few months and try to slide back in when Advent comes around. If we can't get into it again during Advent and Christmas I don't know; I think we might have reached a point of complete Ecclesiastical Disconnect. Or complete God Disconnect. If there's a God to disconnect from
Our local Parish church has now fully drunk the Girls Have Cooties CoolAid,
Eh?????
Have signed resolutions A, B and C, so will only accept a male priest, ordained by a male bishop, and are under the oversight of a provincial episcopal visitor, otherwise known as a Flying Bishop.
(I wandered into a church run by one of the leading lights of Forward in Faith (FiF), and have never felt so unwelcome anywhere. I know the local FiF church, which is now part of the local team, which could be interesting, as currently that team only has one male priest.)
Our local Parish church has now fully drunk the Girls Have Cooties CoolAid,
Eh?????
Have signed resolutions A, B and C, so will only accept a male priest, ordained by a male bishop, and are under the oversight of a provincial episcopal visitor, otherwise known as a Flying Bishop.
(I wandered into a church run by one of the leading lights of Forward in Faith (FiF), and have never felt so unwelcome anywhere. I know the local FiF church, which is now part of the local team, which could be interesting, as currently that team only has one male priest.)
I have a lot of time for and a lot of love for +Philip North but some of his Society peers....it's frustrating. I have no time for Martyn Percy and the other cis white men who told a bunch of women priests that they were wrong to actually like and support +Philip becoming +Sheffield, but also I'm so tired of Society priests fannying around boozing it up at Walsingham rather than doing the *work* that needs doing. Women and those of us who are Other Havers of Cooties don't need either group to try to speak on our behalf either.
Seriously though, people moving from one church to another happens and in some cases, frankly, the fault lies with the church they move from. And sometimes there is no fault as such, just irreconcilable differences. And not always in theology or even style of service.
However the problem is where the growing congregations at these places are presented as evidence that these places are being successful in mission, which is how they're being sold.
Well, taking these paragraphs together, it's not inconceivable that they were retained in the Church as opposed to lost to it altogether, and that in itself has some value. Adding the number transferring to those churchgoers new to the area comes to well over 50% of the new congregations, there's no guarantee that they would have stayed in the Church otherwise, and every indication that they would have otherwise drifted away.
Looking at the chart in the recent CofE document linked above, the background of attendees at the "resource churches" is illuminating.
38% have transferred from a local church
24% are new to the area, but churchgoers
10% go in addition to their own church
14% are lapsed churchgoers
5% are members of the plant team
In other words, all of this money and effort is being spent to potentially add just 9% to the number of brand-new churchgoers and maybe bring back another 14%.
Does that strike as a good return in investment?
Also depends how many of the 24% new to the area would never have ended up continuing their churchgoing at one of the existing churches.
Or even if it is stopping a bigger number of the 38% from leaving the "exciting" resource church than would have eventual left their existing churches and not go anywhere instead?
Which is a similar point to the one made by Chris Stiles above. It shows that raw statistics, however suggestive, may not tell the full story.
And those statistics can be used as a means of deflection, a world in which everything is the fault of evangelicals, those pesky church shoppers and the PTB that won't allocate resources appropriately, which completely ignores how the church got into the state where the evangelicals are the largest wing and which tendencies dominate the hierarchy.
Which is a similar point to the one made by Chris Stiles above. It shows that raw statistics, however suggestive, may not tell the full story.
And those statistics can be used as a means of deflection, a world in which everything is the fault of evangelicals, those pesky church shoppers and the PTB that won't allocate resources appropriately, which completely ignores how the church got into the state where the evangelicals are the largest wing and which tendencies dominate the hierarchy.
Just out of interest, how do you think the church got into the state you describe (accurately IMHO)? And what can be done about it, to redress the balance, as it were?
Which is a similar point to the one made by Chris Stiles above. It shows that raw statistics, however suggestive, may not tell the full story.
And those statistics can be used as a means of deflection, a world in which everything is the fault of evangelicals, those pesky church shoppers and the PTB that won't allocate resources appropriately, which completely ignores how the church got into the state where the evangelicals are the largest wing and which tendencies dominate the hierarchy.
Just out of interest, how do you think the church got into the state you describe (accurately IMHO)? And what can be done about it, to redress the balance, as it were?
The current situation is over-determined and can't be easily reduced to a single set of explanations; but because it is over-determined it won't do for the various parties to sit around and pretend that they have/had no agency (especially when they were more numerous and powerful in the past). The extension of that tendency into the current day leads to an inertia and an aversion to actually doing anything for the lack of something, and in this way the best has become the enemy of the good. I think the whole church needs a willingness to take responsibility and to change if necessary that extends out to the grass roots level, I think people need to start being much more honest with each other as to what they want (it's no good hiding behind process and consultancy if there is ultimately only one answer you'd accept).
ISTM that Evangelical domination has come about (at least in part) because the Evangelical wing of the church has declined the least.
At my Parish Church, the gravestones now have a number of names on them I remember as congregation. They've not, by and large, been replaced by newcomers. Complacency is part of the reason. I've been told for a very long time that churches full of pensioners are not at risk from die off as the demographics would imply, because "when people get to their 50s they start going back to church." Well, I'm in my 50s. My contemporaries are not going back to church. They never went in the first place, in order to go back. It's thinking that may have been true thirty years ago, but it isn't now. My parent's generation, who were young in the 50s and 60s, were the last generation with a broad base of youth church attendance to have gone back to. Well, they are the pensioners now. There's no-one to replace them when they die.
This has affected the Evangelicals less, for a number of reasons I can think of:
1. They've always at least believed in evangelism and done some. There must have been the odd success, here and there.
2. They create an entire Christian ecosystem that it's harder to drop out of. House groups, prayer groups, mens' breakfast (no idea what it is but it appears on lots of Evangelical Church noticeboards), bible study groups - you name it, you can fill your social calendar from a lot of Evangelical church notice sheets.
3. As a general rule (prepares for the onslaught of people pointing out they're an exception but this place is absolutely no guide at all as it's full to the gunwhales with weirdos. Loveable weirdos, but, Shipmates, you're really not a microcosm of the wider Church, Sorry) younger churchgoers prefer the praise band approach over Anglican Chant and hymns. I do know of a number of non-Evangelicals who attend Evangelical churches because of the music. I don't know anyone who swings the other way. This makes for younger congregations less susceptible to demographic numerical decay*
4. They're better at keeping people. Cynical bastards like me might say that if you tell people they risk eternal torment if they lose their faith then naturally folk will hedge their bets, but it's not just that. There's a strong sense that you're in on something big. Especially at the Charismatic end there's a constant sense that God's got these amazing plans just around the corner that you want to be part of. There's more to it than that but I can't put my finger on it.
5. They're way better with youth. Way better. This is I think in part because a younger congregation contains more people young enough to have non-adult children, which means you can actually do youth work where you can split into different age groups and have a range of resources and people involved. At one point where our (MoTR to high) parish church actually had a few children, we got sent on a youthwork day in Sheffield. Absolutely everyone else there was evangelical charismatic. I still don't know how I survived the worship sessions. Lay back and thought of England I think. I think also the sense of certainty (even if it doesn't represent how all the individual members actually feel) transmits to the young people as well and while I don't have any figures, I bet the generational drop out is less with the Evangelicals than the rest. To put it another way, their kids are more likely to grow up into independently church-going adults.
As to other parts of their success, dominance and prominence in current proposed solutions, well:
1. I'm going to hark back to the sacrament issue again. Evangelicals are far more focused on services of the word and less on sacraments. They can and do therefore have all sorts of lay-led (i.e. cheap - oooh, and a point 2 coming there) sub-groups and services going on because the standard offering doesn't need to have the Eucharist with every Sunday service in the way cheap pub menus have chips with everything.
2. I said there was a point 2. Yep. Now, whenever I've been an organist (in the dim and distant past) I was paid. Not necessarily very much but the point stands. Do you think all the people in most evangelical church worship groups get paid? They don't. Evangelicals have the double advantage of middle-class earning (not retired) congregants who give both money and their time for free. That's handy isn't it? And they pay for their own instruments, rather than having to put a massive wooden thermometer outside with "only £2500 to go!" on it (last five years' fetes raised a total of £300, to put it in perspective) for the organ fund to get it serviced.
3. They have more people to put forward for ordination who have more than five years in them before they'll have to be put out to grass. Because everything above.
Some of what I reckon anyway. Solutions have I none.
I think you make a lot of good points, although I'm sure some folk here will quibble.
I'm in absolute total agreement, but then I'm in the tiny young-trad-anglo-catholic camp.
To be honest, I think the FiF tendency will survive for the same reasons (largely). It's smaller, but it's all-embracing if people want it to be, in much the same way. It's a definite subculture. Sub-cultures cling on when the mainstream moves on. Or something.
No, I'm in total agreement with KarlLB too. And frankly I think there's a huge lack of honest self-reflection amongst MOTR and liberal churches (and other non-Evangelicals) as to why Evangelicals are so successful, and the difference in youth and children's provision is a HUGE factor. Even in non-Evangelical churches I've been in where they have the numbers in terms of children attending, the quality of Sunday School teaching and other provision has often been absolutely shocking. I might find a lot of Evangelical teaching of children to be morally abhorrent, but they do it really, really well. The huge amount of willing volunteer labour plays a big role but also just the available resources. Liberal churches and others haven't created their own equivalent to Scripture Union lesson plans or Spring Harvest. The actual content is missing as well as the labour to carry it out.
I sort of mostly agree with Betjemaniac. My quibble is that the FiF subculture may survive, but will it do so in a way that is good for the wider church? I don't see how the trad A-C wing is compatible with effective outreach with this mindset. It seems to me that it's already decided in favour of splendid isolation rather than work with progressives, which may mean that they survive but at what cost? I mean this regarding the subculture at large rather than individual churches, I know there are exceptions (and I'm sure you don't need to be reminded that I am not coming from a place of anti-FiF prejudice, rather just sadness at the exclusion).
I wouldn't at all quibble in broad terms with Karl's observations. I think they are points well made.
I know people in their 20s who are fairly liberal theologically but who attend trendy evangelical congregations because they like the vibe. It isn't just the music. They want to pull.
I also know plenty of older people who have been driven out of churches by the music and the volume.
I even know a former Catholic who attends a traditional MoTR to vaguely high Anglican parish church because of the 'banjoes' in RC parishes these days. Outside of church he enjoys jazz and blues and is a big Ry Cooper fan. But bring a guitar to church and he'd be out the door.
Evangelicalism does get a lot of stick here aboard Ship, but they do get things done and also tends to foster a degree of creativity and enterprise.
It's interesting that both evangelicalism and stratospheric settings such as FiF have been cited as all enveloping subcultures.
I know a very liberal retired vicar who believes that 'both wings' of the CofE can end up 'taking over people's lives'.
Yes - I definitely know of younger people who would be theologically at home in a liberal MOTR to high Anglican place, but attend charismatic Evangelical churches. I wouldn't be quite as blunt to say it's just about pulling, but it is largely about wanting a social life at church and people to go down the pub with. I think the home group and casual evening service culture also foster this. Evangelical churches provide a different kind of social life to bellringing groups and the Mother's Union. When I left Evangelical churches, it was the thing I missed the most. Unfortunately, I am too neurodiverse to entertain the cognitive dissonance of attending a HTB type place. Greenbelt is the place that gets it most right, but is also a) mostly non-Anglican influenced at this stage (to the extent that the insistence on Anglican communion puzzles me) and b) has its own issues with diversity and inclusion. And of course, churches can't do the same things as a festival.
I sort of mostly agree with Betjemaniac. My quibble is that the FiF subculture may survive, but will it do so in a way that is good for the wider church? I don't see how the trad A-C wing is compatible with effective outreach with this mindset. It seems to me that it's already decided in favour of splendid isolation rather than work with progressives, which may mean that they survive but at what cost? I mean this regarding the subculture at large rather than individual churches, I know there are exceptions (and I'm sure you don't need to be reminded that I am not coming from a place of anti-FiF prejudice, rather just sadness at the exclusion).
Oh absolutely, I don't think the survival would be in a way that was good for the wider church (other than trad view of apostolic succession, obviously ) any more than the survival of the other extreme would.
I think that possibly what outreach there is from FiF land might be more effective though than this thread's view of the CharEvo and other crowd. Thinking in particular of the combination of 'here we are if you want us' and ludicrous eccentricity while living amongst the people where they are - thinking bicycling priests in birettas on some of the tougher estates - which means *some* FiF churches and fellow travelling shacks look a bit less middle class, youthful, etc than *some* of the evangelical examples on this thread.
I'm aware all of that comes under your 'exceptions'- I *think* in my experience, that FiF-land suffers from quite how high profile it's party churches (cathedrals, if you will) are, so if you go to Walsingham, or Pusey House, or the central London ones then it gives a different social picture to what you'd get at St Barnabas Oxford, St Silas Kentish Town, St Peter London Docks etc. Potentially that's the same on the other side, but I've only really been to St Aldates and St Ebbes so not qualified to comment!
One other thought, I think 'splendid isolation rather than work with progressives' is potentially a little unfair but I think that depends on where you are really (geographically). Since the 5GP etc I've been really impressed (and I say this as a Society inclined layperson at the reasonable end) with how +Fulham has been working with +London say. The picture in the capital seems to be much more involved with everyone else but different from them, and from what I can see in the Thames Valley it's going the same way. On the other hand there's Chichester...
I hesitate to become the 'voice of FiF' on the Ship though. I've never been a member, though definitely a sympathiser and know many of the younger FiF/SSC priests personally. I've never gone out of my way to seek out an FiF church as I've moved around the country. I will admit that I *do* specifically look for a church with a male vicar, but other than that I take what I'm given as the mass is the mass is the mass. I'm most happy really with hyper rural BCP and Hymns A&M to be honest. Maybe I'm really a Prayer Book Evangelical...
5 Guiding Principles - the legislation put in place at General Synod to keep everyone playing nicely at the advent of bishops who happen to be women. Most of the Trad Anglo-Catholics who couldn't live with them have left. There are people (on both sides to be fair) still kicking off about it, but for the most part I think there's been more genuine co-operation between FiF/Society churches and the rest of the CofE than there was before, and certainly since the Ordinariate siphoned off a lot of the purists who couldn't live with a mixed economy.
It's not perfect, but many of us (again on both sides) seem to be committed to making it work.
In fairness I've spent most of my Christian life living in Chichester or Winchester dioceses, which has admittedly probably coloured my view of things. And I know that even in those places (and I know Chichester is changing) there are some excellent Society churches which are really carrying on the Slum Parish traditions, eg Christ Church Eastbourne (which I would be more than happy to become a member of if it was local to me).
It might be worth pointing out that some (possibly most) Society/FiF parishes and clergy do indeed simply get on with the job, without banging on continually about the Dead Horse issues.
@betjemaniac is right, I think, about the greater degree of co-operation (or *playing nicely*) between Society/FiF parishes and a good part of The Rest.
The purists have mostly gone, the majority (I suspect) to the mainstream RC church, rather than the Ordinariate.
<tangent>I tripped over an Ordinariate church in London, Southwark, yesterday - the Church of the Most Precious Blood, founded as a catholic parish in 1891, handed over to the Ordinariate in 2012.</tangent>
I said upthread somewhere that the local church signed up to the three resolutions (i.e. FiF) is now part of a team with three other churches that are not, served by the male lead priest - it's his name on the board. Within that team there are this male priest, a female priest and a female curate, plus readers various. It's in an odd position this church, a good mile away across the fields from the village it serves, old, lovely, but I don't think it would be surviving without the FiF congregation.
<tangent>I tripped over an Ordinariate church in London, Southwark, yesterday - the Church of the Most Precious Blood, founded as a catholic parish in 1891, handed over to the Ordinariate in 2012.</tangent>
I said upthread somewhere that the local church signed up to the three resolutions (i.e. FiF) is now part of a team with three other churches that are not, served by the male lead priest - it's his name on the board. Within that team there are this male priest, a female priest and a female curate, plus readers various. It's in an odd position this church, a good mile away across the fields from the village it serves, old, lovely, but I don't think it would be surviving without the FiF congregation.
/tangent continuation/
Yes, I used to see the Church of the MPB from the train whilst commuting to London many years ago. I'd forgotten that it was now an Ordinariate shrine. There are others, but not many, I think. Two priests from this Diocese joined the Ordinariate, but are now in charge of *mainstream* RC parishes. Their former Anglican churches are still in action, though, and flourishing.
I said upthread somewhere that the local church signed up to the three resolutions (i.e. FiF) is now part of a team with three other churches that are not, served by the male lead priest - it's his name on the board.
I always think that things like that will either work brilliantly, or store up trouble for the future. I think I've said before that I know of one church that passed Res ABC just to leave a benefice where they'd fallen out with the other parishes. Not churchmanship, not theology, just 'it's an escape route, pull the rip cord' - I'd always be wondering what happens to the 'team' next time there's a vacancy if this one puts its foot down and says, 'must be a man'?
I'm aware as a Society layperson that potentially I'm part of the problem here but I always want to think a few steps ahead in case of elephant traps for everybody!
Having said that, I can think of a 7 (!) parish benefice of my acquaintance where just such a situation exists. 6 don't care either way as long as it's the right person. One parish really does (though didn't ever pass the resolutions) and the rest bend to it to keep the peace (and because it has probably the biggest congregation in the benefice, though surprisingly perhaps, almost all locals rather than drive-ins).
well that was constructive - are you one of the people happy to describe it as such, or merely repeating what other people call it? Just so we're clear. That's a *very* particular insult, commonly flung around at (elements of) FiF by other elements of religious people... To be clear it's *usually* either from the CofE or RC side but boils down to it being 'a group of gay priests who lacked the courage to go to Rome because of their boyfriends' - because of the association with the music hall act of the same name, men dressed as women, effeminate mannerisms and double entendres, which started with (and indeed always retained) a large gay following.
But I accept 'the society of hinge and bracket' makes all that point in 6 words...
Comments
For "plant" read "takeover". Holy Trinity, Boar Lane, Leeds, used to accommodate the local Polish Orthodox community until it died out (about 30 years ago).
*shudders at the Boar Lane curacy description*
Meanwhile, All Hallows' Leeds continues to faithfully serve its local community (both students and non-students) by using such radical ideas as being inclusive and welcoming to everyone and not discarding those deemed not productive enough to be 'passengers'. For all the Stalinist and Maoist comparisons I've seen, there is more than a hint of the 'workshy' category going on here. Frankly it all makes my blood run cold while also making me furious on behalf of the many churches doing the unglamorous work of supporting their parishes day-in, day-out without feeling the need to abandon it all and plant somewhere else so they can get a bunch of nice middle-class students and families instead of those already on the margins. There are *so* many ways to support smaller and/or rural congregations in outreach without trying to build some kind of evangelical empire.
38% have transferred from a local church
24% are new to the area, but churchgoers
10% go in addition to their own church
14% are lapsed churchgoers
5% are members of the plant team
In other words, all of this money and effort is being spent to potentially add just 9% to the number of brand-new churchgoers and maybe bring back another 14%.
Does that strike as a good return in investment?
I bet the churches that have lost the 38% - those who have transferred - are not happy.
Depends what those 38% are like... they might be glad to be rid.
Seriously though, people moving from one church to another happens and in some cases, frankly, the fault lies with the church they move from. And sometimes there is no fault as such, just irreconcilable differences. And not always in theology or even style of service.
However the problem is where the growing congregations at these places are presented as evidence that these places are being successful in mission, which is how they're being sold.
The more the CofE plays these games, the less they are making the church anything I want to return to, ever. The statistic that would be interesting is the number of people who were church members now leaving the church temporarily or permanently for whatever reason. Possibly broken down by reasons:
Yes, fair comment. Our Place lost about 6 people some years ago, when they crossed the Tiber. Frankly, we were indeed glad to see them go, as they were born trouble-makers (one of them even sent me poison-pen letters, accusing me of being some sort of Fifth Columnist, sent in by the Bishop to convert everyone to the idea that Wimmin Priests were OK...).
Your final paragraph is pertinent, and the figures show clearly that this business of success in mission is to a certain extent a Hideous Fib.
Of course it was a self-selecting group so may not be representative of all Baptist ministers.
Well yes.
Some six or seven years ago - maybe more, time flies so fast - we left our local parish church because we had the only children there, and despite my being in my 40s then we were still the youngest by decades. Raising this always comes across badly but the reality is there was a massive culture gap. We'd been therefore doing the kids' work and needed a break; no-one stepped into the breach, and with our youngest primary age having both ASD and ADHD it just wasn't workable.
Which is where the whole thing gets a bit interesting. The place for us at that point was - erm - a FE, outside the Parish System. That unfortunately died the death earlier this year through simple attrition.
Now we're not going anywhere. Our local Parish church has now fully drunk the Girls Have Cooties CoolAid, we've been a couple of times to the next one along (a couple of miles away) but it's been so dry with the Covid restrictions that we've actually decided to give it a miss for a few months and try to slide back in when Advent comes around. If we can't get into it again during Advent and Christmas I don't know; I think we might have reached a point of complete Ecclesiastical Disconnect. Or complete God Disconnect. If there's a God to disconnect from
Entirely opposed to anyone without a male member dangling between their legs being in any way in charge.
Have signed resolutions A, B and C, so will only accept a male priest, ordained by a male bishop, and are under the oversight of a provincial episcopal visitor, otherwise known as a Flying Bishop.
(I wandered into a church run by one of the leading lights of Forward in Faith (FiF), and have never felt so unwelcome anywhere. I know the local FiF church, which is now part of the local team, which could be interesting, as currently that team only has one male priest.)
Ah. Thank you (both).
Well, you say this but I doubt they'd welcome a trans woman being in charge either 😉 Sometimes, a penis is not enough for them.
They've probably not given it a moment's thought, but yeah, I bet they want you to tick both boxes.
I have a lot of time for and a lot of love for +Philip North but some of his Society peers....it's frustrating. I have no time for Martyn Percy and the other cis white men who told a bunch of women priests that they were wrong to actually like and support +Philip becoming +Sheffield, but also I'm so tired of Society priests fannying around boozing it up at Walsingham rather than doing the *work* that needs doing. Women and those of us who are Other Havers of Cooties don't need either group to try to speak on our behalf either.
Well, taking these paragraphs together, it's not inconceivable that they were retained in the Church as opposed to lost to it altogether, and that in itself has some value. Adding the number transferring to those churchgoers new to the area comes to well over 50% of the new congregations, there's no guarantee that they would have stayed in the Church otherwise, and every indication that they would have otherwise drifted away.
Also depends how many of the 24% new to the area would never have ended up continuing their churchgoing at one of the existing churches.
Or even if it is stopping a bigger number of the 38% from leaving the "exciting" resource church than would have eventual left their existing churches and not go anywhere instead?
And those statistics can be used as a means of deflection, a world in which everything is the fault of evangelicals, those pesky church shoppers and the PTB that won't allocate resources appropriately, which completely ignores how the church got into the state where the evangelicals are the largest wing and which tendencies dominate the hierarchy.
Just out of interest, how do you think the church got into the state you describe (accurately IMHO)? And what can be done about it, to redress the balance, as it were?
The current situation is over-determined and can't be easily reduced to a single set of explanations; but because it is over-determined it won't do for the various parties to sit around and pretend that they have/had no agency (especially when they were more numerous and powerful in the past). The extension of that tendency into the current day leads to an inertia and an aversion to actually doing anything for the lack of something, and in this way the best has become the enemy of the good. I think the whole church needs a willingness to take responsibility and to change if necessary that extends out to the grass roots level, I think people need to start being much more honest with each other as to what they want (it's no good hiding behind process and consultancy if there is ultimately only one answer you'd accept).
More than enough causes to account for the final state.
At my Parish Church, the gravestones now have a number of names on them I remember as congregation. They've not, by and large, been replaced by newcomers. Complacency is part of the reason. I've been told for a very long time that churches full of pensioners are not at risk from die off as the demographics would imply, because "when people get to their 50s they start going back to church." Well, I'm in my 50s. My contemporaries are not going back to church. They never went in the first place, in order to go back. It's thinking that may have been true thirty years ago, but it isn't now. My parent's generation, who were young in the 50s and 60s, were the last generation with a broad base of youth church attendance to have gone back to. Well, they are the pensioners now. There's no-one to replace them when they die.
This has affected the Evangelicals less, for a number of reasons I can think of:
1. They've always at least believed in evangelism and done some. There must have been the odd success, here and there.
2. They create an entire Christian ecosystem that it's harder to drop out of. House groups, prayer groups, mens' breakfast (no idea what it is but it appears on lots of Evangelical Church noticeboards), bible study groups - you name it, you can fill your social calendar from a lot of Evangelical church notice sheets.
3. As a general rule (prepares for the onslaught of people pointing out they're an exception but this place is absolutely no guide at all as it's full to the gunwhales with weirdos. Loveable weirdos, but, Shipmates, you're really not a microcosm of the wider Church, Sorry) younger churchgoers prefer the praise band approach over Anglican Chant and hymns. I do know of a number of non-Evangelicals who attend Evangelical churches because of the music. I don't know anyone who swings the other way. This makes for younger congregations less susceptible to demographic numerical decay*
4. They're better at keeping people. Cynical bastards like me might say that if you tell people they risk eternal torment if they lose their faith then naturally folk will hedge their bets, but it's not just that. There's a strong sense that you're in on something big. Especially at the Charismatic end there's a constant sense that God's got these amazing plans just around the corner that you want to be part of. There's more to it than that but I can't put my finger on it.
5. They're way better with youth. Way better. This is I think in part because a younger congregation contains more people young enough to have non-adult children, which means you can actually do youth work where you can split into different age groups and have a range of resources and people involved. At one point where our (MoTR to high) parish church actually had a few children, we got sent on a youthwork day in Sheffield. Absolutely everyone else there was evangelical charismatic. I still don't know how I survived the worship sessions. Lay back and thought of England I think. I think also the sense of certainty (even if it doesn't represent how all the individual members actually feel) transmits to the young people as well and while I don't have any figures, I bet the generational drop out is less with the Evangelicals than the rest. To put it another way, their kids are more likely to grow up into independently church-going adults.
As to other parts of their success, dominance and prominence in current proposed solutions, well:
1. I'm going to hark back to the sacrament issue again. Evangelicals are far more focused on services of the word and less on sacraments. They can and do therefore have all sorts of lay-led (i.e. cheap - oooh, and a point 2 coming there) sub-groups and services going on because the standard offering doesn't need to have the Eucharist with every Sunday service in the way cheap pub menus have chips with everything.
2. I said there was a point 2. Yep. Now, whenever I've been an organist (in the dim and distant past) I was paid. Not necessarily very much but the point stands. Do you think all the people in most evangelical church worship groups get paid? They don't. Evangelicals have the double advantage of middle-class earning (not retired) congregants who give both money and their time for free. That's handy isn't it? And they pay for their own instruments, rather than having to put a massive wooden thermometer outside with "only £2500 to go!" on it (last five years' fetes raised a total of £300, to put it in perspective) for the organ fund to get it serviced.
3. They have more people to put forward for ordination who have more than five years in them before they'll have to be put out to grass. Because everything above.
Some of what I reckon anyway. Solutions have I none.
*elderly congregants dying.
I think you make a lot of good points, although I'm sure some folk here will quibble.
I'm in absolute total agreement, but then I'm in the tiny young-trad-anglo-catholic camp.
To be honest, I think the FiF tendency will survive for the same reasons (largely). It's smaller, but it's all-embracing if people want it to be, in much the same way. It's a definite subculture. Sub-cultures cling on when the mainstream moves on. Or something.
I sort of mostly agree with Betjemaniac. My quibble is that the FiF subculture may survive, but will it do so in a way that is good for the wider church? I don't see how the trad A-C wing is compatible with effective outreach with this mindset. It seems to me that it's already decided in favour of splendid isolation rather than work with progressives, which may mean that they survive but at what cost? I mean this regarding the subculture at large rather than individual churches, I know there are exceptions (and I'm sure you don't need to be reminded that I am not coming from a place of anti-FiF prejudice, rather just sadness at the exclusion).
I know people in their 20s who are fairly liberal theologically but who attend trendy evangelical congregations because they like the vibe. It isn't just the music. They want to pull.
I also know plenty of older people who have been driven out of churches by the music and the volume.
I even know a former Catholic who attends a traditional MoTR to vaguely high Anglican parish church because of the 'banjoes' in RC parishes these days. Outside of church he enjoys jazz and blues and is a big Ry Cooper fan. But bring a guitar to church and he'd be out the door.
Evangelicalism does get a lot of stick here aboard Ship, but they do get things done and also tends to foster a degree of creativity and enterprise.
It's interesting that both evangelicalism and stratospheric settings such as FiF have been cited as all enveloping subcultures.
I know a very liberal retired vicar who believes that 'both wings' of the CofE can end up 'taking over people's lives'.
Oh absolutely, I don't think the survival would be in a way that was good for the wider church (other than trad view of apostolic succession, obviously
I think that possibly what outreach there is from FiF land might be more effective though than this thread's view of the CharEvo and other crowd. Thinking in particular of the combination of 'here we are if you want us' and ludicrous eccentricity while living amongst the people where they are - thinking bicycling priests in birettas on some of the tougher estates - which means *some* FiF churches and fellow travelling shacks look a bit less middle class, youthful, etc than *some* of the evangelical examples on this thread.
I'm aware all of that comes under your 'exceptions'- I *think* in my experience, that FiF-land suffers from quite how high profile it's party churches (cathedrals, if you will) are, so if you go to Walsingham, or Pusey House, or the central London ones then it gives a different social picture to what you'd get at St Barnabas Oxford, St Silas Kentish Town, St Peter London Docks etc. Potentially that's the same on the other side, but I've only really been to St Aldates and St Ebbes so not qualified to comment!
One other thought, I think 'splendid isolation rather than work with progressives' is potentially a little unfair but I think that depends on where you are really (geographically). Since the 5GP etc I've been really impressed (and I say this as a Society inclined layperson at the reasonable end) with how +Fulham has been working with +London say. The picture in the capital seems to be much more involved with everyone else but different from them, and from what I can see in the Thames Valley it's going the same way. On the other hand there's Chichester...
I hesitate to become the 'voice of FiF' on the Ship though. I've never been a member, though definitely a sympathiser and know many of the younger FiF/SSC priests personally. I've never gone out of my way to seek out an FiF church as I've moved around the country. I will admit that I *do* specifically look for a church with a male vicar, but other than that I take what I'm given as the mass is the mass is the mass. I'm most happy really with hyper rural BCP and Hymns A&M to be honest. Maybe I'm really a Prayer Book Evangelical...
Yes Chichester is indeed changing. Thank goodness!
It's not perfect, but many of us (again on both sides) seem to be committed to making it work.
@betjemaniac is right, I think, about the greater degree of co-operation (or *playing nicely*) between Society/FiF parishes and a good part of The Rest.
The purists have mostly gone, the majority (I suspect) to the mainstream RC church, rather than the Ordinariate.
I said upthread somewhere that the local church signed up to the three resolutions (i.e. FiF) is now part of a team with three other churches that are not, served by the male lead priest - it's his name on the board. Within that team there are this male priest, a female priest and a female curate, plus readers various. It's in an odd position this church, a good mile away across the fields from the village it serves, old, lovely, but I don't think it would be surviving without the FiF congregation.
/tangent continuation/
Yes, I used to see the Church of the MPB from the train whilst commuting to London many years ago. I'd forgotten that it was now an Ordinariate shrine. There are others, but not many, I think. Two priests from this Diocese joined the Ordinariate, but are now in charge of *mainstream* RC parishes. Their former Anglican churches are still in action, though, and flourishing.
I always think that things like that will either work brilliantly, or store up trouble for the future. I think I've said before that I know of one church that passed Res ABC just to leave a benefice where they'd fallen out with the other parishes. Not churchmanship, not theology, just 'it's an escape route, pull the rip cord' - I'd always be wondering what happens to the 'team' next time there's a vacancy if this one puts its foot down and says, 'must be a man'?
I'm aware as a Society layperson that potentially I'm part of the problem here but I always want to think a few steps ahead in case of elephant traps for everybody!
https://www.sswsh.com/
AKA the society of hinge and bracket
https://www.sswsh.com/
Basically, the set of FiF parishes and priests.
well that was constructive - are you one of the people happy to describe it as such, or merely repeating what other people call it? Just so we're clear. That's a *very* particular insult, commonly flung around at (elements of) FiF by other elements of religious people... To be clear it's *usually* either from the CofE or RC side but boils down to it being 'a group of gay priests who lacked the courage to go to Rome because of their boyfriends' - because of the association with the music hall act of the same name, men dressed as women, effeminate mannerisms and double entendres, which started with (and indeed always retained) a large gay following.
But I accept 'the society of hinge and bracket' makes all that point in 6 words...
Aha. Lot of them around here unfortunately, from my perspective. Narrows the choice.