One of the questions that must be asked is, "Is correlation the same as causation?" There may be a statistical correlation - but for an entirely different reason.
Indeed. But whether or not there's causality doesn't affect the trajectory of growth or decline, which the chap behind the site examines more directly in Growth, Decline and Extinction of UK Churches. Looking at what he calls churchmanship:
All the evangelical denominations are growing, except for the Brethren. By contrast, all the mixed denominations are declining, with the liberal ones declining the most.
And as he concludes:
One thing is clear, if things carry on as they are, the future of Christianity does not lie in the hands of the older denominations. These products of the Reformation and Puritan times have run their course. They have fulfilled God’s purposes and are no longer part of his plan. The Church of England will cease to be a national church, and the Churches of Scotland and Wales will disappear by the middle of this century. Instead, God will work through the next cycle of denominations – Pentecostal and Evangelical ones, picking up the pieces left by the extinct historic churches.
Much of his work reminds me of business projections. In evangelicalism, church looks like a numbers game.
I used to think that there could be an unlikely-sounding correlation between "people who die of lung cancer" and "people who sit on the top deck of buses" - not so unlikely in fact, because smoking was allowed upstairs. On the other hand, the assertionthat "churches grow because they promote traditional family families" would need careful testing; lots of other factors will inevitably be at work. Indeed, churches which grow don't necessarily know why they are growing!
My observation is that evangelical churches usually have theories about why they're growing, which are often related to beliefs about their growth. Whether they're right about the reasons is another matter. Many churches seem squeamish about testing the theories.
The whole problem is with the measurement. If growth of numbers of attenders is your measure, then the more evangelical churches will win, because they also measure their success in this way. And so they push to get more people, to open more churches, to grow numerically.
I don't think that is the right measure. It is pretty well the only measure that makes sense to use - that is quantifiable. But it is still wrong.
We should be measuring whether the population is more caring, more like Jesus, more tolerant of others, more spiritual. And I don't see that, but I don't know how it would be measured either.
I think the aim of evangelicalism is to create more Christians - people who have a personal relationship with Jesus. Dragging them into church is how this is measured. I think evangelical churches that are growing see themselves, using the proxy measure of church attendance, as doing a better job at creating Christians.
Looking at it another way, church is more of a means to an end than the end itself. It could be argued that what evangelicals are good at is attaching people to the *person* of Christ, what they are less good at is attaching people to the *body* of Christ.
The whole problem is with the measurement. If growth of numbers of attenders is your measure, then the more evangelical churches will win, because they also measure their success in this way. And so they push to get more people, to open more churches, to grow numerically.
I don't think that is the right measure. It is pretty well the only measure that makes sense to use - that is quantifiable.
We are, after all, children of capitalism. Evangelical churches have just done a better job of picking this up and running with it.
But it is still wrong.
We should be measuring whether the population is more caring, more like Jesus, more tolerant of others, more spiritual. And I don't see that, but I don't know how it would be measured either.
Or we could abandon the idea that these things need to be measured at all.
I think the aim of evangelicalism is to create more Christians - people who have a personal relationship with Jesus. Dragging them into church is how this is measured. I think evangelical churches that are growing see themselves, using the proxy measure of church attendance, as doing a better job at creating Christians.
Looking at it another way, church is more of a means to an end than the end itself. It could be argued that what evangelicals are good at is attaching people to the *person* of Christ, what they are less good at is attaching people to the *body* of Christ.
Is there any particular evidence that the evangelical churches that are growing fastest are doing this badly by comparative measures?
Up thread there was a mention of the mostly contingent reasons people end up in a particular church vs another, and personal connections are going to factor heavily into that - so a lot of people are at least entering the church being attached to some part of the existing 'body of Christ'. Evangelical churches are also more likely to have some kind of programmatic commitment to activities which attach people to the 'body of Christ' (Alpha/Beta groups, home groups etc).
The idea that the historic Churches would head into extinction and that only the evangelical and charismatic/Pentecostal ones would survive is a position I'd have espoused back in the '80s and early '90s.
It's not a position I hold now, although I do believe the historic Churches will have to become leaner and fitter.
In fairness to our evangelical friends, I don't think it's fair today they 'drag' people into church.
Most evangelical converts in my experience come from connections people in these churches make with family, friends, colleagues or various social programmes rather than evangelistic campaigns as such.
They also develop styles and 'atmosphere' that can make it easier for people to get involved in a 'belonging before believing' sense.
Not all evangelicals stand on street corners haranguing passers-by.
The programmed evangelism tends to mobilise and motivate them but the actual conversions tend to happen more 'organically'.
Is there any particular evidence that the evangelical churches that are growing fastest are doing this badly by comparative measures?
Up thread there was a mention of the mostly contingent reasons people end up in a particular church vs another, and personal connections are going to factor heavily into that - so a lot of people are at least entering the church being attached to some part of the existing 'body of Christ'. Evangelical churches are also more likely to have some kind of programmatic commitment to activities which attach people to the 'body of Christ' (Alpha/Beta groups, home groups etc).
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
As I wrote earlier, Jason Paul Clark starts his thesis by asking (as an evangelical minister) if his church has “become captive to a mode of ‘dispensing religious goods and services’ to consuming participants”.
When I wrote that church is more of a means to an end than the end itself, what I had in mind is that the ecclesiology of such a church has been captured by capitalism to such an extent that its capacity to be church is seriously degraded (for want of a description). It's in this sense that people living out a relationship with Christ, through a commodified experience of church, are being connected to the body of Christ to a lesser extent (or less effectively) than they have been connected to the person of Christ.
I'm sorry - you've lost me there. I would have thought that many evangelical churches exhibit a high degree of cohesion by their members to the church community, far more so than less "rigorous" versions of Christianity in which people "go to church" in an individualistic sense, or "make their Communion".
Is there any particular evidence that the evangelical churches that are growing fastest are doing this badly by comparative measures?
Up thread there was a mention of the mostly contingent reasons people end up in a particular church vs another, and personal connections are going to factor heavily into that - so a lot of people are at least entering the church being attached to some part of the existing 'body of Christ'. Evangelical churches are also more likely to have some kind of programmatic commitment to activities which attach people to the 'body of Christ' (Alpha/Beta groups, home groups etc).
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
You advanced the following argument:
"It could be argued that what evangelicals are good at is attaching people to the *person* of Christ, what they are less good at is attaching people to the *body* of Christ."
My question was; is there any evidence that fast growing evangelical churches are worse on this measure compare to other types of churches? As @Baptist Trainfan says above they are also more likely to engage in the kinds of deliberate community formation (Alpha/Home/Affinity Groups) that are likely to foster a connection with other Christians (that "body of Christ").
It's in this sense that people living out a relationship with Christ, through a commodified experience of church, are being connected to the body of Christ to a lesser extent (or less effectively) than they have been connected to the person of Christ.
Okay, but a commodified experience can exist alongside both mass and (to @Baptist Trainfan's point) niche markets, and it's not clear to me that evangelical/charismatic churches are necessarily worse at this (and they might even be better for the reasons mentioned above).
As I wrote earlier, Jason Paul Clark starts his thesis by asking (as an evangelical minister) if his church has “become captive to a mode of ‘dispensing religious goods and services’ to consuming participants”.
I only read about a third of the thesis earlier in the week, but I get the idea that he might not end up landing where he started.
I'd agree with @Baptist Trainfan to a great extent here insofar that Capital T Traditions with a very 'High' view of Church often have very 'low' levels of 'commitment' in attendance/involvement.
Hence the use of the term 'faithful' to refer to the regulars and keenness.
The Orthodox canons only 'require' attendance at Easter, for instance. Regular communion is comparatively recent.
Conversely, of course, some very 'low church' settings have very high expectations of attendance/participation by their members. That can be quite benign but it can also be very intense.
I met a former elder from one of the 'new church' networks Thomas week at a poetry event. A lovely chap. He reflected that it nearly 'broke' him and he had 'burned out' for a time. 'Everything revolved around church and what did or didn't happen on a Sunday morning or in mid-week house-groups,' he observed. 'It wasn't really integrated into everyday life.'
That's a challenge for all of us, whatever kind of church we attend.
I met a former elder from one of the 'new church' networks Thomas week at a poetry event. A lovely chap. He reflected that it nearly 'broke' him and he had 'burned out' for a time. 'Everything revolved around church and what did or didn't happen on a Sunday morning or in mid-week house-groups,' he observed. 'It wasn't really integrated into everyday life.'
Okay, but can I paint an alternate scenario? Someone goes to a Church in a 'High' tradition, but as they gradually become less mobile and they attend less frequently they lose all contact with their church, until at some point it just stops.
I do think that the business of nurturing faith development after initiation is a serious problem for traditional churches. Not everything can be done in the course of one service, however rich. In particular, it doesn't do much digestion or any integration between church and the rest of life. Doing this well can increase the organic cohesion of the church, and build up the body of Christ as a functioning whole.
Or we could abandon the idea that these things need to be measured at all.
Oh totally. Sort of my point - we cannot measure something ,so lets not bother. Lets stop being (as someone pointed out) driven the the unlimited growth metric of capitalism.
I think one of the real problems I have with some/many evangelical churches is they focus on "new people" - they assume they are growing when they have significant numbers of new people.
Ignoring the fact that they are probably also losing people.
I was at one large, vibrant evangelical church, that you would have said was doing well, and growing, especially if you looked at the numbers of new people. But at the AGM, it was revealed that actual numbers in the congregation (on the electoral roll, specifically, this being Anglican) had dropped. This was ignored - because the church was clearly growing.
It is a well recorded fact that if you give people a metric, they will work to that metric. If you assume that metric is a good proxy for something else, as in this case (and so often), then you will probably be misled. Even if it is a pretty reasonable proxy - and most of the time, they are not.
We do need to take into account the general pond differences in the Evo end of churches.
Also there are Evo/Charismatic ends in most denominations. I have been members of both a Baptist Church and a C of E church that were both Evo/charismatic, as well as attending a big Pentecostal church while studying there. It is not that straight forward. The basic denomination has a big influence. My Church of England church performed, Enfant baptism, Dedications and adult baptisms. My Baptist Church only had adult baptisms (as a small child you cannot believe and be baptised) and dedications. They both valued what was called Friendship Evangelism as opposed to street preaching (which rarely works in these days. We spend less time on the street than other generations). If you believe that people need to sort out their relationship with God before they die you will be motivated to encourage them to do so. It is not just a numbers game.
That said, lower numbers can affect none traditional churches badly. They may not have an organisation to help them out. Traditional parish churches do.
I was at one large, vibrant evangelical church, that you would have said was doing well, and growing, especially if you looked at the numbers of new people. But at the AGM, it was revealed that actual numbers in the congregation (on the electoral roll, specifically, this being Anglican) had dropped. This was ignored - because the church was clearly growing.
It is a well recorded fact that if you give people a metric, they will work to that metric. If you assume that metric is a good proxy for something else, as in this case (and so often), then you will probably be misled. Even if it is a pretty reasonable proxy - and most of the time, they are not.
This is all completely true, but at the same time I would want to dig into those figures a little. For instance - and this goes back to allusions up thread to some kind of catechesis - I think churches of all kind are far less likely to stress *some* distinctives including denomination and membership. So growth at the top can still lead to a smaller electoral roll due to attrition and new members (in all but name) falling out of the habit of signing up.
Because a lot of this sounds like cope; "Those evangelical churches aren't attracting new people, and even if they are they are losing their old members, and even if they are not they aren't connecting with people and even if they are they are all horrible anyway and don't act like proper Christians".
And again consumerism / transactionalism can come in multiple forms; is attendance at cathedrals really increasing because of the sense of community they offer? And in the age of gentrification of formerly poorer areas of cities, some churches can be the religious equivalent of the boutique cafe, when compared to the multi-ethnic pentecostal church down the road.
I met a former elder from one of the 'new church' networks Thomas week at a poetry event. A lovely chap. He reflected that it nearly 'broke' him and he had 'burned out' for a time. 'Everything revolved around church and what did or didn't happen on a Sunday morning or in mid-week house-groups,' he observed. 'It wasn't really integrated into everyday life.'
Okay, but can I paint an alternate scenario? Someone goes to a Church in a 'High' tradition, but as they gradually become less mobile and they attend less frequently they lose all contact with their church, until at some point it just stops.
Your point?
This scenario happens all the time. I don't see what's so 'alternative' about it.
Elsewhere I've posted in response to @Baptist Trainfan that there is something of a paradox in that many churches with a 'High' ecclesiology have 'low' expectations of commitment and involvement.
Conversely, many churches which may be deemed to have a 'low' ecclesiology place very high expectations and demands on their congregations and participants.
In practice, I've found that there's always been a small group of 'keenies' who bear the burden of keeping things going, irrespective of whether a particular church community is 'High', 'Low' or all stations in between.
Just a few further thoughts...
On cathedral worship, I think the 'community' angle said to be found in cathedrals these days came after and in response to visible increase in the numbers of people attending cathedral services since around 2000.
I certainly don't think the community angle is the main focus apart from some individual cases. I spoke to a chap before and after a cathedral Evensong in a famous cathedral last week who clearly attended anything and everything that was going. He was clearly lonely and found the services helpful in terms of proving an opportunity for some human interaction.
But the 'draw' would generally be, I suggest, the architecture, music, aesthetics, heritage and the fact that they aren't playing guitars and expecting people to demonstrate overt displays of religious emotion.
Whether this amounts to anything in 'missional' terms depends on which direction we are coming from.
@Hugal, yes, there is of course a range of practice and emphases across the evangelical spectrum and I agree that US and UK evangelicalism are different beasts.
I tend to think that the more 'programmed' forms of evangelism do feed into the more effective forms of 'friendship evangelism' and social/community action that evangelical churches engage in.
This is where the 'activist' part of the Bebbington Quadrilateral kicks in. Whatever formal outreach programmes evangelical churches engage in, I'd suggest that it's the more relational aspects that 'pay off' in terms of church growth or the building of community - Alpha courses and the like, soup runs, debt counselling etc etc as well as interaction with family and friends.
The formal programmes act as a kind of 'glue' for building community and what sociologists call 'plausibility structures.'
I met a former elder from one of the 'new church' networks Thomas week at a poetry event. A lovely chap. He reflected that it nearly 'broke' him and he had 'burned out' for a time. 'Everything revolved around church and what did or didn't happen on a Sunday morning or in mid-week house-groups,' he observed. 'It wasn't really integrated into everyday life.'
Okay, but can I paint an alternate scenario? Someone goes to a Church in a 'High' tradition, but as they gradually become less mobile and they attend less frequently they lose all contact with their church, until at some point it just stops.
Your point?
This scenario happens all the time. I don't see what's so 'alternative' about it.
It's an alternative to your scenario of too much activity. I'm not sure what you didn't understand.
"It could be argued that what evangelicals are good at is attaching people to the *person* of Christ, what they are less good at is attaching people to the *body* of Christ."
My question was; is there any evidence that fast growing evangelical churches are worse on this measure compare to other types of churches? As @Baptist Trainfan says above they are also more likely to engage in the kinds of deliberate community formation (Alpha/Home/Affinity Groups) that are likely to foster a connection with other Christians (that "body of Christ").
Thanks. The short answer regarding evidence is that I don't think adequate metrics are readily available.
While church attendance might serve as a proxy for connection to the person of Christ, I am not convinced that it makes a workable proxy for connection to the body of Christ. To be clear, and to address other posts here, I would not consider one's active participation in one's own congregation's activities to particularly correlate with connection to the body of Christ.
My thinking is that the one of the key characteristics of the body of Christ is unity. In that regard, I think it would be more telling to look at an individual's (eg self-identifying follower of Christ's) attitude to those they disagree with or who they identify as holding opposing views - particularly those in other churches or denominations. (And there might be other qualities that could be considered.)
There remains the question of how other types of church would fare (which still seems a reasonable question). I suspect that a number of them would also not do so well on this count.
It's in this sense that people living out a relationship with Christ, through a commodified experience of church, are being connected to the body of Christ to a lesser extent (or less effectively) than they have been connected to the person of Christ.
Okay, but a commodified experience can exist alongside both mass and (to @Baptist Trainfan's point) niche markets, and it's not clear to me that evangelical/charismatic churches are necessarily worse at this (and they might even be better for the reasons mentioned above).
This makes me think of café church and bijou café church. And to wonder if or how the niche market premium is made manifest.
As I wrote earlier, Jason Paul Clark starts his thesis by asking (as an evangelical minister) if his church has “become captive to a mode of ‘dispensing religious goods and services’ to consuming participants”.
I only read about a third of the thesis earlier in the week, but I get the idea that he might not end up landing where he started.
I like his attitude. It's the first time in a long time that I've thought there may be some hope for evangelicalism. This kind of critical self-examination was completely absent from my experience as an evangelical. (Although I'd like him to think a bit further outside the box.)
@chrisstiles - yes, and I don't know the details, especially more recently. My point was more that they believed they were growing because they were attracting new people.
But the real picture was different. They were attracting new people (and yes, they were probably not signing up immediately). But they were not looking at the whole picture.
I suspect - from what I have heard as well as experience - that families would leave when their kids had grown or were no longer interested. Or when they had got them into the right school.
And - as in a work environment - new people are not the same as longer term people. New people come in with all sorts of ideas, without knowing How Things Are Done.
But also, some people who leave - they will leave the faith, they will be harmed and damaged. And that is the responsibility of the church.
Overall - if you measure positivity and impact by new members, that is what you will focus on.
@chrisstiles - yes, and I don't know the details, especially more recently. My point was more that they believed they were growing because they were attracting new people.
But the real picture was different. They were attracting new people (and yes, they were probably not signing up immediately). But they were not looking at the whole picture.
Okay, but if you don't know the details how do you know what the real picture was? I'd agree that it was a bad metric, but there's a bit of double think here, evangelicals churches apparently never grow properly, but also their churches and church plants are popping up everywhere.
My thinking is that the one of the key characteristics of the body of Christ is unity.
Presumably this would operate at a material level, and not just on the plane of intellectual assent. So in that sense while activate participation in one's Church may not be a necessary and sufficient indicator, I'd expect there to be some loose correlation because this is where most people meet other Christians (who are always a source of difference and possible disagreement).
In that regard, I think it would be more telling to look at an individual's (eg self-identifying follower of Christ's) attitude to those they disagree with or who they identify as holding opposing views - particularly those in other churches or denominations. (And there might be other qualities that could be considered.)
Again, I'd want to see how this is actually embodied in practice, rather than presented intellectually.
This makes me think of café church and bijou café church. And to wonder if or how the niche market premium is made manifest.
I suspect there are various forms of signalling exclusivity (for instance - a quick glance at Ecclesiantics)
I like his attitude. It's the first time in a long time that I've thought there may be some hope for evangelicalism. This kind of critical self-examination was completely absent from my experience as an evangelical. (Although I'd like him to think a bit further outside the box.)
I think this kind of critique may be rather more prevalent than that (witness a good proportion of his bibliography), and I found it largely orthogonal to the context of this particular discussion.
I met a former elder from one of the 'new church' networks Thomas week at a poetry event. A lovely chap. He reflected that it nearly 'broke' him and he had 'burned out' for a time. 'Everything revolved around church and what did or didn't happen on a Sunday morning or in mid-week house-groups,' he observed. 'It wasn't really integrated into everyday life.'
Okay, but can I paint an alternate scenario? Someone goes to a Church in a 'High' tradition, but as they gradually become less mobile and they attend less frequently they lose all contact with their church, until at some point it just stops.
Your point?
This scenario happens all the time. I don't see what's so 'alternative' about it.
It's an alternative to your scenario of too much activity. I'm not sure what you didn't understand.
It isn't that I didn't 'understand', rather I couldn't see the relevance of the point you were making.
I cited an instance of a former elder in a 'new church' set-up who said he'd been burned out by all the hyperactivity and you somehow felt the need to point out an 'alternate' scenario as if I was completely unaware that the situation you described might actually occur.
If I'd have said, 'This vicar/minister/priest was bone idle,' would you have felt the need to point out that there are clergy persons/ministers out there who work very hard? As if I wouldn't be aware of that already?
Or if I said, "There are 'stave-churches' in Norway made out of wood,' would you have felt the need to point out that there church buildings made out of stone, brick and other materials elsewhere?
I was quoting what a particular person told me about his experience of ministry in a particular neck of the Christian woods. It is axiomatic that other people's experience might be different elsewhere.
I met a former elder from one of the 'new church' networks Thomas week at a poetry event. A lovely chap. He reflected that it nearly 'broke' him and he had 'burned out' for a time. 'Everything revolved around church and what did or didn't happen on a Sunday morning or in mid-week house-groups,' he observed. 'It wasn't really integrated into everyday life.'
Okay, but can I paint an alternate scenario? Someone goes to a Church in a 'High' tradition, but as they gradually become less mobile and they attend less frequently they lose all contact with their church, until at some point it just stops.
Your point?
This scenario happens all the time. I don't see what's so 'alternative' about it.
It's an alternative to your scenario of too much activity. I'm not sure what you didn't understand.
I was quoting what a particular person told me about his experience of ministry in a particular neck of the Christian woods. It is axiomatic that other people's experience might be different elsewhere.
Coming after:
"Conversely, of course, some very 'low church' settings have very high expectations of attendance/participation by their members. That can be quite benign but it can also be very intense."
It read as an example of a general tendency - and I was pointing out that the counter is likely to be far more common - especially in the UK.
Comments
My observation is that evangelical churches usually have theories about why they're growing, which are often related to beliefs about their growth. Whether they're right about the reasons is another matter. Many churches seem squeamish about testing the theories.
I don't think that is the right measure. It is pretty well the only measure that makes sense to use - that is quantifiable. But it is still wrong.
We should be measuring whether the population is more caring, more like Jesus, more tolerant of others, more spiritual. And I don't see that, but I don't know how it would be measured either.
Looking at it another way, church is more of a means to an end than the end itself. It could be argued that what evangelicals are good at is attaching people to the *person* of Christ, what they are less good at is attaching people to the *body* of Christ.
We are, after all, children of capitalism. Evangelical churches have just done a better job of picking this up and running with it.
Or we could abandon the idea that these things need to be measured at all.
Is there any particular evidence that the evangelical churches that are growing fastest are doing this badly by comparative measures?
Up thread there was a mention of the mostly contingent reasons people end up in a particular church vs another, and personal connections are going to factor heavily into that - so a lot of people are at least entering the church being attached to some part of the existing 'body of Christ'. Evangelical churches are also more likely to have some kind of programmatic commitment to activities which attach people to the 'body of Christ' (Alpha/Beta groups, home groups etc).
It's not a position I hold now, although I do believe the historic Churches will have to become leaner and fitter.
In fairness to our evangelical friends, I don't think it's fair today they 'drag' people into church.
Most evangelical converts in my experience come from connections people in these churches make with family, friends, colleagues or various social programmes rather than evangelistic campaigns as such.
They also develop styles and 'atmosphere' that can make it easier for people to get involved in a 'belonging before believing' sense.
Not all evangelicals stand on street corners haranguing passers-by.
The programmed evangelism tends to mobilise and motivate them but the actual conversions tend to happen more 'organically'.
Not just evangelicals.
There's an interesting analysis here
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/bibles-and-islam-the-unexpected-roots
As I wrote earlier, Jason Paul Clark starts his thesis by asking (as an evangelical minister) if his church has “become captive to a mode of ‘dispensing religious goods and services’ to consuming participants”.
When I wrote that church is more of a means to an end than the end itself, what I had in mind is that the ecclesiology of such a church has been captured by capitalism to such an extent that its capacity to be church is seriously degraded (for want of a description). It's in this sense that people living out a relationship with Christ, through a commodified experience of church, are being connected to the body of Christ to a lesser extent (or less effectively) than they have been connected to the person of Christ.
You advanced the following argument:
"It could be argued that what evangelicals are good at is attaching people to the *person* of Christ, what they are less good at is attaching people to the *body* of Christ."
My question was; is there any evidence that fast growing evangelical churches are worse on this measure compare to other types of churches? As @Baptist Trainfan says above they are also more likely to engage in the kinds of deliberate community formation (Alpha/Home/Affinity Groups) that are likely to foster a connection with other Christians (that "body of Christ").
Okay, but a commodified experience can exist alongside both mass and (to @Baptist Trainfan's point) niche markets, and it's not clear to me that evangelical/charismatic churches are necessarily worse at this (and they might even be better for the reasons mentioned above).
I only read about a third of the thesis earlier in the week, but I get the idea that he might not end up landing where he started.
Hence the use of the term 'faithful' to refer to the regulars and keenness.
The Orthodox canons only 'require' attendance at Easter, for instance. Regular communion is comparatively recent.
Conversely, of course, some very 'low church' settings have very high expectations of attendance/participation by their members. That can be quite benign but it can also be very intense.
I met a former elder from one of the 'new church' networks Thomas week at a poetry event. A lovely chap. He reflected that it nearly 'broke' him and he had 'burned out' for a time. 'Everything revolved around church and what did or didn't happen on a Sunday morning or in mid-week house-groups,' he observed. 'It wasn't really integrated into everyday life.'
That's a challenge for all of us, whatever kind of church we attend.
Drat that predictive text!
Okay, but can I paint an alternate scenario? Someone goes to a Church in a 'High' tradition, but as they gradually become less mobile and they attend less frequently they lose all contact with their church, until at some point it just stops.
Oh totally. Sort of my point - we cannot measure something ,so lets not bother. Lets stop being (as someone pointed out) driven the the unlimited growth metric of capitalism.
I think one of the real problems I have with some/many evangelical churches is they focus on "new people" - they assume they are growing when they have significant numbers of new people.
Ignoring the fact that they are probably also losing people.
I was at one large, vibrant evangelical church, that you would have said was doing well, and growing, especially if you looked at the numbers of new people. But at the AGM, it was revealed that actual numbers in the congregation (on the electoral roll, specifically, this being Anglican) had dropped. This was ignored - because the church was clearly growing.
It is a well recorded fact that if you give people a metric, they will work to that metric. If you assume that metric is a good proxy for something else, as in this case (and so often), then you will probably be misled. Even if it is a pretty reasonable proxy - and most of the time, they are not.
Also there are Evo/Charismatic ends in most denominations. I have been members of both a Baptist Church and a C of E church that were both Evo/charismatic, as well as attending a big Pentecostal church while studying there. It is not that straight forward. The basic denomination has a big influence. My Church of England church performed, Enfant baptism, Dedications and adult baptisms. My Baptist Church only had adult baptisms (as a small child you cannot believe and be baptised) and dedications. They both valued what was called Friendship Evangelism as opposed to street preaching (which rarely works in these days. We spend less time on the street than other generations). If you believe that people need to sort out their relationship with God before they die you will be motivated to encourage them to do so. It is not just a numbers game.
That said, lower numbers can affect none traditional churches badly. They may not have an organisation to help them out. Traditional parish churches do.
This is all completely true, but at the same time I would want to dig into those figures a little. For instance - and this goes back to allusions up thread to some kind of catechesis - I think churches of all kind are far less likely to stress *some* distinctives including denomination and membership. So growth at the top can still lead to a smaller electoral roll due to attrition and new members (in all but name) falling out of the habit of signing up.
Because a lot of this sounds like cope; "Those evangelical churches aren't attracting new people, and even if they are they are losing their old members, and even if they are not they aren't connecting with people and even if they are they are all horrible anyway and don't act like proper Christians".
And again consumerism / transactionalism can come in multiple forms; is attendance at cathedrals really increasing because of the sense of community they offer? And in the age of gentrification of formerly poorer areas of cities, some churches can be the religious equivalent of the boutique cafe, when compared to the multi-ethnic pentecostal church down the road.
Your point?
This scenario happens all the time. I don't see what's so 'alternative' about it.
Elsewhere I've posted in response to @Baptist Trainfan that there is something of a paradox in that many churches with a 'High' ecclesiology have 'low' expectations of commitment and involvement.
Conversely, many churches which may be deemed to have a 'low' ecclesiology place very high expectations and demands on their congregations and participants.
In practice, I've found that there's always been a small group of 'keenies' who bear the burden of keeping things going, irrespective of whether a particular church community is 'High', 'Low' or all stations in between.
Just a few further thoughts...
On cathedral worship, I think the 'community' angle said to be found in cathedrals these days came after and in response to visible increase in the numbers of people attending cathedral services since around 2000.
I certainly don't think the community angle is the main focus apart from some individual cases. I spoke to a chap before and after a cathedral Evensong in a famous cathedral last week who clearly attended anything and everything that was going. He was clearly lonely and found the services helpful in terms of proving an opportunity for some human interaction.
But the 'draw' would generally be, I suggest, the architecture, music, aesthetics, heritage and the fact that they aren't playing guitars and expecting people to demonstrate overt displays of religious emotion.
Whether this amounts to anything in 'missional' terms depends on which direction we are coming from.
@Hugal, yes, there is of course a range of practice and emphases across the evangelical spectrum and I agree that US and UK evangelicalism are different beasts.
I tend to think that the more 'programmed' forms of evangelism do feed into the more effective forms of 'friendship evangelism' and social/community action that evangelical churches engage in.
This is where the 'activist' part of the Bebbington Quadrilateral kicks in. Whatever formal outreach programmes evangelical churches engage in, I'd suggest that it's the more relational aspects that 'pay off' in terms of church growth or the building of community - Alpha courses and the like, soup runs, debt counselling etc etc as well as interaction with family and friends.
The formal programmes act as a kind of 'glue' for building community and what sociologists call 'plausibility structures.'
It's an alternative to your scenario of too much activity. I'm not sure what you didn't understand.
While church attendance might serve as a proxy for connection to the person of Christ, I am not convinced that it makes a workable proxy for connection to the body of Christ. To be clear, and to address other posts here, I would not consider one's active participation in one's own congregation's activities to particularly correlate with connection to the body of Christ.
My thinking is that the one of the key characteristics of the body of Christ is unity. In that regard, I think it would be more telling to look at an individual's (eg self-identifying follower of Christ's) attitude to those they disagree with or who they identify as holding opposing views - particularly those in other churches or denominations. (And there might be other qualities that could be considered.)
There remains the question of how other types of church would fare (which still seems a reasonable question). I suspect that a number of them would also not do so well on this count.
This makes me think of café church and bijou café church. And to wonder if or how the niche market premium is made manifest. I like his attitude. It's the first time in a long time that I've thought there may be some hope for evangelicalism. This kind of critical self-examination was completely absent from my experience as an evangelical. (Although I'd like him to think a bit further outside the box.)
But the real picture was different. They were attracting new people (and yes, they were probably not signing up immediately). But they were not looking at the whole picture.
I suspect - from what I have heard as well as experience - that families would leave when their kids had grown or were no longer interested. Or when they had got them into the right school.
And - as in a work environment - new people are not the same as longer term people. New people come in with all sorts of ideas, without knowing How Things Are Done.
But also, some people who leave - they will leave the faith, they will be harmed and damaged. And that is the responsibility of the church.
Overall - if you measure positivity and impact by new members, that is what you will focus on.
Okay, but if you don't know the details how do you know what the real picture was? I'd agree that it was a bad metric, but there's a bit of double think here, evangelicals churches apparently never grow properly, but also their churches and church plants are popping up everywhere.
Presumably this would operate at a material level, and not just on the plane of intellectual assent. So in that sense while activate participation in one's Church may not be a necessary and sufficient indicator, I'd expect there to be some loose correlation because this is where most people meet other Christians (who are always a source of difference and possible disagreement).
Again, I'd want to see how this is actually embodied in practice, rather than presented intellectually.
I suspect there are various forms of signalling exclusivity (for instance - a quick glance at Ecclesiantics)
I think this kind of critique may be rather more prevalent than that (witness a good proportion of his bibliography), and I found it largely orthogonal to the context of this particular discussion.
It isn't that I didn't 'understand', rather I couldn't see the relevance of the point you were making.
I cited an instance of a former elder in a 'new church' set-up who said he'd been burned out by all the hyperactivity and you somehow felt the need to point out an 'alternate' scenario as if I was completely unaware that the situation you described might actually occur.
If I'd have said, 'This vicar/minister/priest was bone idle,' would you have felt the need to point out that there are clergy persons/ministers out there who work very hard? As if I wouldn't be aware of that already?
Or if I said, "There are 'stave-churches' in Norway made out of wood,' would you have felt the need to point out that there church buildings made out of stone, brick and other materials elsewhere?
I was quoting what a particular person told me about his experience of ministry in a particular neck of the Christian woods. It is axiomatic that other people's experience might be different elsewhere.
Hence my challenge.
Coming after:
"Conversely, of course, some very 'low church' settings have very high expectations of attendance/participation by their members. That can be quite benign but it can also be very intense."
It read as an example of a general tendency - and I was pointing out that the counter is likely to be far more common - especially in the UK.