Following on from my occasional musing about what it means to be a priest in the church today (after over 25 years of having been so). There are many things I find myself doing that I didn't foresee. One of them is shepherding a shrinking flock that is over-resourced with buildings etc. and under-resourced in the money and energy departments.I do not find it hard to tell people what good people most church people are. They are delightful and loyal communities, sometimes a little hard to get into...but great places to be if you can get into them.
That paragraph has a lot that could/should be critiqued or challenged but is essentially true.
What I never imagined I would be doing in 2006 was managing decline. I have had very little training to do that, and so you have to learn on the job...which I am happy to do except it is unremitting and hard work.
In 1980 I vainly imagined that most of these areas where individual sections of the Church were declining xould be ultimately fixed if you applied a bit of energy and imagination. I realise it is not quite that straight-forward. This I think is a change in the dynamics of church community. It simply is not possible to keep flogging the horse and expecting it to get up. Should we be flogging our horses any way?
I made the comment at an ecumenical meetiong recently that "We (the Anglican Church) are not agressively evangelical" ---that's not true of all sections of our church---but as a style of 'being church' it more or less describes us. I would say more than that. I would say "We don't want to be "agressive" either". I still delight in talking to people about Jesus and how he might change their lives, but I am not interested in getting people to sign on the dotted line, or even to get them to come to church.
I realised in my first week of ordination that while I was interested in introducing people to Jesus, that this is not the same thing as church-going, and in fact the latter pales into insignificance beside being in relationship with Jesus. Church going is not unimportant, but it is not, in the end, the purpose of the exercise. We don't always get this. Though I think, by and large, that we non-aggressives have understood this.
Why then, if this way, (which I would see as being the way of freedom and giving people the room to decide rather than to bludgeon them), well if it is the way of integrity...why does it seem to have brought us to this point of serious decline.
I am hopeful...but it is puzzling
12 comments:
A very good question Stephen. I was wondering when you might ask it. This of course is not the answer; but possibly it is part of it.
WHY ARE SOME CHRISTIANS PUT OFF FROM COMING TO CHURCH?
YT was running late. He got to church just as the priest was inviting the congregation to 'pair off' and share their respective thoughts on the provocative question
above. Finding a place to sit, YT asked the person next to him to repeat the question. She did, and suggested that YT 'go first'. Still feeling hurried, YT turned to
his own experiences, and reflected on his reactions as a young person. He quickly recalled that feeling under obligation ('I ought to') had a rather mixed impact on
his responses. He likened it with being regularly required to 'eat up his vegetables'. How is it that what he disliked as a youngster he has no problem with now? No
doubt the 'pushing' had something to do with it. But there is another factor which has a substantial influence on our readiness (or otherwise) to undertake almost any
activity required of us, viz. the considerable importance of appropriate motivation. It seems so obvious that it is astonishing how often the very real benefits of
genuine motivation are disregarded in favour of a more potent activating agent such as authority, tradition, covetousness, self aggrandisement, fear, acquisitiveness,
comfort and so on.
As it so happened, the sermon was actually directed at misappropriation of accountability - our frequent inclination to attribute responsibilty for whatever is less than
satisfactory to 'the leadership'. The Priest illustrated this by recalling that when taking up his first curacy, his predecessor had informed him that when he was
appointed he was instructed to visit a number of parishioners who had been conspicuous by their absence from church for a year or more, and to seek to discover
the reasons for their non-attendance. To his credit this the predecessor actually did. Two predominant reasons emerged. 1st. 'The Rector'. 2nd. 'The previous
Rector' Surprise surprise! The thrust of the sermon however was to promote the very reasonable notion that every person should seriously consider his or her own
accountability with respect to any issue in question. Now those who remember past statements on critical issues may recall reading in the Parish Priest's Report to
Vestry on !st March 1998: "It took me ten years of ministry to realise that I did not have to hold myself personally responsible for adults who chose not to come to
church." In the advocation of delegation of responsibility vis-à-vis the present arrogation of authority, little thought has been given to the relevance of motivation.
Three generations ago it could be said that by and large young people were more focussed on obligation than the youth of today. This was arguably a mixed
blessing. It seemed 'correct' from a moral point of view; but in contrast motivation, although recognised as desirable, was not usually accorded a high priority. In
the present age however the manipulation of motivation has become an essential tool in advertising, politics, corporate management, community affairs, family life
and even church life. It is so widely exploited that almost everyone is exposed to an incredible diversity of motivation management. The church, if it is to be
effective, needs to understand the ubiquitous conflicts of motivation which confront us; and to pay careful attention to the importance of motivation in determining the
how people respond to its ministry.
My impression is that these days few people feel "obliged" to do anything.
As I want to treat people as though they are capable of making their own decisions I try not to use that sort of motivation to pressure people into doing what they don't want to do.
Having said that it doesn't alter the fact that if we choose to be committed then we are also choosing some obligations....we seem to have forgotten that!
Impression is about the way one sees whatever it is. The impression of another may differ. You refer to the motivation to pressure people into doing what they don't want to do - a form of manipulation not always to be commended. There is also that form of motivation which evokes and promotes what is best - to be found in good leaders and educators. It would also be an asset in responsible management.
Choosing to be committed incurs obligations concomitant with the particular commitment. Is choice of obligation consistent with true commitment? By way of example, what are the obligations of an ordained priest, and which of those identified in the Ordinal are open to choice? Like some issues you blog about, these are difficult matters. I too am not without hope; but then again, I am not presently motivated to be optimistic about the future of a parish in decline. AJB.
Jim,
I have said on a number of occasions that our parish was only a couple of steps ahead of other parishes in that we have had a something of a numerical and financial buffer. That buffer has proved to be some what thinner than I thought it was.
But I am inclined to think that we have an opportunity to ask some more fundamental questions...when I say "we" I mean us as individuals, the parish, the Diocese and the National Church...and I like doing that but it is sometimes hard going and I just lack the energy.
This is age and unwellness and all sorts of things, and I look back on the last decade and feel unsupported in many different ways. I think I have had longish periods when I have been quite unwell. My present "wellness" allows me to look back and think how unwell I have been at times and no one could have cared less!!
What I am disinclined to do is to find new solutions, but I am prepared to just stick with it.
Which is what the principle obligation of a priest is, I think!!
It's not been unlike 50 years of marriage!!!
Stephen.
Your phrase "managing decline" has resonated with me. That has been my sad experience with the (mainly UCA) congregations with which I have been associated (as a lay member).
Perhaps sadder has been the sense of denial which some of those declining congregations display. Other congregations seem to oscillate between denial and panic, sometimes convincing themselves that it will all come right one day (what has been called the "bo-peep" syndrome), and at other times getting enthusiastic about some new and highly improbable initiative ("we must begin a youth ministry", in spite of the fact that there are absolutely no under 25s in the congregation).
Much of the church faces a future and exists in an environment which it has not experienced since the beginning of Christendom.
Now that of course may not be such a bad thing. An MOW friend of mine believes that the church is like the Phoenix. From the ashes of this apparently declining organisation, something new will emerge. If what we profess to believe has any shred of credibility, then I think it is open to us to accept that God is unlikely to abandon His church completely. However, what new direction the Body of Christ is heading in may not be at all obvious at present, and it may end up being far away from what we imagine to be the emerging church.
On motivation. Sure, motivation is a big part of "success" stories like Willow Creek and Hillsong, but motivating to what end? The cynic in me sees parallels between the prosperity theology of places like Hillsong and the populism of some successful politicians - people will come to/vote for those who tell them what they would like to hear, will be attracted to people who tell them things which fit in with their existing paradigm (and don't require major changes to the way they live their lives).
BTW, I found this cautionary tale about Youth Ministry on the web: http://onemansweb.org/jan/thinking/idolatry.htm
Yes, Trevor, I think there is much denial.
And with regard to the Hillsong/Willow Creek type of "success story" I find myself thinking that this is not the sort of church I would want to belong to. This may be wilfulness on my part, but frankly although I find the Abp of Sydney's clarity of thought often compelling ...I am also repelled by the sort of seduction that is involved in wanting to have 10% Sydney in 'Bible Believing' churches. Whose way of believing are we talking about?
Stephen.
I share your concern with the "success stories" like Hillsong which are often held up as the way forward for the church.
I have read that recent NCLS surveys indicate the retention rates at places like Hillsong are surprisingly low, and that there is some query as to what happens to people when they leave places like Hillsong (however, I have not seen the numbers which make up those surveys).
My fear is that "bums on seats" may be the primary objective of that 10% target, rather than a "knowledge of Jesus". As you say, Abp Jensen is clear thinking and articulate, but the term "Bible believing" worries me. Which Bible translation? More worrying, who's interpretation of the Bible? The Bible is not an easy book, particuarly for 21st century people with no prior grounding in or exposure to the Christian religion.
I was a little disappointed by the Abp's Boyer lectures. He set out to bring Jesus to his listeners but I found it to be in a language which was more atuned to the already converted, that is, to existing church-goers. In other words, the Abp's language was language familiar to church-goers, and foreign to the majority of our fellow Australians. I fear that his Boyer lectures may have been another lost opportunity for the church.
Reading these reflections is very helpful to me as I struggle with my involvement with church. I feel pressure to be more "involved", but I have limited energy and motivation at the moment, for various reasons. It must be a difficult task for church leaders to strike the balance between encouraging members to be involved in church activities while also feeding them where they are at, if this makes any sense. But I do think that it is very important, even essential, that leaders encourage ppl to come to church. Fellowship is essential to spiritual growth, as is regularly feeding on God's word at church or in small groups. Do you agree with this, or am I off the mark?
Louise
someone said to me after Church this morning...I need to come back to church it gives your life meaning.
They were parishioners from a former parish who have been very erratic.
My comment was that going to church gives you a framework, I find if don't have framework then I don't do what need to be done.
Thanks for your comments today
Do you think that the parishioner meant God gives life meaning, rather than church giving the meaning?
I know what you mean here. But I am reporting what she said.
I think for many people their experience of God is very tied up with their experience of the church. Indeed I would generally reflect that this is one of the ways God gives himself to people.
We say in our liturgy:
We are the Body of Christ
His Spirit is with us
My experience is that this is not perfect...but true.
"I think for many people their experience of God is very tied up with their experience of the church". Yes, I agree with you there. I have had to try to separate some of my earlier church experiences from God. If I had thought that some of my church experiences were indicative of God's character, I could not have kept my faith in Him. A bit cynical perhaps, but I think that ppl will always let each other down, whereas God doesn't and won't. I like reading the psalms of David to be reminded of this.
Post a Comment