Church: It's all about sound management skills!

Or is it?

There I was discussing a situation facing a group of churches with a colleague who told me of the different family members in their patch. Starting at the top (according to my companion's rating that is) we had:

+ The 'comfortable' church: one of those picturesque places with the lytchgate, the nicely kept graveyard and the financially comfortable members. Adored by the diocese as a 'good giver' and desired by the wedding couples as a suitable backdrop for their big day, this was the jewel in the crown that was the parish.

+ The 'Mother' church - representing Christian witness in the area since Christianity first hit our shores this was the church building from which all others in the area owed their existence. Wonderfully ancient building containing almost equally ancient members and an astounding inability to raise enough to pay their parish share and yet manage to pay it thanks to monies saved and invested 'back in the day' when it was standing room only!

+ The 'Zombie' church - as pretty as the comfortable church and almost as old as the 'Mother' this place boasted a congregation of six (if all them turned up at the same time and an inability to pay what was needed, for income inversely matched the average age of the congregation!

+ The 'Estate' church - boasting a stable attendance with a moderately young congregation and a much reduced ability to raise income. Not surprising when you consider the profile of the people coming in terms of income. Few had jobs and yet here growth and engagement was to be found.

+ The 'Mission' church - built to serve a community who had long since moved away, this once community church had become very much a gathered church and the numbers were small and decreasing.

+ The 'rural' church - picturesque and historic to the extent that it was a real treasure and something all in the community agreed valued and loved. Sadly though, this love affair had no influence on attendance or income and it was now open on a monthly basis to cater for the handful who faithfully came when the doors were unlocked and the bell rung!

Nothing remarkable thus far, I am sure that many reading this will recognise one or more of the churches described here. Many might have suspected, and some will understand, that some in the diocesan organisation were looking to get rid of some of the buildings to save the endless outlays on maintenance and upkeep. The demise of a time which saw 'a priest in every parish' meant that now, where there was once five clergy there were now but two and 'sound management principles' and good ecclesial practice indicated that the key was to develop a 'Minster' model whereby the 'mother' became the place everyone else retreated in to.

Sorry, did I say, "Retreat?" No what I meant (if there are any bishops reading this) was establish Church (meaning the universal collective of living stones) in the oldest building as a means of 'taking the parish forward' by reliving the past and removing some of the distractions and dissipation that was to be found across the parish. "This," a bishop's staff member told me, "Is the 'consolidation' that sound business practice demands when a weakening customer base and diminishing finances become an organisational reality."

I recall that the ILO 'Introduction to Work Study' there were two 'must remember' elements:

1.  Other that in the case of a 'sole trader, one-man' business the work of balancing the use 
     of one resource against another is the job of the manager.
     If the manager fails to do what is necessary, then the whole enterprise will fall.

2. Any organisation consists of four 'resources':
   i.   Land and buildings - Buildings portfolios, their maintenance and upkeep
   ii.  Material - in this context this is the means to make the desired product
   iii. People - to create, market and support the customer base (i.e. communicants and community
   iv.  Plant - in this case the organ, sound equipment, audio visual, heating. light, offices, etc.

Now what we are seeing here is nothing more than good business practice. Look at the five churches my colleague spoke of. If we were to regard them using the criteria of resource, customer base and balance sheets then it it obvious that the rural church needs to be closed as it is presents a low yield (in terms of 'customers' and income) and a high outlay (in terms of staffing and running costs).

The same is true in the Zombie church, another high outlay and low income and attendance entity that needs to be closed as soon as possible.

Of course, we wouldn't leave the people who went to those churches as orphans, because we are providing services for them in the Mother church so all they need to do is get themselves from where they live - and it might come as no surprise to hear that both these churches were in a rural setting which means that unless private transport is essential - and nothing will have changed. Church will continue with nary a blip!

One of the series of lectures on downsizing and contraction as means of organisational survival I had to attend during my management days talked of the fact that should a company remove itself from a community, the likelihood of return under the same branding was minimal. Not only that but, if the product was something valued, the closing of a branch was seen as an act against the people and the global product recognition and approval declined such that in other places customer base transferred to a competitor. But hey, we are Church and that means we are happy to see people leave us for another Christian denomination or grouping. We just want to see Church flourish and at the end of the day aren't bothered where people go as long as they go, right?

And of course, that's a load of tosh for we care deeply about numbers in terms of money, attendance, market share and the like. I can prove this because when asked how our church was doing I replied that the people were growing, we were seeing vocations and things were generally very positive. "Oh that's great," said the bishop, "But I meant in terms of numbers!'  Says it all, doesn't it? And things will get no better as we find senior staff engaging in SWOT, costflow analysis. It will see us consider the use of 'sessional' clergy (and if a 0.3 post isn't that already, tell me what it is!) and the 'contracting out' of services in one direction and the increase of multiple beneficed entities (seen one this week for a ten church vacancy - which my lectures would have listed as little more than 'nominalism').

Here's a little homework for you and you church councils and congregations: Management theory and practice are great, but where is the Gospel in all this? Where will the 'can't pay - can't have' policy some diocesan staff bleat on about take us?)

The next to come under the hammer will probably be the mission church,after all the customer base has moved away and so better to start drawing up plans to bring them back in to the Minister now so that we can go forward from a position of strength. Now I don't know what those who run things read but as I understand it, once the troops have retreated into a central base, the nest thing is that they either fight to the death or are withdrawn by a friendly Chinook out of there.

The comfortable church remains comfortable and since the weddings and the well-off keep the money coming it the Archdeacon and the diocesan staff with all nod fondly towards them and thank God for their successes. Mind you, like many churches whose attendance is static and their parish share is paid, no one looks at the missional element regarding that place do they?

And of the Mother church, a place filled with the dwindling numbers (attendance and income) and increasing age of the congregation. Will we see them active and engaged? Will they be pleased at the increase caused by the closures elsewhere  - which to be brutally honest won't happen - of course they won't! I rarely see a welcome for the intruders from the other places, even when the fact that the daughters have returned is satisfying to them.

Those in the closed churches will merely fade into the distance that separates their communities from the town centre Minister - the final nail in the coffin of our rural communities will have been banged home and the opportunity for the Gospel will be effectively gone forever where the C of E is concerned.

But at least the management models will be sound, won't they?

How will they hear is there are none to tell them?

*International Labour Organisation - Introduction to Work Study, second edition 1969

Church Building Reviewed and condemned?

I'm not sure how many people have read the Church of England's 'Buildings Review Group' (BRG) report (you can read it HERE) but I am certain that a good many more will have read Gile's Frasers take on it in the Guardian (Thursday 15th Oct). What follows is a 'five minute splurge' (time it takes to have a brew) - it's not pretty and possibly wrong, but then aren't we all at some time in some ways?

In his article, Fraser, points at the Church of England's 15700 church building - 12,560 of them listed and dismisses them as,  'A millstone around our necks, sapping the energy of our wider social and religious mission, and transforming the church into a buildings department of the heritage industry.' He continues by saying that he suspects that, 'If every single one of them were blown up tomorrow, England would be a much more Christian country in 10 years’ time.'

Now having quite recently visited a place with two listed church buildings, one whose average congregation was less than the number on the PCC (still struggling with that one) and the other with attendance numbers you could count on both hands and feet, I have some sympathy with those who would like to see something done with the black hole for cash and emotional collateral that is the small and fading church. The problem is that, in my humble view, Fraser has got it wrong on more things than he has got it right.

A legend in his own lunchtime, Fraser is the doyen of many (usually intellectual and nicely-placed if my experience is typical) after the St Paul's debacle. 'Listen to this man,' said a friend, 'He is the future of the Church!'  Yeah? Well his words might just suggest otherwise*!

But let me agree with him first:

We do need to work out ways of rationalising the building stock we have, for we spend too much maintaining monuments rather than doing Church. I don't think anyone can have a doubt about that.

I have come to the conclusion that those who pass by the doors of some church building are convinced by the small numbers going in, and their oft desperate air, that the Church is on the decline. I felt the same when visiting a Tesco somewhere on holiday: It felt tired and made me feel the store was on the downwards slope and because of this was losing out to the new revamped Sainsbury store up the road!

But then I have to take issue with Fraser's own too often 'willy-waving' writings in that:

1. Beeching's actions extended the cuts which were already on the table in response to vanishing communities (removing about one-third of the network). It was a prime example of bean counting and paid little heed to the news of the communities the railway served.

And this is where we need to lay our first marker: Church is about serving the people in all communities, not just those who can pay or where the congregations remain about some benchmark level (often decided by those who live in places where the tide is high and money's coming in!

This is predominantly a hit at those rural communities who find their local church to be a place of cohesion and service; people who (I think I'm right here) account for some 45% of the whole Anglican population. Church is not a spreadsheet exercise but the real engagement with real people: Simple to have high views in a tourist attraction with a heavy footfall!

Beeching was right in that where the communities were no longer present then there was also no need of a station. But the line between two points was still needed. The intelligent action is to decide which needed to go to support an efficient infrastructure, not cull the lot (some of which are now in the process of being reestablished by the way)!

2. The idea that culling of church buildings would see us with a more Christian country is folly and akin to those who put aside the early and late services on the grounds that it makes for a greater, and more engaged, congregation at the mid-morning service form which growth can come.

The reality here is that where three services with congregations of 8, 25 and 8 respectively are amalgamated there is an increase in the mid-morning service (last experience was 32) but that means that in the doing, nine (22%) have been lost.

What we see here is mathematics rather than an understanding of serving already hit and diminished rural communities. It is economics and top-down management by those who who have no understanding of the customer and the next step to a church whose motto is: 'Can't pay - can't have!' - mind you, once all bishops and senior clergy have their MBAs I guess this will be the Gospel we hear more and more. Sad because I'd rather we had informed people of faith leading us rather than the economics displayed in the response especially.

3. Look at the faithful, sacrificial (so much free giving of time and skill) ministry and maintenance that the predominantly rural churches referred to in the report and response refer. Church for the people buy the people: 'I'm from head office, I'm here to help,' has always been a lie, still is! This response shows how little understanding of Church and how much damage a little knowledge misplaced >Iconoclasm gorn mad,' as a friend put it) and validated by monetarist policies (blimey, could be something from Blair, Thatcher and the like could't it?).

4. Give the building to the councils?
Get real - wake up and smell the mould because the one thing councils don't want to do is add to their building stock with a grade whatever listed building! But what we do need to do is get constructive in the way that we use the buildings and this needs so common-sense responses from civic and heritage groups; those people who never set foot in a building and yet dictate as to how it should be because Dickens or William Morris or some other worthy one set foot in the place. If that's what they want then pay for the upkeep and take it over as something for themselves - otherwise, back off!

The value of our church buildings is in the fingerprints of those who populated it in time past - and in thieve present too, we need to be able to make what buildings we have useful for containing a living body that is Church and for serving the community**.

We do not only have the 'cure of all souls - but also function as the curators of a places memories.' a precious and much to be protected reality which the number crunching approach, a la Beeching and Thatcher.

A quick rant - a real splurge which I hope makes some sense, 'cos I ain't a clever as what some of those what niggle me at times are - obvious that, innit?

pax

It's all relative isn't - coke and burgers inside?

* I know this is extremely cheeky of me to hold such views as the minister of a church which runs fairly consistently  year-on-year in an urban priority area with some thirty members - after all I am low quality in pretty much every aspect when standing in the light of such august folk!

**  I often say, 'Give me a building and I'll live in it and keep the sanctuary open as a chapel of ease,' I'd love it and the community would prosper and the church saved from some expense. How's that for a plan?

Church Growth strategies: 'Change (or move) the building'

Working on Stanley Hauerwas' premise that:

'Church growth strategies are the death rattle of a church that has lost its way.'

We started our journey looking at some of the church growth thinking before us with the issue of 'worship' and the bus moves on today to consider the building we meet in. As we do I have to say that I am still surprised at the number of people who confuse the living stones that are Church with the bricks and mortar that is the church building - and sadly this is more than something of a problem with descriptors or syntax!

I recently visited a location where the original rural community had dwindled and almost died away almost as quickly as the new build housing developments had risen from the fields that once supported the area. No longer was the hand being put to the plough but to the world of commerce and because of this the new inhabitants of that place were generally commuting into the nearest cities as a new dormitory community was formed.

The problem was that the community was served by lovely old, yet small, rural churches. You know the sort of place: Lychgate, lovely little graveyard and possibly no toilet! These gems of church architecture and social history were posted around the new community with the result that there was no church building in the centre (a question: When developers build, why do they forget the infrastructure like shops, doctors, church and other staples of a good community?).

The answer here would be to build or otherwise utilise something suitable in the centre of the new population; a place where the community could come together and meet their needs (spiritual, social and community). The problem was that the lovely people in the pretty churches, although all up for growth and the spreading of the Gospel, only really wanted that to happen in a way that grew their congregations - and to be frank that just wasn't going to happen, So the place continues with the dying remnants of the churches that once was now keeping the lights on and having conversations over tea which hearken back to the 'good old days' (which I think happen after a gap of ten years has passed) when they had a congregation!

Meanwhile time will continue to pass and the Christian witness in that place will cease and the Church will have had another brick fall from the wall that is ministry and engagement fall and the witness will be weakened, probably never to return.

There is a another place I know where the people don't come into the church building even though it is central to the community. Here there are voices which call upon the people to move from the old building into something fresh and new and ready to be filled with new believers. Talking to one of the zealots (the definition of such being anyone who is more passionate about Jesus than me) about their desire for a new building I was told, 'This building is old and no one comes in - we need a new building where people are attracted and the old is put aside.'

Now I'm all up for Fresh Expressions of Church, especially in what we call a 'mixed mode' or 'mixed economy' setting where we find the inherited or established churches alongside night church, café church and other engagements where the people and Church come into relationship and God is seen to be acting in the place and in the people they serve (and it's not the established church building). The problem is that as attractive as it is 'moving out' is not the general panacea for healthy and successful church. In fact when we have an old building we find ourselves take up with the 'cure of souls' (that means we care for the people in our patch) and function also as the 'curator of a place's memories' - and this is important.

To move into a place where the people ARE is important and missional (telling people about Jesus) important BUT being in a place where people identify themselves as part through their heritage and family history is something we cannot afford to pass up and brings some unique selling points and relationships.

More recently I am beginning also to hear those who want to move from an existing building because they don't want to be tied to a building and the maintenance and the money having your own place demands.

'If only we weren't tied to the building,' said one of the most lacklustre and boring people I think I may ever have met, 'Then the people would flock in I'm sure,' they continued. My question was, 'Why? What good is a change of venue without a change in the way that you think about those who aren't coming?' My question was met with a steely star and the conversation dwindled away and my colleague left offended.

There are many reasons to change what is inside the building - after all we celebrate the various architectural bits from the generation passed and yet struggle to make the buildings fit for purpose - changes that keep a building relevant are useful and necessary as much for the soul as the welfare of the people and when the time comes that the building is no longer an effective place than it needs to become a 'festival church'; a place where the building is used for set services during the year but no longer for regular Sunday (and other) services.

Add lighting, PA, TVs or projector screens to help make the services run (and projectors and TVs cut costs as there's less paper to print and trees to cut down!) as we would like it to run - and what about a place for baptism other than the font (get digging)? Building kitchen space and toilets and the stuff that make a building useful and utilise every crook and nanny* you can find in the place: We must never walk away from our buildings lightly and yet we must not let them handcuff us either!

There's a lot in this splurge and there's so much more I'd love to add and comment upon but I'm sure you get the picture by now. Our buildings should be aids to ministry not lead weights that drag us down and yet, that said, sometimes we blame the building when the real problem lies in the nearest mirror.

Pax

* Yeah I know - apparently it's a 'vicism'

Church - Rearranging the deckchairs - 1

I have been reading the Church in Wales review document and take from it much that I consider to be extremely positive and helpful as we rethink 'Church' in our particular brand label.

The mobilising the laity to fulfil their baptismal calling and become a full and effective member of the church family to which they belong has already been addressed and so we will move on.The concept of larger ministry areas is in many ways a return to the Minster model of doing church whereby there is a centralised support structure and a group of churches in relationship with each other and with the centre. The interesting thing here is a rationalisation of those churches which remain in that the situation where, if we were honest, unsustainable churches would vanish and with it the heavy workload of sustaining these spiritual 'money pits'. My take would be that where there is growth or potential for growth then we should do all we can to keep the banner flying, but we need to stop throwing good money (and time) after bad! A recipe for tears I am sure but a necessary step I fear.

So here's you starter for ten.

How do you see the potential changes running out in terms of mobilising people, rationalising parishes and reducing the buildings?

Have a go - you never know who's reading your comments (as I have found out again recently ;-) )

Pax