Changing services and simple maths!

I had a very interesting conversation with someone who was crowing about the number of 'members' they had and especially about the fact that they had many 'new members' [and I smiled].

They went on (and on) to tell me about church and how 'concentrating' the services had proved good because they had more people in the 'main' service [and I smiled even more sweetly still].

Then came the punchline as they explained that the only disappointment was that 'usual' and 'average' numbers had fallen (year-on-year) and that this was confusing because of the 'other growth' [and I started asking a couple of questions].

Question One - 'Tell me about your new members?'
So they told me that this was due to the number of additional people who had appeared on the new electoral roll and how they had worked to get people in their patch to sign the forms and 'be part of the church'.

So I explained that, as I understand it, being on the electoral roll conferred the right to vote at the Annual Church Meeting (APCM/ADCM*) and thus makes them members of the Annual meeting but not necessarily 'church members' - who I would call 'communicants' (even if they don't communicate - that is take communion).

So what they had was a number of people who wanted, for many reasons, to be associated with the church. This was neither a statement of faith , attendance or even engagement for everyone I have canvassed this year tells me that attendance and numbers on the roll were very different form each other

Question Two - 'What does 'concentrating the services' mean'?
What this meant was that they had merged some services, an act that had the effect of raising the attendance for the remaining service. This is often the case that if we merge one or more services the observed effect is that the number of people attending the 'new' service will be more than the previous, unmodified service, attendance. It's common sense that if you have three services with a 'usual' headcount of twenty-five people, merging them will see the one winning some from the other two services. Of course, like efficiency, the overall percentage attendance will never equal one hundred per cent. Here's the purely mathematical equation for two services (A and B) which we will merge into one:

A+B = Total Population

Now, unless we have suddenly done something extremely marvellous (like offering free beer or a fiver for those who come to the service) the reality is that the people who come to the new service (cong) will never exceed the previous Total Population:

   (cong ÷ TP) x 100 ≯ 100%

Let's play and see whether this works:

Two morning services; the early communion (EC) and the, All-Age (AA), the average attendance of each is 15 and 23, giving a TP of 38. We merge the services to produce a 'family communion' and have a congregation (cong) size of 30. This means that we now have a service that has an relative attendance of:

(30 ÷ 38) x 100 = 79%

Our success in bringing two congregations into one, and seeing 'growth' in the new service,  represents a real loss of 21%.

So how do we deal with this, which of the options below do we take (assuming there was, of course, dialogue before the merging of services)?

a. Deciding that the new service is a better platform for growth we wish those who have left well and continue, looking to build on the 'success' of the new, and look forward to more coming along?

b. We dismiss the fact that some have left and celebrate the 'growth' without any real strategy to build on it?

c. We realise that some, perhaps stalwart (often pronounced 'stalewart'),  members have stopped coming and work on a strategy to cater for them in some way.

My problem is that the person I discussed this with was taking the middle option (that's 'b' by the way - and there is another I could have added which would have asked, 'What is acceptable loss?') and merely being happy because there was growth on the electoral roll and growth in the 'morning' service (so what was the other service, chopped liver?). There was no plans to consolidate or redeem the apparently lost - joy was to be found in the apparent and that was enough.

And this is why churches grow smaller.

Perhaps I should add that having lost the evening service some time back, this is now a one service on a Sunday church and should that one service fail, then it will be one of the most attractive carpet warehouses ever seen ;-)

*APCM - Annual Parochial Church Meeting
ADCM - Annual District Church Meeting

Church - Arrivals and Departures

This week I was blessed by some people who were keen to see their church grow and one of the issues that caused some pain was the comings and goings, and oddly despite the pain of caused by loss, it was the gain that brought forth challenges and questions.

'How do we get new people in? . . . How do we get them to stay?' . . . How do we get them to become disciples? . . . How we make it so they don't feel uncomfortable when we stand, sit, kneel or do other stuff? . . . what does this mean for those who want to maintain a traditional church rather than all these 'seeker friendly' things?''

And on the questions went on, and the pain, frustration, fear and feelings of pressure was obvious and, to be honest, rather challenging (for me too!). Here are a few thoughts on the question which may (or perhaps not) be helpful:

Bringing them in
One of the problems is that so many churches, congregations and fellowships have this amazing idea that people will just come in because they are there. If only this was true; but at least some of those asking the questions were under the impression that they needed 'bringing in'.

Roll up, roll us, come and see the show
Another problem is that some put on 'Seeker Services' which have the very best in preaching, welcome, music, refreshments and the like; then having hooked them (or so they think) abysmal service is restored. Do this and you'll not only lose them the next week but you will have an almost impossible task to bring them back again (once bitten - twice shy). And regardless of the 'God will bring them in' words, God might but we can chase them away too!

Keep it honest
If your services are pants then change them! If you make them attractive, efficient, enjoyable, then the current members will be happier (well I know I would have been in some churches I have been in had they done this) and what's on offer will be winsome and appealing too (just don't ditch liturgy, theology or practice to do it ;-)  ).

Getting them to stay
Simple really, make them feel at home and engaged with. If you are someone who wants choir, organ and the like then you're probably not going to stay in a heavy metal church and vv. But, if you can endure the music and the preaching and service and people are not off-putting then you're 40% of the way in! (10% knowing of the church, 10% being invited to a service, 10% for finding you liked the people and what went on another 10% and the final 10% for not feeling:
i. pressured
ii. ignored
iii. conned

How do they becomes disciples
Here's a tough one (for many) because the answer is that we become disciples and model it for the new people. The real sadness is that so many want newcomers to become what the existing members aren't (and if by some chance they do, they often get jealous of the 'zealots') without being committed themselves. Well they often are committed, but to their roles, positions, opportunities and the like - and guard them fiercely. Bring them in - work with them - encourage them - show them what being part of the body is by being it!

But we're traditional
And that's not a problem, after all, that's what the church was for years. In fact some have a problem with the worship band, happy clappy, exuberant styles and feel more comfortable with 'proper church'. That said, King James Version and too much of the Thees, Thous and God knowest stuff and you'll queer the pitch somewhat!

And we're Rad man!
Great, you can bleed the air our of our radiators (you do have a rad' key don't you?).

Seriously - bleeding edge church can be great but dumbing down, amplifying up and the like doesn't make it  relevant, and that's the key. Meeting people where they are not where you want them to be. Contemporary worship and an end to liturgy isn't the answer, because at the end of the day there's still the sacred and sacramental to be dealt with (isn't there?)

Stand, Sit, Kneel (fetch?)
Not a problem - you say, 'We stand to . . .' or, 'We sit (or kneel) to  . . .'
If you tell people what you're doing then, generally, they do it.

This is something that clergy encounter all the time when they arrive at the crematorium or church for funerals, weddings and baptisms. Even if the rest of Christendom thinks it's weird, as long as the people in service are happy and know what they are doing (why helps as well!) - crack on and enjoy relaxed and informed people.

The key to it all is for us to put ourselves in the newcomer's place and engage in some critical questioning narrative  - here's a few for starters:

How would I feel about what's happening if I were a newcomer?
Why should I come in?
Why should I come back?
How do I fit in to the place, people and stuff?
What does it all mean?
Where do I sit?
When do I do stuff (and why)?
Who's here to help me?

(Make up your own)

Caption Contest - Follow that coffin!

One of the 'interesting' moments that one has from time to time as a dog collar is that moment when someone decides to muscle into the cortege, often it's at a roundabout and sometimes it's when they've overtaken and found themselves joining the procession - either way, always makes it interesting as they seek to find the best way to leave.

Happened to me again this week and since so many people have responded with an incredulous, "Surely that never happens!" Here's the proof before your very eyes (and the opportunity to create your own caption or relate anything similar you might have - yes, Wendy, I know I did it in Stevenage in 2001)