What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Counting our many blessings – Scottish Episcopal Statistics

    This Sunday is the day when the Scottish Episcopal Church counts how many people are in church. It isn’t a count of the number of people who want to be Episcopalians, it isn’t a count of those who say they are Episcopalians – in fact it isn’t even a count of Episcopalians at all. It is simply a count of the number of people who happen to be there on that particular Sunday.

    I like this Sunday because when the people are counted, I find myself counting them as so many wonderful blessings.

    I think that statistics are important and that they can tell us things. They can’t tell us everything but they can tell us a huge amount.

    Now, whenever we talk about the stats in the Scottish Episcopal Church we end up talking about how we gather them and there’s always people ready to say that the numbers that we gather are the wrong numbers.

    Some people want to make a case for gathering them as an average over a number of weeks. Others say that counting the number of people at Sunday services doesn’t come close to saying how many people the church deals with.

    To an extent that is true but it then leads on to absurd suggestions that instead of counting the number of people at worship we should count the number of people who come through the building. You get people wanting to count the Tai Chi group, the AA group that hires the hall or the dog club. I think some people are so desperate to pretend that their numbers are not in fact going downwards that they’d be happy to count the dogs.

    The truth is, we need to be fairly consistent in what we count. It isn’t the actual number that we arrive at that matters that much, however interesting it might be in any given year. The real question is how we are doing over time.

    I’ve been in many a meeting in the church where we assign money or other resources to something that we claim to be mission and then talk in the rest of the meeting as though we have no expectation at all that the numbers will go in anything other than a downward direction.

    I wish we did more with our statistics and I’m quite keen that we keep gathering them.

    The extraordinary thing that we discovered last year was that there are over 100 000 people in Scotland who think they are Anglicans, Episcopalians, C of E or some other Anglican variant of answering the question in the Census. The question that really should have been at the top of the agenda of a lot of our meetings is why we don’t seem to see more than about 15 000 of them on a Sunday.

    Here’s what I think:

    • The numerical trend has been going downwards for a long time.
    • The really steep fall is in those who claim to be part of the church but who are not communicants.
    • We shouldn’t be surprised that non-communicants have disappeared when we’ve been pushing communion as the main service for 40 years or so.
    • We don’t generally behave as though we believe our mission plans, policies and strategies are likely to succeed.
    • All the evidence points to the fact that our mission plans, policies and strategies (and we’ve had tons of them) have not succeeded.
    • The national profile of the church needs to be fixed.
    • We need to discover a new, respectful ecumenism that will help us to turn our backs on the kind of ecumenism that harms our ability to speak of having something distinctive.
    • Getting people to turn up on more Sundays in the month would give an immediate and dramatic boost to our numbers. We need to speak of why it is important to worship weekly again.
    • Churches with poor websites are going to go going out of business and for good reasons. They shouldn’t expect bail-outs from others.
    • The Scottish Episcopal Church has only ever really grown when it has been in the business of  opening new congregations.
    • You don’t plant new congregations unless you are confident that you’ve got something good that’s worth sharing.
    • The Scottish Episcopal Church may not be doing as badly as some other churches. We may be increasing in market share but need a bit of research to see whether that is the case.

    Anyway, all that being said, this Sunday counts because this is the Sunday when we do count.

    If you want to be counted yourself then you need to turn up.

    Like with most things.

    , ,

5 responses to ““Issues” is no more”

  1. Cedric Avatar
    Cedric

    Oh I well remember the day ‘Issues’ landed with a loud thud through the letter box. I had been ordained for over 10 years by then. And I reeled in reading it.
    Before then the general culture of conversation about sexuality in the Church was ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. And most bishops acknowledged that among their most able and effective clergy many were gay men, some in relationships, and often deployable in parishes where others would not contemplate living and working.
    But remember the context. This was also a period when AIDS was an international emergency and in Britain the Thatcher government sought to outlaw the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality through section 28 of the Local Government Act. And for sure, ‘Issues’ was a direct consequence of the passing of the amended Tony Higton General Synod private members’ motion declaring all ‘homosexual acts’ as sinful. The consequent noise of the shutting of closet doors was deafening.
    In my diocese the bishop asked one of the archdeacons to convene regular confidential meetings with a few gay clergy to offer them an opportunity to talk about the effects of all this on their lives and ministry. Some would not trust the Church to participate in such enterprises. Understandably. And huge numbers of vocations were thwarted and lost. And are to this day, as the toxic debates continue in the C of E in a social context which has changed beyond imagining.
    So thank you Kelvin, as ever, for your insightful questions.

    Reply
    1. Beth Avatar
      Beth

      Cedric, I recall you speaking to the LGBT Network at the Cathedral about Issues and that it was reaffirmed by the C of E around about that time too. I wasn’t so aware of it when it was published (being about eight years old at the time and also a Roman Catholic), but I remember so clearly from what you said how devastating it had obviously been and still was. I remember thinking at the time of that reaffirmation, “oh, I can never go home”. It became so clear to me that the Church of England wasn’t somewhere I could feel welcome as long as it was allowed to stand.

      Reply
  2. Ian Paul Avatar
    Ian Paul

    Kelvin, I can understand why you are glad that the offensive language of Issues has gone. Ironically, it was actually a statement written by liberals of the day; the main author was Richard Harries.

    And conforming to Issues was never the real question. The real question is conforming to Canons B30 and C26, so that the pattern of life of clergy should reflect the doctrine of the Church ‘according to the teaching of Jesus’. All Issues did was make that clear and unambiguous (though in an unhelpful and obsessive way) with regard to sexual intimacy. Ironically, it was the liberal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy which cemented Issues in place as a response.

    And of course, with Issues gone, the Canons remain in place, and the demand is the same. The good thing about GPCC is that it sets this one issue in the context of many others, which is much healthier.

    But on the question in hand—nothing has changed. You seem to have missed that.

    Reply
    1. Kelvin Avatar
      Kelvin

      No Ian. It isn’t that I’ve missed that. It is that I don’t believe that.

      Issues was a massively offensive document that coloured absolutely everything the Church of England had to say about sexuality. Changes to Canons will look significantly different in the light of its removal.

      A great deal is changed by its removal.

      Reply
  3. Mike Burnett Avatar
    Mike Burnett

    Jesus preached love, but he also forgave sins with the instruction ‘to sin no more’.
    Deciding not to sin when the sin in question is something that we enjoy so much that life may feel miserable without it, is a real sacrifice. It really is ‘bearing your cross’ to follow him. But that is what Christians are called to do.
    We may wish to question our translation of the Bible, or quibble over the exact meaning of a phrase we find challenging, but Christianity is not a ‘pick and mix’ faith where we just have to accept the bits we like and can ignore, or condemn, the bits we don’t like. We do not get to negotiate – we must take it or leave it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Prayer for the Day

    Don’t forget everyone! Up early tomorrow morning for Prayer for the Day on Radio 4. Mark sure you are listening at 0543 when the whole of the BBC sinks to its knees for morning devotions. Lest you miss it, because you are already up and out at that time doing works of corporate mercy, you…

  • Haiti – how to give online

    If you are in the UK, the easiest way to give money to the appeal to help Haiti is through this page: http://www.dec.org.uk/ Its the Disasters Emergency Committee, which represents different agencies working together. You can also give to this appeal by going to any post office.

  • Mission Service

    There are some glorious photographs of Bishop Idris which have just come to light in which he is shown teaching the faith in the mission field. The whole set can be seen on Flickr here. If you want a couple of individual starting points, try here or here or here.

  • Mungo, the loved one

    Went off to Glasgow’s medieval cathedral last night for a Glasgow Churches Together service celebrating St Mungo, the loved one, who settled in this place and preached the gospel here. I’d never been to a service there before and it was the first time I’d been there at night. I think the building looked better…