• Six reasons why [some] cathedrals are doing well

    The attendance statistics for Cathedrals in England have been published in the last 24 hours. As has been the case in recent years these are quite perky. Many cathedrals in England are busy, full of people and seven day a week operations.

    The immediate response of the wider church to this though is complex. Indeed, if you look at the comments underneath the Thinking Anglicans post where this news was shared, you see a certain amount of cynicism. Very quickly people jump in and suggest that people are going to cathedral worship to avoid the entrance charges at those which charge, to get a good free concert from the choir, or to exercise some kind of faux faith that is somehow lesser than what will be found in real parish churches. A common charge is that cathedrals encourage believing without belonging – faith-lite which you can dip into and never really become committed to.

    Well, cathedrals do allow people to exercise believing without belonging. They also allow people to belong without believing too. And thank God for that.

    What church wouldn’t want people to come who are at different stages on the faith journey? What church wouldn’t want people to come if they were just curious? The answer would seem to be, quite a few.

    Cathedral ministry is often dismissed by those in other churches, which is a shame as there’s a lot about being a cathedral that other churches could learn from and the keys to growth for some other congregations could be unlocked by reflecting on what is making some cathedral congregations grow.

    These are the factors that I would identify as being important.

    1 – Cathedrals get to use the C word rather than the other C word

    The truth is, cathedrals are off to a head start because they’ve got a good brand. Once you hang the C word (Cathedral) outside a building you are saying to people – “You can come in, you are welcome.” The inherited culture that we have that surrounds cathedrals all over the world is that these are places which you can go to whoever you are. That can’t be underestimated and that is tricky to emulate in a place which isn’t a cathedral. I think that there’s a lot of people who would say that they simply can’t do anything about this in places that are not cathedrals. However it is even worse than they suspect. They get landed with the other C word – Church, which is itself becoming a toxic brand. The word Church speaks of exclusion rather than inclusion to many people. (Hey – if you don’t like this, don’t shoot the messenger, I’m just telling you it as it is). Years of negative publicity that have been generated both by grindingly slow synodical government and publicly poisonous episcopal leadership is not going to evaporate just because the Church of England has now very publicly affirmed that women can be (second-class) bishops. And it is not just the Church of England – none of the major denominations have governance structures that have been shining brightly in recent years. The word church has come to mean something unpleasant. This is hard to change as there is little culture of holding leaders to account in the church. However, if you want your church to be full of more people, it is time to start asking serious questions about why synods have become places where the church advertises the worst of itself and why bishops have become trumpets of intolerance and a whole set of values that nice people don’t believe. Cathedrals happen to have branding and identity that stands outside this ethos and that is part of why they are doing well.

    Interestingly, there is a movement in some dioceses to declare particular churches to be Minster churches – local centres of mission. This is a good move – minster is a good word. The name change may itself be more significant than any of the other mission strategies surrounding such innovations.

    2 – People have worked to make things beautiful for a long time

    Cathedrals often look timeless. This is because they have been constantly changing and people through many generations have wondered how to make them more beautiful. This happens to neatly fit in with the current culture which is very visual. Things are beautiful for reasons. Often they are beautiful for financial reasons. When was the last time your church had an appeal to make it more beautiful?

    One of the things that I encountered when on sabbatical a couple of years ago on the West Coast of the USA was an emphasis on beauty. Churches which were doing well often seemed to be places which people thought were beautiful and somehow outside the normal experience of life. I suspect that this sensibility is coming our way and we might be wise to prepare for it. Cathedrals are often places which people have worked incredibly hard to enhance. Enclosed space is not in itself beautiful. There are architectural and decorative tricks that have worked through the ages and still work today. Michelangelo managed to work without a digital projector screen. However, if he had one I suspect he would have used it to project something that was more aesthetically pleasing than a load of words in a clunky font.

    Beauty matters and it is going to matter more in the years that are ahead. Cathedrals often have a head-start in this area but they don’t have a monopoly on how to create loveliness.

    3 – People haven’t just worked on good music they’ve worked on stopping bad music

    Quite often cathedrals are dismissed by people because they have good music that “can’t be emulated in the parish”. This is to close one’s mind and stop thinking about cathedral music far too soon. Sure, most local churches can’t do the kind of music that cathedrals do. Neither should they necessarily try. There are two aspects to getting music right though. The first is doing what you can well within the resources that you’ve got. The other is stopping people who are getting in the way of other people at worship.

    I remember visiting a church once which was presenting a bunch of flowers to someone on her fiftieth anniversary of being the organist (she had taken over at 20). And she was terrible. She was proud of never having had a music lesson in her life.  I knew people who wouldn’t go to that church because the music was so grim. Now, we need to be kind, we need to be loving. But we need to think about the whole community.

    Incidentally, I think that sometimes local churches get the music wrong by trying to do what they perceive cathedrals to be doing. It isn’t about one style. It isn’t about one hymn book. It isn’t about being fully choral. It is about enjoying yourself. (And by the way, I think a lot of worship in a lot of cathedrals is rather dull).

    People sometimes say I haven’t a clue what it is like in “real” congregations which don’t have a nice organ/nice organist/choir/much of a congregation. Well come and join me for a weekday saints day I say. Full sung  mass with all the glory, all the beauty and all the dignity with 8 in the congregation, no organist, no choir but a load of goodwill and fun.

    They never do come and see that either.

    No-one ever asks me why my congregation is full of life and growth.

    4 – People like to volunteer for something that is bigger than them and which will carry on without them

    Oh, this is so tricky, isn’t it? People are very willing to volunteer but don’t want to be depended on too much. New people arriving at church need to be met with a mind to their needs from God and the church rather than God and the church’s need for them. People are frightened off from going to church sometimes because they fear they will be sucked in. However the other side of this is that very often, one of the needs that people have is to offer something – to be of service, to give of themselves and not just from their wealth.

    I’ve learned in recent years that in order to get volunteers you need to make sure they don’t think they are doing this forever. You also need to support them better than most churches do. (We’ve all a lot to learn here including me). I’ve also learned that people like to be asked to do something that matters but don’t like being asked to do something that is crucial. There is a big difference.

    One of the advantages that cathedrals have is that they are more than any one person can control, including the dean or provost. The ethos, the weight of history, the relationship with the wider community is complex and broad. Cathedrals don’t generally fall victim to being completely controlled by matriarchs and patriarchs in the congregation. People who would otherwise be the matriarchs and patriarchs can enjoy spheres of interest without the whole thing being dependent on them. And that is a good thing.

    5 – It is never wrong to do things as well as you can

    Cathedrals are often criticised for being elitist, as though that is a bad thing. For me though, I’d say that it is never wrong to do things as well as you can. We do things as well as we can in cathedrals for two reasons – firstly because of a culture of offering the best of human experience to God. (That’s not merely not a bad thing, it is a biblical thing). The second reason for doing things well is politeness. It is polite to a congregation to presume that they matter enough to do things well. Now people sometimes tease me about my black shoe fetish. But if wearing black polished shoes, practising before services and having meetings now and then (every week!) in which we talk about how to make the worship better – if these things help people discover a God who loves them then why not get out the shoe polish?

    I regularly hear people saying that they wouldn’t go to the churches most local to them because it seems that no-one who is there cares about the worship. I don’t know whether that is true but I do know that it is a perception that I hear uncomfortably frequently

    6 – Innovation [sometimes] pays off

    The curious paradox is that conservative institutions which survive are often the most innovative institutions you will find. They change constantly to become more like themselves. This is true of cathedrals. A culture of commissioning things through the ages has led to places which seem to have been doing the same thing forever and ever and ever and yet, cathedrals are not changeless places. The worship may be timeless but they are constantly innovating. When I meet with other people who are involved in cathedral ministry I find myself meeting with other entrepreneurs. I’m unashamed of that too. In our day, the gospel message needs people who are prepared to take some risks to get it into the hands of those who need it most. Indeed, that has probably been true in every day.

    Cathedrals happen to be innovative because they have innovative people in them. And to close, if you want a nippy observation from someone who often visits the Church of England, I’d say that innovative people who once might have become bishops have been steered towards cathedral ministry for one reason or another and that is starting to show, to the detriment of the episcopate.

    I’d be the first to say that cathedral ministry is something special, unique and particular. However, I’d also be someone who, having worked in a much smaller church before coming here, would say that there is much for those in local churches to learn from the cathedral experience if people could stop being blinded by the things they see which they presume they can’t have.

    Cathedrals are growing because of the way they really are. They are not growing because of the way many of those in local parishes seem to presume them to be.

11 responses to “Providence and Vocation for Liberals in Public Life”

  1. David Evans Avatar
    David Evans

    I was one of the Lib Dems who did foresee the calamity in 2015 and actively campaigned to get the party to change leader – after 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 it wasn’t difficult for anyone to see, but it was difficult for many nice Lib Dems to own up to the fact that they had allowed it to happen. I failed, but I don’t think it was part of anyone’s plan that I did (except possibly Ryan Coetzee and a few other true believers).

    There’s a lot in your points I can agree with, particularly regarding the naivety of referring to God’s plan, when many Christian’s have a view that his/hers/its plan is to let us get on with it and find our own way to salvation. However, the most interesting question is when you say “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.” Do you really mean that you have the right to force someone else to marry you who doesn’t want to and believes it is wrong, even though you have the right to and can get someone else to do the same job for you? Do individuals have the right to insist on being married by the registrar of their choice, or just the right to get married? Are you not perhaps just a bit assuming that your tree is that bit taller than the other guy’s?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories. I think that the equal rights tree is bigger than my tree and the registrar’s tree.

      I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them, not least because I don’t think it is a very real question – few people want to be married by someone who doesn’t want them to be married. I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.

      1. David Evans Avatar
        David Evans

        I think you are rather changing your ground here from your original piece. You started with “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.”

        You have now moved onto “I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories.” So we now have a right to expect, but only against a person who works in the public sector, and even if it is against that person’s conscience and only if you are in a specially protected category.

        It gets even more tenuous then as you accept when you then say “I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them.” So the right is not to a person wanting to be married at all.

        Finally we get “I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.” So the right is not to an individual at all, so definitely not “your rights” but to a public sector organisation. Hardly a human right, more of an employer’s right by your own statements.

        I rather think that your equal rights tree, however high you think it is, has decidedly peculiar roots.

        1. Graham Evans Avatar
          Graham Evans

          David, I thought most liberals accepted the view that in the provision of services to the general public, whether provided by the public sector or private sector, a policy of non-discrimination was an essential ingredient of a progressive society. I accept that there is a notable exception to this rule in terms of the provision of abortion, but this arises from the broad range of medical procedures undertaken by one type of doctor or another. Surgeons are specialised medical practitioners, as are nurses who assist them, so it is most unlikely then anyone who opposed abortion on conscience grounds would actually be faced with having to refuse to conduct an abortion. The provision of most services to the general public is also a specialist activity, and no-one forces people to engage in any particular activity. The idea that a registrar should be able to opt out of undertaking a civil gay marriage represents the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. If such people wish to opt out of doing so, then they should act as part of a religious community, such as a deacon in Anglican Church, which has the legal power to conduct religious marriages, are still recognised by the State.

          1. David Evans Avatar
            David Evans

            Quite simply Graham I disagree with your view that this is a level of discrimination in the provision of a public service of anything like the scale you imply makes it essential that every individual has to comply with it. The “go with it or get out” philosophy demanded of the state by so many in pursuit of their personal view of their rights is to my mind a greater threat to liberty than the fact that Fred or Freda don’t agree with something and don’t want to do it but George, Georgina, Harry, Harriette etc etc etc etc can do it instead. Ultimately you aren’t stopping someone from exercising their right; you are preventing someone from imposing their requirement on someone else.

            However, I note Kelvin hasn’t responded to my substantive point and I await that with interest.

  2. Iain Brodie Browne Avatar
    Iain Brodie Browne

    Firstly thank you for your posting.
    I have been expressing my concern elsewhere that the main voices we have heard in the debate about Tim’s faith have been firstly from those who think that it wholly a private matter and because his opinions are sincerely held and are derived from his faith the rest of us should back off and secondly those who seem to imply that having a religious faith at all is a negative factor. Until your contribution I am not aware that anyone has directly addressed the issue from different Christian understanding.
    I cut my political teeth at the end of the 1960s opposing the all ‘white’ rugby and cricket tours from South Africa. The dominant voices from the churches were from Trevor Huddleston and David Sheppard. They effectively contested the assertions of those who told us (and they did) that apartheid was part of God’s plan.
    Earlier in that decade Michael Ramsey spoke up clearly in support of what was then called homosexual law reform. David Steel, who pushed through the 1967 Act did so at a time when he was regularly introducing Songs of Praise.
    I regret that equal marriage and the removal of other discriminations against gay people –including the issue you raise about Registrars- have not been as effectively championed by Christians as those earlier reforms. It is fair to say that in the minds of those who you describe as ‘decent people in society’ Christians are seen as opposing these reforms. The priority for the churches appears to be to gain protection for those who oppose such reforms. Imagine if that had been the approach to apartheid.
    My own experience gives me hope that things are changing. Our local church got a new vicar who immediately began to pray for the defeat of the Equal Marriage legislation, got up petitions and lobbied. His views on women priests were no more in tune with ‘decent society’. In common with many churches these matters had not really been properly discussed. It was heartening how many members did openly contest his views and a significant portion of the congregation felt so strongly the eventually relocated to other churches. There is a good deal more support for liberal values amongst church goers than is popularly conceived.

    My view is much the same as expressed in the Independent’s editorial this morning which endorsed Tim but added the rider that : ‘It will be for Mr Farron to make clear to party members, the public at large, and this newspaper, that his faith can indeed be reconciled with a liberal view on matters of birth, marriage and death.’ If faith is the opposite of certainty then I have enough to believe that can be achieved but if would be of assistance not only to Tim but to others struggling to reconcile their faith with liberal views if more church leaders provide a Christian narrative as effectively as did Michael Ramsey and Trevor Huddleston did in their day.

    http://birkdalefocus.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/influencial-divine-former-libdem-ppc.html

  3. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    Personally, as a non-Christian, I find the attack on Tim Farron’s Christian faith distasteful, even disturbing. With the issue of gay marriage, something I wholly support, it is clear to me that Farron was trying to protect freedom of religious thought whilst also legislating for LGBT equality. There is nothing illiberal about that. Freedom of religion is one of the most fundamental human rights, and something liberals should defend. Any definition of liberalism which does not include freedom of conscience, is one I have no interest in supporting.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Thanks for commenting, Andy.

      I’m not aware of people attacking Tim Farron’s faith. I am aware of people questioning whether someone who apparently has anti-gay views is an appropriate person to represent the Lib Dems as leader.

      When it comes to the vote about the registrars, that can either be interpreted as defending religious thought or as defending discrimination. I come to the latter view because if I substitute a couple who are gay for a couple being say mixed race (something many people would once have objected to on religious grounds) then I see clear discrimination at work.

      It is a strange day when people are arguing (as some are) that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has the right to hold distasteful views about gay people in private so long as he defends their rights in public. He does have that right but not the right to be taken seriously as well.

      1. David Evans Avatar
        David Evans

        Sadly there have been many who have been attacking Tim’s faith, some directly and some more with disdain. Comments such as listening to his sky fairy are not uncommon. Also portraying his views as apparently anti-gay are without doubt over egging it massively as opposed to the simple fact that as a liberals we should all have views which take into account the “balance of fundamental values of liberty, equality and community” and that this inevitably leads to differences of judgement on lots of individual issues, but do not undermine the fundamental decency and liberalism of many people like Tim, who have proved it over a great many years.

  4. David Evans Avatar
    David Evans

    Kelvin,

    It is a great disappointment to me that you have not come back to me with any further reasoning in response to my post on 30 June 02:19. Have you changed your views, reinforced them with new vigour or simply moved on?

    1. Graham Evans Avatar
      Graham Evans

      David, perhaps you could clarify what your substantive point is. Having reread the whole thread it’s certainly not clear to me.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Book Review: Re-shaping Rural Ministry

    Here comes another book trying to persuade me that life in rural churches has a different set of challenges, presumptions and priorities to those which apply in an urban setting. To articulate that is also to articulate an uncertainty about who this book is aimed at. It might be written to encourage others engaged in…

  • For the Bible Tells Me So

    Last night the LGBT group at St Mary’s had an open evening and a film show. When +Gene Robinson was here 18 months ago, he pressed several copies of a DVD into my hand before he leftt. It was the film For The Bible Tells Me So [DVD] [2007] which he had been giving away…

  • Sermon – preached on 14 February 2010

    Here is what I said this morning: The readings that we have had this morning are the readings set for the day – the sixth Sunday after Epiphany. Most of the time, the readings that we use in St Mary’s are the same as the readings that many of our friends use in other local…

  • Tom Montgomery’s Installation in Troon

    So it was down to Troon on Friday night for Tom Montgomery’s installation as Rector of St Ninian’s Church there. I have to say that St Ninian’s was looking absolutely beautiful for the evening. A gorgeous swag of flowers was behind the altar just over the heads of the clergy and there were beautiful candles…