• The Four Horsemen of Growth – their names and their characteristics

    Horse with a hand reaching out to it

    “And lo, after the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse of Decline had ravaged the Church of God,  there appeared on the horizon the Four Horsemen of Growth. They stalked the land offering terrifying hope, and succour to the needy”.

    There are only a limited number of ways that a church can grow. These apply both to denominations as well as to local churches.

    Last week I was at the General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church where we were asked to engage with the idea of becoming a growing church.

    So far as I can see there are only four major ways in which this can happen. The Four Horsemen of Growth have names. They are Immigration, Conversion, Assimilation and Procreation.

    They do not always arrive individually or sequentially. They tend to arrive in one another’s company. They are social. They are amiable. They enjoy one another’s company.

    The pathway to becoming a growing church is not one that is simple. It is not a trivial task to bring this about either in a local church or in a denomination. And I think that it is important to get to know the Four Horsemen of Growth and to become their friends.

    One of the first things that I would say about this is that I am talking about visible, measurable numerical growth. Yes, I believe that spiritual growth matters. Yes, I believe that serving the needy matters. But sometimes we do need to talk about actual numerical growth and decline in the life of the church. I sit with groups regularly who have to decide where best to spend the resources at our disposal. As I do so, I bear in mind other forms of growth but I am aware that spiritual growth and other non-numerical forms of growth will be wiped out without thinking a little bit about how churches can or can’t grow numerically.

    When thinking about this in my context, the first thing that people need to do is to put on their Hats of Holy Humility and take a long hard look at church statistics. They offer little for our comfort. This is not to say that there isn’t hope. There is hope and it is important to be able to identify where it is hiding and bring it out into the open. The reality though for my denomination is that it has been declining at a fairly steady rate since the 1920s. The patterns of decline that I live amongst were already in place long before I was born and long before I joined the church. Shifting them is not a trivial task or a quick fix. The most likely thing is that those patterns are here to stay.

    But let us grab hold of a bit of hope before thinking about the names of the Four Horsemen of Growth.

    There is something that I think need to be said clearly and unambiguously. This is that church growth is possible both in individual local congregations and also in denominations. My own congregation is bigger than it was 20 years ago when I came here. Significantly so. I can easily name other churches that have grown over a timescale of decades. Ps and Gs Church in Edinburgh and St Mungo’s, Balerno are two within my own denomination that have stories to tell about how they grew significantly. Note that those of us who do have those stories to tell also have stories to tell about how difficult things have been since the pandemic and would probably all note that it is too soon to say what the effect of that major disruption has been. But there are signs of hope in individual congregations even since that time too.

    I rejoice that there is obvious renewal and measurable growth at my neighbouring Episcopal congregation – St Bride’s, Kelvinside. (Which isn’t in Kelvinside for reasons involving a traction engine). I know of other churches in this diocese that are talking about growth as something that they are experiencing too. St Oswald’s in Maybole is another one with a story to tell.  And there are others too.

    I can see growth in congregations of different sizes and which worship in different ways.

    When we think about denominations, I am aware of confidence in at least some parts of the Free Church of Scotland. I am aware of significant interest in Orthodoxy too though that remains relatively small when looking at the bigger picture of faith patterns in this country.

    I have a fairly fundamental belief that it might be important to listen to the voices of those who can speak confidently about their congregations growing.

    I also have a fairly fundamental belief that where there is weekly worship in which people encounter God in a way that is transformative for their lives and meet clergy whom they would like to spend an hour a week with then growth is very likely to happen.

    This is one of the reasons why I always want to talk about worship and clergy whenever we have conversations about growth and mission and all that stuff. Some people really don’t want to talk about those things. But I know that I do.

    But where revival comes, how does it come?

    Well that brings us to the Four Horsemen of Growth.

    Let us deal with them one by one and name their names.

    Firstly the Horseman of Immigration.

    One of the ways in which churches can sometimes grow is through the movement of people from one place to another. This is not a growth in the number of Christians in the world but it can look encouraging locally.

    There have been historic attempts to harness the horse belonging to this horseman but not always successfully. In this diocese there was a huge effort put into building churches for immigrants to the area from Northern Ireland. (Several were not that far from me, particular the church in Anderson built to serve the docks). Scottish Episcopalians spent quite a lot of money putting up churches to welcome these workers new to the area. However, these workers new to the area seem to have preferred the  rather more reformed charms of the plain local Kirk to the exotica of Scottish Episcopalianism. Most of these churches are now long gone. It was a bold attempt to do something and we should be bold in our doings. In the long term though, the demographic changes didn’t lead to lasting change.

    However, more recently, there have been hugely positive  changes to some local churches in which the Horseman of Immigration has played his part.

    In my own congregation, Anglicans from Africa – particularly from Nigeria have arrived and enriched our experience of church hugely.

    Even more recently, there have been arrivals from Iran who have become beloved members of our local fellowship.

    Our life is greatly for the better for those who have arrived from afar.

    Here in the West End of Glasgow it often feels as though we are our own Anglican Communion with people present from India, South Africa, Japan, Canada, Mexico, the USA and West Africa.

    The Horseman of Immigration is our friend in these parts.

    Some of those arriving in my own congregation from both near and afar though have not always been Christians, never mind Anglican Christians.

    Their arrival is due to the work of the Holy Spirit stirring up their hearts at the prompting of the Horseman of Conversion.

    Conversions still happen. I see them fairly regularly. This is a surprise to many people.

    A couple of years ago I started to notice an interesting change in the pattern of people being baptised here. For what I suspect was the first time in the modern history of this congregation, the number of people being baptised as adults (or at least as children who could answer for themselves) was greater than the number of children being baptised as babies. I suspect that it is possible that we’ll soon see a year when all the baptisms here are of those who can answer for themselves.

    People still choose Christianity as a way of life. People still choose Christ. People still find themselves, sometimes to their surprise, looking to the church to find spiritual nourishment and a way of living.

    I can easily point to people who have arrived from other countries who have wanted to explore the faith of the country in which they have found themselves. (The Horsemen of Immigration and Conversion are the best of friends). I can also point to people engaging through online encounters with the church finding that they have faith where previously they had none. It used to be that I knew more people who had tried yoga, Buddhist practice and various new age expressions of faith before pitching up here. I still encounter them but now I find myself meeting people who arrive having tried to find a thoughtful way of living through exploring philosophy but now find themselves looking for something more.

    The Horseman of Conversion is surprisingly active these days and has not grown nearly as old and weary as some would suspect.

    Trotting next into view is the big, bold Horseman of Assimilation. He’s the one about whom we most rarely speak.

    This aspect of Church growth (again not the building up of Christianity but of local expressions of the church) is all about people having been brought up or having encountered other expressions of Christian faith and finding themselves drawn towards a new one.

    Here at St Mary’s the Horseman of Assimilation has blessed us with many joys over the years.

    When we do our Rough Guide to St Mary’s afternoon, something we do every three or four months, we find that most people who come to it do not have much of  a background in Episcopalianism or Anglicanism. We also find that they are astonished to discover that people such as themselves make up the majority of the congregation. And when we tell them that this is also the experience of most of the clergy that they encounter including the Provost and the Vice Provost, they fall off their chairs in amazement. (Well, they teeter on the edge of their chairs in amazement but I exaggerate a little for comedic and holy effect – comedy and holiness being a pair of friends that we may explore more in another post).

    People come to us from other churches. They tend to be looking for a relatively small number of things. They are looking for worship that makes them feel more alive and which allows them to experience joy and which will provide a comfort for their sorrows when comfort is needed. A big signifier of that is the musical life of the congregation but it isn’t the only signifier by any means. They are also looking for an open, inclusive and welcoming ethos. Here and hereabouts this tends to be signified to them by an explicit acknowledgement of LGBT equality and of women and men having equality of opportunity and practice in the congregation and in our denomination. They are also looking for a faith that is neither represented by finger-wagging nor an anything-goes free for all. In some things we are in the middle of the road and in others we are very much on one side of the road and not the other. And people know what they are looking for. If they don’t find what they are looking for here, I’m very happy to help them find it elsewhere. There will be plenty more people in this world who are looking for what happens here.

    The Horseman of Assimilation is nudging people our way all the time. But we don’t talk about it much and in my denomination we are a little afraid of making it clear that those who have first encountered God in other churches are welcome to bide with us whenever they want to walk through the door.

    The Horseman of Assimilation may find his work easier to do now that ecumenism is changing from the expectations of the 1970s to something fresh and new. In the past it was harder to keep company with this horseman because lots of people thought that denominational boundaries and distinctions were going to melt inevitably away leaving some kind of new uniting church that would hold everyone together. This hasn’t happened and the expectation that it will is on our rear horizon not the one that is in front of us.

    And so finally we come to the Horseman of Procreation.

    We can grow the church by having children and bringing them up in such a way that they find faith compelling in later life. This is not a short term strategy for growth!

    Many of our expectations about growth depend on this Horseman. Many of these expectations will not be met in our lifetime.

    I found myself looking around at the General Synod and wondering how many of those present would be able to engage meaningfully with embracing this Horseman of Growth as the major driving force behind real growth in the congregations that they come from. I have a feeling that the Horseman of Procreation has his work cut out amongst us at this time. Contraception has made his work a little harder. Modern ways of being men, women and other people have made his life a little more complicated. But he’s still at work. Children are still born. Children are still baptised. And in churches which draw them into active participation in the liturgical life of the congregation, children are part of God’s bountiful growth.

    So there we are. Four Horsemen of Growth whom we should befriend, as they befriend and help one another. If I’ve missed any other means of growth out, I’d be interested to hear about it.

    And when we talk about becoming a growing church again, though some of them may seem to be in the distance, I’d like us to be talking about which of the Horsemen of Growth we see galloping  enthusiastically towards us.

     

37 responses to “The Peace and Unity and Order of the Church”

  1. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Kelvin,
    I should, of course, have written ‘on this site’ rather than ‘appear in this blog’ because such derogatory terms have been used in the main by some of the correspondents.

    However, as to your use of the term ‘misogynist’, while certainly not applying it to any individual you seemed to be suggesting that all who held such views on headship were misogynist – a word which my dictionary defines as a hater of women. I happen to know a number of clergy who take this view and while agreeing that they are seriously mistaken , in no way can they be described as women haters – a serious and unfair accusation.

    Your also referred in your comments on the Bishops’ New Statement to ‘homophobic bullying’ which I also find objectionable. Today, of course if one dares, even with good reason, to remonstrate with anyone it is very likely that an accusation of bullying will be made and if they happen be gay then it is just as likely to be accused of being homophobic.

    Finally the term ‘arch conservative’ was used by someone who contributed a comment. I apologise for giving the impression that it was a term used by you.

    The point I was trying to make is that the use of such intemperate language cannot be conducive to reasoned discussion or argument. It reduces the whole thing to name calling.

    1. Cynthia Avatar
      Cynthia

      “It reduces the whole thing to name calling.”

      What is church leadership calling ME when they treat me as lesser in the eyes of God and the church? What is the result of hateful and hurtful language? Depression, LGBT teen suicide, homeless LGBT teens who are cast out by their religious families, sexual abuse of these homeless LGBT teens, hate crimes, human rights abuses…

      The truth of the suffering caused at the hands of the church needs to be told. It isn’t a pretty story, nor is it a polite one.

  2. Kelvin Avatar

    Ross, I’ve done an electronic search and I can’t find many instances of the term arch conservative on this blog. I happen not to think it too terrible, not least because I can imagine people using the term arch liberal to describe me. Although that would be inaccurate, I’m not sure that I’d be that offended to be honest.

    But that’s not the point. I can find only one instance of someone commenting on this blog using that phrase. That’s one comment in 10500 comments. It doesn’t seem to me to be a phrase particularly commonly used on this blog.

    The terms homophobe and misogynist have sometimes been used, but I’m struggling to find any instances of them being used to describe any individual. Again, I’m not of the view that they’ve been particularly commonly used in those 10500 comments. There simply aren’t that many instances of the words being used on this blog at all.

    Generally speaking, I think it is OK to debate ideas – it seems to me to be reasonable to be able to describe homophobic ideas or actions. Generally it is not helpful to call people homophobes. There is a difference that I know and tend to be quite careful around.

    I stand by my description of last week’s guidelines as homophobic bullying. Indeed, I can’t think of a better example of such behaviour. However, I’m not in the business of calling people homophobes and the accusation that I am and even that I do so habitually, seems to me to be far from secure.

  3. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Kelvin

    I accept your comment about my comment about the use of the word ‘archconservative!! Apologies for overstating the case.

    Having re-read the Bishops’ statement I cannot for the life of me understand how you can suggest that any part of the document can be suggestive of homophobic bullying. Its obvious intent is to clearly state what the current situation is which is important given that there could be legal implications for any clergy who decides to act outwith the confines of the stated law of the land (i.e the Act permitting same sex marriage.)
    I’m not really sure what you expected the Bishops to do.

    I appreciate how emotive and divisive this whole issue is. Inevitably the peace and unity of our church is going to be (and is) seriously disturbed to the detriment of its mission.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      No-one can be surprised at the bishops letting people know they should not do anything illegal.

      However the surprise has come from clergy being told that they themselves should not marry. If the bishops knew they were going to say this previously then they should have said so before the General Synod and particularly before the Cascade Process began. Both the debate at General Synod and the Cascade would have been different if this had been known.

      It particularly targets anyone who is in training to become a priest or lay reader who may have been accepted for that training whilst being open and honest about being in a civil partnership. To publish this with just one week to go before the law changed was, to say the least, unhelpful.

      People make plans. Most things to do with marriage are planned more than a week in advance.

  4. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    My final comment -you’ll be pleased to know!

    But surely any ordinand who is in the situation you describe will be fully aware of the doctrine of the SEC regarding Christian marriage as expressed by Canon 31. At their ordination/licensing they can hardly promise to render due obedience to the Code of Canons if they plan not to abide by them.

    When I was ordained in the Church of England candidates for ordination were barred if they were divorced and had remarried. Through time the situation was changed. I would not be surprised if, in a few years time, the SEC changes its stance on same-sex marriage – I wouldn’t be surprised but I would not be happy. As I have commented before, as an Anglican my faith is based on Scripture, Reason and Tradition, all three of which bear witness to the truth that Christian Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      If someone in a same-sex marriage cannot subscribe to the Code of Canons because their manner of life puts them outside of the definition of marriage in Canon 31, then I can’t see any way that someone who is divorced can subscribe to the canons for the same reason.

      I personally think that someone’s subscription to the canons represents them accepting that this is the doctrine of the church. It is on that basis that I can subscribe to the Canons. Clearly I don’t believe the definition in Canon 31 to be adequate and have said so many times and very publicly.

    2. Lawrence Rosenfeld Avatar
      Lawrence Rosenfeld

      Ross, Parts of various articles in Ian Bunting’s collection, Celebrating the Anglican Way, can be paraphrased thus:

      “Anglicans understand the Old and New Testaments as “containing all things necessary for salvation” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith. ‘Reason’ and ‘Tradition’ are seen as valuable means to interpret Scripture (a position first formulated in detail by Richard Hooker), but there is no full mutual agreement among Anglicans exactly how Scripture, Reason and Tradition interact (or ought to interact) with each other.”

      To the best of my understanding, it is Tradition alone (and not a terribly old one, when compared with the Hebrew Bible as “Scripture”), that declares “that Christian Marriage can only be between a man and a woman,” given that for a great deal of the past millennium there may, indeed have been one man and one woman, but the rest of what was called “marriage” bore no resemblance to what we in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries recognize. I refer to women as chattel, marriage for political purposes, etc.

      I’m sorry that you are not happy, but I’m sorrier that you are subtly suggesting that, since I affirm that my Reason and reading of Scripture trump “Tradition,” that I am somehow less of an Anglican than you.

  5. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Surely the Canons are not articles of faith. They are laws to be abided by, not a creed to be believed. There is a huge difference between the two.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      My understanding is that it is something of an anomaly to have a doctrinal statement in a canon. The canons should indeed be regarded as the law of the church and not a doctrinal statement.

  6. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Apologies for making another comment after I stated that I had made my final one on this issue.

    I agree that canons are not doctrinal statements or articles of faith but they must and do reflect the belief of the church. As the Bishops’ Statement puts it ‘The doctrine of marriage of the SEC, as currently expressed in Canon 31 of the Code of Canons, is that marriage is “a physical, spiritual ad mystical union of one man and one woman.”

    I would, therefore, have to disagree with Rosemary’s claim that there is a ‘huge difference between the two.’ They are obviously very closely linked to each other and with the practice and life of the church

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      The important point to remember is that the statement regarding marriage in Canon 31 is “The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God.”

      If it isn’t possible for those who advocate same-sex couples being able to enter marriage to edit that definition to suit their own ends then it can’t be possible for anyone else to do so either.

      If it isn’t possible for someone to subscribe to the canons because they happen to be in a marriage with someone of the same gender then it can’t be possible for someone to subscribe to the canons who is in a second or third marriage either.

      The way our church has dealt with divorce (which is also controversial for some people) has been to allow people to minister who are in relationships which fall outside the definition of marriage in Canon 31.1

    2. Lawrence Rosenfeld Avatar
      Lawrence Rosenfeld

      “Huge” or not “huge”? Rather than debating the size of a subjective term, perhaps we can try to find a more objective method for determining the relationship between the two.

      It seems to me – and I welcome debate on this point – that the Canons ought to flow from our faith (“reflect the belief of the church”). Assuming that is the case, then after we deal with the question of “what IS the belief of a church that encourages reason over dogma?”, we get to wrestle with the potentially circular nature of putting statements of belief into a governance document.

  7. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Not so. Canon 31.4 allows for a Diocesan Bishop to permit the marriage of person/s whose previous marriage has been dissolved and where one of the previous partners of that marriage is still living.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Yes, Ross. The Canon allows for a bishop to permit a marriage after divorce.

      However, that says nothing at all about subscription to the canons or anything about whether such a person should be fit for ordination.

      If it isn’t possible for someone to subscribe to the canons if they happen to be marrying a person of the same gender due to Canon 31.1 then I can’t see how a person can subscribe to the canons if they are in a second marriage which also falls outside the boundaries of Canon 31.1 regardless of whether such a thing was permitted in church.

      I think that a second marriage should not be an impediment to ordination. However, the Bishops’ recent guidelines have implications beyond those who happen to be gay and lesbian.

      These are all inconsistencies that come from a time when the Canon was revised to suit some circumstances (divorce) but before other circumstances (marriage of same-sex couples) were even thought about. We shouldn’t expect such Canons to answer questions they were never designed to ask.

      Notwithstanding that, one of the reasons that it was presumed by many that being in a same-sex marriage (which does indeed fall outside the doctrinal definition of marriage in the canon) would not be a bar to ordination is precisely because being in a second marriage (contrary to the doctrinal definition of marriage) isn’t. One can’t have it both ways.

  8. Seph Avatar
    Seph

    It seems to me that a bishop can either be a ‘focus for unity’ (a seriously dubious phrase in my opinion) or show real leadership—I don’t see how it is possible for one person to do both.

    I can’t see much evidence of either from the SEC bishops at the moment.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • The Antisemitism Notice

    Someone asked me to share the note that we put in our service sheets in St Mary’s about antisemitism. This has evolved over the last few years but the statement below is what it looks like at the moment. We’ve also changed the pattern of readings we use at St Mary’s. In particular, we no…

  • “God swipes right” – a sermon for Lent 4, 2026

    In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. From time to time, every couple of years or so, someone decides that it is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good cathedral, must be in want of a man. Now, I am…

  • Assisted Dying – Why I’ve changed my mind

    The time has come to admit it. I’ve changed my mind about assisted dying. As a priest, the presumption is generally made that I’m against it for religious reasons. Recent aggressive campaigning by those in favour of allowing doctors to help people to end their lives has been relentlessly dismissive of religious reasons for being…

  • Predictions 2026

    A rocky road to the enthronement of the next Archbishop of Canterbury. Further turmoil and scandal in the Anglican Episcopates of the United Kingdom. No progress for those hoping for Equal Marriage in the Church of England. More talk about the Quiet Revival which will continue not to show up in denominational statistics. Success for…