What is in Kelvin's Head?

75 questions for people who want to help churches to grow

22/09/2017
Helping churches to grow is hard work but there are some things that need to be addressed to help congregations to grow which seem to be fairly consistent across churches which are otherwise very different in style. Some time ago I published two lots of 25 questions for people who want to help churches to grow.

I thought it was time for 25 more. The new ones are the first 25 below and then come the ones that I’ve published before.
1. If someone were to hear about the congregation from a non-congregational member, what is the most likely thing they would be told?
2. What is the smallest number of words you could use to accurately explain the ethos of the congregation?
3. What are those words?
4. What strategies do you have to get good quality photographs of life of the congregation to use online?
5. Which of the arts does the congregation use in its worship and regular life?
6. How do the church education programmes relate to contemporary culture?
7. Do things start on time?
8. What steps have you implemented to ensure you don’t have the same meetings over and over again?
9. Do you have a set length of time for meetings and does someone stop them after they have gone on enough?
10. How do you stop people making decisions in the car park before or after the meetings?
11. Who chooses the hymns?
12. Why do they choose the hymns they do?
13. When was the last time the congregation learned a new hymn it sang more than once?
14. How many different styles of singing the psalms do you use and is that enough?
15. How many opportunities are there for weekly non-eucharistic worship?
16. Which would attract more people, a course in meditation or a course on prayer?
17. Is anyone working for the local congregation underpaid?
18. Does your bishop/presbytery/judicatory body or person help enable growth or are they a distraction from it?
19. Is there are three year budget?
20. Is the congregation moving into or out of debt?
21. What percentage of people in the congregation would have a basic understanding about the congregation’s finances?
22. Does anyone ever break copyright law whilst acting for the congregation?
23. How do you share good news about the denomination that you belong to?
24. When did you last issue a call to prayer for the congregation and what was it for?
25. If someone wants to make a confession is it clear who they should approach and how they should get in touch?
26. If you didn’t have to go to your church on Sunday would you still go?
27. Are the clergy happy?
28. Are the musicians happy?
29. Does the congregation have a stronger ethos than that of its denomination?
30. What one thing could you change this week to make the worship better?
31. Why didn’t you make that change last week?
32. What steps are you taking to make the phrase “All are Welcome” come true?
33. Do you do church business on a Sunday after church or is there a better time for that?
34. In the next month are you more likely to spend time on ecumenical activities or church growth activities?
35. Do people who leave become ex-members who have disappeared or do they still contribute to the life and ministry of the place?
36. What is the noticeboard like?
37. What is the first thing you see when you come through the door?
38. Did you implement the recommendations of the last “mystery worshipper” you asked to give you a candid assessment?
39. Which church events in the next six months will be newsworthy locally?
40. Which church events in the next six months will be reported in the local media?
41. Do you have enough staff and who decides this?
42. What would your clergy really like to do that they can’t because of the laity?
43. What would your laity really like to do that they can’t because of the clergy?
44. Which would attract young families more – a bible-based week long summer activity for children or letting it be known that gay people are welcome in your church?
45. Can you email those members of your congregation who want to receive regular updates?
46. Do you email those members of your congregation who want to receive regular updates?
47. Has someone done the work required to make sure emails sent to large numbers of people don’t end up in spam boxes?
48. Who in the congregation has gifts that could be better used doing a different job in the congregation than what they are currently doing?
49. Who is your volunteer co-ordinator and is it obvious how to contact them?
50. Can you volunteer without being a member of the church?
51. Do you have a decent church website?
52. Is it up to date?
53. Is it responsive – ie does it work on mobile phones?
54. Does your own online profile feature your ideas and hopes and dreams other than a desire for people to turn up to church?
55. Do you know what you are doing with twitter and facebook?
56. Who could you learn more about social media from?
57. Do you have a compelling reason why people should come to your church other than where it is or what denomination it belongs to?
58. Can everyone in the church tell you in one sentence what that compelling reason is?
59. What is your beginners’ course like?
60. What comes after the beginners’ course?
61. Do people like the preaching?
62. Do people enjoy the music?
63. Have you dealt with conflicts from the past?
64. Are the people friendly?
65. Do you have any new groups starting soon?
66. Do you talk about making the world a better place?
67. How will people experience joy if they come to your congregation?
68. If someone from your past turned up unexpectedly at worship how would it make you feel?
69. How do you identify newcomers and what do you offer them?
70. What problems will arise if you do grow and how will you deal with them?
71. Do claims that you welcome everyone stop you working at welcoming those who traditionally find it hard to find a home in church?
72. Do you use language that is inclusive of everyone?
73. How do you know?
74. Is there any identifiable group of people that you can’t explicitly say are welcome because of how an individual or group in the congregation will react?
75. Do you want to grow or not?
growth, mission, questions

10 responses to “Where does the Church of Scotland stand?”

Robin

21/05/2013

I understand your sentiments, but both on this issue and on the ordination of women in the Church of England the weary words of Mrs Boyle in Sean O’Casey’s ‘Juno and the Paycock’ in reply to her son, who scorns the Irish Free State and wants an Irish Republic or nothing, are inclined to come to mind:

“To be sure, to be sure — no bread’s a lot better than half a loaf.”

Reply
Nick Brindley

21/05/2013

I think you’re right to think this is a disastrously wrong-headed attempt to avoid having to think the issue through, although we may not agree on what would be involved in such thinking (almost nobody agrees with me!)

I think we need to revisit some pretty fundamental problems on the nature of the moral authority of the Bible, the meaning of “salvation” and what ministry is to make any real progress with this issue and there appears to be depressingly little appetite to do this in a spirit of mutual trust and of trust in the leading of the Spirit guiding our interpretation of scripture

http://loveswork.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/failing-to-be-biblical-reflections-on-church-of-scotland-sexuality-debates/

Reply
Frank keefe

21/05/2013

This is what happens when you water down Gods truth so the secular world will think what a progressive church you are.When a small secular wedge is pushed under a church door you can bet a larger one will be pushed under it in the not to distant future.I believe a liberal minded church like the Church of Scotland is more dangerous to the Christian faith than atheists like Richard Dawkins and his followers. Jesus found it hard to convince the Pharisees of their misguided beliefs if He walked our earth today He would find those modern day Pharisees in the Church of Scotland even harder to convince.

Reply
1. Rosemary Hannah
  
  21/05/2013
  
  Well, there you go – I think the exact opposite – that Jesus, who plucked corn, and healed, on the Sabbath, would be out partying tonight with all sorts of disreputable people. The Pharisees were the people who stuck rigidly to the law, breaking it even as they kept it. Jesus was the one who re-interpreted it.
  
  Reply
  1. Frank keefe
    
    21/05/2013
    
    I find it amazing how those who look for sin to be accepted would try and use Jesus to back them up.First Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.The Pharisees abused Gods law with their legalism.Its why He said about the rescue of a sheep on that day.He didnt re-interpret it He was showing them how it SHOULD BE KEPT as God ALWAYS intended it.Its the church who is doing the interpretation and Jesus certainly wouldnt be “out partying” such disrespect of our Lords holiness is often the way with liberal ” Christians” Instead of the church being a light to the world that worlds darkness is putting out that light.
    
    Reply
    1. kelvin
      
      21/05/2013
      
      Bless you for your faith, Frank. May it bring you happiness and joy.
      
      Reply
Graeme Cowie

21/05/2013

It’s a fudge, no doubt. And one which, far from preserving the “traditional” Kirk actually serves to undermine it in a number of ways, particularly concerning the status of “doctrine” and who gets to determine what it is, or at least what practical meaning it is for something to be “doctrine” rather than merely a personal religious sentiment. Explicitly to permit complete deviation from “doctrine” by congregations is not very Presbyterian, and the “traditionalists” either didn’t seem to realise that, or they care about preserving substantial doctrines at the expense of, well, what makes the Kirk the Kirk.

To an extent, though, you could see it coming. I think the traditionalist wing sensed they would lose if it was a straight choice (unfortunate phrase) between 2A and 2B, and so tried to push for something that retains a symbolic attachment to historical doctrine whilst letting liberals have the lion’s share of the cake they want, which is to be able to ordain those in committed same-sex relationships and to be done with it. I know for a fact that a fair whack of liberal commissioners were swayed by 2D (not including my parents, who are CofS ministers who voted with option 2A), many seeing it as a way of letting the traditionalists have some sort of phyric victory whilst in fact enabling ministers to be in civil partnerships without any lasting problems. It is much more likely that 2D will make it through Barrier Act procedure now that it’s got the traditionalists’ name on it, and notwithstanding the extra year it’s going to take to turn it into a proper overture, I think the consensus of the Kirk is that they really want to stop talking about this.

The new system ought to be fairly robust once the Legal Questions Committee have had their teeth dug into it. The clear intention was conceded by the movers that they did not intend for Presbyteries to be able to discipline or annul decisions made by Kirk Sessions seeking to be allowed to appoint ministers in civil partnerships, and for a lot of liberals (and actually, a lot of those on the conservative wing too) this will be seen as a critical part of the compromise if it is to be laid to rest. My only real concern is that if the traditionalists are for any reason unhappy with the implementation by LQC it could lead to the whole debate re-opening in GA 2014.

It’s clearly not enough for many liberal ministers, elders and members of the Church of Scotland, for whom this still presents a partial sense of “separate not equal” for congregation and minister alike, and it probably makes it more difficult for the theological position of the kirk formally to be moved away from same sex relationships being sinful, now that the “practical harms” are in a significant sense out of the way, but by Church of Scotland standards, it’s a major step forward for a very broad church, and one which has probably saved it from a major schism (though a handful of churches may still leave over and above The Tron and Gilc South). For those of us in the Kirk 5 years ago, this would have been virtually unthinkable, and momentum has picked up since the Rennie case 4 years ago. The good fight goes on, and hurdles remain, but if it gets through Barrier Act procedure I think the practical objectives, in a Kirk which already offers substantial liberty of personal opinion in matters of doctrine which do not enter into the substance of faith, have largely been met, albeit in a roundabout way.

For more of my thoughts on this matter, see:

http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk/2013/05/church-of-scotland-religious-progress.html

and

http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk/2013/05/presbyterianism-cracking-at-seems-cost.html

Reply
Margaret of the Sea of Galilee

22/05/2013

And it still does not properly address how LGBTQ people (single or in civil partnerships) will be dealt with (dealt to?) when they offer themselves to Presbyteries as feeling called to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament. Will they be asked about their orientation? Questioned? Interrogated? What responses will allow them to or prevent them from pursuing that call?

Who is this Albert Bogle anyway – is he about to become the first to be beatified by the Kirk and for what exactly? By-passing (even disregarding) Kirk “Order”, convincing his important friends to let him bulldoze ahead and his less important friends to print off 700 and something copies of a Deliverance which is incoherent and unimplementable.
Off to read Revelation for other signs of The End Times…
.

Reply
Peter W Nimmo

25/05/2013

Kelvin, you make lots of good points in your post. But just to clarify- what is the doctrine and practice of the Scottish Episcopal Church on this issue? Does your doctrine approve of persons in civil partnerships being clergy, and is that put into practice?

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  25/05/2013
  
  Yes – there are quite a number of clergy in civil partnerships. In England, Anglican clergy in civil partnerships are supposed to declare that they are “celibate”. That isn’t the case in Scotland.
  
  The pension scheme in Scotland recognises Civil Partnerships by giving such partners the same benefits as wives or husbands in marriages. Civil Partners also are treated in the same way with regard to housing as a straight spouse if a relationship breaks down.
  
  Any candidate for ordination who is in a Civil Partnership is expected to be honest about that at selection.
  
  The bishops of the church announced a few years ago that they would not consecrate anyone as bishop who was in a Civil Partnership. They were clear at the time that this was a moratorium. However it is not clear to me whether that moratorium still stands. I do expect there to be questions about that at the coming Synod.
  
  Reply