David Self: The Church’s preference for commitment over numbers has a Cost

Posted by Kendall Harmon

In 1980, the Church of England adopted a modern-language prayer-book, hoping to make services more "relevant". Alan Bennett gave a memorable quote: "The trouble with these modern services is that they're so very unsettling. You can understand what you're saying."

Obviously, rival Sunday attractions also hastened the process of change, but by the end of the century the Church of England had largely become a "members only" organisation. Go to any parish church and the notices ("See Sue for tickets", "Tell Pamela if you can help") indicate that everyone knows everyone and newcomers are not expected. Even cathedrals model themselves on suburban parishes, nurturing their regular congregations. Attend debates at the church's parliament or general synod and you witness an inward-looking body.

If the church prefers commitment to numbers, that is its prerogative. If, on social issues, it wishes to be out-of-step with public opinion, that is its decision. If, as a result, it appears irrelevant, it must not be surprised if it loses the perks of being part of the establishment.

Read it all.



Filed under:

3 Comments
Posted September 1, 2007 at 10:47 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Wilfred wrote:

I think pathetic attempts to be “in-step” with public opinion have caused most of the problems & irrelevancy.

September 1, 11:05 am | [comment link]
2. John B. Chilton wrote:

If he’s saying there’s a tradeoff between commitment and numbers (as the headline states), and that numbers are falling, why is that a bad thing? If low numbers imply irrelevance but high commitment what’s wrong with irrelevance?
On the other hand, how many of us have visited a church and seen the “See Sue for tickets”, “Tell Pamela if you can help”. No new members are expected. Nor would I expect such a church to be relevant or to have a high level of commitment. Except to self maintenance. In these churches, of which there are too many, there is no tradeoff between numbers and real commitment.

September 1, 11:07 am | [comment link]
3. William S wrote:

Well, yes, but . . .

There is a strange mixture of perceptive observation here, with some oddly inaccurate things and some things which are misjudged.

Perceptive - ‘parish Communion’ was a mixed blessing as it proceeded on the assumption that everyone was a Christian really.

Oddly inaccurate - was it really only in 1967 that evangelicals in the CofE began to preach the need to be born again because John Stott told them to? A very curious statement - and if the author is responsible for the Lion History of Christianity, I will treat that work’s contents with some caution!

Misjudged - was choral Mattins such a user-friendly service that the uncommitted flocked into church to participate (passively) in its wonders. That’s not how I remember Mattins of my childhood (‘is it still Sunday?’ was my feeling about half-way through the Te Deum). And OK, there’s a bit of clannishness in the ‘See Sue for tickets’ mentality. But the ‘in-group’ attitude there is about a family - which could be quite inviting and exciting to belong to. The in-group mentality fostered by choral Mattins was to do with knowing your way around the arcane secrets of the 1662 Prayer Book. You had to be quite an adept to find the right pages - and frankly who would bother?  A pity, because there is still a great need for a good, challenging but appealing Service of the Word.

September 1, 2:12 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.



Next entry (above): Notable and Quotable

Previous entry (below): Valedictorian sues over ‘Jesus speech’ reprimand

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)