One of the things that I hope to be able to offer people is some simple tools for tackling practical issues as we go about our daily ministry. (My background is in Practical Theology). In my view, all theology should be practical, in the sense that it has to be of practical use in forming us as disciples. Whilst I do not wish to deny the importance of abstract intellectual reflection, I am not convinced that questioning how many angels can dance on the head of a needle is altogether helpful whilst, in our local churches, there is some of other dispute going on between the space that the toddler group is taking up, a power struggle between rival groups who want use of the kitchen, or a need for urgent conversation about how responsibilities are shared in the life of the Church and what its mission focus should be. My point is that Practical Theology responds to these kinds of challenging practical situations. There is no question that our response needs to be grounded in rigorous academic reflection. However, my experience has been that we often need to find simple ways of unpacking what are often complex issues. What is more, they need to begin as we go about our everyday ministry. We need tools that work for us as we think about how a meeting went when driving home in the car; or popping out to the supermarket for a pint of milk. This is the reality: we reflect on the go, often exploring deeper as we set aside time for supervision or go on retreat.
Richard Osmer in his Practical Theology, An Introduction (Eerdmans, 2008) offers a simple framework that I have adapted in my own ministry. Osmer writes with congregational leaders in mind, and suggests that practitioners would benefit from asking four questions:
- What is going on? (The descriptive-empirical task)
- Why is it going on? (The interpretative task)
- What ought to be going on? (The normative task)
- How might we respond? (The pragmatic task)
Whilst I find these categories helpful, I find that I naturally reflect on them in a slightly different order; I first ask, ‘What just happened?’ and cannot help myself turn immediately to, ‘What should have happened’, before asking the ‘Why?’ question:
Reflecting on local church closure in general
I have not been a minister for that long – about fifteen years, but in that time, I have become concerned at the ease at which Methodist Churches have closed. Two closed on my patch in my first appointment; one in my second. When I began here in Peterborough I inherited the remnant of two closed churches. I remember that when my first church closed, at Branston Booths in Lincolnshire, we worked incredibly hard to try and work with the community to find a way forward; knocking door to door; providing children’s activities on a Sunday Afternoon; focusing on Special Sunday services; but alas the Church closed. On the one hand, many people who live in local communities feel a sense of connection with their church. When the possible of closure is muted, there is, invariably, a degree of protest. However, generating the kind of interest that will sustain future presence can be difficult.
Osmer’s framework is useful here. ‘What is going on?’ is clear – and it is not ideal. To add a further layer of challenge, whilst the Methodist Church states clearly that the closure of any local church does not signal the withdrawal of the wider Methodist Church, this is how many local people take it; however illogical this may seem. There is an issue that deserves proper reflection here. When I first entered the ministry, I was of the mindset that Methodism was burdened by a high proportion of small rural churches that drew a disproportional level of resource from larger churches. An element of this thinking remains today – and I witnessed it whilst attending one of two annual superintendent’s conferences. I suspect that one concern is that planning preachers across multiple churches is difficult. Another might be that small churches could be holding comparatively large reserves, although this is counteracted by the fact that under charity law, churches must have an obvious reason for retaining excess finance. Even so, I still continue to be surprised by the ability of smaller churches to have a disproportionately high impact in their local communities.
‘What ought to be happening?’ is that even though a church might struggle to offer regular worship, it can still be a place of Christian presence. As I reflected on the location and space that was offered by some of our churches, it seemed incongruous to accept that because the worshipping congregation had dwindled, closure was the only option. Whilst the church would always need to cover its running costs and maintain its property, surely, at least in some cases, there would be a way of retaining the building as a retreat centre, or meeting venue, whilst opening the premises for community use. Could the church partner with any other agencies, who could take out a long-term lease on part of the building? So long as income from the rental of a church contributes towards fulfilling the purposes of the Methodist Church, this would seem justified.
Why is this happening? Churches find themselves in difficulty for three several reasons, and they often occur in combination. First, the roof falls in (or the church faces some or other property concern), and they lack the finance, or the resourcefulness to repair it. I do not mean this to sound detrimental. Raising large sums of money requires a confidence and boldness that often comes with experience. Grant applications require time, effort, and the conviction that what we have is worth saving, in the sense that people need to have the faith that renewal is indeed possible. Second, as the membership of the Church becomes frailer, more and more people are unable to attend unless others can transport them – and of course, when this cannot happen, attendance dwindles. Also, as the people dwindle in number the responsibility that they hold, and feel, exhausts them. I know of one instance when a superintendent insisted that a church close because they could see that all of the responsibility (and burden) was shifting on to one (younger) person. Third, the Church does not have enough members; churches can exist until they have less than six members – and which point the wider circuit is obliged to assist by sending leaders to increase church council membership. If, after a period of two years, the situation remains the same, the circuit can insist that they become a class of another church. Herein, the trusteeship for the building rests with the larger church.
This is the theory. However, my research suggests however that this intervention by the circuit to support struggling churches by importing leaders was being implemented either poorly, or not at all. Instead, the narrative was one of closing early rather than seeing the process through and handing the building over to the circuit who would invariably sell. Curiously, this is not always in the best interests of the circuit, because in doing so, a portion of the sale proceeds goes towards the wider Church. In my view, this happens because conversations about the future of the Church happen far too late in the day, at the point at which people feel exhausted, overwhelmed, and cannot see any other option. They are also forced by a narrow understanding of Church – one that has not been broadened by an understanding of Fresh Expressions or pioneer ministry. Although the concept of Fresh Expressions have been around for over a decade, in reality, many of our faithful Church attendees have only ever lived with one form of church, and so undoing this – helping people to see that ‘church’ need not meet on a Sunday, and can exist in a different form, is a serious challenge. Despite all our efforts here in Peterborough, we still encounter the question, ‘When are we going to see people [who attend fresh expressions] come to Church on a Sunday?’
‘What are you going to do about it?’
Eighteen months ago, one of our churches was facing the prospect of closure. If what happened then had happened ten years ago, I suspect that the church would have closed. Crucially, two key leaders (who lived in the village) had both served for twenty-five years. They had given their all and throughout this period had taken on just about every role in the life of the church, serving as Church secretary, treasurer, property steward….you name it, they did it. (I note here the difference between the ideal of Methodism’s rule that no-one should serve in the same capacity for six years, and how this is often unworkable for small chapels). Both signalled to Gareth, their minister that they could no longer continue. They did so with some regret, feeling that they had no other option, and mindful that in their absence the church would struggle to find people to fill key roles, and to function. The Sunday congregation had dwindled from twelve to around six people. Sadly, some had died. Others had moved into residential care. Thus, the model of worship that we were operating was not sustainable. My role was to support Gareth and bring in other leaders from across the circuit, as we discerned the way forward.
I remember that meeting well. I think that the difference instance was that although we were prepared to talk about the subject of closure, we were reluctant to allow this to happen. This would have been easy; it would have been a case of letting nature take its course, and gently giving its members the option of either filling their offices – which they could not do – or accepting the inevitable. However, in our view, the church was ideally placed in the community and offered a set of premises that were not available elsewhere. We recognised that there was potential for the church to remain a focal point in the village and that there was a need for re-engagement. In response, the local church handed trusteeship of its building back over to the circuit (who reassumed, therefore, responsibility for property and finance). The circuit supported Gareth and Helen as they sought to explore re-engaging with the local community. To allow for this change of emphasis, we reduced Sunday worship services down to twice a month, with one service being a holy communion, and the other being a cafe-style worship service (which had previously been warmly received). They are, in effect, a ‘class’ of the circuit, rather than another local Methodist Church.
We are now at the point where – from nothing – we have developed several activities. Messy Play started in July 2014 and since then has taken place during school holidays. It is Bible based, incorporates crafts around a theme, a story time (often making use of video resources), singing, prayer, and games. Numbers average twenty-five children and twelve adults plus helpers. We estimate that 80-90% of those who attend have no previous experience of Church. A Facebook page (which went live in October 2016) has been great for keeping in touch and notifying people of events. Sewing Bees began two years ago – a quilting group which meets monthly now attracts two people from the existing congregation, ten people from across our other churches and two others from the village. (The original idea was proposed by one of our local preachers). Parents and Carers coffee stop started at the end of 2016. It is held twice a month but is moving to weekly from May. The drop-in comprises six to seven adults, plus a similar number of toddlers. Two of the adults have links with the Church of England, but the remainder, again, have non-church backgrounds. In addition, the church hosts Quiet Mornings three times a year.
It would be tempting to focus on the mechanics of how Helen and Gareth went about re-engaging with the local community – and perhaps this is for another time. However, I believe that the most important move, considering Fresh Expressions, was to take seriously the question of how we could challenge the narrative of closure by allowing a dwindling congregation to remain, whilst exploring other opportunities. To suggest that we have arrived would be dishonest. Whilst we are forming Christian community, and Messy Play is a fresh expression, there remains a degree of separation between the Sunday morning congregation, and those who attend these different events. However, whilst the offering from the Sunday Worship has diminished (and might be a cause for concern), this has been offset by income through lettings. The transfer of trusteeship from the church to the circuit has been helpful, but it places responsibility on others (who may be equally pressured) to ‘hold’ the church for a period. Despite this, although the road ahead might be long, this ‘church’ is currently operating as a hub of mission, where Christian faith and Christian values are being shared. Our intention is to continue to invest in the relationships that we have developed, to expand our Christian worship to enable faith-commitment, to encourage Methodist membership as and when the time is right. Crucially, this is what would be required to form a new church, but in the meantime, we simply thank God for his blessing.