Transcript Learning from the work of David Wasdell The Urban Church Project produced two reports Let my people grow Divide and Conquer Oct.

Learning from the work of David Wasdell
The Urban Church Project produced two reports
Let my people grow
Divide and Conquer
Oct. 1974
June 1975
Their conclusion was …
The Parish System is fatally flawed for
its missionary purpose to reach the whole
country
1
Consideration of evangelism
in urban Britain
DW in 2002
Factors internal or external
Clergy redeployment help?
Place of parish mission
Priority of mission
2
A bit strong?
DW in 2002
‘We have become involved in the public re-enactment of
heresy. We believe and proclaim a gospel of grace available to
all but we operate a structure which takes the form of a club
with limited membership.’
D. Wasdell, Let My People Grow (London: UCP, 1974) p.7.
On what basis?
2
The Size of C of E Parishes in 1974
20000 plus
92
202
15000-19999
762
10000-14999
627
8000-9999
1000
6000-7999
1398
4000-5999
1631
2000-3999
1532
1000-1999
1971
500-999
2314
250-499
2893
<250
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
No. of parishes at that size
<250-999
1000-3999
4000-7999
8000 +
7178
3163
2398
1683
3
C of E Average Attendance - by parish size 1974
392
20000 plus
265
15000-19999
184
10000-14999
192
8000-9999
191
6000-7999
1 more cleric adds
90, a second adds 81
172
4000-5999
158
2000-3999
1000-1999
116
250
500-999
69
39
250-499
24
<250
0
50
Number of
Attenders
100
150
200
300
350
400
‘the single-clergy model church levels off at an average
congregation of 175, regardless of parish population.’
More clergy is not the answer
• Revd A. B. Miskin (1964)
– If you want 10% of population attending
– You ‘ll need 27,000 FT clergy
– A parish of 15,000 will need 14 clergy
No amount of pastoral juggling and redeployment of the
clergy can create the needed breakthrough.’
D Wasdell, Let My People Grow p. 8
5
C of E Penetration of the Parish 1974
1.6
20000 plus
15000-19999
1.8
10000-14999
1.8
Invisible
2.4
8000-9999
3.2
6000-7999
4.1
4000-5999
6.1
2000-3999
Visible and impact
10.6
1000-1999
12.8
500-999
17.4
250-499
21.4
<250
0
5
10
15
Percentage of the parish who are attending
20
25
No. Parishes
Avg Sun Attend
% Penetration
Wasdell’s research 1974: Summary
400
350
The parish system as a mission disaster
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
<250
250499
500999
10001999
20003999
NB Vertical scale adjustments to show trends :
The percentages are multiplied x 10 and No
of Parishes divided by 10
40005999
60007999
80009999
1000014999
1500019999
Parish sizes
20000
plus
C of E parish sizes 1974 and 2011
20000 plus
We have increased the number
of the least effective sizes
15000-19999
10000-14999
by size
2011
8000-9999
by size
1974
6000-7999
4000-5999
2000-3999
We have reduced the number
of the more effective sizes
1000-1999
500-999
250-499
<250
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Number at that size
3000
3500
Lack of perception – or willingness?
• We have not perceived the need to penetrate a parish area. We
have rationalised our decline making ourselves content with fig
leaf representative presence.
• We have refused the route of needing more parishes of modest
size, to reach ‘the pockets of 3-5000 people who are unchurched
for all practical purposes’.1
• We have been unable to imagine that a church community for
each micro community of 2000 people might be a valuable
yardstick.
• We have also assumed that the responses to decline should be
centrally initiated, and focused upon increasing numbers of clergy.
1 The
words of Archdeacon Eddie Shirras, 1992
9
C of E Penetration of the Parish 1974
1.6
20000 plus
15000-19999
1.8
10000-14999
1.8
2.4
8000-9999
3.2
6000-7999
4.1
4000-5999
6.1
2000-3999
10.6
1000-1999
12.8
500-999
17.4
250-499
21.4
<250
0
5
10
15
Percentage of the parish who are attending
20
25
C of E % Penetration of the Parish - 2011
1974 %
0.9
20000 plus
15000-19999
1.1
10000-14999
1.3
8000-9999
1.8
6000-7999
1.9
2.4
4000-5999
3.2
2000-3999
4.0
1000-1999
5.1
500-999
6.8
250-499
11.9
<250
0
3
6
9
Percentage of the parish who are attending
12
1.6
1.8
1.8
2.4
3.2
4.1
6.1
10.6
12.8
17.4
21.4
Population per parish & penetration – by diocese 2013
12,000
10,000
3.5%
3.0%
2.5%
8,000
2.0%
6,000
pop/ parish
1.5%
Poly. (pop/ parish)
4,000
1.0%
2,000
-
% attnd
0.5%
0.0%
Does London disprove the case?
• Clearly it is an outlier but…
Consider recent parish penetration in London diocese
Divided into 4 groups from smaller to larger
(using ER p. parish population)
Parish Size
Electoral Roll
Penetration (%)
Quartile 1
4,054
165
4.71
Quartile 2
7,085
178
2.55
Quartile 3
10,102
148
1.48
Quartile 4
15,834
186
1.23
Source Philip James private paper 2012
A new approach
• Gains and drains
• Transfer growth- growth and loss
• Clergy mission/death and illness
• Lay mission/lapse
A new approach
• Implications for mission
• Increased clergy numbers may maintain but not
grow
• Holding a mission leads to only short term gains
• Only way forward is lay mobilisation in mission
and minimise lapse rate.
The bigger the church the lower the lay mission role
and higher the lapse rate.
‘fundamental priority of mission is the development
of a missionary structure for the congregation,.
Divide and conquer
• ‘It is a more effective use of manpower to
multiply parish units and service each one with a
person than to multiply the manpower in a large
parish.’
• Danger become atypical and not good at mission
• ‘ The explosion of little congregations is the most
important factor in the renewal of the church’
• So question is what kind of unit and leader ?
From addition to multiplication
• ‘It has become crystal clear that the strategy of
growth by addition of new members to existing
groups or congregation is itself self defeating.’
• ‘Once we have seen the folly of trying to grow
new groups into big groups and big group into
church and have the courage to say that
sustaining small groups and keeping them as
small groups is essential to the life of the church.’
How pay for it?
• ‘ a minimum dependence on sacred buildings and
full time (paid) ministry and the use of homes,
public buildings and part-time, lay or ordained
ministry.’
Response to, and by, Wasdell
Let my People Grow went to GS November 1974
• it was noted
• Wasdell’s contract for part 2 was terminated
‘New facts and ideas are often threatening and become buried
by defensive reaction – something which may well happen as
we grapple with this kind of material.’
Wasdell, Let My People Grow p. 3
Divide and Conquer (June 1975)
• was unauthorised
• Citing factors of resistance1
1 Wasdell, Divide and Conquer, pp 3-5
14
Wasdell’s key messages
‘It has become crystal clear that the strategy of growth by addition
of new members to existing groups or congregations is selfdefeating. As numbers increase, so the quality of life which sustains
the group is destroyed. Opportunities for personal learning,
participation and maturation, pastoral care, taking of responsibility
and use of gifts, all begin to disappear.
Now there would appear to be only one alternative to growth by
addition, and that is growth by multiplication … then the most
important problem to be solved is the question of what that unit
looks like and what kind of leadership is required in the church to
enable multiplication to take off and be sustained’’[1]
[1]
D. Wasdell, Divide and Conquer (London: UCP, 1975) p. 16.
15
Anglican swansong?
‘The forces sustaining the size, lifestyle, organisational form and mission of
each of these working units are complex, deeply interwoven and highly
resistant to change.
Moreover if breakthrough does happen and a particular congregation starts
to grow, the dynamically conservative pressures in the rest of the church act
in concert with those in the surrounding community to return the ‘rogue’
congregation to pattern.
Traditionally ministry involves running the church in its received pattern and
passing it on to the next generation as little altered as possible. Changes are
only made in so far as institutional survival is threatened and then the
strategy of ‘least possible change’ to cope with the threat is followed.
The church is superbly organised for survival and brilliantly effective at
perpetuating its institutional form. Tragically the form so preserved now
stands firmly in the way of the effective mission and ministry of the church in
modern England.’
D. Wasdell Tomorrow’s Church: ACE No. 34 (September 1978 ) p. 12.
16
Has this ever happened before or since?
Towards the Conversion of England - 1944
John Tanburn’s CPAS book Open House - 1970
The John Tiller report - 1983
Mission Priority areas: Richard Giles et al – 1992
Building Missionary Congregations: Robert Warren, 1995
A New Way of Working: John Holbrook et el, 2001
Add your own
17
Reasons to stay in the box
• Fear
• Loyalty to the past
• Lack of trust in the
proponent of change
• Not allowed time for ideas
to sink in
• Lack of vision
• Loss of position or influence
Never, ever, think
outside the box
J Hamilton-Brown, Parish and People, 2004
What is the C of E parish based box?
Our priest
Result - Ceiling of 175 people
By the way …
‘Come to us’
Our worship
service –
preferably
Sunday
[mission]
In rural and poor urban areas
the ceiling is lower
Our church building
How is the box strengthened?
Priest
Traditional training & local expectations
Parish Boundary
‘Come
to us’
Result
stay much as we are
You’d love
our church
It’s proper
church
Liturgical conservatism
Clergy & People
client-provider
collusive fit
Beware
poachers
Public & Heritage Lobby – change? closure?
church building
Sunday
worship
Suppose life beyond the box
Pioneer & Lay–led
Communities
round Jesus
We come
– to you
Where others gather
Questions for you
Is it true … that parishes of over 2000 are self limiting?
That they do not encourage diverse multiplication?
Should we allow the C of E parish box to have the last
word?
22
They said it
‘The desire for neatness, as much as the desire for
control, is characteristic of … those contemplating
office. They are often backed up bureaucracies
which are allergic to messiness. But human life and
creativity are inherently messy and rebel against the
uniformity that accompanies systemic constraints
and universal solutions.’
House of Bishops, Who is my neighbour? (London: C of E, 2015) para 55.
23
Suppose life beyond the box
Pioneer & Lay–led
We come
– to you
Reproduce
Multiply
non-identically
Where others gather
Communities
round Jesus
Questions for you
Is it true … that parishes of over 2000 are self limiting?
That they do not encourage diverse multiplication?
Should we allow the C of E parish box to have the last
word?
Will we dare go with a messy, non-identical future to
allow the creation of many more young churches?