The Church Today [1]
I want to thank your minister and Kirk Session for the kind invitation to lead this workshop today. I come to you simply as an ordinary parish minister rather than as the Clerk [2] to Aberdeen Presbytery.
The first thing I want to say is that I have not come to tell you how to do your job as office bearers or elders or committed members. Some of you have been faithfully serving in the Kirk for a lot longer than I have and there are many things that you could – and hopefully will – tell me. In fact, as we open to discussion later on, I welcome all of your input. You all have experience, insight and knowledge, so let’s not be shy in sharing these resources.
And let me state something that is perhaps only too obvious. What the church is today will greatly affect the church of tomorrow. But we do have to live in the present and make decisions in the present. We cannot live in the past, although it is always good to look back and see how far we have come. I find that people in the church are actually just as guilty of living in the future. We will agree to almost any change as long as it does not mean any changes right now! We will agree to change things next year, but like tomorrow, next year never comes. I let that thought simmer and we may come back to it later.
In proceeding, I want to simply flag up some points for possible further discussion, some more important than others.
At the moment we have a slow but steady numerical decline in the number of active ministers. The average age of a Church of Scotland minister is around 55. Whilst that is scarcely “old”, in twenty years time the situation may become more serious.[3] It is encouraging to see that there are still a good number of younger men coming forward for theological training. The less encouraging aspect – and I lead a few tutorial classes at Christ’s College, so I do see something of the wider picture – is that many of these younger folks do not see themselves going in to traditional parish ministry.[4]
Even since I myself trained as recently as in the last decade, “things” have begun to change.[5] We do need to think about some of the implications of this. It would be nice to be able to ignore these uncomfortable facts, but this is not an option. But let me ask you this – is this only a problem or is it also an opportunity?
We could, of course, just give up. Unfortunately, some people already have. It is hard not to feel a touch of discouragement at times when we see declining numbers and so many churches closing their doors. I remarked to a friend recently that the centre of Aberdeen bears an uncanny resemblance to Moscow with all its empty churches.
I suggest that we (and that includes me) need to have a bit more confidence in who we are, what we do and what we stand for. It is so easy to talk ourselves down. As ministers, office bearers and elders we have a duty to remember to encourage one another and build one another up in the faith.
Whilst I do believe – and believe strongly – that there has to be a much higher input from lay people, I am not suggesting that all the tasks that ministers don’t want to do should be dumped on them. There has to be full cooperation at all levels. I am only too aware that churches can sometimes be manipulative places and people can be put into situations where they feel they cannot refuse a request. That is not fair. It is one thing to encourage people to stretch themselves and indeed to challenge them in an appropriate manner. It is quite different to force people to do something with which they are less than happy, even worse if we resort to guilt spinning. Similarly, if someone genuinely wants to stop doing something, they need to have the freedom to do so. A senior minister once gave me the advice that if any member of the congregation submits his or her resignation from some position of responsibility, the default position should be to accept.
The trouble with ministers (well, one of the troubles!) is that we are not actually perfect. We do not belong to some remarkable sub-species. Now, congregations do have high expectations of their ministers and they have every right so to do. However, the expectations have to be reasonable and congregations in their turn should not play the guilt card. The minister is entitled to a wee bit of personal space even if he is on call day and night. He should be allowed to make mistakes or misjudge situations like anyone else without it being a big issue. You cannot have two standards of morality, one for ministers and another (lower standard) for everyone else, can you?
When a congregation is looking for a minister, invariably they want someone who has the virtues of all their past ministers within living memory but without any of their shortcomings. This is scarcely realistic! And, of course, many congregations assume that the minister’s wife will act as an unpaid assistant and receptionist, lead the Guild and generally dispense good works throughout the church and parish. Increasingly, ministerial wives want to have careers of their own and are entitled so to do. I make this point but I won’t labour it.
However, speaking about ministers, I would make the point that Kirk Sessions have it within their power to make or break their minister. It does not mean that everyone has to agree all of the time. That would be impossible. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that a bit of appropriately expressed and managed conflict within any group can actually be a good thing. It means that different views can be spoken (not just thought) and aired. Sometimes out of two or more apparently conflicting ideas something new can emerge. What can be incredibly frustrating is having people come to a session meeting with a definite viewpoint, say nothing and then “beef” all the way home.
The Gospel is all about reconciliation. If Christians cannot hold together in difficult times, who can?
And still speaking about ministers, they also need to learn to let go at least occasionally and show that they actually do have confidence in their own members. So, if (say) an elder visits someone in hospital, it is not necessary for the minister to race round the next day. That merely duplicates the work. It certainly does not reduce it.
In the New English Bible (which is not actually my favourite translation) the heading above the First Letter of John is “A Recall to Fundamentals”.[6] We all need such a recall at times. What is this church stuff all about? Is there really any difference between you and the nice moral person next door who never darkens the Kirk door?
It is easy to play at churches and to be content with the green leaves of “churchianity” rather than the fruits of the Holy Spirit. We can get so bogged down in “church stuff” that we forget why we even exist, far less what we stand for.
The First Book of Discipline says that elders shall be “...men of the best knowledge in God’s Word, of cleanest life, faithful and of most honest conversation that may be found in the church.” In the early times of Knox and the Reformers, elders were elected annually. Is this a good idea? Would it be an opportunity for re-commitment or merely an irksome interruption? [7]
I frequently experience office bearers and elders telling me, often with a degree of genuine regret, that they feel very untaught and ill prepared. It is easy to look at whose “fault” this is but it is more important to know what to do about it. Knowledge is not everything, of course, but some knowledge must surely be helpful. How good an account can we give of why we are disciples of Jesus Christ?
It has been said that spirituality (in its widest sense) is like a bank account. Of course there are times when we need to draw on it but we need to pay in as well. In many ways, in the Kirk today, it is as though we are living on the spiritual capital of previous generations and putting little back in. Is that an unfair or mistaken perception? How can that be changed?
Have you considered Study Groups or House Groups? Would these be for office bearers or would you also include members and even non members. Like it or not, the “habit” of church attendance is on the decline. We won’t get people back to church by nagging them or making them feel guilty for not coming.
Many churches, in spite of declining attendance on Sundays, report thriving organisations. The Guild, the Boys’ Brigade, the Guides, the badminton club and such like are often well attended and even enthusiastically supported. We used to look to the organisations for young people as vehicles for bringing them into full membership of the church. That is no longer happening. What do we make of this? Is there a way of using these organisations to encourage people into membership or is that a lost cause?
So far, all I have done is throw stuff at you and given you no opportunities to respond or discuss. I know that the plan now is to break into one or two groups and then come together for a plenary session. Remember that you will inevitable have quite a lot to think about and you may well feel that you need to go away and do some more thinking. We do not need to come up with quick and easy answers to everything today.
As an aid to discussion, I have agreed three possible questions with your minister and these are to be issued to the group after the tea / coffee break. Remember that there are no right or wrong answers nor is there such a thing as a silly question. Everyone’s input is of value.
In the meantime, let me finish this part of the proceedings by reading out the three questions so that you know what is coming! Thank you for your patience so far. Your minister and I will look forward to sitting in on the groups and hearing what you have to say.
1. What do you feel is the greatest challenge facing the average parish church today ad how best can it be equipped?
2. As office bearers what form of training would you find most useful for carrying out your duties?
3. What special contributions (if any) can women elders [8] and office bearers make?