State of the Church Report from 1995

STATE OF THE CHURCH REPORT (1995)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE RE STATE OF THE CHURCH

To the Venerable, the 121st General Assembly:

This report is addressed to the visionaries, to those who speak of hope for our Church, to those who long to make adifference.

ORIGINS AND ACTIVITY OF OUR COMMITTEE

The 120th General Assembly received reports from the Live the Vision Campaign and the Life and Mission Agency which spoke of the current health of our denomination. These reports painted a picture of indifference towards our denominational structures, of disabling conflict becoming commonplace in our congregations, of a declining interest in doing mission through a national body, all in the light of the aging of our congregations and the numerical decline of our denomination. A number of commissioners were moved to be concerned, not only by the content of these reports, but also by the apparent lack of response to these assessments. As a result of the initiative of a group of commissioners, the Assembly established this non-funded Committee to report back in one year’s time after listening to the concerns of our denomination and discerning a consensus view of the priorities the Church wishes to use as guidance in responding to our current reality.

The Committee designed a two-track approach to fulfill its mandate. The first track was to survey the denomination through questionnaires. Using labels supplied by the Clerks of Assembly office, every session clerk was sent one of three questionnaires which focused on either “Personal Faith”, “Congregational Life” or “Institutions”. Sessions were encouraged to copy them and make them available to all in their congregation interested in responding. By April 30th, we received 7,134 questionnaires from the Church, which represents 4.6 per cent of our denomination’s membership.

Approximately 43 per cent of our congregations made at least one response. The geographic distribution of responses corresponds to that of the Church. The second track was to call together 37 focus groups across the country to discuss aspects of the findings from the questionnaires: to help interpret them and to suggest practices for our future.

Who responded to the questionnaires? 94 per cent of the respondents were either elders or laypersons. 4 per cent of the respondents were clergy (approximately one quarter of those presently serving our denomination). 55 per cent of our respondents have been with our denomination for 30 or more years; 91 per cent have been a Christian for 15 or more years. Two thirds count themselves as “active” or “very active”, with fully three quarters of respondents declaring that they attend worship four or more times per month. While we heard from every demographic group within the Church, our primary respondents are our longest term, most committed and most active members. The following is what they said.

We are very aware of the short-comings of our process stemming from our limited resources in time, personnel and finances. We applaud the congregations and their leaders who chose to ignore the deadline printed on the questionnaires and submitted them anyway, and those who took the personal initiative to phone or write to ask if they could still participate.

We wish to thank:

• all those commissioners who considered the future of our denomination so important that they saw the creation of the Committee as important;
• all those who submitted questionnaires;
• our focus group leaders and participants;
• those who entered data from thousands of questionnaires into a computer;
• the Presbytery of East Toronto for providing funding for our Committee;
• the churches who provided meeting space for us;
• and the members of the Committee.

HOW THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH SEES ITSELF

Occasionally ranking numbers are given in the following results. The scale used is from one (very low concurrence) to five (very high concurrence).

Personal Faith:

• Today, personal faith is enhanced primarily (in order) by worship, sermons, the minister and music; Sunday morning is “prime time”.
• People report finding relational means for fostering faith as less enhancing: friends, small groups, Bible study, elders and large groups (again, in order).
• Our youngest respondents (under 20 years) report a higher than average degree of faith enhancement from friends and music.
• Anecdotally, 48 per cent of those describing a turning point in faith reported no congregational involvement in that turning point.
• We internalize more than externalize our faith. To illustrate this, we are confident that we know what we believe (4.5 ) but feel inadequate to share it (3.8) and hesitant to discuss scripture one on one (3.9). We hesitate to take the risk of sharing what we believe.
• Our newest Christians rank themselves higher than longer term Christians in what they find important to their faith (the influence of the Holy Spirit, using their gifts, worship, sermons) and express a higher than average level of confidence in the future of their congregation. This gives us hope.
• When asked about using their gifts, lay respondents are not as certain as elders or clergy that they are using them effectively.
• When asked about change, the older the respondent the more likely they desire to have stability over flexibility. Even so, 55 per cent of our respondents over the age of 65 say “the church ministers most effectively when it is flexible”. It is interesting to note that overall clergy desire stability (48 per cent) slightly more than our members do (44 per cent).
• Anecdotally, people report concern over the changing world: sexual orientation, crime, materialism, the family, etc. What’s happening “out there” is seen all too often not as opportunities for ministry but things to be feared.

Congregational Life:

• When asked “I expect the pastor to be….” respondents rank in order: a good preacher, a good worship leader, an example of faith, a good teacher, a good pastoral counselor, faithful in visiting members, spiritually mature, open and honest about his/her struggles and failures, a good equipper of others for ministry, faithful in visiting prospects, active in the community, active in the denomination, active in the presbytery, and a good administrator. The written responses placed higher priority on teaching and pastoral counseling. While participation in the denomination and courts ranks rock bottom, clergy rate this as an even lower priority than lay people do.
• Half of lay and elder respondents report a significant conflict as having occurred in their congregation in the last five years. Almost 3/4 of clergy reported such conflict. 56 per cent of the congregations which had respondents reported having experienced conflict in their midst in the past five years.
• It appears from the data that many congregations do not have procedures for following up those who leave their church.
• Respondents report that the Church has a significant role in shaping their values (4.2) and affecting the living of their lives generally (4.0). And yet, at the same time, members report this as having little or no impact on their views on social issues, their work life, their choice of friends and their political views. Faith is valued more in general than it is an actual, practical application.
• Mission projects outside our local community are only marginally a priority for us.
• The respondents report that they have only a marginal understanding of where their congregation wants to be in five years. We are not visionaries or good planners.
• While the majority of respondents indicated that they had received a visit by their minister and elder within the past two years, the respondents are clearly undecided on the value of such visits. One third of lay respondents say they have not had a visit from their elder in at least two years.
• Anecdotally, people report frustration over the performance of sessions: role expectations, autocratic leadership, resistance to change, and poor communication with the congregation. We have mistaken “deciding” for “leading”. There is a tension as to who provides the leadership: is it the clergy or the congregation? People report the hurtful presence of cliques, the lack of bonding of members together, and the absence of a caring spirit. Congregations do not hold common, clear goals but find themselves struggling with a variety of competing priorities. Membership is declining and aging, which has prompted respondents to call for more outreach and youth ministry. Our institutional need is driving these mission concerns. Concern about the lack of finances presents itself in every aspect of congregational life (it dominates our thinking). There is a great longing for a deeper spirituality.

Institutions:

• 3/4 of our lay respondents and elders value educating our clergy in our colleges. However, half our clergy respondents do not see this as important, and a further 11 per cent are undecided as to its value. It is worth noting that most of these clergy respondents are probably graduates from these schools. The respondents, generally, express a desire for the Church to become more discriminating in whom we choose to train for ministry.
• 3/4 of responding clergy find presbytery helpful. Almost seven out of 10 clergy find the General Assembly Agencies helpful.
• though a minority of respondents identified presbytery as having a hindering impact, four times more elders than clergy saw presbytery as hindering their ministry.
• anecdotally, people report that our courts tend to be administratively focused rather than visionary, maintenance oriented rather than a body that provides leadership, re-active rather than pro-active. Our adversarial means of doing business at times fosters conflicts within our courts. While presbyteries have a pastoral function, adequate oversight and on-going active care of congregations is seen as lacking. “Busy-ness” and agenda items dominate the work of our courts. God, faith and theological debate appear to many as taking a back seat. As one focus group phrased it, “The structure can quench the Spirit”. While we value inclusivity, many people report a feeling that they are “not welcome” in our churches, our gatherings, our colleges or our courts.
• there is a strong sentiment among respondents that all of the courts exist (or should exist) to support, encourage and strengthen the local congregation. This is not the reality that most are currently experiencing. Their perception is that congregations exist to support the courts who make demands on time, energy and financial resources.

THIS IS NOT NEW

Our Committee is now the fourth group to consider the “state of the Church” in the past 25 years. These studies have resulted in: The LAMP Report (1969), “The Report of the Special Committee on the State of the Church” (1978), “Strategic Planning” and the “VISION for The Presbyterian Church in Canada” (1989), and this Committee (1995). The following points were made in previous reports. The numbers in the brackets indicates the report(s) they were found in, by year.

• the origins of the report were impelled by a perception of “crisis” which had to do with pragmatic, institutional issues (1969, 1978, 1995)
• the need for congregational renewal was a major theme in the report (1969, 1978, 1989)
• that The Presbyterian Church in Canada lacks a clear understanding of our purpose and mission as a denomination (1969, 1978, 1989)
• youth involvement in the congregation is seen as a crucial issue (1969, 1989)
• there is a need to improve the vitality of worship (1969, 1978, 1989)
• clergy do not get a sufficient training in the practical elements of ministry (1969, 1978, 1989)
• religious leaders are seen as “out of touch” or needing to be “more relevant” (1969, 1978)
• members feel remote from the courts of the Church (1969, 1978)
• members feel alienated from the national organization (1969, 1978, 1989)
• the Church is slow to respond to issues at times (1969, 1978)
• a “survival mentality” prevails in many of our congregations (1969, 1978, implied in 1989)
• congregations take care of their own needs first before considering ministry, programs and mission (1969, 1978)
• we are hesitant to talk about our personal faith (1969, 1978, 1989)
• the confrontational style of decision-making used in the Church courts must be improved (1969, 1978, 1989)
• areas of change nationally must first be explored with the “grass roots” before changes are implemented (1969, 1978).

For an entire generation people in our denomination have been declaring the same perceived needs while seeing little by way of change. What does this tell us? This is part of the explanation for why our people are losing interest in our denomination beyond our congregations. It illustrates that while we recognize our needs we have not yet taken them seriously enough to address them. It is clear from this overview that structurally we have an inability to change.

THE WILDERNESS JOURNEY

The Presbyterian Church in Canada, like God’s people of old, faces a journey in the wilderness. We leave behind our outdated expectations

• that people, as a matter of course, will come to Church,
• that society understands what we stand for and appreciates the contribution we make,
• that, for us, tomorrow will be the same as yesterday.

On the wilderness journey our destination is not clear: all we know is that God goes with us. We must, out of necessity, travel light, shedding ourselves of baggage which serves only to slow us down. We must renew our commitment to community, for on the journey we must share the burden of our sister and brother. Our journey will be hard and take effort as we face our trials and make painful choices. While we may not know exactly where we are headed and the form of our Church in the future, we would identify the following “signposts for the journey” to help define the way we will travel:

1. Everyone (at all levels) willing, enabled and active in telling personal stories of God to one another and to those not yet with us.
2. Everyone (at all levels) called into authentic Christian community where faith in Christ is nurtured, enabling the full expression of the Body of Christ in word and action.
3. Congregations, linked one to another, the primary expression of the Church for mutual support and encouragement.
4. In the wilderness Church, dialogue with the world is constant, helping us sharpen our God-given identity and mission.

This set of signposts is incomplete. As we take up the journey, our destination as well as how we are to live on the way will become more clear. This is for us to discover.

APPLICATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

 The signposts above will have implications for our denomination as we begin to apply them. Here are some suggestions for you to consider to help you implement them.

“Everyone (at all levels) willing, enabled and active in telling personal stories of God to one another and to those not yet with us.”

• consider the experience of faithsharing that will occur at the Assembly, take it back, drop your agenda for presbytery and session and “just do it”.
• consider taking the first 20 minutes of every presbytery meeting for faith sharing in small groups: sharing ministry needs and a time of prayer.
• consider providing opportunities for lay people to share faith stories at worship services.
• consider how you can tell your faith story within your family; Church School is a supplement to what happens in the home.

“Everyone (at all levels) is called into authentic Christian community where faith in Christ is nurtured enabling the full expression of the Body of Christ in word and action”.

• consider holding open session meetings, printing and circulating session minutes.
• consider assisting every member of the congregation to discover and use his/her skills and spiritual gifts.
• consider fostering small groups for spiritual growth and Bible study, focused on how to live and express our faith in our daily lives. Call, train and encourage group leadership by the laity.
• consider ways to learn about your church from those who leave.
• consider developing formal “team ministry” in your congregation, lay with clergy.
• consider improving the level of accountability in your congregation by establishing formal expectations for members, the congregation as a whole, for elders and the minister(s). Review these regularly, helping one another to fulfill them.
• consider committing yourself to be honest, open and loving. These should be qualities of community living, yet often aren’t.

“Congregations, linked one to another, are the primary expression of the Church for mutual support and encouragement.”

• consider finding help in program issues from your neighbouring congregations instead of always looking to “big brother” to help you.
• consider creating an area resource in individual persons willing to share with more than their own congregation their knowledge and skills in specific areas.
• consider working together with near-by congregations in a new kind of inter-dependence. Congregations should be linked through need and mutual help, not simply administratively through presbytery.
• consider using the Internet.

In the wilderness Church, dialogue with the world is constant, helping us sharpen our God-given identity and mission.

• consider seizing the initiative in identifying the need in your community you can meet as your mission.
• consider engaging in conversation with those outside the Church.

We fervently call upon our colleges to train our clergy in preparation for ministry in the wilderness Church.

 RECOMMENDATIONS

The data we have gathered supports the recommendations of the Assembly Council in beginning to dismantle the bureaucratic national structures. We would go further, but consider the Assembly Council’s actions an important first step.

Recommendation No. 1 (withdrawn)

That the beginnings recommended by the Assembly Council be expanded to embrace all program resource functions better located nearer to the congregational level (presbyteries, clusters or co-ops of congregations), including but not exclusive to: stewardship, discipleship, evangelism, Christian Education, Canada Ministries and Justice Ministries; special consideration will be required to maintain a national dimension for ethnic ministries given their unique context and needs.

Recommendation No. 2 (withdrawn)

That the Assembly Council effect the above changes by May 30, 1997.

Recommendation No. 3 (withdrawn)

A portion of the savings accrued from the above changes be maintained for national use to provide a “clearing house” of information and for fostering links in special ministry areas, such as but not exclusive to: ethnic ministry, rural and remote ministry, ministry to indigenous peoples, francophone ministry, youth ministry, new church development, etc..

Recommendation No. 4 (withdrawn)

That General Assembly call upon all those who share this vision of the future to seize every opportunity to depart from tradition and convention where necessary to support the emergence of Christ’s Church in the 21st century.

Given our denomination’s past experience of trying to bring change bureaucratically and “top-down” we frankly remain unconvinced that anything we recommend would ultimately make any difference. The task before us is finally to respond decisively and faithfully as individuals, congregations and presbyteries. “Just do it!”

Ruth Millar,

Convener