Let’s start with the big picture. In today’s society the dominant factor is pop culture. This culture is based on the commercialization and satisfaction of individual wishes and desires in terms of material goods and physical gratification. Pop culture sets the boundaries for all normal activities, including body-building, tattooing, tanning, dieting, gourmet cooking, fast food, interior decorating, self-help programs, home renovations, health seminars, feel-good counseling sessions, coffee bars, television and internet surfing, travel getaways, personal spirituality, raves, block parties, recreational drugs, spectator sports, rock concerts, and automobiles. Every aspect of pop culture is related to physical or emotional satisfaction, and aims at goals such as fun, popularity, vicarious gratification, correct fashion sense and body shape, self-enhancement, and economic success.
A simple question for churches, to go pop or not? Obviously, some congregations which have “got with it” are doing better in numbers than those resisting the trend. A further question, is the church proselytizing pop culture, or is pop culture proselytizing the church?
While pop culture provides the big scenario which sets the parameters within which church buildings close, there are other local scripts which contribute to possible outcomes. Two churches in St. Catharines, Ont., provide examples of what the contemporary congregation is up against. Welland Avenue United Church, an historic downtown building, closed its doors in 2008. Meanwhile, a small suburban church, Grace Mennonite, dating from 1956, remains open, in spite of intermittent pressures to close.
By putting the church-closing theme into the big picture, we can determine how larger trends impact the issue, which may somewhat mitigate the sense of failure that local congregations feel when their church building shuts down. Starting with pop culture, we can list some major factors.
1) Pop Culture Again. The advent of television largely completed the transition from a text-based to a picture/story culture. Interest in historic texts, such as the Bible, nose-dived in the 1960s, as did the habit of reading. Television aided the emergence of new icons, such as the Beatles, who then set the norms for social activities. Anything philosophical, historical, literary, or theological was definitely not wanted, unless it tended to reinforce pop culture itself. The result was that it became normal for young people especially not to respond positively to what the traditional church had to offer.
2) A Top-Down World. Behind the bland face of pop culture lurk the twin ideologies of neo-conservatism (the global capitalism gang) and neo-Marxism (the political correctness crowd). Although officially opposites, these both work in tandem to reinforce an aggressive materialism, a distaste for anything non-economic or non-political, an aversion to traditional culture, and a contempt for democratic processes. Since both systems favor top-down control, they are suspicious of any local initiatives or grass roots movements. Beginning in the 1970s, organizations and institutions stepped up their attempts to move power away from local leaders. School principals and church ministers were rotated more frequently in an attempt to avoid the development of local constituencies. Loyalty to the organization became the prime consideration for promotion. Thus a minister’s service to the local church was good only insofar as it did not affect his primary loyalty to the governing body. The tendency to staff “branch plants” with “organization men” had the effect of depriving local offices, communities, and churches of good leadership at a time when it was especially needed.
3) The Disconnect Between the Church and the Community. Pop culture’s tendency was to exclude religion from any significant social role. As in the old Soviet Union, the church was viewed as a relic of the past which would eventually disappear. Much of the church’s traditional social role had been taken over by governments and educational institutions. Except for a few gaps in the social welfare network, the church was mainly excluded from social initiatives. In the 1950s, congregations could minister effectively to the community because it was chiefly within its walls; by the 1980s the community rarely entered the church precincts except for weddings and funerals. A massive readjustment in mission was needed for effective ministry to the community.
4) Decline in Volunteerism. By the 1970s, a combination of capitalist and feminist initiatives was ensuring that all women were expected to take part in the economy. The steady rise in the cost of living meant that there was less disposable time or income for most people of working age. Churches began to feel the volunteer pinch, as the volunteers available were mostly of retirement age and older. Many congregations fell back on a skeleton crew of key workers, and had to cut programs and activities.
5) Special Cases. Pop culture naturally promotes a heightened interest in sexual matters, including sexual politics. Among the mainline churches, the United Church was the earliest in the field and the most persistent in running with such issues. Leafing through newspaper clippings from the 1970s to the present, I found that nearly half the items in the United Church file concerned homosexuality, especially advocacy for gay marriage and for ordination of homosexuals. The articles indicated that local St. Catharines’ ministers expressed almost uniform opposition to these tendencies, which were being proposed by the head office and the “progressive” wing of the church. Another media flare-up happened in 1997 when the then moderator publicly expressed doubts about the divinity of Jesus and his resurrection. The clippings indicated a very evident split in theology and politics between the local churches and the head office.
I was thinking about such things as I examined the impressive buildings of the old Welland Avenue Church, and encountered a staffer from Community Living. Since that organization now occupies the church properties, I was eager to talk to someone who could tell me about the afterlife of the church. Two days later I was sitting down with Susan Fielding-York, manager of Community Living.
Susan’s life has been a considerable journey. She grew up at Welland Avenue where her parents and grandparents attended. She remembers, as a youthful Sunday School teacher, that the church had twenty full classrooms, plus a few overflow groups, and a pre-school gathering in the gym. A few decades later, when the church closed, there were only a handful of kids. She recalled going to youth group and basketball night, at what was once a very active building.
Susan’s career path led her to a position with Community Support Services, which now operates four programs at twenty-four locations in St. Catharines. It is funded by the Ministry of Social Services, and by day fees from their clients. A few years before Welland Avenue closed, Susan found herself negotiating a rental agreement with her own church elders. She was frustrated and angered by the negative attitude of one elder towards the mentally-challenged. He suggested that their clients not be allowed to touch anything in the building, including mops and brooms. She told him sharply that you don’t acquire Down Syndrome from touching door knobs.
Susan was an interested observer of the struggles to keep Welland Avenue afloat. She noticed that her mother’s generation was reluctant to change, and that the Women’s Group always did the same things in the same ways. There appeared to be little support for ministers who tried to diversify worship and programs. She recalled that one minister who attempted to lead worship songs with a guitar was not well received.
Since Welland Avenue had a variety of buildings, a sizeable parking lot, and a goodly amount of rentable floor space, it appeared to be in an enviable position among downtown churches. However, the sanctuary building was in serious need of upgrading, and several major repairs were required in rapid sequence.
The spires of the church, which stood on the church tower, had fallen into disrepair and were now considered a safety hazard. A full repair would have cost over $300,000, and even dismantling the spires would require $110,000. The crisis galvanized the congregation into action. A number of fund-raising projects were proposed. Although the church building was definitely historic, it was not so designated, and there appeared to be limited interest from the city and community in maintaining the landmark spires. Susan recalls that at least one fund-raising plan was vetoed by the United Church head office. In her opinion, the congregation lacked good legal advice, and the sudden burst of intense activity eventually led to burn-out among the leaders.
At this period of heightened activity, the local newspaper interviewed one of the ministers at Welland Avenue regarding the future of downtown churches (Dec. 6, 2007). The minister appeared to be non-supportive of the efforts to keep the church open. She argued that “it makes far more sense to put resources into church initiatives that are ‘more about ministry and more active.'” Speaking of the United Church generally, she saw it as “reaching out to people who ‘are looking out for churches that are inclusive, that have a sense of mystery, that care about the environment …'” Whether or not this is true, it sounds a little odd coming from the incumbent minister at such a time.
Susan Fielding-York indicated that when Welland Avenue voted to amalgamate with Memorial United and St. Paul Street United in 2008, that Community Living had first right of refusal regarding buying the church. They took out a mortgage and began the process of upgrading. This involved renovating the heating and ventilation systems, and putting in air conditioning. The church boiler was seventy years old, and the caretaker had his own method for booting it up. Generally speaking, the congregation had been “making do” with the physical plant for some years. An asbestos situation in the basement had been ignored, while other matters were being attended to. The upgrades cost Community Living several hundred thousand dollars.
Susan was pleased that they have been able to maintain the building intact with its salient features. She showed me through the sanctuary with its impressive wrap-around gallery and stained-glass windows. The pews have been removed and sold, and the floor space is used for work stations where small groups of clients interact around tables and desks. Susan indicated that the very impressive organ and ornate pipes would probably soon be on the market, as they have not been used in four years now. It was good to see that this venerable building still plays an important role in the community.
Meanwhile in the north end of town, Grace Mennonite Church has two morning services. Our own traditional service is at 9:30 a.m., followed by a joint coffee time, while the former Anglican Church of Canada congregation, Good Shepherd, worships at 11:00 a.m. A rental agreement between the two congregations was worked out earlier this year, and promises to infuse new life into the building. Good Shepherd is the slighter larger body, with more mid-week activities than Grace.
I am not an ethnic Mennonite (ethnic churches face special problems in an era of pluralism), but I was drawn to Grace, first, because they had an excellent Sunday School in 1990, and, secondly, by their ethic of practical Christianity towards members, neighbors, and the larger world. Twenty-two years later we no longer have a Sunday School, and the average age of the congregation is 75 years. I have been on board during several periods of turmoil while the church was working on its mission and identity.
Grace was founded in 1956 by some young families who decided to leave a large German-speaking congregation to start a community church. Two motivating factors were the desire that the children would do Sunday School in English (as not many of them understood German), and the belief that community outreach would be easier for a church which worshipped in English. At that time, Grace was cutting-edge, and soon had more that 200 children in its Sunday School.
During the next 44 years, Grace was mostly a stable, yet active, community church. Perhaps its biggest challenge came in 1995-96 when extreme fund-raising was necessary because the credit union called in a loan for which Grace, along with other churches, was guarantor. However, when our pastor of fifteen years resigned in 2000, the congregation was scarcely prepared for the ups and downs to follow.
A considerable part of the problem at Grace was generational. The founding families formed a cohesive group who were slow to relinquish control. For some years, a smaller group of some six or eight younger families had been attempting to bring about changes in worship and church programs. When their efforts were not validated, they left in a body, so that only a smattering of children and teens remained. While finances were not the most pressing problem, there was a lack of able bodies to do repairs or fill church offices. The situation continued to deteriorate over most of a decade.
Then, about five years ago, we received an interim pastor who proved such a good fit for the congregation that his term was extended by mutual agreement. Although he was recommended for this church, with the knowledge that his role here might include closing it down, he decided to involve the members in some team-building initiatives.
An early project was to rework the front of the sanctuary, opening up the platform for a wider variety of worship possibilities. The work was on a sufficiently small scale that some members could take part, and visible enough that all could keep tabs on its progress. Best of all, the cost was relatively limited in relation to the impact. Another project was to improve the fellowship room in order to make it more versatile for worship, meetings, and other activities.
These relatively small and inexpensive, but very visible, developments encouraged the congregation to take new pride in their building and themselves, and to adopt a more positive “can do” attitude. Although growth on paper remained small, Sunday attendance improved. And, in 2012, we had our first membership spurt, with twelve new members received by baptism and by transfer of membership.
Another feature of Grace’s new vision has been the search for a compatible congregation with which to share our facilities. As with many established churches, our floor space considerably exceeds our present needs. And, although for many years, we have rented space to a day-care, the building complex was still under-utilized. Several attempts were made to hook up with younger mission-minded congregations. The first attempt went sour before it was really tested. The second was approached as a pilot project, and was put into practice for more than a year. As an inducement for this church plant, Grace offered free rent for the first year. However, at the end of that time, the satellite church found that its resources were over-stretched by having a second campus. Our third attempt involved renting space to a mature Anglican congregation which was recently evicted from its building during the gay advocacy wars. This arrangement looks very promising, and the regular rent which Grace receives will be helpful in our eventual physical plant upgrades.
What factors then make the difference between churches which close and those which don’t? A few things stand out clearly.
1) Local Leadership. Having effective leadership within the congregation is perhaps the single most important factor. Normally, the minister or pastor takes on this leadership role, but, lacking that, there needs to be others whom the congregation will rally round. Of course, followership is also very important. If the congregation is unable to come together, and to follow a leader, then the process will likewise fail. Having good legal and financial advice will much facilitate the planning and the execution of the plan.
2) Community Involvement. Something as simple as renting space to community organizations can raise mutual awareness. Congregational participation in food drives, “out-of-the-cold” programs, etc., will help to promote volunteerism and to make contact with other community groups. And these activities do not need to be on a large scale. Having a church office which is open to the public more than a couple hours a week may also draw street and community traffic. There seems to be a direct relationship between the health of a community and its churches. By promoting each other as is appropriate, both parties can multiply their impact. And churches can acquire some business and marketing tips from business and government.
3) Denominational Support. Grace is a member of the Mennonite Church of Eastern Canada which provides support for ministers and congregations in difficulty. During our ups and downs we were regularly visited by staff from Kitchener-Waterloo in order to facilitate discussions and planning. On the other hand, the United Church spokespeople in the newspaper file emphasized that closures and amalgamations were inevitable. A representative article from Jan. 12, 2004 bears the headline: “United Church leader predicts more closures: Niagara presbytery chairman believes number of St. Catharines congregations will decline by 50%.” As with economic recessions and depressions, there is a significant psychological aspect to church closures.
4) Physical Plant Costs. Historic churches need to be more innovative about paying for specialized services. When the restoration experts hand you an estimate of $300,000, you need to wonder aloud whether there are other ways to address the issue, beginning with second, third, and fourth estimates. Sometimes church boards should be negotiating harder for a more workable deal, or calling in third parties to get a better feel for what is reasonable. In some cases, an historical site designation may be advantageous, and sometimes not. Municipalities and communities should be more aware of the value of historic and architectural buildings to their overall image, and be ready to intercede where possible. Possibly, some association of historic churches may be helpful for exchanging ideas and strategies.
5) Forget Conventional Wisdom. In the clippings file, the same phrases often recur: “aging congregations,” “declining membership,” “shrinking resources,” and “decaying structures.” Such language can become a mantra for closure. Congregations must dare to ask, so what? None of these trends is unusual, and there are churches nearly two thousand years old, which have experienced these tendencies many times over. Moreover, nowadays people at 65 can look forward to another 25 years of life. Quite often seniors have above average financial resources, as well as wisdom and “can do” abilities which need to be tapped. Large churches usually have abundant floor space for rental. What is often lacking is local leadership and denominational encouragement.
6) Spiritual Matters. The Book of Revelation, chapters two and three, gives a picture of the individual congregation which is very different from the clipping file. Every church which closes has a mission statement nailed to its walls. And, to some degree, with every closure, that mission is aborted. Hence the feelings of failure which often surround the event. The absence of any reference in the newspaper file to the spiritual dimension of the local congregation is rather striking.
In conclusion, pop culture pushes us to see churches in terms of attendance, programs, “relevance”, budgets, boilers, parking spaces, worship styles and trendiness. Moreover, it dissuades us from seeing the local congregation sub specie aeternitatis, that is, from referring back to the universal mission of the church. (Perhaps C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape Letters may be a helpful corrective here.)
Congregations are also closely linked to communities and to their demographic variations. Nowadays, many young people are moving away from their place of birth to find jobs and discover new experiences in other provinces and other countries. Population continues to shift from smaller centres to larger centres. Cities and town which act as “branch plants” for larger government or corporate entities are unlikely to provide support for community development. And congregations need not only bodies but vision to survive.
It is evident that the church universal has been blindsided by pop culture. A few denominations decided early that the 1960s were the cat’s pajamas, and it was time to get with it. More than forty years later the cool church is pretty much where it was in 1969, and still faces the problem of how to relate to a new and upcoming generation. Most denominations were slow to react one way or another, and, when they did, it was usually too little/too late. Following the apparent conservatism of the 1950s, the sudden onslaught of neo-conservatism and neo-Marxism rolled over society like a tsunami. And, if the churches were unprepared, they at least have the excuse that just about everybody else was likewise taken by surprise.
So where does this leave us now? With respect to externals, the church is pretty much in the same position as it was in the first century, when its neighbors were variously ignorant, indifferent, or hostile to Christianity. What has changed is that the first century church had a clear vision of who it was and what it was supposed to do. Over the centuries the church has accommodated itself to the world, and now the world now longer wants to play nice, or to play at all. The basic alternatives are to surrender unconditionally to pop culture (and therefore indirectly to neo-conservatism and/or neo-Marxism), or to attempt to recapture the vision and spirituality of Christians of the first century. Neither alternative promises a very easy walk.
