In 2021 we can expect more Continuing Anglican churches to end up on the trash heap of history. Why?
While it is tempting to blame their demise on their use of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, I do not believe that their use of the 1928 Prayer Book will be the main reason for their dissolution. How they used the book may be a factor in their demise, but it will not be the principal cause of death.
When a post-mortem is done, if one is done, it most likely would reveal the following causes of death.
1. The church lived in the past. The 1950s ended 60 odd years ago, but they were still living in that era.
2. If the church had a website, it was desperately in need of a serious upgrade. Very few people who visited the website visited the church. Most people’s immediate reaction was that St. Gummurus was not a church which they wanted to visit. (St. Gummurus is the patron saint of unhappy marriages.)
3. If the church had a Facebook page, it was not well-used. It focused on the interests of the existing church members and not those of potential new members. Some church members used it as a platform for expressing their political opinions, opinions which may have not been shared by unchurched members of the community. Other church members used the page to poke fun at the way different church traditions worshipped from their preferred way of worship.
A search of the Facebook page revealed a lot about what the church members were against but very little about what they were for. When rated on a scale of how well it promoted a favorable image of the church, its rating was very low. St. Gummurus may as well have posted a large “Visitors Not Welcome!!” sign at its entrance.
4. The church had negligible connections with the community in which its building was located. Very few, if any members of the church, lived in the community. The church members did not involve themselves in the life of the community. They did not try to identify and meet community needs. They did not open the building to the use of community groups and organizations. They did not participate in community service projects to improve the quality of life in the community. They did not make friends with the people living in the vicinity of the church building or build relationships with them. They took very little interest in the community at all. It was simply the place where their church building was located. The church members drove to the building on Sundays, took part in the familiar ritual of a Prayer Book service, received communion if communion was offered that Sunday, socialized after the service over coffee and cake, and then drove home.
The church members failed to grasp the simple concept that when God puts a church in a particular community, he intends that the church be church not just to its members but to the whole community. Being church means having an impact not only on the lives of church members but also through the church members, individually as Christians and collectively as a church, on the lives of the whole community. This is why so it is important that a church should be located in the same community where its members live, work, and play, not in some nearby community or several towns away.
This lesson was brought home to me in the first decade of the twenty-first century. I was participating in cell group leadership training at Celebration Church in Metairie, Louisiana. But I was unable to complete an apprenticeship as an assistant cell group leader because I lived in a different community, thirty miles to the north, across Lake Pontchartrain, and would not be able to do what an apprentice leader should be able to do.
5. The church made a series of decisions, often resulting from pressure from influential members, which, while they may have appeared to be the right decision in the short term, were the wrong decision in the long term. These decisions were short-sighted, did not make allowances for the future needs of the church, and erroneously assumed that the circumstances of the church would not change greatly. They were often made outside of the formal decision-making process of the church and without careful thought to the consequences.
6. The leaders of the church, while well-meaning in their intentions and competent in their particular area of expertise, were not equipped to lead a church in the twenty-first century. They lacked the requisite boldness, creativity, flexibility, and innovativeness.
7. The church tended to blame the community for its poor attendance and was blind to the barriers that it had created between itself and the community. It shied away from evaluating how it was contributing to its poor attendance and lack of growth.
8. Church members put their preferences before reaching and engaging the community’s unchurched. The result was a too greater gap between the church and the segment of the community that was most vital to its survival and growth. The church prioritized matters and majored in matters which were of little importance to pointing the unchurched to Christ and to making new disciples.
9. The church made little or no effort to take its services and small groups online. While other community churches were expanding their online presence, its services and small groups were conspicuously absent from the online services and small groups from which the community’s unchurched and housebound might choose. The church failed to recognize the internet as a major part of the North American mission field or its indifference to the community in which its building was located carried over to the community’s internet community. Every community in North America has an internet community. Its internet community will vary in size with internet access availability. Its internet community may also extend beyond its geographic boundaries to include the surrounding region and beyond.
10. Politics came to overshadow religion in the life of the congregation. The church became identified unfavorably in the eyes of the unchurched with a particular political leader or political party. The church came to be seen as intolerant of a diversity of political views. While this public image did not trouble existing church members who preferred that the members of the congregation should hold the same political views and did not welcome members of other tribes, it created a significant barrier to the growth of the church. For young people who were more progressive in their views, the church held no appeal. For young people who were conservative in their views, the church also held little appeal because of its aging congregation and its lack of dynamism.
The political views of the church members may have been congruent with the dominant political views of the community, highlighting its shortcomings in other areas. A politically conservative church in a politically conservative community, which is not growing, is doing something wrong.
4. The church had negligible connections with the community in which its building was located. Very few, if any members of the church, lived in the community. The church members did not involve themselves in the life of the community. They did not try to identify and meet community needs. They did not open the building to the use of community groups and organizations. They did not participate in community service projects to improve the quality of life in the community. They did not make friends with the people living in the vicinity of the church building or build relationships with them. They took very little interest in the community at all. It was simply the place where their church building was located. The church members drove to the building on Sundays, took part in the familiar ritual of a Prayer Book service, received communion if communion was offered that Sunday, socialized after the service over coffee and cake, and then drove home.
The church members failed to grasp the simple concept that when God puts a church in a particular community, he intends that the church be church not just to its members but to the whole community. Being church means having an impact not only on the lives of church members but also through the church members, individually as Christians and collectively as a church, on the lives of the whole community. This is why so it is important that a church should be located in the same community where its members live, work, and play, not in some nearby community or several towns away.
This lesson was brought home to me in the first decade of the twenty-first century. I was participating in cell group leadership training at Celebration Church in Metairie, Louisiana. But I was unable to complete an apprenticeship as an assistant cell group leader because I lived in a different community, thirty miles to the north, across Lake Pontchartrain, and would not be able to do what an apprentice leader should be able to do.
5. The church made a series of decisions, often resulting from pressure from influential members, which, while they may have appeared to be the right decision in the short term, were the wrong decision in the long term. These decisions were short-sighted, did not make allowances for the future needs of the church, and erroneously assumed that the circumstances of the church would not change greatly. They were often made outside of the formal decision-making process of the church and without careful thought to the consequences.
6. The leaders of the church, while well-meaning in their intentions and competent in their particular area of expertise, were not equipped to lead a church in the twenty-first century. They lacked the requisite boldness, creativity, flexibility, and innovativeness.
7. The church tended to blame the community for its poor attendance and was blind to the barriers that it had created between itself and the community. It shied away from evaluating how it was contributing to its poor attendance and lack of growth.
8. Church members put their preferences before reaching and engaging the community’s unchurched. The result was a too greater gap between the church and the segment of the community that was most vital to its survival and growth. The church prioritized matters and majored in matters which were of little importance to pointing the unchurched to Christ and to making new disciples.
9. The church made little or no effort to take its services and small groups online. While other community churches were expanding their online presence, its services and small groups were conspicuously absent from the online services and small groups from which the community’s unchurched and housebound might choose. The church failed to recognize the internet as a major part of the North American mission field or its indifference to the community in which its building was located carried over to the community’s internet community. Every community in North America has an internet community. Its internet community will vary in size with internet access availability. Its internet community may also extend beyond its geographic boundaries to include the surrounding region and beyond.
10. Politics came to overshadow religion in the life of the congregation. The church became identified unfavorably in the eyes of the unchurched with a particular political leader or political party. The church came to be seen as intolerant of a diversity of political views. While this public image did not trouble existing church members who preferred that the members of the congregation should hold the same political views and did not welcome members of other tribes, it created a significant barrier to the growth of the church. For young people who were more progressive in their views, the church held no appeal. For young people who were conservative in their views, the church also held little appeal because of its aging congregation and its lack of dynamism.
The political views of the church members may have been congruent with the dominant political views of the community, highlighting its shortcomings in other areas. A politically conservative church in a politically conservative community, which is not growing, is doing something wrong.
On the other hand, it may point to an earlier research finding. While conservatives are more likely to attend church than progressives, a significant number of people who identified themselves as politically and socially conservative and as evangelical Christians did not regularly attend a church.
11. The church failed to follow the advice of the CDC, state, and local health authorities, continued to hold in-person services when other community churches temporarily suspended their services, and failed to implement reasonable precautionary measures such as face masks, social distancing, hand washing, and the like. Church members mistakenly assumed because the congregation was small, their gatherings were low risk despite mounting evidence that small mixed household gatherings were one of the primary ways that the virus spread. Church members were seen as unconcerned about their own safety and the safety of others. Church members, pastors, and denominational leaders made public statements that dismissed the seriousness of the pandemic and the need for precautionary measures. The church’s reputation in the community, which was not outstanding, was further damaged.
12. The church did not use its primary worship resources—the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and The Hymnal 1940 very well. Please note that I have put this factor at the bottom of the list. While I have not arranged this list of contributing factors in their order of importance since their importance varies with the circumstances of a church, I did deliberately put this factor last. The poor use of these resources is one of the factors that contribute to the decline of Continuing Anglican churches but as I noted at the beginning of the article, the 1928 Prayer Book itself is not the main reason for their decline. The book does have its drawbacks but how it is used, not the book itself, has what I believe been a contributing factor to the decline of churches in the Continuum.
11. The church failed to follow the advice of the CDC, state, and local health authorities, continued to hold in-person services when other community churches temporarily suspended their services, and failed to implement reasonable precautionary measures such as face masks, social distancing, hand washing, and the like. Church members mistakenly assumed because the congregation was small, their gatherings were low risk despite mounting evidence that small mixed household gatherings were one of the primary ways that the virus spread. Church members were seen as unconcerned about their own safety and the safety of others. Church members, pastors, and denominational leaders made public statements that dismissed the seriousness of the pandemic and the need for precautionary measures. The church’s reputation in the community, which was not outstanding, was further damaged.
12. The church did not use its primary worship resources—the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and The Hymnal 1940 very well. Please note that I have put this factor at the bottom of the list. While I have not arranged this list of contributing factors in their order of importance since their importance varies with the circumstances of a church, I did deliberately put this factor last. The poor use of these resources is one of the factors that contribute to the decline of Continuing Anglican churches but as I noted at the beginning of the article, the 1928 Prayer Book itself is not the main reason for their decline. The book does have its drawbacks but how it is used, not the book itself, has what I believe been a contributing factor to the decline of churches in the Continuum.
The Commission on the Revision of the Prayer Book incorporated into the 1928 Prayer Book a number of changes intended to make the book more usable on the mission field. It was also not the members of the Commission’s intention that the rubrics of the books should be followed slavishly. As two members of the Commission wrote, the rubrics were primarily suggestions.
The chief drawbacks of the book from the perspective of use are its language and the unnecessary length of some rites and service. Its theology is a different kettle of fish. But if the problem of its doctrine is set aside, with a measure of imagination and the judicious pruning of unnecessary elements, the book can be used creatively on the twenty-first mission field.
Regrettably, the use of the 1928 Prayer Book in many Continuing Anglican churches is far from creative. The length of services is extended with material taken from other sources. The language of the Bible translation most often used with the 1928 Prayer Book is even more archaic and obscure than that of the Prayer Book. The Hymnal 1940, while highly rated for its excellence at the time of its publication and for several decades afterwards, is hopelessly outdated. There has been a church music explosion since it was published. Many fine traditional hymns were not included in the collection.
For readers who may feel that I am picking on the Continuing Anglican Churches, I must point out that churches in the Anglican Church of Canada, the Anglican Church in North America, and the Episcopal Church are also likely to end up on history’s trash heap for similar reasons both this year and during the remainder of this decade. With the exception of perhaps the ACNA, it will not be the fault of the Prayer Book that they are using. The ACNA incorporated into the 2019 Book of Common Prayer some of the least desirable features in a service book. The compilers of the 1928 Prayer Book and the 1979 Prayer Book and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book and the 1985 Canadian Book of Alternative Services were sensitive to the fact that North America was a mission field. The compilers of the 2019 Prayer Book appeared to have lost sight of that fact.
For readers who may feel that I am picking on the Continuing Anglican Churches, I must point out that churches in the Anglican Church of Canada, the Anglican Church in North America, and the Episcopal Church are also likely to end up on history’s trash heap for similar reasons both this year and during the remainder of this decade. With the exception of perhaps the ACNA, it will not be the fault of the Prayer Book that they are using. The ACNA incorporated into the 2019 Book of Common Prayer some of the least desirable features in a service book. The compilers of the 1928 Prayer Book and the 1979 Prayer Book and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book and the 1985 Canadian Book of Alternative Services were sensitive to the fact that North America was a mission field. The compilers of the 2019 Prayer Book appeared to have lost sight of that fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment