David Ewart

United Church of Canada People Trends - 2010

2012-01-25T17:30:19-08:00

Click here to download the latest version of my, "United Church of Canada People Trends."

Updated with the latest Year Book statistics for the calendar year 2010.

Below is a JPG of the first page which summarizes the past 3 years.

Unfortunately, the actual results for 2010 were lower for all areas, and in most cases were also lower than what had been forecast.

The result is that compared to when I first started doing this using the data for 2008, the forecasts for 2025 have gotten even worse.

I have been asked, "Why are you reporting this bad news?"

The answer is NOT that I have some sort of perverse delight in the diminishing of my church. These trends are very distressing for me.

However, there is one thing that this data makes very clear - the widespread societal changes that have been taking place for over 5 decades are firmly entrenched and are TOO BIG FOR EACH CONGREGATION TO SUCCESSFULLY SOLVE ON ITS OWN.

And. THE "PROBLEM" IS NOT OUR FAULT.

This is not happening because of something that each congregation has done wrong. There is not a problem with our minister, or our music, or our Sunday School that changing any of them will turn things around.

The problem is external. It is because of changes in the society.

But it is a problem that the United Church as a whole can respond to - not solve, but respond to.

But we cannot do it congregation by congregation because the simple fact is PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO CHURCH LIKE THEY USED TO.

In fact, they are not volunteering for anything like they used to. All traditional volunteer organizations are facing these same issues.

We have too many buildings and too few people for the number of people attending church these days.

So the only way to address the issues raised by this data is for congregations to have a clear-eyed look at their situation and decide what to do next.

Our church was founded by folks willing to leave the beloved familiar for the desired unknown.

Where that spirit can still be found there is hope for life in new forms.

David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca

What Does God Do With A Dead Terrorist?

2011-05-01T22:33:30-07:00

"What will God do with Osama bin Laden? There is no hate in heaven. There is only love. And in heaven, love is also just, is also always the right relationship that God desires for all of creation. There are no terrorists in heaven. Only God's beloved children."

This was originally written in response to 9-11. But seems even more relevant now upon hearing of the death of Osama bin Laden, May 1, 2011.

Click here for an easy to print or email Adobe PDF copy of this post.

-----

Since I believe that God is present in every moment of existence, and is the God of all creation, the question must be asked:

What is God going to do with the terrorists who died on September 11?

I also believe that God is both wholly just and wholly merciful, and that nothing can thwart God’s purposes. So the question cannot be avoided:

What does God do with a dead terrorist?

I do not know the mind of God of course, but offer the following act of imagination as a personal response.

I imagine that God will greet each terrorist, and, in a gentle, loving way, walk with him through every moment of his life. But with one critical difference.

Instead of seeing his life through his own perspective, the terrorist will now see his life from God’s perspective, through God’s eyes; through the eyes of love.

Each terrorist will now see each person on the plane, each person in the buildings, each police officer, fire fighter and rescue worker as God sees them; infinitely precious and dear to God’s own heart.

The terrorist’s own heart will now be filled with the same love for these people as is in God’s own heart.

He will see them going about the morning business. He will experience, one by one, what each one felt and experienced that morning, moment by moment. Not as an outside observer; but as one living through the experience itself. He will live through 3,000 deaths.

And then God will also have him live through the experience of the survivors. The husbands, the wives, the daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, mothers and fathers, friends – everyone. Even the feelings of those of us who only watched on TV.

In other words, the terrorist will live through hell. Seeing what he has done. Feeling it. Living it.

Stripped of all justifications, hatred, ideology, and indoctrination, he will be totally responsible and totally vulnerable for all he has done. He will see it, live it, know it, regret it, and be able to do nothing about it.

Surely, the terrorist would want to fling himself into the eternal torment of hell itself than continue in relation with God; rather than continue to see things through the eyes of God, through the eyes of love. Better to live in isolation, darkness and brokenness. He will beg for the pain to stop.

But there is more.

For while the terrorist has been living through the pain and horror he has caused, those who were killed have been experiencing an amazing healing, forgiveness and restoration. In a way that God alone can do, God has healed their memories and hearts of all pain, all suffering, all terror, all wrong-doing. He has wiped away every tear from their eye. He has brought them to himself. And they too now see the world as God sees it, through the eyes of love.

They see through the eyes of love the lives of the terrorists: their birth, childhood, adulthood; their humanity and hopes. How did some mother's baby grow to become a terrorist?

They see as God sees the connections between their lives and the lives of those who killed them.

Through the eyes of love.

And so, just when the terrorist has lived through the hell of experiencing all the pain and horror he has caused; just when he thinks his soul can endure no more and live; just when he thinks he would rather curse God and die eternally; just at this point, God brings him to meet, one by one, the souls of all those who died. But not souls as they were on the morning of September 11. He meets them now as souls healed, forgiven and transformed by the power of God’s love.

What does the terrorist see in the faces of those souls? What does he expect them to say to him? To do to him?

This is when the last shred of his old self is torn away. For his old self knows about hate. His old self knows about revenge. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. These are things his old self understands.

Face to face with the souls of those whom he has killed, the terrorist would understand revenge – would even welcome it, for that at least is familiar. That would confirm his old beliefs. Leave a shred of self-justification intact.

But God, and the souls of the blessed, have no mercy for self-justification, lies and evil. There is no place in heaven for hate.

And so, one by one, as the terrorist meets each soul and looks into each face, he hears, “Father, forgive him, for he knew not what he was doing.”

One by one, the terrorist is left utterly defenceless. One by one, the possibility of continuing the old story: I hurt you, you hurt me back, is put to an end. One by one, the terrorist is left with no excuses, no place to run to.

But he is not left with no one to run to.

For those of us still grieving, it may be hard to hear this, but even a terrorist is not left by God with no one to turn to.

And so while my imagination fails at this point – for I can’t imagine how God pulls this off – my faith tells me that God’s love is such that after living through the hell I have described, something new will happen. I don’t know what, I don’t know how. Perhaps it will be as corny as overhearing someone sing, “Just As I Am.” I don’t know, but I believe that somehow something moves in us, when all hope is gone, something causes us to turn.

Jesus told a parable about someone like this – the Prodigal Son. I trust Jesus. And I trust that when I die, and when God meets me and walks with me through my life, and helps me to see my life through God's eyes, through the eyes of love; and when my defences are stripped away and I am left without excuses, I trust something will move in me, will cause me to turn to the only one to whom I can turn for healing, and forgiveness and welcome when none of these are deserved nor can be expected.

And I trust that I will be greeted just as the terrorist was on that day so long ago – by a loving Father, who says to his disgruntled older son, “Why are you upset. For this my child was lost and now is found. Was dead, and now is alive.” And God will invite me in to a marvellous feast in my honour. And there – and I don’t know God does this – will be the souls of all those who died that day – including the terrorists – rejoicing and praising God. For there is no hate in heaven. Only love. God’s love.

And there are no terrorists in heaven. Only God’s children, each one of whom is precious in God’s sight.

David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca

Originally written September, 2001. Revised November 11, 2001. Second Revision May 28, 2004.

Permission to reproduce by any means is granted for non-profit use provided authorship is acknowledged.

PS: At the risk of offending Muslim people, I have quite deliberately used Christian metaphors and images, but want to be clear that I believe there are no Muslims in heaven. No Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc., etc. either.

My Pre-Obituary

2011-04-13T18:05:32-07:00

You know that you've reached a certain stage in life when you get an email from the archivist saying, "Please tell us (briefly) about your life and ministry."

It took me most of an afternoon to write, and in the end I appreciated the opportunity.

So. Just to help those who will have the task of one day writing the actual obituary ... here's what I wrote:

Your name
• in the form you most commonly use, David Ewart
• your full name (including middle name), and degrees, David Roy Thompson Ewart, B.Sc. (Hon.), M.A., M.Div.

Date of your ordination: 1978

Name of the Conference in which you were ordained: Manitoba and Northwest Ontario

Chronological list of pastoral charges in which you served (please give inclusive dates):
1978-1980 – Kincaid-Aneroid-Ponteix, Saskatchewan
1980-1983 – Voluntary DSL (Discontinued Service List)
1983-1984 – Hartney-Lauder-Dand, MNWO
1984-1988 – General Council Office (Half-time staff for national study on Sexual Orientations, Lifestyles and Ministry, and other things.)
1988-1994 – Chalmers United, Vancouver, BC
1994-1995 – Haida Gwaii PC, Skidegate & Queen Charlotte City, BC
1995-2004 – Queens Avenue United, New Westminster, BC
2004 -- (4 month interim) Bethany-Newton, Surrey, BC
2005 -- Chalmers Institute, VST, Vancouver, BC
2005-2006 – (10 month interim) Wilson Heights United, Vancouver, BC
2006-2010 – Capilano United, North Vancouver, BC

Birthplace: Minnedosa, Manitoba

Where you spent your formative years - where you grew up: Winnipeg, Manitoba from the age of 3 to 33.

What was your involvement in the church before you were called to ordered ministry?
I was the white sheep in my family, so church involvement was sporadic as a child – I can remember going to SS for a while, but not regularly. In high school I was part of a Hi-C group – for some reason – likely because many of my friends also belonged.

I came into the church through 6 years of active involvement in the YMCA, and so have always had a non-churched, not-very-religious understanding of faith and discipleship. The Y’s Spirit-Mind-Body and YMCA Camp Stephen’s motto: “I am third,” (i.e. God / Christ is first; the other person is second; and I am third) have had a life-long influence for me. The Camp devotionals tended to stress the parables and deeds of Jesus. This is also the place where I received my foundational leadership training and experience.

In university I joined the (very small) SCM. The Secretary / Chaplain, Mac Watts, influenced my decision to study theology after graduating. This was not a call to ministry, but more of a curiosity about Jesus. Basically my thinking was: There had to be a lot more to this guy than I currently understood or his reputation would not have lasted for 2,000 years.

I was also at that time dating a woman whose family were staunch United Church participants, and I tagged along and got involved.

Can you describe how you were called to ordered ministry?
To be honest, I have never felt called to ordered ministry. (In the first place, it wasn’t called that back in my day.) But also, I really had no idea what “theology” was, but in the mid-60’s it was easy to go to university, and I was definitely not interesting in pursuing a career out of my B.Sc. in honours math and physics. So off I went to study theology at United College, Winnipeg. This was 1967.

Those were also the days, when an interest in studying theology must mean an interest in being a minister. As I remember it, I was received as a candidate after a 20 minute interview with the chair of the E&S Committee, just before being introduced to the Presbytery meeting. I can’t remember how I answered any questions about “call” or “vocation” as my role models were not ministers but YMCA and SCM leaders. I had no “call” as such – all I had was “curiosity.”

I studied theology for 2 years and then quit when I realized what “being a minister” meant after a summer being a student minister and a winter internship.

But I remained an active lay leader in my congregation and Presbytery. And at one point – while using some of my vacation days to attend Conference, thought, “If I’m this interested in the church, why don’t I switch and get paid to go to Conference so I can take my vacation and go to the beach instead?”

A short while later, I took a job for Winnipeg Presbytery – as a lay person. This eventually led to me doing my MA in leadership in Spokane, where I met Ivan Cumming, and that led to Naramata and re-applying to become a Candidate and finishing my theology studies. But again, my calling was not to “ordered ministry,” so much as it was to “active, paid, leadership.”

So much so, that after 2 years in my settlement pastoral charge, I tried to resign my ordination. Turns out the United Church has a very inarticulate understanding of ordination, but the long and short of it is, one cannot “resign” ordination; one can only “voluntarily DSL.” Which is what I did.

But 2 years later, I changed my mind about resigning, not because I changed my mind about ordination and call to ministry, but because I was still drawn – called if you will – to active, paid, leadership – and that meant doing it on the Church’s terms, not mine. So here I am.

Please list any post-secondary education and work experience (including degrees or diplomas):
1967 – B.Sc. (Hon.), U. of Manitoba, Mathematics and Physics
1967-1969, M.Div. incomplete, United College, Winnipeg.
1976 – M.A., Whitworth College, Spokane, WA, leadership.
1978 – M.Div., Vancouver School of Theology
Other studies:
1994 – Conflict Resolution Certificate, Justice Institute of BC
1996 – MBTI Certificate
2002 – Natural Church Development Coach’s Certificate
2004 – Family Systems Theory in Ministry, North Shore Counseling Centre
2005 – Powers of Leadership, Whidbey Institute, WA
Work Experiences (Other than UCCan listed above)
1969-1973 – Computer systems analyst & project leader, Manitoba Government.
1980-1982 – Computer Science instructor, Columbia College, Vancouver, BC

Where did you receive your theological education?
United College and VST (see above)

What was a high point in your ministry?
I approach life through ideas – I think about my feelings. So for me, healing, release, new life and energy come through learnings and understandings that correct mis-understandings and open up possibilities never before considered.

So high points for me are those moments of personal connection where new light – new understandings – break dysfunctional bonds of habitual thinking / acting / feeling and bring healing, reconciliation, release, and new possibilities. These have been too numerous – and too personal – to name.

Publically, I’ve been privileged to be involved in some pivotal moments of the United Church over the past 40 years:

Various discussions and reports about “the meaning of ministry” and paid, accountable, lay ministry in particular.
Reconciliation with native peoples, and the Land Claims Fund here in BC
Changing roles of women and men, i.e., sexism, and developing use “inclusive language.” (1980-1984)
Changing understanding of homosexuality and support for openly accepting lesbian and gay members and clergy. (1984-1988)

What was a low point, or the most difficult part of your ministry?
Apart from being close to clinical depression on my settlement charge, the personal low point for me was realizing how difficult and troubling the move to Haida Gwaii was on our young children- and the subsequent conflict and stress it was causing within our family. It wasn’t given as advice, but meeting with a retired UC missionary on the island and his reflections on the effect his time in Africa had had on his children, helped me to make the tough decision to leave after one year.

In ministry, the most difficult situation was the amalgamation of the three New Westminster United Churches that exploded over a recommendation to sell all sites. The congregation I was at, Queens Avenue, rejected the motion (which was supported by the other two). This led to a split in Queens Avenue and a most difficult and stressful situation for me. I had already given notice months before the meeting, but Presbytery placed me on “stress leave” for the remaining time.

What has been your main passion, or the common thread in your ministry?
Initially I thought my “job” was to be a good minister / manager to healthy, well-functioning congregations and otherwise help them engage in the mission and issues of the day.

Alas, while I have mostly enjoyed meeting all the people I have met in my ministry, I’ve not had the good fortune to meet them in “healthy, well-functioning” congregations. They have all been struggling congregations.

So then I thought my “job” was to help them “fix” what was ailing them.

But alas, despite my best efforts, that too has not worked out as hoped. There are lots of “fixes” being bandied about, but I now believe the “problem” is systemic and we are way beyond the opportunity to fix it. Our ship of faith hit an iceberg of social change 50 years ago, and we still haven’t really noticed that the back half has fully disappeared below the water.

But through it all, my main passion, my common thread has been curiosity and Jesus.

I continue to learn and become more amazed at Jesus’ courage, wisdom, and bonding with/trusting in God.

I continue to hope that my own living will somehow be a small reflection of his.

And I continue to be curious about what new form the experience of God will take in this digital era.

Can you offer a word of wisdom to future generations of ministers? And lay members?
No one really knows what ways of being the church will work in the future. And what is working one place may not work in your place. So. Don’t be envious (or proud).

Experiment like crazy where you are.

Life dies when circumstance change and it doesn’t adapt its form to draw nourishment in new ways from the new environment – so LET GO OF YOUR FORM, and find a new way for the life that is in you to be fed and to give.

Unfortunately, death is part of life. And by and large, the form of the United Church as we have known it will not continue. I’m thinking we will not make it to our 100th anniversary in 2025.

Don’t confuse your calling with your expectations and circumstances. God IS calling you, has desires for you: your purpose and well-being, but never make the mistake of thinking that means happy circumstances.

Stay connected with colleagues – perhaps especially the ones who are like Samaritans to you (i.e., the despised but nonetheless related). They may very well be the ones who come to your rescue because they don’t cherish what you do and will cross boundaries you will not.

Remember. Our church was founded by those who were willing to let go of the beloved familiar for the desired unknown. Where that heart still beats, there is still life.

David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca

Letter to a Colleague

2011-02-07T12:39:41-08:00

I recently received an email from a colleague who wrote:

We certainly are in challenging times. Do you have opinions about the future? I know that I find ministry very challenging. Caught between the faithful members for whom church has been lifelong and they like traditional ways, a few people angry and frustrated that society no longer supports the church, and I get a sense from them, if I only was better, music was better, I was more creative, then we would just turn this all around. There are others who want a progressive liberal theology. I find it very hard and it takes too much energy to keep it all together and satisfied.

You document the demise, do you point people to any signs of hope?

Below is my response (I've changed the name):

Hi Kirk,

My nick name is “Hero of Doom” so be forewarned when you ask me for my thoughts about the future.

The good news in the bad news is: It’s not your fault.

The bad news in the bad news is: It’s not fix-able.

The bad news is this: People are not going to church like they used to, and for the foreseeable future the numbers will continue to decline, and the reasons they are not going to church have nothing to do with anything the church can do anything about. The reasons are all based in the wider culture. I’m going to write a more coherent piece about this one day, but in the meanwhile here’s my first rant on this topic: Imperatives for Change.

I believe the number of people going to church will not reach zero. So there will still be congregations. The problem is that there are too many congregations to economically sustain the number of congregations we have. In cities, this means we are headed for a decade of closures / amalgamations. Same thing is likely for your area of towns and smaller cities, but the options for amalgamations with other United Churches is far more limited. A more likely scenario would be amalgamations of Presbyterian-Lutheran-United-Anglican in each town. But the chances of that are pretty slim given people’s commitment to their particular building and practices. Amalgamations take an enormous amount of volunteer time and energy precisely from groups that have little of either – and take energy away from what is actually needed – getting on with connecting with the few folks still interested church. Sadly, many congregations would rather close than attempt changes that would give future generations a chance to worship.

But the changes I am talking about are not sprucing things up: new music, a better minister, new paint. All of these things are changes that the people in the pews do NOT have to make. And I am talking about changes that the people in the pews must make.

The iron-clad rule of evolution is: When the environment changes, the organism must change its form or die.

And in our case, the “organism” is the people in the pews.

The kind of changes you have suggested are being asked for are all based on the false assumption that the environment has not fundamentally changed – that we can fix our problems with a new coat of paint, a new musical instrument, a new minister.

But it is the form of being church that has to change.

There simply are not enough people going to church to have 10 congregations in each town. This is a reality that each congregation CANNOT solve by itself.

Yes, yes, I know there will be that evangelical church down the road that everyone holds up as an example – except that no one is actually willing to follow their example. And even they cannot avoid the realities I am talking about – they too are mostly drawing on the last remnants of Christendom and have very low ability to actually attract truly secularized, non-churched folks. They too are in for a tough decade.

50% of active United Church clergy today are 55 or older, so the wave of retirements (combined with the lower numbers, and older ages of replacements) should allow everyone to find work regardless of declining attendance – but unfortunately that work will mostly be hard and without many “successes” in the usual sense of growing numbers and easily balanced budgets.

But as I said in a previous piece of writing: Our church was founded by people in the pews who left their beloved familiar for the desired unknown. Where that spirit can still be found there is still hope for the future.

Whatever else you take from this note Kirk, please take this away: It’s not your fault. So enjoy your sabbatical and don’t spend even a nanosecond trying to fix yourself so that this problem will go away.

All the best,
David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca

Click here, "Letter to a Colleague," for an Adobe PDF copy of this post that you can easily print or email.

United Church of Canada People Trends - 2009 - Reflections

2011-01-14T22:23:45-08:00

"These are Jeremiah days. The change that is coming will be more like the experience of exile than the Reformation."

When I charted the United Church data for the first time a year ago, my jaw dropped. And when I used Excel to forecast where we'd be on our 100th Anniversary in 2025, my heart sank.

Suddenly, sadly, the past 35 years of ministry began to make sense. What I knew in my bones was actually true:

The number of people coming to church was in steep decline. And there was no sign that they were ever coming back. And they weren't particularly troubled by that.

AND.

It wasn't just us. In fact, it wasn't just churches. Churches of all kinds are having the same experience; including all kinds of other volunteer organizations.

Now, it is true that everywhere you go, there are some congregations that are doing very well - including United Church congregations. And good on them. But overall, attendance is in steep decline, and for every church that is doing well, there will be 6 or 7 that are struggling and 2 or 3 that are closing because there just are not enough people going to church for all 10 to do well.

What do I mean by steep decline? 86% over the next 15 years. That's the forecast. Because over the past 10 years, we already actually have 100,000 fewer people coming to church each week.

And it's not just worship attendance. Here's what's forecast:

Sunday School membership declines by 69%.
New Members by profession of faith disappear altogether.
Identified Givers to the Mission and Service Fund decline by 74%.
Givers to Local Expenses by 52%.

And what we are living through is not like the Reformation where the church changed but society as a whole continued to be Christian, either Re-formed or Catholic.

What we are living through is more like the Exile where the people wondered how to sing the Lord's song in such a strange land. Only problem is, unlike the Exile, the "strange" land is our home. We can't even long for a place to return to.

The forecast says that the United Church cannot, and will not, exist in its present form 15 years from now.

Problem is, our present form has demonstrated remarkable tenacity and high resistance to change.

Problem is, evolution makes clear that organisms that don't change their forms in response to changed environments die.

Problem is, not all parts of the church feel the stress, and we keep believing this is a problem that can fixed instead of an irreversible change that can only be responded to:

Even if only 1 in 10 people continue to attend church, how can we change so that we will still be there as church for them?

That is a question that each congregation CANNOT address on its own.

Do we have the courage to die to all that we have separately known and loved, in order to be the church for those yet to be born?

In spite of all the evidence to the contrary - so far - I continue to believe that the adventuresome hearts that once left the loved familiar for the desired unknown still beat, and will rise to the challenge of the days ahead.

Click here to read, download, print, or email an Adobe PDF version of the full 18 pages of charts, United Church of Canada People Trends - 2009 based on the latest national statistics.

David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca

United Church of Canada People Trends - 2009

2011-01-12T20:57:52-08:00

Click here to download, print, or email an Adobe PDF copy of the complete 18 page report, United Church of Canada People Trends - 2009. Below is the first page of this report.

Note: After a good nights sleep and some second thoughts, I noticed and corrected a few typos. I also found an error in a formula, and went back and revised the 2008 functions so that they give a fairer comparison to the new 2009 data. All these changes have been incorporated into the document you can download as of Jan 13, 2011, 3:10PM PST.

The following charts show the history up to 2009 of selected United Church of Canada data, and, based on the previous 10 years of data (2000-2009), projects what the data might be in 2025.

The chart below gives the actual data for 2008 and 2009, and compares the actual results for 2009 with the forecast.

In all cases the data declined from 2008 to 2009, and the 2009 actual results were less than the forecast with the notable exceptions of: Pastoral Charges, Baptisms; Sunday School Membership; and Through-the-Week Membership.

Note: For 2009, the ten years of data were examined using the LINEST and LOGEST functions of Microsoft Excel. If LINEST returned the highest coefficient of determination, r², then the straight line TREND function was used to project future values. If LOGEST returned the highest r² value, then the exponential GROWTH function was used. In all cases the r² values were higher than 0.96. And in all cases, the compared r2 values did not differ by more than 0.014. The r² values are noted for each chart. (For the non-statisticians among us, r² is a measure of “reliability.” It provides a measure of how well future outcomes are likely to be predicted. Generally speaking, if the r² value is greater than 95 than the result is considered valid.)

As a result of this process, the GROWTH function was chosen for Pastoral Charges, Baptisms (Children, Adults, and Total), Marriages, and Sunday School Membership. This resulted in changing the previous 2025 forecast of Zero. And to provide a fairer comparison between 2008 and 2009, the forecasts from 2008 were revised using the same functions.

New for 2009 is the inclusion of data for Adult Baptisms, and Identifiable Givers for both Local Expenses and the M&S Fund. While the forecasted declines are serious for all items, the 74% decline for M&S Givers is especially notable.

Buckle Up - Congregational Change Isn't Easy

2010-11-30T19:49:58-08:00

Peter Steinke had an article, Buckle Up: Congregational Change Isn't Easy, in the November 16, 2010 issue of the Christian Century magazine. The article was adapted from his latest book, "A Door Set Open: Grounding Change in Mission and Hope."

It was good to read a respected leader such as Steinke acknowledge in print just how tough leading change is. And that there are as many "failures" as "successes."

Despite the scores of books, workshops and seminars devoted to transformational leadership, most congregations and leaders are not prepared to institute change on a systemic level. Yet we desperately need training—training that acknowledges three key factors:
1) Arduous effort is needed to move an emotional system to a new way of seeing itself.
Fear and other emotions complicate all efforts.
2) Many pastors are not prepared to do transitional work in congregations.
3) It's absolutely critical that churches connect serious change with mission.

What I don't like about the article is that Steinke names only 3 key factors when I can think of at least 2 more:

4) Sound business planning and management.
5) Sustainable market share of the church-going audience.

I realize a short article can't cover all the bases, but no amount of re-setting the congregation's mission will overcome poor financial planning and management, or just plain lack of money. Many congregations rely on rental income but are poor property managers and are balancing their budgets by under-funding capital repairs and/or staffing.

We are solidly in an era of "spiritual but not religious," (which actually means, "individual personal preference but not personal sacrifice for the common good.") Which means over-all decline in volunteer organizations of all types - including churches of all types. Which in turn means that our market audience is in decline and fragmenting. Which means that no amount of re-setting the congregation's mission will necessarily overcome being located in an area of declining church attendance.

In other words, even Steinke's good advice about the perils of transformational leadership are, by themselves, only necessary but not sufficient, to address the total situation many congregations and their leaders must deal with.

And by failing to address to the total picture, articles and books on transformational leadership create false hopes that only further destroy the morale of leaders and congregations.

Having said this, I wish I'd seen an article like this 20 years ago. It would have gone a long way to help myself and many other colleagues recognize that congregational behaviours like:

engage in conflict,
suffer a malaise of spirit,
decline in some statistical manner,
adapt to their most immature members,
fail to mobilize people's gifts and energy,
surrender to apathy or complacency,
do little planning,
become turned in on themselves,
blame outside forces (or perhaps one another) for their depression, and/or
be unable to make effective, appropriate changes.

which Steinke identifies as systemic responses to mission drift were just that: systemic responses to mission drift and not to me personally or to my leadership.

I highly recommend the article, but with qualifications.

David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca

Click here for an easy to print or email Adobe PDF version of this post.

Permission is granted for non-profit use of my materials. Please acknowledge the source as, "David Ewart, www.davidewart.ca."

The Death of the American Liberal Class - Chris Hedges

2010-11-04T19:28:14-07:00

Gee, I thought I was gloomy.

Sit down, clear your mind, turn off all distractions, and give 20 minutes to listen to this podcast of an interview with Chris Hedges on what's really goinf down in the U.S. of A.

The Death of American Liberalism - Chris Hedges

A Response to "The United Church at 100:" Imperatives For Change

2010-10-16T17:46:18-07:00

As much as I appreciate the work that is being done to renew or re-vitalize the United Church of Canada through programs and conversations such as Emerging Spirit, "Called to be the Church," Worship Matters, and smaller events on leadership, spiritual practices, systems change, etc., etc. (and I DO appreciate them - been there; done that; bought the shelf-full of books) - nonetheless, all these efforts, in my humble opinion, are lacking a crucial element of analysis.

They do not attempt to describe broader social-economic-political-environmental changes and their impacts on being / doing church.

To date, most of these efforts at renewal examine the church only from our internal experience.

Attendance is down? We need a new minister! We need a projector! We need a band!

We don't ask:

Attendance is down? Is this just our congregation? How are other congregations faring? Other volunteer organizations? Are there differences between older-urban, newer-suburban, and rural? Differences over the decades? Differences between organizational strategies (e.g., having many smaller, local, congregations versus having larger, destination, mega-churches)?

It is important to ask these questions with due care and consideration because often our anxiety causes us to leap to false conclusions:

We are failing, but that evangelical church down the street is growing. It must be because they are biblical and we're not. Let's get a biblical minister. Let's start an Alpha course. Let's start singing praise songs.

What we don't ask is:

Where do they get their money?
Oh, everyone on their Board and their core founding group of 50 families tithes.
How about us?
Where do they park their cars?
Oh, they actually have parking for one car for every two seats in the church.
What about us?
How much advertising do they do?
Oh, they regularly send out glossy advertising for special services and community events and concerts. They have people and booths at other community events sponsored by others.
What about us?
How intentional are they at inviting and welcoming guests?
Oh, they actually set targets for new disciples each year. They expect everyone to invite guests each week. They train people who have the gift of hospitality to watch for guests and make them comfortable. They have well thought out, carefully staged information and programmes for "beginners." They evaluate - and will drop or change - everything (music, carpets, hymns, prayers, preaching, etc.) based on two key questions - Are we connecting with and attracting new people to become disciples of Jesus? Are all of us growing deeper in our walk with Jesus?
What about us?
Who actually runs their show?
Oh, their senior minister actually has the final say on everything.
What about us?
Where is their nearest sister church?
Oh, their nearest sister church is 50 Km away.
What about us?

And. We don’t remember that even growing evangelical church loses people every year. People die; they became dissatisfied; they move; priorities change; stuff happens. People leave.

And. We haven’t paid attention that the broad social trend in Canada - and now even in the United States - is over-all decline in ALL established churches regardless of their place on the conservative-liberal spectrum. (And in fact, this decline is actually being experienced by all volunteer, member-based organizations such as the Kiwanis, Rotarians, etc.)

Those big evangelical churches, like us, must cope with four wider social trends that are pushing toward fewer but larger congregations. These trends are:

Economic efficiency
Consumerism and critical mass
Secularization, individualism, and the internet; and,
Evolution of forms in changing environments

Economic Efficiency

We live in a culture that demands "more bang for the buck." Our economy is based on increasing the amount that can be produced for the least cost. Typically, this leads to increased industrialization, mechanization, and automation - reducing manual labour - or to put it positively - increasing what each person can produce from their labour.

However, with labour-intensive work, such as education, healthcare, and yes, religion, the only available strategy for increasing economic efficiency is by maximizing the case load for each worker. This creates pressure toward having larger hospitals, larger class sizes, and yes, larger congregations.

A study by Mark Chaves published in the Christian Century, November 28, 2006 found that in the USA 60-65% of those attending church went to the top 20% of the largest congregations (page 21).

This was a significant change from the decades of the 50's and 60's. The author of the report speculated that this trend to more larger (and fewer smaller) congregations was because of economic pressure. Larger congregations are more efficient at "purchasing" the services a congregation provides. (And if you don't like talking about the church with this business language, I can only suggest try paying the bills with something other than the language business uses - money.)

And that is why economic efficiency supports larger congregations and diminishes smaller ones. Larger congregations are better at providing more bang for the buck.

Part of the reason for this trend to larger congregations is economic, but there is also the crucial issue of consumerism and critical mass.

Consumerism and Critical Mass

Critical mass simply means that they are enough people for a program activity to go ahead. Yes there have been many fine groups where 2 or 3 have gathered together, but a youth group can really rock when there are 20 or 30 - and most days now we'd settle for 10.

But the problem is that a youth group will likely not get off the ground if there are only 10 youth in total associated with a congregation because for any given event, you can't rely on all of them being available and turning out. To get a turnout of 10, you probably need 20 or 30 on your list. To get a turnout of 20 or 30? That would take 40 to 90. And that takes a large congregation.

Without the critical mass for a successful turnout, those who do come experience a letdown; and worse, begin to wonder if it will be worth the effort to go the next time. "No one came last time; it wasn't as much fun last time; maybe I'll have more fun staying home / going to a show / hang with friends / etc." And the whole program falls apart even though it could work - but only if EVERYONE came out at the same time.

Smaller congregations can do many things really well. Can do things that larger congregations cannot. But the attraction of larger congregations is that they have the critical mass to provide a wider variety of programs and events that appeal to diverse interests. Looking for a support group for parenting teenagers, for grief, for financial planning, for learning English, for daily prayer practice, for social action? A congregation of 400 or more is far more likely to have enough people to have most of these groups than one of 75 people.

The reason why a congregation is under pressure today to have the critical mass to meet so many diverse needs is consumerism.

In the good old days when there was no shopping or sports on Sundays, church was the only game in town. There really wasn't "consumerism" then. Folks were mostly rebuilding families, homes, neighbourhoods, and communities following WW II. Personal gratification was delayed for the sake of the children, etc. People went to church and were satisfied with what was offered. And had very few options otherwise. Limited choices resulted in limited imaginations; limited desires.

But as prosperity returned, businesses realized that providing consumers lots of choice and novelty was the road to increased profits. The result is that we have become a nation of consumers. We look for and expect to find goods and services that meet our specific, personal needs / tastes / wants / desires. Variety and novelty are the spice of life. (And please don't send me emails about how selfish we have all become: that we no longer know the difference between wants and true need.)

Whether we like it or not, we live in a consumer culture, and that culture doesn't stop at the doorstep of the church. People are attracted to churches that provide specific services / groups / programs / events that meet their specific needs / wants / desires the minute they walk through the door.

But already having those programs in place means that there is already the critical mass to provide those programs! This is why it is a lot easier to increase the size of a large congregation than a small one.

And that is why consumerism and critical mass support larger congregations and diminish smaller ones. Larger congregations have the critical mass needed to provide the variety of services people are looking for.

A third pressure is secularization, individualism, and the internet.

Seculariazation, Indiviualism, and the Internet

Secularization is the simply the reality that faith / belief has now become a personal option.

“God” is no longer treated as a really real reality; but as a personal choice. As Long as you’re polite about it, you can believe in God – that’s “your thing.”

In the good old days, faith / belief was a collective reality. Yes, a few individuals railed, "There is no God," but the society as a whole supported faith and religious practices. We were "a Christian nation," and being a good citizen meant doing the things good citizens did - one of which was going to church. And going to church was mostly about learning to do the things a good citizen did - looking out for one another, sharing, being kind, etc., etc.

But with secularization, it isn't that people have stopped being spiritual. It's that faith / belief have become personal options. People still report that they are "spiritual." But secularism has broken the cultural bond between individual spirituality and organized spirituality, a.k.a. "religion."

Just as the Reformation 500 hundred years ago relocated spiritual authority from the Pope to the Bible (but still as proclaimed by the church); so the process of secularization has relocated spiritual authority to each individual. The culture at large no longer looks to the Church to support it to be spiritual.

Secularization has also led to the heightened trend of "individualism" - meeting my personal desires. And that has reduced the "market" - the number of people - who are willing to join social organizations that emphasize self-sacrifice; self-giving for the good of others without any thought of pay back. All types of service organizations are having a difficult time with declining participation. Yes, there are still many, many people who are in the "market" for social organizations such as churches. But their numbers have dropped significantly over the past decades.

In the 2001 Canadian Census, the top 5 religious affiliations were:

Roman Catholic            (43% of the population)
No Religion               (16%)
United Church            (10%)
Anglican                      (   7%)
Unspecified "Christian" (   3%)

Of these 5, Unspecified "Christian" had increased in numbers by 120% from 1991; No Religion by 44%; and Roman Catholic by 5%. (The population as a whole increased by 10%.) Groups that declined include: United, Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, unspecified "Protestant," Pentecostal, Mennonite, Jehovah's Witness, Salvation Army, Christian Reformed, Brethren.

Secularization also means that the "market" for "spirituality" has become fragmented. Yoga, jogging, golf, spa treatments, a walk in the park, etc., etc. all market themselves as meeting spiritual needs. Spirituality is now personal and optional. So combined with consumerism and individualism, the "market share" for our way of being spiritual (i.e., organized) has shrunk considerably. The number of people who regularly attend church has dropped by more than 50% since the 60's.

However, while I don't have the data in front of me, of those who regularly attend church today, I would guess that the United Church still has the same percentage of people as we did in the 60's!

That is, if by "same percentage" we mean, "of all the people who attended any church in the 60's" how many went to the United Church then? And of all the people who attend any church now, how many attend a United Church? I think that our market share of those attending church has remained steady over the decades.

The reason why fewer people are attending our church now is NOT because we have been bad. It is NOT because we have not focused on spiritual practices, or discipleship, or any number of other good things. Fewer people are attending the United Church because fewer people are attending any church. Our market - those who attend church - has shrunk considerably. And it may shrink some more. I personally don't believe it will ever be totally gone. But it does mean that we have to find a way of being / doing church with considerably fewer people attending than in the good old days.

And finally, as a broadcaster of Good News, it is not surprising that we are facing the same problem of a diminishing market as TV broadcasters and newspapers. The internet now provides enormous capacity for free, on-demand, real-time, content at an individual's complete discretion and convenience. Who needs to pay? Who needs to go to all the bother of showing up at a set place at a set time for a live show? As I have said earlier, many, many people will still do that - but their numbers are significantly reduced.

And that is why secularization, individualism, and the internet support larger congregations and diminishes smaller ones. There simply are not the same number of people attending church. And as small churches become smaller, they become over taxed by maintenance needs, and have less and less to give to their purpose of being a church.

The fourth social trend is actually a biological imperative - the evolution of forms in changing environments.

Evolution of Forms and Urbanization

Whether we like it or not, a rule for all life forms is: change or die.

The environment we live in, that supports our living, is dynamic and ever changing. It is built for change and evolution. It requires constant adaptation to changing circumstances. . In order to produce future generations each organism’s form must change to draw sustenance from what there is more of in the environment and become less dependent on what there is less of.

The church as it exists in Canada today still grounds itself in the FAITH of the early church, but its FORM would be completely unrecognizable to them.

If the United Church is to survive, its form must continue to evolve, and continue to become unrecognizable to those of us alive now.

Unfortunately, when our environment radically changed in the mid-60’s, the United Church replaced declining numbers of people with increased rental income. This model has allowed congregations to financially exist, but it has changed most congregations from being people-based, people-focused to being rental-based, property-focused. It has allowed us to continue without changing our form in response to our environment. It has allowed us to remain unchanged and live on what there is less of in our environment (less participation in organized spirituality). But adapting to what there is less of in an environment without changing our form is the path of extinction.

As well as all the other changes noted above, a huge shift in Canadian society has been the migration of population from the country to cities. The majority of Canada's population live in cities.

And yet the FORM of the United Church is based on a rural parish model. One small, but local church for every country town and - by extension - for every city neighbourhood. And during the population boom, and the urbanization boom of the 50's and 60's that model worked pretty well. Buildings were bursting at the seams.

But that was then, and this is now. Change or die is the rule. Cities are no longer populated by people who have moved there from the country. They are populated by people who have moved there from many countries. They are urban people.

And, for the city, the rural model is just not viable. Many people confuse the success of evangelical churches with their theology. I believe their success is because they have abandoned the model of small neighbourhood churches, and opted for an urban model of fewer, but larger, congregations that can meet the challenges of being a church in today's culture that have already noted.

And that is why the biological imperative for life forms to change in response to their environment is diminishing smaller congregations and supporting larger ones.

What Now?

There will be many responses to that question.

I believe that an urgent conversation is needed - but not a panicky, anxious, fearful, discouraged, angry, or accusing one. We need a clear-eyed, clear-headed conversation with good questions, and thoughtful responses.

For myself, the way I frame the question is: what form of organized spirituality is financially sustainable in a culture that is secular, individualistic, consumer-oriented, media-savvy, and urbane?

David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca

Click here for an easy to print or email Adobe PDF version of this post.

Response to Lois Wilson Interview

2010-06-03T19:42:19-07:00

The June 2010 issue of the United Church of Canada's Observer magazine contained an interview with Lois Wilson, who was Moderator (the national, elected leader) of the United Church 1980-82.

I am disappointed with her remarks.

Lois has a false memory of the so called glory days. She forgets that after the raucous debate we didn't ALL just go out and have coffee together - many folks felt disenfranchised and complained about the manipulation of insiders - to which Lois herself belonged!

Trashing the current leadership is unworthy of one called to be an elder.

Lois also forgets that we (I mean those of us born between 1930 and 1945) inherited a church built by our parents. They endured the depression and WWII and lived the personal value of self-sacrifice - for the future of one's children and for the greater good of the community. It was their willingness to save and pay in full for what they built and purchased - instead of mortgaging onto generations yet to come - that gave us the freedom and wealth to be that wonderful church she remembers.

That brief blip of time following WWII when the middle class had both increasing wealth AND a modest amount of free time was what fed the "success" of the United Church, and also what provided the luxury of the education, travel, time and money it takes for middle class people to take up the hobby of social justice.

Lois is right that the church needs to find a new way of being, but offers no understandings of the current realities of Canadian society, nor of what way of being the church would be sustainable.

The good old days are gone for good - and my generation needs give whole-hearted encouragement - with deeply-felt apologies for the mess we have created - to those who are doing their best to figure out the way forward.

David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca