There’s a moment within the first few minutes of The Matrix that tips off the viewer about just how AWESOME this movie is going to be. It’s after the eeriely green production logos for Warner Brothers and Village Roadshow, past the first glimpse of that iconic digital rain, beyond the cryptic phone conversation between Cypher and Trinity, through the rabbit hole and into the glare of an officer’s flashlight as two units of street cops enter the dilapidated halls of the Heart o’ the City Hotel to apprehend Carrie-Anne Moss as Trinity—all accompanied by Don Davis’ gloriously discordant score. I’m talking about the moment when Hugo Weaving as Agent Smith turns to the cop who just told him, “I think we can handle one little girl. I sent two units, they’re bringing her down now…,” and omiously replies, “No lieutenant, your men are already dead.” Agent Smith clearly knows something the police don’t—he is, after all, a “man in black”—and we have no reason to doubt that the cops inside the hotel are in trouble. Serious trouble.
The Future Is Here to Kick Your Congregation's Butt.
I’ve been thinking about this line from The Matrix lately because of a couple of blog posts I’ve recently run across on the Interwebs. One is from patheos.com, a great resource for spiritual progressives, religious liberals, spiritual-but-not-religious folks, and anyone else interested in “balanced views of religion and spirituality.” The other comes from George Bullard’s Posterous blog. Bullard is a congregational and denominational consultant with a lot of expertise in the area. The two posts that got me thinking are both about worship and the future of congregations in the United States. Read separately, they give the impression that congregations are facing some tough times. Read together…well let’s just say it’s not a rosy picture.
The patheos.com post is from Theoblogy: The Tony Jones Blog, and has the ominous title “More Bad News for the (Mainline) Church.” Jones looks at Hartford Seminary’s most recent Faith Communities Today report, “A Decade of Change in American Congregations, 2000-2010,” [PDF] and comes to this conclusion: mainline clergy in smaller congregations are unable to “satisfy the elderly members [in their congregations] and also reach out to new, younger members.” This is especially true for clergy serving smaller congregations. As Jones notes, “These clergy [are] in a predicament: their congregations are so small that to lose any of the old-timers virtually ensures closing the doors to the church, but without dramatic changes, the congregations are bound to continue their decline.”
Just how small are these congregations? Jones doesn’t say. That’s were Bullard comes in. The title of his blog post, “Your Congregation is More Likely to Exist Ten Years from Now if its Weekly Worship Attendance is Over 135,” gives us a pretty good clue about the kind of numbers we’re talking about. Bullard bluntly states that your congregation’s survival is “marginal or uncertain if it has 80 to 135. It is less likely to exist with vitality and vibrancy if its average weekly attendance is less than 80.” When I put these two points of view together, I come to this conclusion: clergy who are afraid to make changes in their worship services out of fear of losing current members are like the lieutenant in that opening scene of The Matrix. They may think they’ve got a handle on the situation, but as Agent Smith might say, “No reverend, your church is already dead.”
Why? Because when a congregation’s worship attendance numbers are below these thresholds, there’s little need for the kind of capacity building necessary to face the future. They are, according to Bullard, below the size “where effective functioning requires shared leadership beyond the pastor and any part-time or volunteer staff.” Bullard goes on to say that
The sharing of leadership makes it more possible the congregation can weather the ups and downs of attendance, the occasion crisis, and the resource demands for functioning as a vital and vibrant congregation.
In other words, lone rangers (lay or ordained) can’t do it alone. Congregations that rely solely on their pastor and/or a small cadre of volunteer staff to run the show simply do not have the capacity to address the challenges every church must face over the next decade. And by running the show, I’m talking first and foremost about worship.
This is why I believe increasing worship attendance should be the number one strategic move any congregation in this size range can make. If your congregation has an average worship attendance of under 80, you need to make it a goal to raise that number over 80. And if your congregation has an average worship attendance that’s over 80 but under 135, you need to make it a goal to raise that number over 135. Of course this would require some major changes, changes that some clergy are hesitant to make out of the fear that they may lose some current members. But maintaining the status quo practically guarantees that your congregation will not be around in another 10 years. If that’s the case, you might as well start familiarizing yourself with Ending with Hope: A Resource for Closing Congregations right now.
Phil's Little Blog on the Prairie 
20 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 17, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Robin Edgar (@RobinEdgar)
OU*UCH!
And U*Us think that the mean old Emerson Avenger is hard on them. . . 😉
“But maintaining the status quo practically guarantees that your congregation will not be around in another 10 years.”
Perhaps the congregations of The Tiny Declining Fringe Religion™ are the exception which proves that rule in light of the fact that a significant percentage of U*U “churches” have membership levels that are well below the 80 members threshold, and presumably things have been that way for at least as long as the UUA has existed, i.e. at least half a century.
No?
The U*U Movement hasn’t been going anywhere but down over that time span, but even *I* am not certain that most of those numerous U*U congregations with 25-50 members will be *totally* obliterated within the next decade.
Of course I *could* be wrong. . .
I long ago warned U*Us that if they do not clean up their act and become more welcoming to God believing people, and attract new younger members to replace the quite literally corpse-cold Unitarian ones. . . that Unitarian Universalism will be a tinier & declinier “fringe religion” than it already is.
October 17, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Sue sinnamon
Blessings on your brave words and prophetic voice.
October 17, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Phil on the Prairie
You’re welcome, Sue. I truly do wonder where we’ll be in ten year’s time.
October 17, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Phil on the Prairie
That’s high praise coming from you, Robin…I think. You’re right about the number of congregations with numbers below the 80 member threshold. And the number’s even higher when you talk about worship attendance. I really am concerned that the UUA is going to start losing congregations soon.
October 17, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Mark Erickson
How about another factor – merging congregations? It’s already happening in urban mainline churches and Catholic parishes. How concentrated are small UUA congregations in New England? They may be able to drive a village or two over to keep one congregation going. What about the rest of us?
October 17, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Phil on the Prairie
Could definitely see merging congregations be one response to decrease worship attendance and membership. Thanks, Mark.
October 17, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Robin Edgar (@RobinEdgar)
:And U*Us think that the mean old Emerson Avenger is hard on them. . . 😉
Is indeed high praise of your prophetic work here Phil. 🙂
Do keep it up!
And thank you for publishing my own “prophetic work” intact.
I have been saying much the same thing for well over a decade now.
I may have more to say later and will *probably* do the “good cop” thing if and when I do. 🙂
October 20, 2011 at 10:25 am
Tammy
Well, I’ve read this several times. I have not taken the time to read through the sources you sight in this blog. Perhaps they are enlightening and may answer the question that has got me curious. Your quote, “Of course this would require some major changes, changes that some clergy are hesitant to make out of the fear that they may lose some current members.” What are the changes you feel are necessary for thriving instead of surviving? I am the office administrator and a member of a congregation that has had less than 85 service attendees for the past 60 years. Based on this, I’m not sure that the gloomy predictions are absolute. I believe in this place with every cell in my body and would like to learn more…can we have a conversation about this?
October 21, 2011 at 11:35 am
Phil on the Prairie
Thanks for the comment, Tammy. You’ve got some good questions. The changes I’m talking about in this particular post are mostly about worship. In his blog post, Tony Jones talks about ministers wanting to make their “preaching to be more relevant and contemporary. But…they are handcuffed. Their aging congregations simply will not abide change of any kind.” These are Christian ministers, mind you. But I can’t help but wonder if preaching in UU congregations might be more relevant and contemporary, too. Or if lay-led fellowships might want to explore some different kinds of Sunday morning programs and presenters in order to be more relevant. The changes are also about being more vibrant and spiritually vital. To be honest, I’m often disappointed when I attend worship services at UU congregations because they often seem to be trapped in the 60s. In one resource I found (50 Ways to Increase Worship Attendance [PDF]), the author suggests that congregations should “Consider adding an additional worship service to reach new people who would prefer a different time; or to reach new people who would prefer a different style of worship and music.” Now I understand that small congregations might find it impossible to add a new service, but the question remains, “Are there people who might be coming to our fellowship if we offered a different style of worship and music from time to time?” At any rate, the point of the post was that if congregations are afraid to make changes that might attract more people, then the changes in the way Americans are responding to religion (more people identifying as “spiritual, but not religious” or “unaffiliated”) will practically guarantee that fewer and fewer people are going to come to any congregation for their spiritual needs. Fewer people coming to congregations will eventually mean more and more congregations will need to close their doors for good. If UUs want to do something about this, we need to start attracting more people to worship. But it can’t be the minister (or the office administrator) alone. It needs to be an opportunity to build capacity by involving more people. Does this help?
October 21, 2011 at 11:21 am
Robin Edgar (@RobinEdgar)
Tammy said – “I am the office administrator and a member of a congregation that has had less than 85 service attendees for the past 60 years. Based on this, I’m not sure that the gloomy predictions are absolute.”
Which tends to validate what I said in my comments.
I do look forward to reading your answers to Tammy’s good old Unitarian questions Phil. 🙂
Let’s have that conversation right here.
Regards,
Robin Edgar
October 21, 2011 at 11:41 am
Phil on the Prairie
Just posted my response. I’m looking forward to furthering the conversation.
October 24, 2011 at 10:36 am
Tammy
Yes, that does help. At the risk of sounding naive, what, exactly to you mean when you say that services need to be more “relevant”? I’m taking it to mean that we need to be changing to meet the different needs of our congregation and community.
There is something that I think important to add to this blog. I had a conversation with a long-time member of my church that was probably the most enlightening I’ve had in a long time. I’d like to share what I learned since I think it may help others as much as it did me.
My family as well as many folks in our congregation have been struggling with what we felt has been a recent shift or trend by the UUA to be more “Christian like”. We have seen a change in language usage and ideas about how services should look without really understanding WHY. We felt pressure from several sources, to adopt and incorporate changes in language and ideas which made many folks, younger people, I might add, feel uncomfortable. I’ve tried to understand it now for a while but haven’t been able to find an adequate answer to mine and other’s queries. I could not even find anything tangible on the UUA website.
I was bothered by your blog post. So I finally asked a direct question: “Why is it that the UUA seems to be shifting?” I received the most direct and helpful answer. This answer should be shared because I consider it the worlds best kept secret. Folks should be reminded of WHY so that they may understand and adjust. The answer I received has nothing to do with being more “Christian like”. It is simply this: While William Sinkford was president of the UUA there were many surveys completed and much research conducted to learn why Unitarian Universalism was not attracting or retaining younger people. William Sinkford’s idea that the conclusion of the research confirmed was that UUs were so entrenched in Rational Humanism that younger people felt unwelcome and the spiritual/emotional aspect of our religion was basically non-existent. The epiphany continued: Those “taboo” words such as God, Prayer, Worship, Salvation, etc. were ours once and Christians redefined the words in such a way over the years that it made them seem un-Unitarian in our culture. I felt as though I was in a cartoon and the little light bulb just went on over my head. I could see it! OK, I can get my head around this. I understand this. Everyone needs to understand this. Our services MUST meet our emotional need for connection and spirituality as well as our thirst for knowledge. We need to tend our head AND our heart. We need to stop identifying ourselves by who we are NOT and focus our energy on who we ARE and what our future stands for. We need to take back the words that were once ours and not be afraid to use them how they are meant to be used. If we are “afraid” of a word or idea, it gives it more power, power over us and will paralyze us from change. How can we get this message to folks who might be struggling just like me?
October 24, 2011 at 11:10 am
Phil on the Prairie
Your summary of Bill Sinkford’s take on our association is excellent. Tammy. And things have changed even more in the few short years since he left the UUA presidency. Here’s what I see our challenge to be: folks in the United States are no longer going to church the way the used to. Congregations that solely rely on the same sort of continuous flow of visitors coming through our doors to replenish their membership roles are going to find fewer and fewer people from which to draw. The culture is changing around us and we need to respond in order to survive. Taking back some of the words that were once ours is definitely one way to respond. That may help us with one group of potential friends and member: Christians (mostly younger ones) who have become disgruntled with the churches they were raised in. Those people would love to have a progressive environment in which to form their own beliefs about God and Jesus, etc. Providing that environment in our UU congregations would be an excellent example of putting our fourth principle into practice (a free and responsible search for truth and meaning). There’s another group that might also respond well to that offer: those who identify as “spiritual, but not religious,” a group that has almost doubled in the last decade. Add to that the atheists out there who aren’t afraid to engage with people for faith in order to bring about a better world, and you have three distinct groups who may respond positively to our faith tradition. The questions is, are we presenting that tradition in a way that younger generations would find appealing? That’s where the question of relevancy comes in. To be honest, I’m an aging Baby Boomer, and I’m getting increasingly bored with the average UU worship service (and I visit a lot of congregations of all sizes and see a lot of services). I’m not sure how to get this message out, Tammy. I do appreciate you sharing your thoughts here, however. Maybe forums like this could be a place to start.
February 12, 2012 at 8:48 pm
UUUrban
We apply spiritual principles to life and love and relationships and politics (in roughly that–descending– order), have a great new worship musician, don’t use our pipe organ (but neither do we have a drum kit). Is that what you mean by relevant? We lose some, gain some, and have hovered between 50-100 for over thirty years and two ministers. Your Rx is: Appeal to young post-church Christians, spiritual-not-religious, and non-fundamentalist atheists. As my scientist husband would ask, “How does that operationalize?” (Other than getting a drum kit?)
November 3, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Chicago pastor
I appreciate your words here. I am the pastor of a congregation that is voting to dissolve as a congregation. I was called to the congregation 2 years ago to help them go through a turn around process and instead we are gracefully walking toward another way of doing faithful ministry and that is closing our doors and giving our resources so that other congregations can be planted or benefit and continue ministry.
The congregation’s story is shared in my blog: http://lettinggowithgraceandhope.blogspot.com/
When I was called to the congregation the key ministry the congregation wanted and expected from me was to “grow the church” and “bring people in the doors to increase attendance”. Wow, a simple answer. To not toot my own horn, I am a good preacher, I have a decent personality, I am the age of the people we wanted to see sitting in the pews, I have 2 young kids – that should be a magnet, I started programs, my husband started the 3 year dormant Sunday School and grew it from our 3 kids to 17 kids in a year, people we visiting – some were joining. But, even with all that happening, the congregation is closing it’s doors. The reason is not because I didn’t work hard enough as a pastor or we didn’t get enough people to join. It’s for a huge mix of reasons – but the main one being that the congregation no longer has Christ in the center of everything they do as a congregation let alone everything they do in their lives. This is not to place the blame on the members of the congregation. They were living out the gospel the best they knew how – and that was how they did it in the late 50s and early 60s. I realized that I couldn’t start with outreach, I had to evangelize the people in the pews! We had to put Christ back in the center of everything – and this was no easy task.
So, I guess in short, the answer to the issue of congregations closing is not simply, get more people to come to worship. It has to start with a transformation of the people already there every Sunday morning – and the revitalization has to be done by the members of the congregation and not just the pastor alone. At least that is what I learned in my experience and I am continuing to learn in this closing process.
November 4, 2011 at 6:11 am
Phil on the Prairie
Thanks for sharing your story. Yes, the answer isn’t as simple as getting more people to come to worship. Indeed, having a decent Sunday School program, which you tried to do, Is one of the things the should bring more people. Sounds like even though that was successful for you, it didn’t make much of a difference. The key is more along the lines you mention: putting Christ in the center of everything, or at least have a mission and vision that’s exciting and gets people involved and makes them want to come to church on Sunday (or other days of the week for that matter). I still do think the capacity building part of trying to attract more worshipers is important. As I mentioned in the post, ministers can’t do this alone. A significant portion of the lay leadership has to be onboard and actively involved. Finally, the worship needs to be innovative, adaptive and spiritual vitality. Truth is, most of the old-time members of a congregations wouldn’t stand for too drastic of a change in worship. So once again, yes, it’s not that simple. And there are going to be more and more congregations (Oldline Protestant, especially, and that includes Unitarians and Universalists) closing their doors because this is just too complex of an undertaking for a small group to handle, especially if, as Jesus said, they’re salt that has lost its flavor.
February 18, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Susan
the blog you mention is “open to invited readers only.” I am interested in reading your story and wondering if there is another way to access it.
Is it a UU church?
November 27, 2011 at 6:35 am
reyjacobs
The ‘church’ has been dead since 180 when the moron religious establishment of the time decided to take a set of epistles published by Marcion of Sinope, lightly rework them, and add them to the New Testament. Since that time the doctrines of this ‘Paul’ character that Marcion invented have been harassing and destroying everything that Jesus stood for. Righteousness? Pah! We have faith alone. Repentance? Pah! Don’t need it. Just spritz yourself with some Jesus deodorant so God can stand your smell even though you’re still wallowing in your filth. The church has been a rotting corpse for about the past 1900 years.
November 27, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Phil on the Prairie
I’m not sure how much of what is labeled as Paul’s in the New Testament was “invented,” but I do agree that Pauline Christianity has been a poor transmitter of the teaching of Jesus. Thanks for the comment.
June 12, 2012 at 1:36 pm
revd4
This is still one of my favorite posts of yours. The Matrix is such a good metaphor for so many things. The DOC are doing some creative things with congregations who are dead but don’t know it, and trying new ways to allow them to support contemporary ministry and mission. He was very compassionate toward these congregations and their likely inability to change, so coming up with third ways to help them have impact and leave a legacy instead.