The Diocese of New Westminster has this article on the closing of non-viable parishes:
Our founders came almost exclusively from the British Isles, and opened parishes in the same pattern as in the old country: a small parish one could walk to in every village or neighbourhood. They had no idea of the multicultural society that Canada would become, or that many people would drive, sometimes long distances, to worship in a parish they liked.
For decades we have been struggling with that legacy. Some small parishes are financially healthy and lively communities; some are not. Consolidation is in order, and the recent downturn in the economy, and in diocesan investment funds, have made the situation more urgent. But how do we get from where we are to a leaner, more mission-oriented diocese? It’s not an easy question to answer.
And it isn’t a new question. During the 1970s some 15 parishes were closed. Then, as now, parishes that were in trouble were small and often rural. Some were decades old.
Two reports in the 1990s, the Spencer and the Rivers reports, urged further consolidation-as well as planting new parishes in strategic locations-but the decision to go slow, and not close small and struggling parishes in the Diocese of New Westminster for the past 15 years has been a deliberate one.
Since 2000, only two small parishes have closed, of their own initiative (St. Matthew’s, Vancouver, and St. Peter’s, Rosedale). Another two have merged, and a mission and a parish have been lost due to the controversy over same-sex blessings. But that’s all, despite about a 30 per cent drop in membership.
“We’ve attempted not to take a top-down decision-making approach,” Bishop Michael Ingham told the December meeting of Diocesan Council. The diocese has avoided the “executive approach,” as he describes it: “A few people sitting around and saying, well, we’ll close A and we’ll keep B open-and then it dramatically affects the lives of people in those congregations.”
Full participation by those involved is indeed the best approach-to have people most affected participate in decisions that affect their lives. It’s what has been behind a number of initiatives in the diocese, most recently the Ministry Assessment Process (MAP), and the many meetings to determine the diocese’s ministry priorities.
“It is important to make these decisions together, and not for people,” the bishop told the council. But a grass roots approach works only if the grass roots participate, openly and honestly and facing reality, in the decisions that have to be made. That challenge is everyone’s, posed by Strategic Plan 2018.
One of the ironies here is that the flourishing parishes tend to be theologically conservative and a number – including the largest, St. John’s Shaugnessy – have joined ANiC; yet Bishop Michael Ingham still cannot connect the dots.
Additionally, since buildings are standing empty, why is the diocese fighting tooth and nail to retain buildings which they cannot use but other faithful Christians can?
But how do we get from where we are to a leaner, more mission-oriented diocese? It’s not an easy question to answer. (the article asks)
I’m afraid that’s a very easy question to answer. The answer is to stay with what the Bible says. Yes, those anti-biblical revisionists will yell and scream, but ALL THOSE WHO’VE LEFT would NOT have left if the diocese had stayed with true Biblical practices. They left because the diocese of Westminster has left true Biblical teaching. THAT’S why there are so many empty parishes now, and even a small child could tell you that. The parishes would still be quite viable if the members weren’t driven out by heresy.
Liberal “Christian” leaders have veils over their eyes. They just don’t see the direct correlation between their liberal, “inclusive” policies and the declining membership of their churches. In fact, they seem to behave just the opposite. They think that by becoming emen more liberal and inclusive, they can somehow reverse the decline, but of course, it has just the opposite effect. (And frankly, I see that as a good thing).
I picture two feet walking down a path of liberalism. Left foot moves forward – “Let’s accept and bless immoral sexuality.” Right foot moves forward — lose some members. Left foot – “Let’s say Jesus may not be the only way to God.” Right foot – lose more members. Left foot – “Let’s say that maybe Jesus didn’t actually rise physically, only spiritually.” Right foot – lose more members. Left foot – “The Bible is outdated, written for other times and cultures.” Right foot – lose more members. And so it goes — they just keep walking in the same direction.
In our small town, all they have to do is look at which churches are full on Sundays and which are empty or close to it. The Baptist, Pentecostal and Alliance churches all have 100-200 people every week. The Lutheran, Anglican and United have less than 30.
Who was it that said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
Albert Einstein
#2 John K
Point of logic: correlation doesn’t imply causation.
Orthodox evangelical denominations like Southern Baptist and Missouri Synod also have declining attendance. Lots of RC parish churches around here are being closed down, too, despite the Roman Catholic Church’s very traditional teachings.
Since when has popularity been a sign of truth?
John K (#2) and NA (#4), I think you both make valid points. Growth, or lack thereof, does not necessarily correlate with the faithfulness or orthodoxy of a church. That said, I think some churches have crossed the line altogether and are shrinking because they are no longer true churches. If true faith has withered away and only convenietn parts of the Bible are accepted, why would anyone want to bother with church at all?
My favourite blogger, Michael Spencer (aka The Internet Monk), whom I have followed for the past six years, recently wrote an interesting series of posts called The Coming Evangelical Collapse which got a lot of coverage on other blogs and also in the main stream media. If Spencer is even close to being right, there are many denominations – orthodox or otherwise – who should be doing a lot of soul searching.
If you are interested, his posts can be found here:
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-original-coming-evangelical-collapse-posts
Noli,
I agree partly. I would say although it can imply it, it doesn’t prove it. However, in the cases here, I think there is a direct connection.
There is more, of course. The most orthodox Christian teaching, if presented in a dry and dusty manner, isn’t going to attract or hold many young people. I think that is the case with many SBC churches. I know people who have tried SBC churches here in Canada and they categorize them as, “old people’s churches.” Nor do I believe, as is my point here, that an attempt at cultural relevance at the expense of theological the truth will long hold people’s attraction, no matter how glitzy the presentation. But a true presentation of the Gospel, as true and relevant today as it ever has been, presented in a contemporary style, will result, most often, in the most vibrant church possible.
I linked on my blog to a situation regarding an Anglican church in London, England, where Nicky Gumbel’s team took a vacant church from zero to a thousand people in eighteen months. Knowing Nicky, he didn’t do it by affirming current sexual standards or diluting the Gospel message, but by preaching the truth, and nothing but the truth, in love.
Take Care