Focussing on numbers

Why does the church focus so much on numbers?

"Oh no we don't, we are really concerned about the spiritual development of our congregation". Of course the demonstration of this is a commitment to the church, and involvement in the  programs of the church, which are about getting more people into church. And that is the real focus of the church work - more people in church.

When a church is looking at how successful events have been, what do they look at? Numbers. Because numbers are an easy way of quantifying results. Even if it isn't a good way, it is easy, and it provides one way of assessing it, surely? Numbers indicate how many people engaged with the event, how many felt it to be a good idea? That is important, surely?

The answer to all of that is, no. Numbers are not important. All that they indicate are how popular events are. If you want to get people into church, then leave a fiver on each pew. It will be popular, it will get people into church, but it will not be the right thing to do, because it will not help people engage more with God. And so many church events are not really that different to a fivers on the pews approach. Yes, they get people in, but do they help the real work of the church - helping people to engage with God, helping people find and experience and explore God? Often the answer is no, and sometimes the answer is no, because they do the opposite, and drive people away from God instead.

One of the interesting results I have found in my research is that, whatever the criteria for assessment, that is what people will work to. In a work situation, if you assess people on the basis of, say, number of calls made, then the staff will be making lots of calls, whether they are successful calls or not. If you assess people on the basis of sales made, then sales will increase, irrespective of the value of those sales. And quick sales will be valued above hard-won sales, even though the latter may be better in the long term.

In the same way, if a church establishes the "success criteria" to be "number of people in church", then the congregation will either work towards getting people into church anyway they can; or leave having rejected the basis on which that church exists, because it is not the right reason for the existence of the church.

Focussing on numbers is wrong, however it is done. Setting the wrong "success criteria" for a church will lose people. The only right criteria is that people are engaging with God, experiencing God. That is a very difficult thing to measure, especially in the short term. It does not help measure the success of an event, but on the life of the church over a long time.

Or maybe forget about the "success criteria" concept altogether.

Jane Austen

When the news first broke, I didn't take much notice. The Bank of England had decided to change the character on a bank note, meaning that there would be no women on UK bank notes. It was a disappointing item, more so because there was only one woman on bank notes to start with. I don't think much of it.

Then some people I knew on twitter (@VickyBeeching for example) who were determined to fight for a change, and to make a difference. I was behind the campaign, especially as it seemed to be gaining some chance of success, and there were some really good arguments for appropriate people to be on the note. The campaign was - quite rightly - being led by women for their right to be acknowledged.

And, of course, that argument was won - and quite right. We still need more women on our bank notes, but Jane Austin is good progress. While the aim was serious and important, the campaign was done with a lighthearted edge, Vicki dressing up as Boudicca for the presentation of the signatures. Good for them, and well done for achieving the aim.

And then, this week, one of the people leading this campaign, Caroline Criado-Perez, was subjected to some of the most horrendous abuse on twitter. I followed her, and read some of the abuse that she re-tweeted - it is not for the faint-hearted. One of those abusing her was arrested and charged, but there are many - hundreds - of others.

In case you assume that this is light-hearted, gentle abuse, people telling her to "calm down" or that she is stupid, don't be fooled. The comments have been threats to rape her, comments that she deserves raping, and she is going to get raped. There have been several twitter accounts deliberately set up for the purpose of sending rape-abuse comments to her.

This has, finally, appalled me. It is unacceptable, it is vile, offensive, sickening behaviour towards anyone (her gender is irrelevant in terms of the abuse - this level of abuse towards anyone is wrong). It makes me ashamed to be male, to be on twitter.

There is something very sickening in all of this. The level of sickness in so many people is enough to make anyone wonder about people. That is, until you also see the level of support that Caroline has. So many of those that I follow express the same level of disgust as I feel. Many many others are also tweeting in support of Caroline, who, on the basis of the tweets today, seems to be holding up well against the onslaught. I wish her all the best. I hope that the social media can find appropriate ways of dealing with this sort of abusive behaviour.

Somewhere, there is a spiritual lesson here. Social media can show the best and worst of people. In this case, it is showing both - showing that the depths of depravity that some people show are quite shocking, and the love and care and support that people can show to someone under attack is also immense.

We should not forget that these depths and these heights are achieveable by everyone. The Christian message is not that all Christians are nice people, but that all people can reach to the heights, as well as sink to the lows.

Justin Welby takes on Payday Loans

Well, the Archbishop is taking on Wonga, wanting to challenge them not by legal means, but by competition. This is an interesting statement, and it made me think, because I am not sure whether it is a good or a bad idea.

Let me make it clear, the proposal to support credit unions is a good one, because credit unions are a good idea, and I completely support them. What is more, Wonga and other similar payday loan lenders are bad, charging exorbitant interest, and drive people more and more into debt.

So I have no problem with the church either standing out against the loan companies, or in support of credit unions. I am just not sure whether this is the right way to go about making a change.

The problem is the story I was told of one credit union in Essex, which was initially hosted in a church, but didn't take off until it moved out. The problem I have is that, by making this close association, the negative associations of the church might reduce take up.

There are problems with the perception of the church, and having "church" support to the credit unions, especially if they are involved financially and closely, then there is a danger of this reflecting negatively. Some people - and often those in the greatest need - struggle with the church, and may refuse to use credit unions if they have problems with the local church.

This is where I think my concerns lie. Many of those in need have problems with the church, either personal ones, or because there is a sense  that the church is not always the most moral of organisations. The problems of individual clergy reflect badly on the church as a whole; the problems of the church as an organisation reflect badly on the local church.

And there are some who might feel that this is the ex-banker wanting to turn the church into another bank, to sort the churches financial problems. Now I should point out that I don't think Justin Welbys motives are mistaken here - I don't think he is trying to do anything of the sort. I think he is trying to use his business and financial knowledge to address some of the critical problems of our country - getting money to those who need it. I think that is a good and worthy thing to be doing, and a great use of his skills.

However, I wonder if he fails to see the problems, because his perspective on the church is a warped positive one. I think he misses the fact that, for many people, the church is not the beacon of hope and light that he sees it as. For all his good intentions and ideas - and I firmly believe that he is right in so much of what he says here - I wonder if it is too late for the church to be involved in this.

Since I started to write this, more revelation have come to light that the CofE actually has money indirectly invested in Wonga. It is an oversight that he had not checked up previously, but he has promised to check up on it - let us hope that he is serious about this, and addresses the investments that the church has, not just in Wonga but wider. His reaction and response to this was excellent, but it indicates that the institution is already compromised. This is the reason that it should not be involved in something like the Credit Unions, not directly.

 The compromised nature of the institution is also reflected in the local churches - not in the same way, or to the same extent, but still compromised, to the point that involvement in these sorts of enterprises, on an official level, is a mistake. On a personal level - where churches or, better, individuals, support and enable the unions - that is where the involvement should be.

Maybe the real answer is to say very loudly and very clearly that Wonga is not an answer to your financial problems. A credit union might well be. Give them a try.

A baby is born

This week, a very important baby was born. Well, actually, several very important babies were born this week, as every week. Every baby is important, every baby is of significance to their family, and some of them are important wider than those who know them.

One of those babies born was, of course, Prince George Cambridge. It has had pretty much blanket coverage in the media, which has bored most people, although I am sure that some people have enjoyed it. Nobody on my twitter feed, though.

This media coverage is something that the young family will have to get used to - it is part of being members of the royal family, celebrities of the highest order. Has it been too intrusive over this pregnancy? Probably. On the one hand, knowing that everything is OK is of interest, and important. Prince George is third in line to the throne, and - however much we may want to pretend it is otherwise - ensuring the succession is important. It is of interest, and of importance, whether you are a royalist or not. That does not mean that every last nuance of the pregnancy and birth need to be reported on.

On the other side, I hope that, like William and Harry, George will be allowed to grow up without the glare of the media. I hope that they will be allowed to have as normal a life as possible given their status, not least because it does seem to have enabled William and Harry to mature into the princes they are today. OK, maybe Harry could have done with a little longer out of the limelight. But I am proud of them, and hte way that they have turned out.

And yet George is exceptionally privileged - this is something that we cannot ignore. This is not his fault, any more than it is William's fault that he is destined to become king one day. This is the structure of our nation, and, for good or bad, that is what we have to live with. I would not consider myself an ardent monarchist, but I do think that the system does not actually work that badly. Whatever we may think, the royals are not the real problem.

The real problem is that there were many other babies born this week, and some of them have been born into poverty. The real problem is not that Prince George is privileged. The real problem is that those in real power in this country - the politicians - have abused and betrayed the poor. The real problem is not that some people are well off, it is that some people are not. And that the division between the richest and the poorest is getting greater.

Music and the church

I think there are a number of reflections from my time at the Sonar festival of modern music that I can make about music generally, and music in the church specifically.

The first one is that in the church we don't seem to appreciate music for its own sake. Too often "music" is simply the accompaninet to "singing". What is important, of course, are the words, not the music. Even instrumental breaks tend to be a chance for the congregation to get their breath back.

A significant portion of the performances I have been hearing have been music only. No words, or rather, words incorporated as an instrument into a performance. This music is intense and moving - worshipful if you want.

There are some places where they do perform music - usually organ or orchestral. However, this is so often treated - by the audience at least- as "performance". The style of music lends itself to this. Why can this not be considered as "worship"?

Now of course, musical creation is "performance" to an extent. But good quality musical production can also lead us to worship. No words needed. In fact, in the best cases, words just get in the way - although I accept that for me, this might be an emphasis because I play an instrument but I cannot sing.

The second one is that we don't really like to embrace the "feel" of music, when it is loud. Yes, some places do have good organists who can make you feel the deep bass notes. Much of my experience is that turning up the volumne is considered "un-worshipful". Because, of course, the important thing is to hear the congregation singing, not the music.

And yet gut thumping bass notes are visceral, intense and deep. I want to be on the front row of a concert like this, feeling the music, seeing the performers. Do I want to be on the front row in church? Do I manage to "feel" the music? Not usually. So often the music it is more connected to a hippy acoustic guitar jam than anything vaguely modern.

The style of music is also interesting. Of course no two people will agree on a musical style - which is why so much church music is bland, anodyne crap - but there is a place for the Sonar "modern" - Electronic - music. The buzzes, the drop outs, the synthesiers, the conputer created music. this is all music, and this is all a part of the rich tapestry of what music means. The problem so often is that offering one particular style of music, normally justified because "you cannot please everyone" or "it is inoffensive" does not make sense. It is offensive, because it is too bland. Not pleasing everyone means you choose who you want to please - or you please no-one. So why does no-one choose to please clubbers, or metal-heads, or electronica fans or ....

Now I should point out that there has been one significant experiment with this - the infamous Nine O'Clock Service in Sheffield. I hesitate to mention it because it is for many people associated with the abuse and manipulation that was at the heart of it in the later days. I think - from my perspective - the damage done by this abuse is far more serious, because it has damaged the reputation of such services for another generation. It is a pity, because it could have been the model for worship into the twenty first century.

And yet even that, from the videos I have seen of the services, was still very much focused on words, on the liturgy, but with background music playing. Now the music was better, but it was still - for me - far too focused on words.

Until we lose our slavery to words as the most appropriate expression of worship, I doubt the church will move from its inherently modernist standpoint. I doubt that a church based on words will survive.

Milton Keynes

I am back working in Milton Keynes again - I was there for 7-8 months last year, and I did get some stick when I shared my thoughts about the town. I will probably get the same this time.

Milton Keynes is a dire, soulless place, that depresses me intensely whenever I have to work there.

I accept that living there is different, but my experience is working there, and that is dire.

Just to be positive, the road system does work. It works really well, even when there is a problem - finding a different route around a blockage is easy. Because people find different routes to places, there is relatively little congestion. I also gather that it is a great place for shopping. So it does have its good points.

That does not change my initial thoughts on the place.

Now I know that some people are thinking "Well, if you like the rural life, the quaint, then maybe it is not for you." Well, I can appreciate a concrete style - I went to UEA, which is built of concrete, and is stunningly beautiful. As my son commented "If you are going to build in concrete, this is the way to do it." I also took my first job in Bracknell, another new town, which I enjoyed living in.

So I can appreciate the aesthetic. Just not in Milton Keynes.

Or maybe it is that I like places I live, and not places I work? Ah no, because I have likes some places I have worked, and not liked some places I have lived. It is something about Milton Keynes itself.

The thing is that transport around the town is very good. There are cycle ways to get around, and the major roads are kept away from the residential areas. Also the shops and working areas are distinct and separate from the residential areas. The town is segregated, meaning that you don't live near an industrial estate or a shopping centre.

That, I think, is the real problem with the town. It seems to reflect one of the biggest problems in so much of life today - the separation and segregation of life, of the various aspects of life, like our work, our family, our worship, our faith. Everything is segregated and separated; we have strict divisions between these, and rigidly defined routes from one to the other, maybe tree lined. The problem of Milton Keynes is that everything is laid out, rigidly structured. There are trees and parks, but they are not so much natural, as the places that the planners decided a park was needed.

Now I am sure that I have misrepresented the town to an extent. I am sure that it is a lovely place to live in. But it does depress me, because to me, it feels inhuman. Humanity is confused and mixed, and the routes between the parts are not fixed and set. The connections between the parts of our life are random and diverse - that is what makes us odd and wonderful. When we insist on splitting ourselves up, on regimenting our lives, we lose out in all areas.

Conference season

Its conference season again, and this will continue through the summer, I presume, which means that my twitter feed is full of people on conferences tweeting the significant and important comments made by speakers.

It all frustrates me, and makes me want to respond to all of them in the same way.

The problem - and it is an endemic problems with conferences as well as with the church as a whole - is that there is a whole lot of words, and rather less action. The thing is, the words are often really good, really positive, but I have heard them all before, and I know that they do not get put into practice.

So often in churches, it seems that the statement of the words is seen as all that needs to be done.

"We believe that our priority should be to reduce our administration and paperwork"

"Excellent idea - lets set up a working party to formulate a policy about this"

It makes me think of a scene from Blackadder goes forth, where Captain Blackadder is condemned to be shot, and Percy and Baldrick identify a plan to save him. They are so delighted by their plan that they drink to celebrate. And keep drinking to their success, forgetting to actually put their plan into action.

It strikes me that the church is so often into doing this. A key feature to the success is identified - for example, a focus on young people. The church goes through its processes to include this in a mission plan, to incorporate it into the church meetings - PCCs or whatever - and this is it. Actually doing anything to change the way the church does things to actually focus on young people is something that is supposed to come out of this, but actually it doesn't, ever. It becomes an indication of disappointment, and is seen to be achieved when someone who might be younger than the average comes to church more than once.

So let me take an example of one from recently: "Worship should be for the community, not the congregation" - an interesting idea, roughly the context of some of the tweets form yesterday. I agree with this, in principle - and I should point out that in most cases, the comments and ideas are GOOD, I don't disagree with the expressions - but it means nothing. Because in a real church, this will mean changing the worship, the style and form of worship. It may mean that the musicians have to change. It may mean that the repertoire needs to be renewed. It may mean that the liturgy needs to be rewritten. And the robes might have to go, not to mention the pews and the building. Why Sunday mornings?

If we take these ideas seriously, it will mean radical, serious, huge change to the way the church does things. It might be that we have to listen to some very harsh comments - like the truth about the crap music we so often have - and take those on board. It WILL mean that the some people in the existing congregation will leave. It will be painful and difficult, and if you do it, you will be hated by some people, and you will question your motivation.

It is much easier to just write a policy, and continue as we are. Which is why we do. Of course it is also nice to have these annual conferences to give us some good ideas, and make us feel like we have been a part of a radical new focus on faith.

So yes, I like all of these ideas. But we don't live them out. Even those of you who are tweeting them as fantastic ideas will not put them into practice.

Will you?