A Second Visit to the Cwmbran Outpouring

It is now over a month since Victory Church in Cwmbran opened their doors five nights a week to share with other people the work that God has been doing in their church. After my first visit I asked two questions:

1) Does this outpouring fit the limited enthusiasm model of church growth?

2) Is this a candidate for a genuine revival?

For those not sure what the Cwmbran outpouring is, then see my previous post and visit the blog of David Pike, for a series of in depth accounts [1]. (Or you could go yourself! [2])

On Thursday  May 16^th I made another visit to one of the special church services, full of expectation after my last visit, not because of what happened there, but because of what I had brought away with me. I must confess my motives were not primarily to address either of the two questions, but more a desire for another “touch from the King”. However I promised to return to both of these questions, so here goes.

I will address the second question first: Is this outpouring a genuine revival? This is the harder of the two questions to answer, as it is much easier to judge whether an event is a revival after some length of time has elapsed. The early stages of a revival often have too many conflicting signs. Think of the Welsh 1904/5 revival. Did the people in West Wales, at New Quay, or Blaenannerch realise they were in a revival? At New Quay it could have been argued that it was a very lively church youth group witnessing to Christ, but no more than is expected of the church. In Blaenannerch there was a remarkable convention, but perhaps no different to our modern day conventions such as Keswick, or Spring Harvest. What changed people’s views of these events was the 12 months that followed, the rapid growth of conversions, and their authenticity. Then in hindsight the work in West Wales clearly stood out as revival to many people, rather than just being the opinion of a few writers in the local West Wales papers at that time. For anyone not familiar with the early years of the Welsh revival I produced a timeline and analysis a few years back [3].

There are a number of signs of a genuine revival. One is that people’s lives are changed by God. I will only deal with this sign for now. From my visit on May 16^th I will present two pieces of evidence.

1. While queuing in the foyer, waiting for the doors to open, a number of the young men broke out in spontaneous singing.  As far as I could see these were local people. After a few songs, in which most of those waiting participated, one of the men introduced another who had just been converted. The convert gave a brief testimony, which included deliverance from drug addition. This was a clear sign of a changed life and his was typical of many such testimonies from this church.
2. After the meeting was over two ladies, both members of the church, and Christians for some years, turned to me and asked me what I thought of the events at their church. They had both been worshipping God enthusiastically throughout. They struggled to explain how much their church, and they, had changed over the last month, but knew it was of God. Then one said, “I don’t understand it but I feel I have won the spiritual lottery!” I think only God can come up with a testimony like that!

 Chatting with others in the church their chief conversation was the change that God had worked in them, and those they knew, not the meeting or its style. Now there will be many who will criticise the style of the meetings, worship-band worship, spiritual gifts, dancing, etc. Apparently this style is relatively new to this church, though not new to many of the visitors for whom this is business as usual. However these aspects of church are largely a cultural wrapper and have to be distinguished from the contents. You could go to New Wine, a modern Pentecostal church, or a charismatic Anglican church and have exactly the same style – same wrapper, but not experience what is happening in Victory at Cwmbran – not the same content. You could strip away the charismatic wrapper at Victory and replace it with a traditional one, that indefinable something would still be there.

So what is it that is different? What is that indefinable something? I must admit I have racked my brains for the last week to find words to describe it. The best I can do is 1 Peter 1:8, “Joy unspeakable and full of glory”. It is this I see in the lives of the people there and that can be experienced by anyone who is genuinely seeking God. It is the only way I can explain my own experience. Ignore the cultural wrapper – look at the contents – look to God – and you will find that “indefinable something” that smacks of revival.

So should the outpouring divest itself of its charismatic wrapper? Perhaps a period from Welsh history can help. In the Methodist revival of the 18^th century, the Welsh Calvinist Methodists were distinguished from the English Wesleyan ones not only in theology but also in their behaviour in worship, notably leaping and jumping. The Welsh Methodists were known as “Welsh Jumpers”, and their worship behaviour, which came to the fore in the Llangeitho revival of 1762-4, became a bit of a tourist attraction and brought much criticism from other Christians [4]. Even John Wesley remarked of them in his journal:

“for anyone has a mind to give out a verse of a hymn. They sing over and over with all their might, perhaps over thirty, yea forty times. Meanwhile the bodies of two or three, sometimes ten or twelve are violently agitated; and they leap up and down, in all many of postures, frequently for hours. …. So he (Satan) serves himself of their simplicity in order to wear them out, and to bring discredit on the work of God.” [5]

The response of Daniel Rowlands, the Welsh Methodist leader, serves to warn any who try to dismiss revival on the grounds of people’s cultural behaviour:

“You English blame us, the Welsh, and speak against us and say ‘Jumpers! Jumpers!’ But we, the Welsh, have something also to allege against you, and we most justly say of you “Sleepers! Sleepers!” [6] (Apologies to any English people reading this!)

Now the first question: Does this fit the limited enthusiasm model of church growth? (Hopefully that does not come as an anti-climax after what I have just said!)  Clearly the church has grown through conversion and is still growing. From the experience that night, as discussed above, the outpouring is definitely generating enthusiastic people!

But the enthusiasts in the model are more than enthusiastic people; their enthusiasm must be channelled into making converts. From the incident in the foyer there was one young man who had brought another to faith. One is hardly scientific proof, but I have heard of other cases, and there does not need to be many such cases for significant growth to result. As it turns out they have just had a baptismal service for over 60 people converted since the revival began [1]. So looking good.

But we need to go further, the effectiveness of enthusiasts is not just about how many converts they make but also how many fellow enthusiasts they make out of those converts, and out of existing Christians. Rapid accelerating reinforcing loop growth comes from enthusiasts reproducing themselves, making more enthusiasts. In the early stages, the renewal phase, most of the new enthusiasts come from existing Christians. It is only later that the balance tips to more enthusiasts coming from the new converts. Then growth explodes. Now it is too early to tell whether this will happen in the Cwmbran outpouring, but the renewal phase seems well underway with Christians not only getting a fresh experience of God, but having their expectations raised so that they can be used in the conversion of others.

Thus the challenge to any Christian who goes to this outpouring is: what are you going to do about this experience? Do you keep going back to get the experience again? Very understandable! Or do you turn that experience into practical steps to challenge others with the gospel? If your life is genuinely changed and you speak with the boldness that comes from the Holy Spirit, then you will see new converts, even new enthusiasts. Then you can be confident this is a genuine revival.

If you have not been to Victory church, would you go and find out for yourself if what I am saying stands up to scrutiny? Would you ignore the cultural wrapper and look to the contents? Would you go with that thirst for Jesus Christ that is the precursor for any revival? Would you take that outpouring back to your own church? If you have ever had the slightest desire for revival in your life, church and land, then there can be no better time than now to pray for an outpouring of the Spirit where you are.  

[1] http://daibach-welldigger.blogspot.co.uk/

[2] http://www.victorychurch.co.uk/

[3] http://www.churchmodel.org.uk/ see “popular documents”, right hand side below photo of Moriah chapel.

[4] Revival and its Fruit, Roberts E & Gruffydd RG. Evangelical Library of Wales, 1981.

[5] Revival and its Fruit, Roberts E & Gruffydd RG. Evangelical Library of Wales, 1981, p.24. Quoted from Wesley’s Journal August 1763.

[6] Revival and its Fruit, Roberts E & Gruffydd RG. Evangelical Library of Wales, 1981, p.35. Quoted from “A Memoir of the Rev Daniel Rowlands”, Owen J, 1840, pp. 85-86, available as a free ebook in Google books.

Contagion in Cwmbran: A New "Welsh Outpouring"?

It would be a brave person to make the claim that there is a new Welsh Revival. Wales is known as the Land of Revivals, with at least 15 revivals between 1762 and 1862 [1], plus the beginnings of Methodism in 1735 and of course the famous one of 1904-5. The largest revival was that of 1859, but it is the 1904-5 revival, associated with Evan Roberts that comes to most people’s minds first. It is the best documented, played a large part in the start of Pentecostalism, and sadly is the last revival to hit this land. After this period of time, and with so many to compare with, it would be a very brave person indeed to claim there is a new revival in Wales.

Perhaps because of this reputation for revivals there has developed a large amount of cynicism about revival in the contemporary Welsh church, especially in evangelical and older charismatic circles. I have preached in churches where people have assured me that revivals never really happened; it was a social phenomenon where people had to join the churches of their employers to keep their jobs. Evangelical ministers, who have sought my modelling help in church growth, are happy to include any management technique, or church growth method, in the model, but shun any mention of an outpouring of the Spirit. The words of Duncan Campbell, preacher in the Hebridean revival 1949-53, are still true: “Revival is a sign spoken against” [2].

However in the last few weeks that “Sign Spoken Against” has become talked about in Wales again. On April 10^th there started in Victory Church Cwmbran what has been described as the “Cwmbran Outpouring”, or even the “Wales Outpouring”. On that night, in a regular mid-week meeting of the church, a man who had been confined to a wheelchair for 10 years was dramatically healed. Such was the effect on the church that a considerable number of other healings followed. A key feature of this meeting had been seeking the presence of God. Since then the church has met most evenings to experience the presence and power of God and pass it on to others. Attendance at the meetings has mushroomed as word has got out, largely by word of mouth as far as I can see. A fuller story can be found at the church’s website [3] and the many online testimonies [4].

So two questions immediately came to my mind:

1. Does the growth of the movement following the pattern of the Limited Enthusiasm model of church growth, with enthusiasts passing the contagion one to another? This is a question with my scientist’s hat on.
2. Is this a real revival/outpouring where people are being transformed by God’s presence so that they in turn can transform others?  This is a question with my believer’s hat on. I wear more than one hat at the same time!

It was with the latter question largely in mind that I decided to visit Victory church in Cwmbran a week ago, Wednesday 1^st May.

The “service” was a quite orthodox charismatic style meeting: A large amount of sung worship, very directed preaching, many testimonies of healings and conversions and prayer ministry. It was similar in style to the Bay of the Holy Spirit revival, except the speaker that night did not shout as much as Nathan Morris! The worship was very enthusiastic and the testimonies, read out second hand, were a real blessing and an indication that God is at work. All along the emphasis was the presence of God, and that clearly affected the whole meeting.

Interestingly there was no hype, no bringing people up to the stage to be healed. The meeting was not a show for spectators. They even tried to discourage people from falling over.  There were envelopes on each chair for an offering, but they got completely forgotten and no offering was taken. That must go down as a work of the Holy Spirit, given the obsession the Christian church usually has with money! I gather that “no offering” is their normal practice.

The numbers attending that night was so large they needed stewards on the car park. It needs to be remembered this is 5 nights a week, so this has attracted a considerable number of people very quickly, reminiscent of the 1904-5 revival. There was a good variety of all ages present, but a larger than average number in their 20s.

Staying around at the end I saw some very enthusiastic young people connected with the church pray together spontaneously. It was clear there has been a work of God going on for some time in this church, with many converted, some from tough backgrounds. Lives are being changed and enthusiasts made. This 4 week old outpouring is I think a specific phase of something quite profound going on between church and community. So the whole work of this church is a sign of a revival movement.

Neither is the work at Victory church in isolation. Their passion for church planting, discipleship and conversions from tough backgrounds is something they share with other movements, such as Destiny church in Scotland, with whom Victory have connections. Victory calls their churches “campuses”, a term also used by Mars Hill Seattle, who are perhaps the model for this style of church planting movement, and themselves a candidate for a revival. Thus the work at Victory, and this current outpouring, is a part of something much bigger.

So is the “Cwmbran Outpouring” a revival? I decided to compare my experience that evening with that of the Lewis revival, as told by Duncan Campbell [2]; so I listened to the tape of his talk again. One thing is clear, the Lewis revival came across as far more serious with a considerable amount of conviction of sin and weeping. In Victory that night the meeting was far more informal, people could chat with each other and even share a joke. A purist could easily dismiss Victory as a candidate for genuine revival.

But this is a very unfair comparison. Christianity in the Hebrides in 1949, and even now, has a far more serious culture. People do not even speak to each other in a church building. That was the culture in which their revival occurred. However our church culture has become very informal, for very understandable reasons. Christianity in the past developed a forced “Sunday seriousness”, which covered over a religious hypocrisy. It had a “don’t do that” mentality, but no joy; morality without a living experience of Jesus. Evan Roberts had accused the church leaders of “making religion too gloomy”. Something had to give; we had to become real and allow true emotions to show. But now we are informal to the point of being casual with God; and that is the context in which any outpouring will start. It will not change overnight, cultures take longer to change than people. Thus we cannot expect the same degree of “seriousness” in a contemporary outpouring as in past revivals, certainly not for the time being.

Another potential criticism is the amount of publicity attached to the outpouring. It could be accused of being a fad or craze, attracting people for its novelty value, rather than a spiritual contagion. Iain Murray, one of the most astute of the contemporary writers on revival, advises great care in the use of publicity in revival, due to the dangers of premature assessment and spiritual pride [5]. I am not sure there has been that much publicity in this case. Although it is present on the internet, most people are hearing by word of mouth, which would include Facebook and the like. As far as I can see the media has not shown any interest. Church does not have the same significance in political and media circles compared with the Hebrides in 1949 or Wales in 1904. That is a blessing! Changed lives not media hype is the only advertisement for God’s glory. Given the nature of the healings at the church it is difficult to see how they could keep it quiet in Christian circles. We certainly need to pray for wisdom for the leaders as they handle this.

So as for question 2, I have seen nothing so far to cast any doubt on the work at Victory being an outpouring of the Spirit. But I would add that the ongoing work at the church is just as much part of the revival as these meetings. And when the meetings cease I hope and pray that work, which aims to plant 50 churches in 10 years will continue with fresh zeal, because re-populating our land with the sort of churches that seek conversions and changed lives, through the presence of God, is the revival we need.

However one thing threw me in the meeting a week ago, unlike other people there that night I felt nothing! I enjoyed the meeting, I participated willingly, but compared to similar works I had experienced in the past, I had no sense of God’s presence. Yet I knew this was because of me, not the meeting! But, since then, I have thought about virtually nothing else but Jesus! It has taken me over a week to take all this in, that He has grabbed hold of my life and won’t let go! Would I go back? Absolutely – I would go anywhere Jesus is present. But I don’t need to GO anywhere – He is present where I am. I had no sense of that before I went to Victory, but I have since. Logic demands that Victory church is where I picked up this sense of His presence. I caught the divine contagion! The words of John Kilpatrick, of the Pensacola and Bay of the Holy Spirit revivals, come to mind: “Once you get used to the presence (of God) nothing else satisfies” [6]. I needed to go to Victory to be reminded of this, and be satisfied again.

A friend of mine said last Sunday that we have been waiting for the wind to change. My experience of Victory is that this move is more than a meeting, the wind is changing. I think it has been changing for some time and this outpouring is one step in that process. Should you go to the Cwmbran outpouring? Certainly! But if the wind is changing I think we will find that many such outpourings will be occurring and that God has something even bigger in store for us.

So what about my questions? I have not really done justice to question 2. I need to go back to the Bible to really test the authenticity of any claim to revival. And as for question 1, “is it following the models?”, that needs more time and data. I will defer both questions to future posts. For now I want to enjoy Jesus and sail with the wind!  

[1] Favoured with Frequent Revivals: Revivals in Wales 1762-1862, D. Geraint Jones, The Heath Christian Trust, 2001.

[2] He states that revival is a sign spoken against early in his talk on the events of the revival on the Isle of Lewis,

http://www.revival-library.org/catalogues/20thcentury/campbell.html.

Campbell also refers to it in the preface of Arthur Wallis’ book on revival: In the Day of Thy Power, Christian Literature Crusade, 1956; who has a chapter called “A Sign Spoken Against”.

[3] Victory Church web site http://www.victorychurch.co.uk/ The regular updates and the sermons of pastor Richard Taylor are big help in understanding the spirit of the outpouring.

[4] For example: http://daibach-welldigger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/outpouring-in-cwmbran-2013.html#!/2013/04/outpouring-in-cwmbran-2013.html

[5] Pentecost Today? Iain Murray, Banner of Truth, 1998, p168.

[6] I have heard him say this in a number of sermons. However I am quoting this from a contribution he made to the Lydia Stanley album, Above the Heavens. Quoted on the track: Let your Glory Cover Me (reprise).

"Church Growth in Britain" - A Review

Book’s Purpose

I have just finished reading a book called Church Growth in Britain[1], which may seem a strange title given the church in the UK has been in persistent decline since the 1950s, both in membership and attendance. The trouble with the national church figures is they aggregate a wide variety of churches with different growth and decline profiles. Yes the majority are in decline and this dominates the figures, but it also hides the fact that there are a sizable number of congregations and church movements that are seeing continued growth. That is the purpose of the book to highlight the numerous examples of growth and try to explain why they are happening. As such a very encouraging book telling a story that needs to be told.

Book’s Theses

The thesis of the book is summed up on p253 “the notion that all British churches are in inexorable decline is a myth”.  There is also a running sub-thesis that the secularisation hypothesis has serious flaws with regard to British churches. The secularisation hypothesis states that as societies become more advanced they become less religious both in participation by people, and in the connection between religious and non-religious institutions. Many American sociologists have rejected the hypothesis for the USA but claim it is still relevant in Europe because the latter has national established churches and thus weaker competition between churches. The book defends its two theses through a series of articles from a variety of authors covering Black Majority churches, New churches, cathedrals and regional variations. There is ample evidence that there are many growing churches in the UK, and that the country is becoming more like the USA’s market economy in religion, than Europe’s secularisation through the dominance of established churches.  I.e. church participation is a form of religious consumption rather than the older form of religious obligation.

Social or Spiritual?

The book starts good, but quickly falls into sociological perspectives on church growth. I wondered if this was to encourage its audience or to satisfy an academic referee in sociology? At times I wondered if anyone would admit that they believed in what churches do let alone believe in God. It came across as too secular in its viewpoint, rather ironic considering its disapproval of the secularisation hypothesis! I understand the need for academic peer review, but it is still possible to let people know you look to the God of the Bible. In my first paper on mathematical modelling of church growth in amongst all the maths and sociology references I gave two references to sermons by Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones and thus referred to revival and the work of the Spirit as part of the evidence in model construction. It is possible to have academic and spiritual integrity simultaneously! 

Church Decline

The book is rescued from a secular perspective by George Lings who, in plain English, rather than academic jargon, ignored the currently politically correct sociological theories of religion and identifies two key hindrances to mission, p167, that the church:

1.  assumes all people (in the UK) are Christians and thus doubts such people need rescuing, saving and changing by Christ;
2. finds enthusiasm and evangelism disagreeable preferring a “back to church” approach as a sufficient strategy.

To me these are also causes of church decline, because they lead to insufficient growth to counter normal losses. These are the ones built in to the limited enthusiasm model, my main model of church growth. More spiritual insights like these, rather than the sociological ones would have improved the book’s case enormously.  This to me was the most informative and positive statement in the book and the various examples of growth given elsewhere in the book illustrate it well.

Migration and Mobility

Another positive statement of the book is that church growth is higher where migration and mobility are higher. The church growth models predict this, though it must be said these are the same results that say that epidemics are larger when populations move around more. This is not an original result of mine, but it does hold true for churches as well.  For churches to grow they need volatile networks among people. Many churches decline simply because they do not have enough contact with the community, the networks remain static. Widen the susceptible pool and decline can be turned into revival growth.  Migration does this a treat, but in its absence church people need to internally “migrate” within their own communities, changing their friendship networks. The resulting growth would be similar to that of churches in city centres and among immigrant communities

Encouragement?

I guess the main conclusion of the book is that the many growing congregations give hope for the future. I am afraid I have to be more hesitant here as this does not necessarily follow. Although stories of growing congregations are encouraging, they have always been there in each decade of the last century (and this), but they have never led to the re-growth of the church nationally. Aggregation is brutal. Although there are growing congregations, they are considerably outweighed by the much larger number of declining ones. The growing ones do not grow indefinitely. Either they plateau, remaining large and lively but no longer contributing to national church growth, or they join the ranks of declining ones. In subsequent decades it is then other congregations that become growing ones, but again not enough of them. Thus although it looks very encouraging to see many growing congregations, unless sustained, and replicated in other congregations, it will not on its own lead to national church growth.

Revival

One feature of the book did however really frustrate me; I had to wait to p137 before I saw the first mention of revival! Even then it was with reference to Nigeria. It was here that gave the only reference to baptism with the Spirit. It left me wondering does anyone believe in revival anymore? Does anyone believe that church growth comes through frequent outpourings of the Holy Spirit on the church? That has to be left to another blog!

Reference

[1] Church Growth in Britain: 1980 to the Present, David Goodhew, 2012, Ashgate Publishing.

Census 2011 – Initial thoughts on Religious Adherence.

Today the figures for religious identity were released for the 2011 census in England and Wales. The headline figure is that the percentage of people identifying themselves as Christian has dropped from 72% in 2001 to 59% in 2011. As many are saying, the country is becoming less Christian. “Countries” to be precise, there are two!

Let us try and unravel this a bit. Firstly the drop in Christian identity hardly comes as a surprise. Church attendance has been dropping relentlessly since the Second World War. Despite the charismatic revival from 1960s onwards and the resulting growth in this form of Christianity in mainline church and some independent church streams, church attendance on mass continues to decline. Indeed most mainstream denominations are under the extinction threshold of the Limited Enthusiasm model, and with their age profile, the extinction of some is only a generation away.

Secondly, although the percentage drop looks large, the 2011 percentage is measured next to a larger population in 2011, than that in 2001. As a substantial amount of the increase in population is immigration, and mainly non-Christian, then the percentage drop is artificially large. The percentage should be about 64% compared to the 2001 figure. That is an example of how numbers can be used to make a story sound worse than it is. To spell it out there were 37,338,486 people in England and Wales who identified themselves as Christians on the 2001 census. In 2011 the figure was 33,243,175, a drop of 4,095,311.

Thirdly, compare these figures with a church attendance figure of about 3 million. In other words over 10 times as many people identify themselves as Christian compared with the number who turn up to services. Thus the bulk of the 33 million “Christians” have identified themselves as this for cultural and heritage reasons rather than a commitment to attend worship. When a religion declines this is what you expect to see. The living faith of one generation, where belief is central to the person’s way of life, becomes for many a less enthusiastic church attendance and involvement in the second generation. Faith is there but more intellectual rather than experiential. By the third generation many have stopped attending, except at festivals. They identify as Christians, but beliefs are in the background compared with the rest of life, just enough to tick a form. By the fourth generation most have even stopped identifying themselves with the religion. Thus the census is measuring a decline in the culture of Christianity. The extent of the decline of believing Christianity is the massive gap between attendance and cultural adherence. But that is also a great opportunity as unlike other religions Christianity still has a massive pool of people who identify with the religion and be called to faith and commitment. An opportunity to be seized.

Fourthly, the main reason for church and religious decline is the failure to pass the faith on the next generation. The decline then comes from aging. Had there have been no transmission of Christianity to the next generation then the decline in 10 years should have been around 6 million, the Christians who died during that period. That the drop is less than this number shows that some cultural transmission of Christianity is taking place.  Little of this transmission is conversion, as that would be reflected in church attendance. But at least some children of cultural Christians must still be identifying as Christian. Given the lack of practical engagement with the religion, and the secular nature of society in the UK, that is at least some crumb of comfort.

It is interesting that the figure for Christianity dominated the media today. Also of significance is the rise in those identifying themselves as Muslim from 1,546,626 in 2001 (England and Wales) to 2,706,066 in 2011. Last year a student of mine did a model of the growth of Islam in England and Wales and today’s figure was very much in line with the model’s prediction. However unlike the figure for Christians it is estimated that about half of these Muslims are active in their faith – practicing Muslims. (It was 10% for Christians!) Thus the number of practicing Muslims is much closer church attendance than the census figures suggest, about 50% of church attendance at present. Also unlike the Christian church, when the Limited Enthusiasm model is applied to Islam in England and Wales, the evidence is that it is well over the tipping point for revival in both the heritage Muslim community, as well as among the white community. So although by the next census there will still be far more “Christians” than “Muslims” on the census return, unless there is a dramatic change within the Christian church then the number of practicing Muslims will exceed church attendance, in England and Wales. I would like to think that would inspire more Christians to pray and work for outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and perhaps ask what we are doing wrong that another religion may be getting right.

Before the anti-Islam people pick up on these thoughts I must stress that the number of Muslims, will remain well short of the number with no religion and still be a small minority compared with the total population in England and Wales. Predictions of future Islamification in the UK lacks numerical credibility; Britain is heading to be a secular and non-religious nation, more out of apathy than conviction.  That the number of practicing Muslims will end up exceeding their counterpart in Christianity is less about the strength of Islam and far more about the weakness of the Christian churches, few of whom have sought the path to reverse that decline, despite over 50 years of evidence of a problem!

Finally I wonder if history will record that the day the headline was that “Britain was less Christian”, was the same day the UK government published its bill to re-define marriage and change 2000 years of Christian history? Coincidence, prophetic, planned? On the same day two pieces of evidence of the secularisation of the UK hit the news. The question is: are churches declining because society is becoming more secular, as some sociologists suggest, or is it becoming more secular because church is declining? Evidence of a feedback loop I think!

In amongst all the figures, models and social upheaval I hang on to the fact that this is God’s world and he is always in control! The near future may be hard for Christians, but it will be still be God's.

2001 Census

http://www.brin.ac.uk/figures/#Notes

http://www.brin.ac.uk/wp-content/documents/Table-2-3-Religion-in-England-Wales-2001.xls

2011 Census

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/rpt-religion.html

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_290510.pdf

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-286262

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/rft-table-ks209ew.xls

Women Bishops and Church Growth

Today was the day the Church of England narrowly turned down a proposal that would allow women to become bishops. Clearly this made headline news in the UK, especially as it had been widely anticipated that it would be passed. One may wonder what having women bishops has to do with church growth and why I, as a mathematical modeller, should deem it worthy of comment. I think the reason I feel the need to say something is precisely because it does not have much to do with church growth! If the church were to face the serious issues that would help its survival, future growth and ability to carry out its mandate to evangelise the world, deciding on women bishops would not be on the priority list.

Perhaps what intrigues me is the underlying reason as to why this bill for women bishops is being opposed, and I think the same reason why people now want to bring it in. It is that reason which has everything to do with church growth, or the lack of it. And I don’t mean all the arguments from the Bible and tradition for and against, or the need to be modern and relevant. Strip all that to one side and what is happening is that a centuries old tradition that has forced everyone to accept women cannot have the leadership position of a bishop is being replaced by a rule which now would eventually force everyone to accept that they can. That is, one type of uniformity is being replaced by another. Uniformity, or the lack of diversity in church life, is to me the underlying issue to the debate on women bishops and the issue that affects church growth.

There is a marked contrast between the USA and Europe when it comes to church growth. In the USA the churches are generally strong and many are still growing. In Europe churches are declining fast and have been since the Second World War.  The reason put forward by many sociologists of religion is that Christianity is established and regulated in Europe, whereas in the US there is no established church and a “free market” in religion operates. As such the US has a much greater degree of competition as reflected in the highly diverse nature of churches. Church leaders can be innovative without any over-arching body to insist on single uniformity.

This is where my modelling comes in. It is that freedom to compete and innovate that allows enthusiasts to flourish and generate more enthusiasts. Enthusiasts are the drivers of church growth. Uniformity, and the regulation that comes with it, stifles enthusiasm, restricts enthusiasts, and ultimately quenches growth, the work of the Holy Spirit, and revival. In the debate on women bishops it is that desire for uniformity that bothers me, rather than the issue itself. Allow both to coexist side-by-side, and if necessary compete. This will make for stronger churches.

Of course some diversity does exist in the UK as there are many denominations. People are free to start churches, and the rise of many new and independent denominations such as New Frontiers and Vineyard, continues. These will no doubt be the main denominations of the future when many of the older ones have run their course. (Ironically neither of these have women leaders! Although they do allow married couples to lead together.) There is certainly some innovation in the Church of England, it was an Anglican congregation that brought about the Alpha Course, the one initiative that has probably had more impact than any other in last 20 years (or more!). And there are many other examples.

But the majority of the C of E remains untouched, as do many older denominations, because there is not the expectation among the people or ministers that diversity and competition are healthy and to be encouraged. Somehow the spirit of 1662 lives on in the UK. That was the year of the act of uniformity which brought to an end a generation or more of experiment and innovation in church life and worship. It was also know as the great ejection when many ministers were forced to leave the church as episcopacy and the prayer book became compulsory. The effect on the church’s mission was disastrous and it did not start to recover until the Methodist revivals 70 years later. 

I can’t imagine constructing a model of the effect of introducing women bishops on the growth of the church. But I am working on models of the effects of uniformity and the stifling of enthusiasts. Hopefully I will be able to bring some insights into the positive effects of allowing diversity, de-regulation and competition on the growth of the church and making it better able to take the world for Christ.

Dealing with Church Decline

Church growth is not just an academic study for me; it is personal. Not only am I fascinated by the growth and decline of churches; I am part of it. I belong to a church and engage in its mission, thus its success is something I am working towards, not just researching. My church happens to be part of the Church in Wales, a denomination that has been declining steadily for many years, a decline that statistically will eventually lead to its extinction. Such is the concern, the church leaders have commissioned an external review whose report was published last week (1). I downloaded the report and read it on my way to the International System Dynamics Conference in Switzerland, so system thinking was very much on my mind.

I think systems thinking must have been in the mind of the reviewers of the Church in Wales as they made sweeping recommendations that would reconfigure the way the church operates, particularly at the parish and congregational level. In order for the church’s decline to be halted and growth to come back, the reviewers state that there are two barriers to change that need addressing: structural and cultural. The structure of the church, they say, is more suited to that of a hundred years ago. Instead they see its future in the hands of teams overseeing much larger areas than a parish, with mainly lay and non-stipendiary leaders. This fits well with my models as it releases some of the more enthusiastic Christians into positions where they can generate more enthusiasts. The second area to change is the church’s culture so there is less dependence on, and deference to, the church hierarchy. This also has support from my models where individual Christians are the key players in spreading the faith. The more enthusiasts then the more church growth! The writers of the report need to be commended for their insight and bravery.

However there is more to be said. Before I do I would like to step back and ask, why is the church declining? If the attendance data for the Church in Wales is placed into the limited enthusiasm model then it is well under the threshold of extinction, a fate it shares with most of the non-conformists churches of Wales and England.  What reasons for decline are put forward for by the experts?

According to classical secularisation theory this is only to be expected. Stated briefly, as society progresses through rationalism and enlightenment, religious institutions have less hold on society and thus religious belief declines, and along with it church attendance (2). Western Europe and the UK are seen as good examples of this theory where the churches have nowhere near the power they once had, and church attendance is so low it will not be long before there are less people in church than there are who practise Islam!

However this theory has problems. The USA, arguably the most advanced country of the world, has church attendance at very healthy levels and perhaps stronger than it as ever been. This has led to a number of modifications of the theory to explain this observation. Further, in the UK, the people who do not engage with church appear no more rational than those who belong. Superstition is rife, and wealth, entertainment, hedonism and ignorance appear better explanations for their refusal to be part of church rather then deeply thought out secular views.

As for a second theory, Dean Kelley, and those who belong to the new paradigm in the sociology of religion place the blame more on the church itself, than society (3).  Lenient churches are weak and thus more likely to decline, and there are plenty of lenient churches in the UK! By contrast strict churches are strong and more likely to grow. There are many of these in the USA, and competition due to the lack of a state religion helps keep them strong (4-6). But the UK has a few, and yes they are growing.  The Church in Wales does not fit well into this theory. Generally it has always been on the conservative side, although some of its leaders would prefer the word lenient I guess. But the conservatism is more of a traditional Anglicanism than the evangelical zeal that Kelley had in mind. One Church in Wales minister wryly described it as “any colour you like as long as it’s black!” Conservative and relatively strict, but dull and bland (sorry to anyone from the church reading this). There are plenty of examples of conservative churches that decline and act as counter examples to Kelley’s theory, and dullness is something they have in common!

The theory of Michael Watts described in “Why did the English Stop Going to Church?” is intriguing (7). He claimed it was because the church stopped preaching the doctrine of hell and eternal punishment. He argued that the church has only been numerically strong in the late 18th and 19th century. However, during the 19th century, as liberalism crept into the churches through the seminaries and the education of the clergy, the doctrine of hell declined and along with it the cutting edge of the church.

I could bring some insights from population modelling to add to this. Even if the church had lost its cutting edge, as long as it kept its own children it would not decline and may even still grow if average family size remained high. There did not need to be any conversions for its numbers to remain stable and healthy. But after two world wars, rising wealth as a major distraction, and falling family sizes, it could not keep its children. The result has been major decline since the 1950s. The secularisation of the church was a bigger problem than the secularisation of society. The cause of the decline is two-fold: aging, through the church being unable to keep believers’ children in the faith; and the lack of conversions. But the lack of conversions may well precede aging by many generations.

My church growth models push this theory further and claim decline results from the failure to produce enthusiasts, those who are key to the conversion to, and renewal of, the church (8). If what both Kelley and Watts say are true then the churches in the UK have been weak and have failed to produce enough enthusiasts since the latter part of the 19th century but it has taken a few generations of the cultural decline of the church to become noticed in attendance figures. The life had long gone, but it took a while for participation to reflect this. The church in the UK, and especially Wales, only became the size it did through a succession of revivals from 1735 to 1904, and there had been a gap of over 40 years before the 1904 revival. The church, including the Church in Wales, is declining because it has not been producing enough enthusiasts for well over a hundred years.

So does the report address this issue? I wish it had mentioned a third barrier to change: the psychological one – fear! Ministers and lay leaders are often afraid of losing control, afraid of being seen as less important. People jockey for positions in church and make policies to protect themselves, rather than release others in ministry, this works against the production of enthusiasts as these type of Christians are feared the most!

I wish the report had not insisted that all the ministry training comes through one seminary. This creates a uniform pool, and continues the “one colour” policy of the church. By contrast the Church of England has more diversity of churchmanship through its variety of seminaries. Diversity creates healthy competition which encourages enthusiasm, and a cross fertilisation of ideas. Although the Church of England is declining, it is just above the extinction threshold, a position that has been slowly but steadily improving since the 1980s. The Welsh Anglicans could learn a lot from the English ones.

But the biggest issue the report fails to address is the Holy Spirit. It is the axiomatic belief of the Church Growth Modelling project that churches grow through outpourings of the Holy Spirit, commonly called revivals. Any understanding, or any solution, that ignores this fact has missed the point. Life brings growth. The report started well, quoting 1 John 1, “our theme is the Word which gives life”. But nowhere does it say how that life is to come. Removing the structural and cultural barriers are great, but we need to remove the spiritual barrier that stops us being the completely sold out disciples of Christ we are called to be. The barrier that prevents us seeking His fullness, seeking His presence, seeking the baptism with the Spirit, seeking revival. The barrier that stops us being the enthusiasts Jesus wants us to be.

(1) The Church in Wales Review

 http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/structure/govbody/sep12/review.php

(2) Brown C. (2009), The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation, 1800-2000, Taylor & Francis.

(3) Kelley D. (1986), Why Conservative Churches are Growing: A Study in the Sociology of Religion. Mercer University Press.

(4) Stark R. (1999), Secularization, RIP. Sociology of Religion, 60(3), 249-273.

(5) Stark R. and Iannaccone L.R. (1994), A Supply Side Reinterpretation of the "Secularisation'' of Europe. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 33 (3), 230-252.

(6) Warner R.S. (1993), Work in Progress toward a New Paradigm for the Sociological Study of Religion in the United States, American Journal of Sociology 98 (5), 1044-93.

(7) Watts M. (1995), Why did the English Stop Going to Church? A paper presented at the "Friends of the Dr Williams Library", and published by the library.

(8) Hayward J. (2005), A General Model of Church Growth and Decline, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 29(3), 177-207.

Enthusiasm and the Presence of God

I love enthusiasm! It may be a crowd enthusiastic for their sports team, an academic passionate for their subject, or a child in raptures over their latest toy. It is a joy to watch, because the enthusiasts are so happy and their enthusiasm is infectious.

However the best enthusiasm is the one that is for God. If people can get enthusiastic over sports teams and the like then surely Christians are allowed to be enthusiastic for God! It could be that believers are caught up in worship, singing and praying with passion and fervour. Or they could be on mission, zealously telling others what Jesus Christ means to them.

It is in this latter sense in which the word “enthusiast” is used in the church growth models. They are the believers who contact unbelievers and lead them to conversion whether directly or indirectly. They have what Dean Kelley called missionary zeal (1), an enthusiasm specifically directed towards activities that grow the church. Clearly the more enthusiasts then the more the church grows. However it is also true that the more enthusiasm the more growth will occur. Thus a church needs to ask not just how it can make more enthusiasts, but also how can it increase their enthusiasm. Put another way: how can those enthusiasts increase their missionary zeal?

Clearly the more general enthusiasm there is for God then the more likely it is that the enthusiasm specific to missionary zeal will increase. But it still leaves open as to how that general enthusiasm increases, or is started. Christians have other names for this, “being set on fire”, “being filled with the Holy Spirit” etc.  Whatever the name, it gives the Christian a direct experience of God himself, often described as the “presence of God”, or his glory. In this experience the things that make God who he is become directly felt. Often it is the person of Jesus Christ who is encountered. Sometimes people say Jesus reveals himself to them. The presence of God is at the heart of revival.

Of course such an experience of God leaves the Christian longing for more. The full intensity of the experience does not last. Thus the Christian is driven to seek the experience again, because having once tasted of the Lord so directly, life is just not the same without him. Earlier in the year a worship-evangelist named Roy Fields was in Cardiff near where I live. One of his songs sums it up “I am thirsty, hungry, desperate for Your Presence.”  The Christian is full of enthusiasm for God and the means of seeking him such as worship. This enthusiasm then spills out in missionary zeal

So the process goes like this. Some Christians gather to worship God. He draws close and they are caught up in his presence.  In order to seek more of this experience they now pursue him more enthusiastically. Their whole life is characterised by enthusiasm for God; their actions are all set to this end. Most importantly they want others to share their experience. Thus missionary zeal follows and they become the “enthusiasts” of the Limited Enthusiasm Model and are seeking new converts and to pass that zeal on to them, as well as seeking to enthuse existing Christians.  The original “enthusiasts” causal loop of the model remains:

• The more enthusiasts, the more converts, thus the more enthusiasts.

Additional there is now an “enthusiasm” loop:

• The more enthusiasts, the more the presence of God is felt, thus the more enthusiasm, the more missionary zeal, the more effective the conversions, thus more enthusiasts.

The result is a revival increasing in strength and the accelerated revival growth of the church.

This is what happened in the 1730s in Northampton, Massachusetts, under the ministry of Jonathan Edwards and others. Through his preaching the presence of God was felt to such a degree that a number were converted and made enthusiasts. Both the presence and the level of enthusiasm increased. Edwards wrote, "The town seemed to be full of the presence of God: it was never so full of love, nor joy, and yet so full of distress as it was  then… it was a time of joy in families on account of salvation being brought unto  them; parents rejoicing over their children as new born, and husbands over their  wives'' (2).  The “presence” was subsequently communicated through the joy and love of the converts, whose zeal to see others converted knew no limits. Thus both the number of enthusiasts, and their enthusiasm, rose.

Thus if the church wants to grow, make converts and fulfil the great commission, then it not only needs to produce more enthusiasts, i.e. reproducing Christians, but to increase their enthusiasm, i.e. to seek revival. It is imperative then that seeking the presence of God is of the utmost importance to church growth. This passion for the presence can be seen in a number of contemporary revival-like movements: charismatic renewal, the Jesus People, Vineyard church, the Toronto Blessing and the Pensacola outpouring.  In most cases a moderate amount of church growth has resulted and in some, revival growth can be measured, e.g. UK restoration churches.

However no movement/revival have become so big that the presence of God has affected the whole town, as in Edward’s days. This may be a simple matter of population size. It is much easier to affect the whole community in a smaller interconnected population, than in a larger one. It may also be that there are now much stronger “social fields” such as television and the Internet which, because they are either apathetic, or negative to the revival, hinder the communication, of zeal, enthusiasm and the presence.

What started as a short article has ended up a ramble! My eyes are now on the current batch of Christian movements who are seeking the presence of God and seeing enthusiasm generated. I mentioned earlier Roy Fields, whose meetings in Wales were very powerful, especially in the worship, definitely an experience of God’s presence, but it has not make us enthusiasts in the sense of missionary zeal. There is also the Bay of the Holy Spirit revival which adds a healing ministry to the enthusiastic worship. I have no personal experience of this yet to get any sense of enthusiasts being generated. Finally there are the New Ecstatics I wrote about two years ago. Again there is no doubt about the presence, but there does not appear to be any huge growth. Somewhere in the enthusiasm loop there is a broken link in all these movements. This needs more research and reflection.

1. Why Conservative Churches are Growing: A Study in the Sociology of Religion, Dean Kelley, Mercer University Press (1986).
2. A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God, Jonathan Edwards, (1736). Contained in “Jonathan Edwards on Revival”, Banner of Truth, p14. Also in “The Works of Jonathan Edwards volume 1”.