In a recent post, Gillan Scott, deputy editor of the
Archbishop Cranmer blog, suggested that the Church of England might be more
interested in managing decline than engaging in mission [1]. He quotes Peter
Broadbent, Bishop of Willesden:
“Unfortunately, there are bishops around the place who think: ‘Well actually, we’ve just got to cater for this ongoing decline in our Church.’ And I worry about that.”
Gillan goes on to illustrate the point with his own growing
church, which has been unable to appoint a much-needed assistant because of the
shortage of clergy elsewhere in the diocese. Put simply, the needs of the
institution have priority over the needs of an individual congregation. The
implication is that institutionalism is a barrier to church growth and is a
contributor to church decline. Gillan states:
But often it would appear that those churches which are growing are doing so despite rather than because of the structures and hierarchy.
Institutionalism happens when the organisation has grown to
the point that it must maintain its “structures and hierarchy”, and the role of
its individual parts is to service that maintenance. It stifles local innovation
and thus limits growth. If decline sets in, then the organisation cannot
produce sufficient new growth to recover.
Organisational Lifecycle
Institutionalism is an example of a stage in a lifecycle
that can affect any organisation, religious, political, corporate, or cultural;
a church, a company, or even a nation. Adizes [2, p.103] spells out the
corporate lifecycle, to summarise: Courtship, Infant, Adolescent, Prime,
Aristocracy, Bureaucracy, and Death. It is at the aristocracy stage where
institutionalism sets in through internal politics [2, p.106], despite, or perhaps
because of its success. Formality replaces informality, money is spent on
control rather than sales and innovation, and the emphasis moves on to how things are done, rather than why [2, p.64].
The organisational lifecycle has been applied to individual
congregations [3]. McIntosh gives the stages as: Emerging, Growing,
Consolidating, Declining, and Dying [3]. By the declining stage the purpose of
the church has been forgotten because of the work needed to keep afloat what
they have left. Applying this lifecycle to a denomination, like the Church of
England, it can be seen that most in the UK are now institutions somewhere
between the declining and dying stage.
A Model of Decline By Institutionalism
Because of the generic pattern of an organisational
lifecycle, the situation is ideal for a system dynamics explanation. System
dynamics is a modelling methodology that links behaviour to cause and effect.
To keep things as simple as possible, just consider two variables: Church, the number of people in the
denomination; and Institutionalism,
the collection of variables that indicate the church’s emphasis on the wider
corporate needs, rather than the local work where growth takes place [4]. Institutionalism is an example of a soft
variable, one that is hard to measure, but whose meaning is generally
understood [5].
Consider 3 hypotheses:
1.
The more people in church, the more are added to
the church. This is feedback loop R1, figure 1.
2.
The more people in church, the more leave,
feedback loop B1, figure 1.
3.
The
more people in church, the more it becomes institutionalised, thus the
less are added to the church, loop B2, figure 1.
Figure 1: Causal
Loop Diagram of Church and Institutional Growth
The feedback loops are causally circular, with the effect
“feeding back” to change the original cause. R1 is a reinforcing loop, a
virtuous cycle, giving exponential church growth. B2 is a balancing loop,
limiting the growth of the church due to rising institutionalism. Lay people
and clergy move from innovative agents of evangelism to people whose role is
merely to “turn up, pay up and shut up”, servicing the institutional needs. B1
is also balancing, reducing the size of the church.
R1 can be thought of as a positive force, with B1 and B2 as
negative forces opposing it. The future size of the church depends on which
force “wins”.
In order to examine the outcome of the hypotheses, a system
dynamics model is required. This will enable computer simulation to illustrate the
models behaviour. Readers who prefer to avoid technical details can skip the
next section!
System Dynamics Model
The model is given in figure 2. There is one stock for the church, where both R1 and B1 come from
connections to its flows. Institutionalism
is also a stock, the loop B2 being formed, through the flows: growth of institutionalism, and add to church.
 |
| Figure 2: System Dynamics Model of Church and Institutional Growth |
Three further hypotheses are needed. B3 is a resistive force
that represents the difficulty of increasing institutionalism when it gets near
the organisational capacity. R2 is a positive force coming from people within
the church who want to increase denominational institutionalism, perhaps for
their own self-preservation or power. B4 represents attempts to reduce
institutionalism.
Model Results
Assume there are no attempts to reduce institutionalism.
Instead it is allowed to grow to capacity, the situation that perhaps
represents many denominations. A
new denomination grows rapidly, through R1, for around 50-70 years figure 3,
curve 1. Institutionalism also grows although its growth is delayed compared
with that of the church, figure 3, curve 2.
 |
| Figure 3: Results of Church and Institutional Growth Model |
Figure 4:
Comparison of Additions to, and Losses from, Church
Note that extinction has resulted regardless of the size of
the target population (unlimited in this model). Extinction in this model is
due to a lack of supply, not alack of demand.
As this model is for illustrative purposes only, the values
of timescales and the church size should not be taken literally. They are merely
relative. They may have different values depending on the denomination, or
their social setting. It is in the shape
of the curves that the model illustrates reality [4].
Combating Institutionalism
A policy is introduced whereby the church attempts to reduce
institutionalism (B4) in proportion to the amount of net decline it
experiences. That is, the policy is not enacted until decline takes place. The
policy is allowed an average of a 30 year delay to take full effect; a high
number because it needs to effect most of the denomination, not just a few
parts [6].
One such result shows church decline slowing from about 110
years, but it is insufficient to bring about growth, figure 5, curve 1. The
oscillation in institutionalism is due to the delay between policy
implementation and effect. Once it is perceived to have some effect on reducing
decline, the policy backs off, before it has time to have full effect.
 |
| Figure 5: Attempt to Reduce Institutionalism in Proportion to Net Church Losses |
 |
| Figure 6: Comparison of Attempts to Reduce Institutionalism (2-4), with No Attempt (1). |
Denominational Decline
What does actual denominational decline look like? The
Church of England does not have consistent membership figures over a long
period of time, and it is only in the last few decades that attendance has been
measured. However the Methodist Church has good membership statistics over most
of its lifetime [7]. The graph is shown in figure 7.
 |
| Figure 7: Membership of Methodist Church of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
Some of the growth from 1760 to 1900 in figure 7 was
population growth, but the bulk of it was due to conversion. The length of the
growth phase indicates that the Methodist church successfully dealt with issues
of institutionalism during its early stages, especially in the transition from
the first generation of leaders. Note a split in the 1850s and the effect of
revival in 1904-5, which contrary to popular belief had considerable impact in England
as well as Wales.
However from 1900 onwards the numbers plateaued, and then
fell from the Second World War onwards, with a blip in the 1950s, probably due
to Billy Graham crusades. Comparing figure 7 with figure 3 it is clear that if
institutionalism is one of the causes of Methodist decline, then it has not
been tackled, and extinction is not far away.
This is not just a Methodist issue. Statistics indicate that
most pre-20th century denominations will be extinct by 2050, except the
Church of England, whose decline is slower, and the Baptists, who are independently
organised. By the middle of the century the Christian landscape will be
dominated by what are now Pentecostal and independent churches, who may well
have changed and have their own issues with institutionalism by then.
Such decline is not just a church phenomenon. By 2050 the
inability of most Western societies to deal with their huge debts may have led
to their downsizing, (euphemism for becoming poorer!) And all nations will be
hit by dwindling natural resources and climate change, with a likely decline in
world population. The lack of a few Christian denominations may be the least of
the problems faced by people in the middle of the century!
Tackling Institutionalism and Recovering Growth
Can institutionalism in denominations be tackled and growth
recovered? Given countries’ inability to deal with their debts, energy needs,
and climate change – always too little too late – it does not bode well. Church
is an even more sluggish institution!
Gillan Scott suggests that the
battle for the church’s very existence, its numerical survival, is more
important than its current struggle on how it deals with LGBT issues [1]. As a
“gay-affirming” ideology continues to spread in the West, the church has become
dominated by debates on introducing same-sex marriage, and falling into line
with government policy, rather than how it can avoid decline, extinction and
see growth. Which issue is more important? Perhaps the two issues are connected.
The policy to introduce
same-sex marriage in the church could be construed as a force for institutionalism, as it assists the
desire of a denomination to remain relevant
to society. I do not know about the Church of England, but in the Church
in Wales the policy is being driven by the denominational leadership, and those it employs [8]; the ones with the most to lose if the denomination becomes
irrelevant, and the least to lose if the revised marriage policy is introduced.
Introducing same-sex marriage seems a classic case of a policy designed to
service the needs of an institution, rather than help the individual and
congregational agents of growth.
As such, if introduced, it will be a force to maintain the
institutionalism that is resisting the church’s attempt to avoid extinction,
part of feedback loop R2, figure 2 [9].
What could be a way forward for denominations with institutionalism issues?
If we accept that most
historic denominations are heading for extinction in their current form [10],
then, rather than make minor changes to that form, perhaps it is better to
discontinue the form altogether. That is, policies are needed to deregulate how congregations operate. Let a denomination divide up into
smaller groupings with different beliefs of liberal and conservative
persuasions. Allow congregations to join the group they identify with best, or
go independent.
Allow congregations to pay for
their own ministers and not have to send money into a central pot. Let them
keep all their income, so that if successful they can invest in their work, or that
of their chosen associates. Let congregations choose ministers from outside denominational
ranks, and adapt their operational management and clergy structures. What is
left of central denominations can provide support services, pensions, advice
etc, on a consultancy basis.
Such deregulated
denominations would allow spiritual renewal to flourish with less hinderance, with
healthy competition driving up standards. Enthusiasts would be generated,
conversions would follow. This I think would give the best chance for avoiding
extinction and encourage church growth. It would probably look a bit like the
early church.
References & Notes
[1]
Scott
G. (2015). Church of England Mistakes
Mission for the Management of Decline. Archbishop Cranmer Blog, 23/04/15.
The
blog refers to:
Davies
M. (2015). Church growth: Bishop
Broadbent rounds on the critics of Reform and Renewal. Church Times,
21/4/15.
[2]
Adizes,
I. (1992). Corporate Lifecycles: How and
why corporations grow and die and what to do about it. NYIF.
[3]
Arn,
W. (1985). Five Stages in the Life-Cycle
of Churches, Pasadena, CA: American Church Growth.
Davies,
G. Understanding Parish Growth Stages,
Diocese of Sydney.
McIntosh
G.L. (2009). Taking Your Church To The
Next Level, Baker Books.
Saarinen,
M.F. (2001). The Life Cycle of a
Congregation, MD:Alban Institute.
[4]
This
is an example of a metaphorical model, one whose purpose is to provide
transferable insight, rather than exactly replicate a specific situation. See
Morecroft J. (2007). Strategic Modelling
and Business Dynamics. Wiley. P.414.
[5]
Hayward
J., Jeffs R.A., Howells L. & Evans K.S. (2014). Model Building
with Soft Variables: A Case Study on Riots. (2014). 32nd International
Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Delft, Netherlands, July 2014.
[6]
For
an example of a delay between introducing a policy and its effect, consider
charismatic renewal. It started in the early 1960s, but it was not until the
1990s did the cultural change it introduced become widespread in the church.
The Alpha Course, the movement’s most influential tool, came about in the 1990s.
Most of the church has still not embraced the cultural and spiritual change and
probably never will.
[7]
Data
for 1767-1970 is taken from: Currie R. Gilbert A.D. & Horsley L. (1977). Churches and Churchgoers: Patterns of Church
Growth in the British Isles since 1700, table A3. Before the formation of
the Methodist Church of GB and NI the different church streams have been added
together.
Data
for 1980-1990 is taken from
Brierley P. (1999). Religious Trends
2000/2001 No.2, table 9.10.2
Christian Research.
Data
for 2000, 2010, and estimates of 2015, 2020 are taken from Brierley P. (2014). UK Church Statistics 2015-2020, Brierley
Consultancy.
[8]
The current consultation on same-sex marriages in the Church in Wales comes from its governing body and Bench of Bishops. There has been no movement of lay people or clergy calling for change; no protests at the current status quo; no congregational petitions to the leadership; no emergence of prayer-groups praying for change of the definition of marriage. The call for change is top-down, not bottom-up, suggesting it is driven by institutional needs, not congregational or individual.
[9]
It
could be argued that introducing same-sex marriage in church would attract more
people because of the marriages, and the church’s increased relevance to
society. These hypotheses are not in the model. They could be added by allowing
the church to draw from a limited pool of people, rather than the unlimited
pool in figure 2. The pool could then be divided into people who would favour
the policy, the ambivalent, and those opposed. In addition, the effect of the
policy on church leaving rates would need to be added. Model calibration would
be difficult. My conversations with researchers in the USA denominations that
have introduced same-sex blessings and marriages is that the effect on people
leaving is larger than that of people joining, and that neither were major factors in the denominations’ decision to implement the policies.
[10]
It is
denominationalism that is heading for extinction in the UK, not Christianity, and not all congregations currently part of historic denominations. Some will
survive and grow.
No comments:
Post a Comment