Consumerism and Christianity
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
in Purgatory
I wondered about posting this in Ecclesiantics but felt it may quickly become Purgatorial.
I'm thinking of 'religious consumerism' rather than materialism per se.
In Western societies it is unavoidable. We are all consumerists. That applies to religious affiliation and 'style' too. I have chosen to be what I am now in ecclesial terms. So have most of us, even if it's been a choice to remain in whatever tradition we started out in.
But let me give an example. No names, no pack-drill.
I recently visited a town which has a 'community church' which began life as part of a particular denomination before becoming independent. It has a large and attractive building and one time the largest congregation in that town.
The nearby CofE church then went through a period of adjustment and growth with input from a well-known and well-resourced source which is often cited on these boards.
There was some inevitable upheaval and kerfuffle with parishioners leaving to take refuge in more traditional parishes, but also an influx of young, lively and energetic people. It soon became known as the 'happening' place to be for those who like that sort of thing and attracted 'transfers' from the Community Church and other churches in the area.
I've visited the CofE church in question but not the Community Church. From clips and information on its very informative website it's pretty clear that in terms of content, worship style and emphasis, there's no real substantial differences between them.
Why anyone would choose one over the other looks to me like a purely consumerist choice.
Am I missing something?
Yes, the lively Anglican church has attracted previously unchurched people and new converts, but it also appears to have bled people away from churches with a similar ethos in that particular town.
Surely we shouldn't be in the business of recycling existing Christians around whatever outlets are available - to deliberately use a commercial term?
Yet that's what seems to be happening.
Is this good, bad or indifferent?
Can we do anything to change it if it's felt not to be ideal?
I'm thinking of 'religious consumerism' rather than materialism per se.
In Western societies it is unavoidable. We are all consumerists. That applies to religious affiliation and 'style' too. I have chosen to be what I am now in ecclesial terms. So have most of us, even if it's been a choice to remain in whatever tradition we started out in.
But let me give an example. No names, no pack-drill.
I recently visited a town which has a 'community church' which began life as part of a particular denomination before becoming independent. It has a large and attractive building and one time the largest congregation in that town.
The nearby CofE church then went through a period of adjustment and growth with input from a well-known and well-resourced source which is often cited on these boards.
There was some inevitable upheaval and kerfuffle with parishioners leaving to take refuge in more traditional parishes, but also an influx of young, lively and energetic people. It soon became known as the 'happening' place to be for those who like that sort of thing and attracted 'transfers' from the Community Church and other churches in the area.
I've visited the CofE church in question but not the Community Church. From clips and information on its very informative website it's pretty clear that in terms of content, worship style and emphasis, there's no real substantial differences between them.
Why anyone would choose one over the other looks to me like a purely consumerist choice.
Am I missing something?
Yes, the lively Anglican church has attracted previously unchurched people and new converts, but it also appears to have bled people away from churches with a similar ethos in that particular town.
Surely we shouldn't be in the business of recycling existing Christians around whatever outlets are available - to deliberately use a commercial term?
Yet that's what seems to be happening.
Is this good, bad or indifferent?
Can we do anything to change it if it's felt not to be ideal?
Comments
I'd have thought God might be more likely to lead people seriously seeking guidance to a small unfashionable church where they could really make a difference.
Many years ago I read a book which looked at statistics and said that, in comparison with similar cities, parishes in the "inner ring" of suburbia were doing disproportionately badly. It suggested that this could have been due to the success of St Michael-le-Belfry at the time.
A vicar from rural Herefordshire told me recently how even there people travel about to their church of choice.
A couple came to him recently and said they were leaving to attend a church elsewhere because there were more young families.
'If you go then there'll be even fewer young families,' he replied.
I don't think this tendency is restricted to Protestant Christians.
I know RCs who travel out of their immediate vicinity because they prefer the priest at the parish they travel to attend.
Many Orthodox have to travel anyway as parishes are thin on the ground and some will go a fair distance to find one with the Liturgy in English or something that suits.
What seems to happen within certain forms of evangelical Protestantism - and I make this purely as an observation - is that members often decant from one church or another depending on whether there's a 'better' youth group or worship band or this, that or the other.
I rarely hear of anyone going to a 'less fashionable' church in order to serve God there and make a difference.
The Orthodox aren't perfect - far, far, far, far from it - but there is a sense there that worship should 'cost' us something and not be a matter of entertainment.
That's not exclusively an Orthodox emphasis of course.
I also know of a "trendy" Anglican church which makes much of its high production values - which I'd guess very few churches could emulate.
As a theological student, with multiple churches of different denominations readily accessible, I chose the less fashionable adjacent Anglican parish church round the corner because I (correctly) judged that I’d have more chance to get involved than in the more popular student- and faculty-filled possibilities.
As an ordinand and curate I pretty much went where I was told to.
Not everyone moves to a big church through choice.
I rarely hear of anyone going to live on a council estate in order to serve God there and make a difference, either. My admiration goes to everyone on the Ship who has chosen to serve outside their comfort zone, whatever that may be.
I think that church needs to nourish us. It can do that through our serving, but serving doesn't automatically give us that nourishment, and sometimes we need some spiritual bed rest and IV nutrition.
Though that's where they ended up, that process is likely to have involved both some subset of 'national strategy', plus the local involvement of a congregation who had - possibly - been there for many years, were ageing, and thinking in terms of long term viability.
(Caveats about independent churches to be taken as read)
Heh. My comfort zone generally ends a few yards from any church door, although the degree of discomfort naturally varies.
Sure. And yes, that is the process which was involved in the case of the Anglican parish I'm talking about.
Whilst walking the thin ice of 'no names, no pack-drill', the arrangement has now been discontinued. There are those who hope that an incoming new incumbent will reverse the trend and revert things to a more familiar and less 'trendy' pattern.
I suspect they are hoping against hope.
All that would happen were that to become the case would be for those who like the 'contemporary' and trendier style to decamp back to the Community Church from whence many of them came.
Ecclesial musical chairs.
@Heavenlyannie - I am, of course, aware that people end up in a range of different churches for a whole variety of reasons and had I space and time, I'd have loaded the OP with a vast array of caveats.
I wouldn't query any Shipmates' decision to attend or serve at this, that or the other type of church - unless it was something very outrageous and 'out there' like some kind of extreme prosperity gospel place, for instance.
But yes, you are right, we don't hear of many people moving to council estates for the sake of the Gospel. I can't boast but I did do that once with a group of people from one of the restorationist 'new churches' back in the 1980s.
I grew up in a council house but not on an estate as rough as the one we moved onto.
Some 40 years later I'm not sure what we achieved but it was a bold move for all that.
Yeah, I was just highlighting that in this particular case at least it was the end process of a 'national church' trying to remain true to their 'national mandate' -- albeit with multiple intervening processes along the way.
At the town in which some friends live a similar process of re-planting has occurred, with 4/5 buildings all becoming one church - albeit with several different types of service styles, although the large contemporary service is the biggest draw. There's a more traditional service at one of the churches, served by one of the older incumbents, which is well attended, but I imagine it may not survive the complete retirement of the clergy that run it.
Couple of random thoughts; there's still an overhang from the destabilising effects of Covid - clergy friends have told me that there was a cohort of people who never made it back to church, and simultaneously another cohort who got used to more occasional attendance (in both cases sometimes supplemented with church online). Churches which were wary of opening up too quickly sometimes continue to feel the pinch.
Secondly, it's interesting to think to what extent all of the 'renewal movements' of the past were also a case of moving people around and providing a focal point rather than actually getting the unchurched back into church. Presumably there's enough people in the vicinity of the churches you mention that if they did actually start attracting the unchurched there'd be enough to fill both buildings.
Yes. We stayed open almost as much as we were legally able to. We did lose a few folk who never returned, but not many.
Consumerism isn't new. Back in the day when non-conformist churches were at their height there was always a chapel that attracted more people than others - generally by the quality of their preaching and the range of activities on offer - Band of Hope, Christian Endeavour, sports teams, magic-lantern shows.
That was certainly the case in the South Wales Valleys and I'm sure it was the same in the milltowns of Yorkshire and Lancashire.
The Anglo-Catholics also used to put on something of a spectacle to differentiate themselves from less colourful offerings elsewhere.
I'm just thinking aloud - thinking allowed - on this one.
Different offerings I can understand. But when there are churches in close proximity offering something almost identical in terms of style and ethos I do wonder what the heck is going on.
If we are involved in a particularly toxic environment of whatever kind, such as the one @Heavenlyannie described, then it makes perfect sense to find somewhere more conducive.
But without over-eghing things I would say that there is a difference between churches and the local bridge-club or sports team or other voluntary associations. Or at least, there should be if the faith we profess means anything at all.
I think a degree of religious consumerism is unavoidable. The horse bolted from that particular stable door a long time ago.
It's not purely a Protestant thing either. If you live in the Middle-East or some parts of the 'diaspora' you've got various flavours of Catholicism and Orthodoxy to choose from as well as varieties of Protestant.
What I'm exercised about, I suppose - and on one level it's really none of my business - is how we end up in a situation where churches with almost identical 'offers' (to use a consumerist term) end up decanting members from one to another when they might perhaps benefit one another and their communities by acting in concert rather than in passive opposition.
It's a tricky one.
I'm not talking about situations where people move on because their church has become over-bearing and controlling or where the congregation are viciously snapping at the minister or priest all the time.
Rather, I'm wondering aloud about those instances where a church may put on something it believed will attract the 'unchurched' only to end up luring members away from other congregations which may even be offering something almost identical.
A Baptist church, say, isn't making the same 'offer' as it were to the Anglo-Catholic church up the road.
But it may have considerable overlap with a trendy Anglican church and may end up losing members to that or vice-versa.
The difference is that one joins a bridge club purely for one's own enjoyment. The same, as discussed in this thread, is not true for a church.
But .. going back to my point about motivations, they are not actually identical offers are they? There are two different institutions with different visions of what constitutes 'church'. Ironically the only way you can say they are identical is by adopting the same frame as the most superficial of the church consumers ..
I'm exaggerating slightly for effect, but they will (very probably) have very different views on things like Baptism, Communion, the appointing of leaders and so on.
But as far as the punters in the pews - not that the Anglican building has those - are concerned those things matter diddly-squat.
I know some of the people there and they aren't at all 'Anglican' in any recognisably 'traditional' sense.
All the traditional Anglicans it seems to me have either decamped to one of the other Anglican churches in the over-arching parish where they still offer a monthly Prayer Book communion and so on or else taken refuge in the Zoar of the 9am service which is still run on traditional lines.
From what I can see most of those at the mid-morning 'contemporary' or 'family' services may as well be at the Community Church as the worship styles are identical and they hold no more truck with the machinery of Anglican polity than independent evangelicals do.
They don't use a lectionary, don't follow the church calendar and the clergy rarely wear clerical collars but badges which say 'Hi! How can I help you?'
Well, you can bring back the lectionary for a start ... 😉
I understand what you are saying but all intents and purposes the differences you mention are more 'behind the scenes' rather than anything that affects the punters.
There is a kind of evangelical ecumenism these days which, it seems to me, is based on familiar worship-band styles and a recognised 'vibe' and where potentially divisive issues such as baptism and understandings of the Lord's Supper / communion are swept under the carpet or put to one side.
So as far as the punters are concerned they are getting the same thing - worship songs, extemporary prayer, drama sketches, kids and family participation and so on - irrespective of the ecclesial label.
I'm not saying that's good, bad or indifferent but making an observation.
More seriously, the CofE has long done this. Look at the big preaching stations often built by the CofE in competition in the late 19th Century when historical NonConformity was in ascendency, or the way Anglo-Catholicism rose in the early part of the twentieth century when Roman Catholicism was gaining ground post Catholic emancipation. Even look at the striking similarities between the Church Army and the Salvation Army.
Be assured, @Gamma Gamaliel that should Orthodoxy every reached a number enough to be influential then far from being an interest from a few eccentric clerics it will start to have its own parishes within the CofE. Probably claiming they are recapturing the Orthodox roots of the Celtic Church in these Islands but using it as a way to include many of the elements of modern Orthodox rite eventually to such an extent that a times it will be hard to distinguish from true Orthodox Church. It is how the cookie crumbles.
I am being partly unfair on CofE. They are not alone in this behaviour, it is common in other national churches to some extent including the CofS. They see themselves as the church for everyone and if people are going to a particular style of church in numbers then they feel they should be providing that style of church. Anglicanism outside the CofE is another animal entirely but then so is Presbyterianism outside the CofS.
Sometimes a church is trendy because it's actually doing God's work. That [can] draw people.
Sometimes it's trendy because it makes people feel good and nothing else. Hard to tell from the outside and I don't think it's my job to tell other people where to find God.
I'm certainly not saying that the Anglican parish I have cited isn't 'doing God's work'.
Neither am I saying that the Community Church which appears to have lost members to its close neighbour's mid-morning Sunday service aren't doing God's work either.
There's not always an implicit 'judgement' when anyone jumps ship for another church and yes, there are all sorts of reasons why people do so. My late wife was convinced I was interested in Orthodoxy because I'm the sort of person who likes to be 'different'.
There's probably a lot of truth in that. She knew me best.
In anything I say about other church situations please understand that I am prepared - or hope I'm prepared - to apply similar scrutiny to myself.
If I ever get on an Orthodox 'high horse' - and I have done so - then the only way down is to fall off. I've got some bruises to prove it.
@Jengie Jon - yes, your historical reflections are pertinent. It may interest you to hear that when an Orthodox priest I know left the Anglican ministry his then Anglican bishop replaced him with an incumbent who wore Orthodox-style vestments during communion services. The bishop presumably thought that replacing him with a faux-Orthodox simulacrum would prevent parishioners from crossing the Bosphorus.
There are Anglo-Orthodox as well as Anglo-Catholics within the Anglican fold of course and yes, were Orthodoxy to gain some kind of 'critical mass' within the UK then I don't doubt that some Anglican parishes would seek to emulate us and put on a faux-Orthodox show.
It's a tricky one. The Bishops panic and seek to stall decline with guitars and bonhomie. I'm not sure what I'd do if I were in their shoes. I attended a very dignified and impressive Anglican Prayer Book service recently. It made me feel very nostalgic. What was not to like?
But for whatever reason, fewer people seem to want that. It's left for the Prayer Book geeks and those who like the language.
It may also interest you to hear - if you aren't aware already - that there are number of episcopi vagantes with quasi-Orthodox dioceses with fancy titles (no names, no pack-drill) which consist of three old ladies and a dog. They operate out of garden sheds with websites that make it look like they have a substantial following.
Coming back on the CofE, I don't wish to be too hard on her. I love the Anglican Communion and wish it well. I have a soft spot not only for rural parishes with the evening sun slanting through the stained glass during Evensong, but for its chaplains and its cathedrals and much else besides.
On the welcoming thing ... yes, in my experience the URC are very welcoming indeed.
But as has been said, in and of itself that doesn't necessarily attract people.
But its a start and often the expression of something bigger. And a cold unwelcoming congregation is far less likely to retain newcomers.
I find it interesting that our local URC is actually growing since it invested in a weekly all-comers coffee morning where the minister and elders circulate and get to know people and do pastoral work like visiting them in hospital. They had six adults join the church this Easter from that social event. I hold them in high regard.
And I think the number of people returning post Covid is an interesting indicator too, though affected by deaths during the epidemic. And of course many of them may not have gone elsewhere but given up altogether.
One of them observed that it reflected not only a US consumerist mentality - they were disillusioned with what they regarded as 'thin' fare at their previous spiritual homes - but also the rebellious streak in the US psyche. His words, not mine.
The community churches themselves developed from splits from 'mainstream' denominations. Now second or third generation community church people were separating from their own churches and conducting a similar process in reverse.
I'm not sure it represents a trickle or a flood but a Lutheran pastor told me that his church was growing with transfers from non-denominational or community churches.
I was told that in some parts of the US the non-denominational or community church scene is pretty much the only thing on offer, so when people come across something liturgical or more traditional they are drawn towards it as something that appears both more exotic and more stable.
That's what I've been told.
The former Mr Wanderer is Catholic and his/our local RC church here in the flood plain (about 20 years ago) had as its priest a kindly approachable man with a real heart for children, Father M. The church up on the hill had Father D, a bad-tempered misanthrope (surely a serious failing in a priest). Many RCs (especially those with kids) despite living closer to Father D's church, would make the journey down to Father M's church as they much preferred him. Unfortunately for them, when Father M retired the two churches became one parish so they were stuck with Father D whichever one they attended! I understand that the congregation numbers down here dropped off enormously as some people moved on the RC church over the river and some gave up attending altogether.
As an Anglican I used to attend the low church/evo one in the centre of town. It always had a large congregation and many families and children's groups. I know of several people who left the moribund local Methodist church as they didn't want their kids to be the only ones there/ wanted to be part of a bigger group. As others have said here, that results in the church they left dwindling even further. The local Methodist church is closed now. I also know of various people from other denominations who joined for similar reasons. Plus a few "new" people who came via the Alpha course.
But that church seems to suffer from the curse of popular people: the feeling they don't need your friendship so end up offending people, seeming to prefer making new friends than keeping hold of old ones. I was always more liturgically minded and post-pandemic decided I needed genuine middle of the road Anglicanism rather than the con-evo, never mind the service book, stuff they were doing so left for St P's: the flood plain place with a much smaller congregation who seemed genuinely pleased to see me, keep to the lectionary and are much more open on dead horse issues. I have found several other fugitives from the con-evo place there, some moved for dead horse reasons, some for feeling taken for granted.
Alternatively; society is constantly changing, and institutions change with it, with the largest institutions displaying a corresponding amount of inertia. Modulo, 'the spirit leads', different cohorts are inspired into different ministerial styles, what the public is attracted to changes as individuals conception of themselves change.
The Orthodox like to think we haven't changed.
We have of course.
I s'pose it all depends on whether these things are centrifugal or centripedal in nature but I was never good at physics ...
I do think all of us are heading into leaner and fitter territory, whatever our tradition or 'style'.
Thank God.
I'll get me coat ...
Unless we reverted to state-churches which fine or persecute 'recusants' or dissenters, then 'consumer-choice' in matters of religion is always going to be a thing.
And I don't think anyone here wants to live in a theocracy or with some kind of Erastian state-church model (Russia, I'm looking at you), which tries to make life difficult for anyone who doesn't conform.
I also recognise, of course, that it's not always quite so simple as people moving around on a whim simply because one church has drum'n'bass and another has bells and smells.
We need the freedom to worship wherever we please, or where God leads us - which might not always be the same ...
In the words of a former coworker; I suspect it'll be less 'lean and mean' and more 'skinny and pissed'.
I'm coming round to the idea that your basic premise about it being a consumerist thing is unfounded. In their modern configuration, I think churches are primarily about belonging, and people who want to belong to a church being drawn to where they feel they (might) belong.
I don't think people want to "consume" church in the sense of consumerism - the "consuming" of experiences. While a particular church experience might be significant regarding occasional attendance, my observation is that regular attendance is more strongly linked to a sense of belonging.
If people have a choice, or feel they have a choice, they'll tend to go to where they feel they most belong. (I note in passing that the amount of choice we have involves many factors, which can include being able to afford to run your own private transport, or not having to work on Sundays.)
Looking at the wider question of choice from a different viewpoint, I would ask how we (or the societies in which we live) came to allow the practice of a wide range of expressions of Christianity. And that appears to be a question that predates consumerism.
Sometimes those choices were dangerous and sometimes leading to torture or execution. But even if one ignores non-conformist Protestantism, Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, Quakers, Diggers, Levellers, Lollards and other kinds of Christians, I believe there have always been alternative forms of spirituality.
I think one would have to go back a very long way in England to get to the point where a person had effectively no choice.
Of course one might say that a choice which led to torture and death might not really be a choice. But even there I think one would find folk beliefs and non-standard non-official spiritualities which were unknown to, or tolerated by, the state.