ABSTRACT
In December 1999 I was approached by the minister of a number of Methodist churches in a north Birmingham circuit. Two of these churches had become very small and the congregations had become increasingly elderly. The churches were not ‘inner city’. The circuit had already undertaken dynamic and exciting work with its inner city congregations. These churches were not in the wealthier outer ring of the circuit. They were ordinary Methodist churches, situated on two very stable and long-standing estates nestling under the M6. These churches were, in their own view, dying. They wanted to employ a lay worker to do something to stem this situation, although they were not quite sure what. On both estates the churches in question were practically the only Christian presence. The minister did not want to see the churches closed. It was clear that something had to be done. I was approached to provide a feasibility study both outlining the nature of the area, including its needs, and proposing options for the development of a project within the churches. I prepared a feasibility study and made a number of recommendations. The churches discussed these recommendations and chose the path they wished to develop. They approached the Methodist Church nationally and sought further funding. As part of this bid I was asked to develop one of the ideas that I had raised in the initial report, a concept I had proposed and given the title of ‘sustainable church growth’. In the summer of 2002 the churches got their money and I was asked to join the Project Management Committee as a consultant and to work with the churches to develop their project and to provide both practical input and academic comment. It is in the light of this work that I will be addressing the possibility of applied congregational studies in Britain today. Congregational studies in Britain, like so much of British theology, finds
itself trapped between two distinct and very different institutions. On the one hand, we have the academic departments of theology and religious studies, many of which exist in secular institutions and all of which are driven by the need for academic excellence. On the other hand we have the churches. The mainstream denominations are declining and facing many different challenges,
not least financial. They are unsure about the need for ‘academic’ research and have no spare money to pay for it. The newer churches may have money, but are generally suspicious of all that comes from the ‘secular’ academic traditions. Thus congregational studies finds itself situated in relation to two
somewhat unsympathetic institutions. The academy (and here I am including those in faith-based colleges and seminaries) focuses on a very specific understanding of ‘excellence’ in research that has a tendency to marginalize work that may be defined as ‘congregational studies’. From this perspective the question will always be asked as to whether a detailed and essentially practical study of inner workings of two Methodist churches in north Birmingham could ever be understood as ‘internationally relevant research’ even if the project generated the most startling and internationally applicable findings (which is unlikely). The question for the academy is simply ‘what is the point?’ What is being contributed to ‘knowledge’ from such a study? But the churches are equally likely to ask ‘what is the point?’ There is no
question that churches, both local and national, have many questions and problems that they would clearly love to sort out. If they felt that they could call on the academic community to help them in this process then I have no doubt that they would. The fact that in Britain they do not shows that there must be some underlying problem. The most significant problem is, of course, money. The mainstream churches in Britain simply do not have the ‘spare’ money to employ fully qualified academics to undertake long-term research for them (although there have been some very notable exceptions). Where the churches do appear to be prepared to spend money on research, it is in sponsoring postgraduate work among their ministers. How much real value this brings back to the churches, apart from better-qualified staff, must remain an open question. Apart from money, however, I think there are more fundamental problems in the relationship between the churches and the academy in Britain today. Do the churches really know the questions that they want to ask? Do they trust academics to be able to answer them? Have academics concentrated far too much on ‘internationally relevant’ research at the expense of research that might actually be of value to the churches? What, however, could the churches ask the academics to do? Why might a
particular church approach the local department of religion and theology and ask for an expert in congregational studies? How much would it cost? How long would it take? Could the results ever be useful to the churches in question? Theology departments, I would guess, have little practical experience in consultancy work. Likewise, the churches have little practical experience in calling on consultants. When it does happen, therefore, it becomes very interesting, and the possibility of ‘applied congregational studies’ begins to emerge. What, however, does this ‘applied congregational studies’ actually look like, and can it really begin to address the problems faced by both the churches and the academy? These are the questions that I want to explore in this chapter.
