Considerations for the future of Unitarian
Ministry in Great Britain
The John Relly Beard Lecture 2007
Delivered on 10 April 2007 at the Annual Meetings of the
General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches
by the retiring General Secretary
Jeffrey J Teagle
at the invitation of the Unitarian Ministerial Fellowship
I am very grateful to the Ministerial Fellowship for inviting me to deliver this lecture. In so, doing the Fellowship have asked me to convey my frank opinions, unfettered by the usual diplomatic concerns that face a General Secretary, who, as an office-holder, usually has to represent the policies of the body that he serves.
I particularly welcome this opportunity to speak at this, my last General Assembly before completing my term of office. During the last two years I have endeavoured to bring focus on the rapidly developing shortage of professional ministers and the trend of diminishing abilities of congregations to resource ministry. Based upon my deeply-held belief that good ministry lies at the heart of our beloved movement, I have advocated a project with the title of "Ministry for All Congregations". When formed, your new Executive Committee has adopted this project as a high priority and it will be launched at these meetings under a new title "Future Ministry", with the sub-title "Enabling spiritual leadership for all of our communities ".
Every project has its right time. In this case, it is now
On 28 February 1994, on the eve of my commencement of employment with the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, I met with the Executive Committee of the Ministerial Fellowship at Dr Williams's Library. The Fellowship wanted to brief me about its purpose and structure; tell me about the issues that concerned its members; and, perhaps, to gauge my attitude to towards them. Although I had been a Unitarian since childhood, some of those present did not know me, nor I them.
I still have my detailed notes from that meeting and, today, these provide a most useful yardstick to measure progress, or the lack thereof
The briefing aspect of the meeting provided me with practical information about the Fellowship and the Fellowship members gained their first impressions of the incoming General Secretary. However, the most substantial part of that meeting, both in time and emphasis, was the list of concerns. It is worth noting these concerns at the commencement of this lecture. Has anything been done about them? Has anything happened to make things better, or has the situation got worse? Were these concerns the real issue, or symptoms of something unsaid?
The concerns mostly fell within the scope of security, status and welfare.
The issues included:
- The need for better written agreements.
- The preparation of congregations for ministry.
- The lack of a statement of expectations between minister and congregation.
- The problem of lumbering ministers with too much work, especially with duties peripheral to pastoral ministry.
- Congregations that attribute no authority to the minister.
- The need for ministers to develop a better personal identity.
- An insufficient differential between professionally qualified ministers and lay pastors/lay leaders.
- Aspects of the President's Commission report that recommended the accreditation of lay leaders.
- Congregations that wanted an outdated "parish priest" model.
- Poor funding of ministries.
- Churches that pay below the GA recommended stipend.
- The absence of consultation over the annual stipend review.
- The fact that the Ministers' Stipend Augmentation Fund (The Liverpool Fund) makes its grants by merit and not need.
- The difficulties of recruiting new ministers.
- A better structure for student discipline/dismissal.
- Unease with the Development Commission.
- Better funding for students.
- The lack of in-service training opportunities for ministers.
- Churches that avoided using the Vacant Pulpits List (now the Ministerial Vacancies List) by declaring a part-time vacancy.
- Vision 2001 was regarded with caution and it was clearly stated that it would go nowhere without the support of ministry.
I am confident that, as I look round this lecture hall at the faces of the members of the Ministerial Fellowship, I will receive instant feedback to say "not enough has changed during the past thirteen years".
I will agree. That is why I am delivering this lecture today.
When my appointment was first announced in the Autumn of 1993, the Inquirer editor, the Rev Keith Gilley interviewed me at Meadrow Chapel, Godalming. Keith's questions, which were well ordered, enabled me to identify three developmental priorities. These were the progression of:
- the President's Commission Report
- Vision 2001 and
- Roy Smith's £1million fund-raising aspiration (that subsequently became the Unitarian Millennium Fund).
The progression of the President's Commission Report can best be likened to wading through sticky treacle in Wellington boots. The report had been published more than a year previously and, having been received, rather than adopted, it had been passed to all GA committees for consideration. Although it could be argued that this was a thorough process, it had, in my opinion, the effect of dissipating the creative energy that had initiated the report. In 1994 it seemed very difficult to arouse any enthusiasm for implementation. This task fell upon the Ministry Committee for several years to come.
After analysis of the other committee's findings and its own internal debate, the Ministry Committee divided the recommendations three ways into:
- those that had already been implemented (no further action required)
- those that were unacceptable to the Committee (no further action required), and
- those that the Committee wished to implement (a rather short list).
The President's Commission can take satisfaction that its work resulted in the creation of the
GA Roll of Lay Leaders and in the inclusion of lay pastors into the re-titled GA Roll of
Ministers and Lay Leaders. Also, it resulted in the creation of the Forum for Training in
Ministry. Although this Forum did not last more than six years, it enabled an important
dialogue between the General Assembly and the colleges at a time of great change in educational practices.
Those changes were not, however, the result of the work of the Forum. The changes were already happening within the Colleges. Manchester College, Oxford was in the process of becoming Manchester Academy and Harris College (but preferring to call itself Harris Manchester College), via a Royal Charter. The University of Oxford, of which the College was becoming a member, was introducing new degree courses, such as the Masters in Theology (MTh). The Unitarian College, Manchester (UCM) was involved within the Partnership at Luther King House and therefore greatly influenced by the progressive training ideas of the other mainstream participants, especially the concept of contextual theology. The Forum served to educate the GA on the new methods of ministerial training.
The biggest element that was missing from my first encounter with the Fellowship was future vision. The only mention of Vision 2001 was decidedly negative. Yet, here was a blueprint for the future. The 1994 report "This is not the Plan" was taken by many, lay-folk and ministers, to be "The Plan" – a central imposition to be resisted. Later, the General Assembly Council was brave enough to adopt an action plan for implementation. This led to some useful reforms within GA Committees, notably the adoption of mission statements and clearly stated objectives, but it had little, if any impact upon ministry. By 1999, Council members could not even suggest or agree a fresh title as Vision 200 l's "sell-by date" approached.
When the Unitarian Millennium Fund (UMF) was launched in 1995, I wrote to all of our ministers in active service to request their co-operation in launching this fund. I received no replies, nor any feedback, True, a few ministers covenanted to personally donate over the next five years. Ironically, a significant proportion of the £400K donated was used to establish new ministries.
The health of our ministry is not exclusively a function of what the General Assembly does. The Ministry Commission (previously the Ministry Committee) formulates policies. The Interview Panel (previously the Interview Subcommittee) selects candidates for training and monitors their progress through probationary ministry until full status is granted. The Review and Support Panel is available for ministry-related crisis management. However, wider forces are at play.
A significant trend during the last two decades has been the increasing age of the applicants for ministry training. Until recent years, when there have been some younger recruits, the Interview Panel was rejoicing when someone under fifty years of age was on their agenda. In common with other churches, ministry recruits are now mostly from middle-aged people. Although not totally extinct, whole-career ministry has become a rare exception. The enclosed table illustrates the age profile of the ministers currently in active service, From this you will see that 48 (74%) of our 65 ministers in post are over 50 years old. Only 17 ministers (26%) are 50 years old or younger. Nine ministers (14%) have or will retire this year.
If we take no action whatsoever, in ten years time we would have only 32 ministers, 28 of whom (88%) would be over 50 years old. We will, of course, take action. Some recruits will come forward. This little exercise quantifies the gap to be filled, i.e. 33 ministers, just to stand still. Another significant point relates to the age of those being trained. Other factors being equal, a recruit aged 30 will tend to serve for about 33 years after training, compared to 13 years for a recruit aged 50. The older the applicants, the more that will be required. I conclude this part of my lecture by asserting that there is now and in future will be a significant shortage of full-time professional ministers.
This shortage is matched by a decreasing ability of congregations to fund professional ministry.
Last October, the Rev Steve Dick and I attended a day conference arranged by Christian Research and a legal firm. Some of you will be aware of the trend data published by Christian Research under the sure guidance of its experienced director, Peter Brierley. It will come as no surprise for you to know that Christian church attendance has halved over the last twenty years. In most cases, younger people have stopped joining churches and congregations are getting progressively older.
The story is not all doom and gloom. In more recent times the decline has eased. Some churches have bucked the trend and grown. In his presentation, Peter Brierley instanced that most of the growth has occurred in larger congregations of more than 400 members. Of significance, in these cases, was the presence of younger people. Often, there was a strong ethnic presence. For example, some Roman Catholic congregations have been greatly revived by expatriate Polish members, to whom the church is also of community importance. In other cases, persons of African and Afro-Caribbean origin have demonstrated their spirituality and commitment to church-going.
Spurred by this information, I commissioned an internal exercise to examine our quota returns for two time periods coinciding with time-frames within Peter Brierley's published works. These were 1989-1998 and 1998-2005. In so doing, I was conscious that the quota payment records are not ideal for such a comparison, for our congregations do not define their membership in a homogenous manner. In particular, the South Wales District could not be included, because its members make donations that are not linked to the size of their membership. Nevertheless, it is the only yardstick and, even if individual statistics are questionable, the broader trend is likely to be meaningful.
The results were fascinating. Firstly the broad trends were very similar to the wider Christian Research picture. The steepest decline was in the 1989-98 period and a lesser decline occurred during the 1999-2005 period. The declared quota total was 5380 in 1989, 4443 in 1998 and 4012 in 2005. The average annual loss of people in the nine years 1989-1998 was 110, compared to 62 per annum in the period 1998-2005.
A significant number of our churches (45) (25%) have grown. Five congregations (3%) have maintained their 1989 size, A further 77 congregations (42%), declined less than 50%. Thirty- three congregations (18%) declined between 50% and 99% and twenty-one congregations (12%) declined by 100%, which means that they closed.
At a recent residential meeting, the Executive Committee reviewed these statistics, congregation by congregation. When examined in this manner, by a group of experienced and active Unitarians, the data comes alive. John Crosskey had formulated the report into district groupings for EC members. Given that districts play a vital role in the welfare of our congregations, this, in itself, will help to facilitate a more informed relationship. There are no panaceas, each congregation has different circumstances. Likewise our district associations differ greatly in size and resources. The establishment of this information is but a first step in the problem-solving equation.
Before I leave, this survey, I wish to conclude that:
- although we have faired somewhat better than the bulk of Christian churches during this period, there is no room for complacency;
- we should take notice of the 25% of our congregations that have grown and learn lessons from them; and
- we should encourage all of the congregations to use the Congregational Assessment Process (CAP).
The Congregational Assessment Process has been developed from the Small Congregations
Consultancy and has been available in its present form throughout the last year. Only two
congregations have used it. Both found it to be helpful. Our Vice President elect, Joyce
Ashworth, will speak about it later in these meetings, during the Denominational Support
Commission slot.
Pioneered by Don and Linda Phillips during the Small Congregations Consultancy (resourced by the Unitarian Millennium Fund), the Congregational Assessment Process uses the same well-proven holistic analysis. Firstly, the congregation and consultant complete a comprehensive questionnaire to achieve an accurate profile of the church and its community. Then they work together to complete an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that face their individual situation. Some of you present will recognise the SWOT analysis as a much-used tool within all forms of organisational development. The purpose of this exercise is to identify the priorities facing each congregation, that they may be better addressed.
It is no co-incidence that the Future Ministry Panel's introductory document, issued with your delegate packs, contains a SWOT analysis for you to complete. This technique is just as useful when considering the specifics of spiritual leadership as the more earthly aspects such as the condition of the church buildings.
This leads me into a brief mention of something that has a great deal of influence upon ministry – the church building itself Some of our buildings are wonderful manifestations of our heritage. At their best, they create the ambience necessary to create a worshipful atmosphere and play a large part in facilitating our spiritual journeys. At worst they are millstones round our necks; the source of endless maintenance problems; a distraction from our purposes; and a drain on our resources. During the last decade, legislation has thrust ever- increasing liabilities upon us, for example, asbestos removal, electrical testing, disabled access and, just recently fire risk assessment. Our buildings grow ever older. Many are constrained by being grade listed. The cost of repairs have grown well above inflation, Increasingly congregations have had to choose between the needs of the building and the expense of hiring a minister.
Let us never forget that our movement began with ministers. The importance of the Great Ejection of 1662 was made clear to me during my youth, by the minister who first inspired me, the Rev Arthur Woolley Valiance. They preached in houses and barns, wherever they could. The buildings came later. The Bahai faith only has one church building on each continent. We must not be afraid of making appropriate decisions about our buildings. I rejoice that Stockton Unitarians are just completing their rebuilding project and that in London, Stratford Unitarians have embarked upon a similar redevelopment.
In February, the embryo Future Ministry team held a consultative seminar at Luther King House. Those present started with the vital question – "What is ministiy?" I hope that you have noticed that I have been careful to use the words "professional ministry" thus far. There is, of course a much wider definition of ministry. Our professionals have to live with the phrase "the ministry of all believers". To differentiate, we often talk about ministry with a capital "M", as opposed to ministry with a lower case "m". In practice, this is an area of endless confusion and much debate. We have Lay Pastors, Lay Leaders, Lay Persons-in- Charge and Lay Preachers within our directory. During my time of office, the Unitarian Association of Lay Leaders (UALL) has sought to encourage lay persons who aspire to spiritual leadership through its caring network. Several of its members have become professional ministers.
The Future Ministry team (which has now been formalised into a Panel, responsible to the GA Executive Committee) has deliberately chosen to work within the wider concept of ministry. Within its work, it will seek to find ways to resource appropriate forms of ministry to congregations, whether they worship in their own buildings, or, as in the case of a fellowship, within someone else's. The Panel will seek to break down some of the barriers between professional and lay worship leaders. The Panel will seek to explore the barriers to progress, such as excessive independence, inequality of funding and poor human resource management.
Let me now draw the threads of my lecture together. When I came into office, thirteen years ago, I met with a barrage of things that were wrong with ministry and an indifferent attitude towards change. There have been many developments since then, especially in the way that the outside world affects us. Social, economic and political forces have been constantly involving. The pace of these changes does not slacken, it accelerates.
Our statistical data provides a clear picture of the trends, as they affect us. On the one hand most of our congregations have done better than the national average and, on the other hand, a significant minority are in serious decline. Left to their own devices, this minority will continue their downward spiral and many, if not all, will have closed by the time that my successor retires.
There is good evidence to show that ministers have been involved with the progress of the more successful churches. There is also evidence to show that these churches tend to be more active in their districts and nationally. They are more likely to adopt the programmes and good practices advocated by the General Assembly. They are not necessarily the quietist or most internally peaceful of our churches, for progress is not easily won.
Given that professional ministry will almost certainly decline numerically during the next decade, both ministers and lay-folk need to examine how we can encourage and develop lay ministry in all its forms. This will fall within the remit of Future Ministry. A stronger empathy and alliance needs to be development between professional ministers and those involved in lay ministry. Excessive pride of status needs to give way to a more collaborative approach. Congregations need to be educated to become more aware of the realities and hence the options that exist. Ultra-independence needs to give way to greater interdependence.
All of this leads me to conclude that your new GA Executive Committee is better placed to assist ministers and congregations in meeting these future challenges, than its predecessor Council. This is just as well, for the urgency of the task in hand is much more critical than it was at our meeting on 28 February 1994.