Skip to main content

Churches that don't meet every week

So I tried to go to church today. My local church is Newcastle Unitarian Meeting House. The trouble is it does not meet every week, it meets twice a month. The website says that there are services on the second and fourth Sunday of the month. And today is the fourth Sunday, is it not? So I trotted along there for worship at 10.30 this morning.

When I got there, the door was locked, there were no cars outside, and when I looked at the notice board I saw that in fact they had met last Sunday, at 6 o' clock in the evening. I had missed church.

So I decided to wander across Newcastle-under-Lyme to find the Quaker Meeting House that I hadn't been to before. It was very nice, though pretty low on the ground.

So I think I've been in Stoke-on-Trent for about 6 weeks now, and I've only managed to get to church once. I was there one Sunday, then I went to Opus/Concentric in Iowa, then I came back, and now I've missed another service because they switched to the third Sunday instead of the fourth.

This got me thinking about how viable it is to have a church that does not meet once a week. I think it is very difficult for a church to grow if it does not make a commitment to meet once a week. The Newcastle church should have updated its website (which does not look like it has been updated in a long time) to say exactly when it does meet. They do this outside the church, so it should not be too difficult to put this up on a website. I don't want to have to walk all the way in just to check what time services are. Of course, if I was a regular attender, then I would know when the services were going to be. But the for the casual visitor this is pretty off-putting. Finding a locked church door once is probably enough to put most people off.

Better than an updated website, would be a commitment to meet every week. I think a lot of Unitarian churches in the UK (maybe half?) meet less than once a week. While this is not the case in the US, a lot of churches do have three months off in the summer, which is very bizare. A religious community needs to meet every single week of the year.

Now I know that might be difficult for a lot of Unitarian churches. For example, Newcastle shares their minister with the Macclesfield church, so he can only be there every other week. That's fair enough, and that is going to continue to be the case for many years in this community. However, I think the church should be prepared to meet the weeks that they are without a minister too. This need not mean lay people trying to do the same thing a minister does, but less well. It should mean an opportunity for egalitarian spiritual meeting. It should be seen as a great opportunity to do something different.

What could a church do on these weeks without a minister? Well the least they could do would be simply have coffee-hour, and that's it, simply fellowship time. Or there could simply be a time for check-in, for everyone to share something honest about themselves and their week. A simple gathering with candles for joys and concerns, a couple of readings and some songs. Maybe the organist can't be there either. Then sing songs with a piana, or a guitar, or without accompaniment. Or, do what I did this morning, have a Quaker meeting in silence. This wouldn't mean that anyone needed to stress to prepare a sermon or book a guest speaker. There are better, more effective, low-resource ways for us to gather. I am convinced that any of these things would be better than nothing. Any of these things would grow our sense of community and make us more open to visitors.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Stephen, many thanks for "opening up" - what it seems to me you and Lewis both are describing is not so much as a church as a religious members' club. The (false) self-esteem that people can get from being a large fish in a small pond should never be underestimated.

In London & the South East at any rate I have ceased to be surprised by tales of congregations asking District for help, only to discover that the medicine tastes so nasty that they decide to go on being sick instead...
Anonymous said…
Please be generous and give them the benefit of the doubt. This particular Sunday was the last Bank Holiday Weekend of the Summer, and most people probably had other, dare I say better, things to do over this weekend than go to Church.

Sounds like they had rearranged their normal service to the preceding Sunday for precisely this reason.

A sensible move in my book.

Plus, don't be too critical of the website updates. If they are using the GA's scheme they are allowed only TWO updates a year.

I hope you have informed their Secretary of your concerns so they can have the opportunity to make a positive response to your observations, and make some improvements in the process.

Popular posts from this blog

Radical?

When I started this blog nearly 4 years and nearly 300 posts ago one of the labels I used for it/me was "radical." Perhaps I used it a little unreflectively. Recently I've been pondering what radical means. A couple of things have made me think of this. Firstly this blog series from my friend Jeremy, which explores a distinction between "radical progressives" and "rational progressives." There is also this definition of radical, liberal and conservative from Terry Eagleton quoted at Young Anabaptist Radicals : “Radicals are those who believe that things are extremely bad with us, but they could feasibly be much improved. Conservatives believe that things are pretty bad, but that’s just the way the human animal is. And liberals believe that there’s a little bit of good and bad in all of us.” What interests me is finding a way to express the tension I feel sometimes between myself and the wider Unitarian movement. One way to express this is to say I tend

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th

What is Radical Christianity?

Radical Christianity is about encountering the God of love . It is first and foremost rooted in the discovery of a universal and unconditional source of love at the heart of reality and within each person. God is the name we give to this source of love. It is possible to have a direct and real personal encounter with this God through spiritual practice. We encounter God, and are nourished by God, through the regular practice of prayer, or contemplation.  Radical Christianity is about following a man called Jesus . It is rooted in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet living under occupation of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. It understands that's Jesus' message was the message of liberation. His message was that when we truly encounter God, and let God's love flow through us, we begin to be liberated from the powers of empire and violence and encounter the  "realm of God" - an alternative spiritual and social reality rooted in love rather th