Wow! A lot has happened since I last talked about my Birmingham fellowship project that explores the relationship between people’s perceptions of God and their aspirations towards living well. Jessica and I finished collecting and analysing our first set of data (thank you everyone who shared and/or completed the questionnaire!) and we presented our findings at the Ecclesiology and Ethnography conference in Durham. Just like last year, it was a pleasure to be part of the conference. There was so much to learn and so many good papers from presenters across the world.
In our presentation, we described the pilot study we have completed – what we did and what we discovered – and outlined what our next steps along this research journey will be. In summary, our pilot study, consisting of an online questionnaire completed by adults baptised in NZ Baptist churches in the last five years, found that people do want to be like God… The things they wrote they wanted to be like (for instance, more graceful, less “for myself”, and less independent) matched the attributes of God they most appreciated (the same person said: God is graceful, Jesus is servant-like, Jesus is fatherly, God is friend). Each of the seventeen people who responded to the qualitative questions showed at least one match between their aspirations and the attributes of God they appreciated.
We found matches within twelve different categories: self-giving, active, Christ-like, loving, faithful, mental wellbeing, patient, generous, relational, authenticity, forgiving, and other spiritual. Of these different categories, matches were most prominent in the self-giving (self-control, humble, self-less, obedient) category. Which is something we are very interested in!
Just as interesting was that each of the twelve participants who responded to the question said that “reflecting on what God is like” made them “want to be more like God.” All but one also indicated that “reflecting on what God is like” made them “want to be a better person.” While five respondents noted that reflecting on God made them “realize that they weren’t very good,” three said that reflecting on God made them “realize that they [are] very good.” In fact, one of these respondents indicated that reflecting on God made them realize that they are both not very goodandvery good. Such a nuanced understanding of one’s humanity can certainly be understood theologically!
So where to from here? We didn’t get enough responses to statistically analyse the quantitative data, so (having refined and simplified the questionnaire and our God Attributes Measure) we started gathering more data from anyone aged over 18 who considers themselves to be of Christian faith.
We’d love you to let others know about it:
Research on faith and spirituality
Are you aged over eighteen years and a person of Christian faith? If so, Dr Lynne Taylor and Dr Jessica Bent (from the Theology Programme, University of Otago) invite you to take part in a research study on faith and spirituality. It is part of ongoing research on contemporary faith formation.
If you choose to take part in our research, you will be asked to complete an online questionnaire (it will take approximately 15 minutes) that asks you questions about your perceptions of God and yourself.
The 2023 Census data on religious affiliation, released in October 2024, contains few surprises. The number and proportion of people of no religion has continued to grow, at a slower rate than previously. Overall, there has been a decline in both the number and proportion of Christians. As with other censuses, different denominations and groupings show different rates of decline, and some have grown. The number of people who stated they were “Christian” without further clarifying has continued to grow. There is a lot to explore and consider in the data, and what follows is an initial analysis of some of the numbers.
No religion
The number of people in New Zealand stating that they have no religious affiliation continues to rise, increasing from 1,663,348 in 2013 to 2,576,049 in 2023 (an increase of 58% over the decade). This means that people of no religion now make up 52% of the New Zealand population.
While the increase between 2018 and 2023 is (at 14%) still large, the rate of increase has slowed: between 2013 to 2018 the increase had been 38%: over 2.5 times the 2018-2023 rate. At an average of 2.8% per year, the 2018 to 2023 increase is slightly more than twice the NZ population increase of 1.3% per year (averaged 2018-2023).
A similar pattern is seen for those who object to answering the religion question. This increased by 98% over the ten years, to 342,705, but most of that growth occurred in the 5 years to 2018, when there was an 81% increase. (There was a 10% increase in the 2018-2023 period.)
The number of people who said they were agnostics increased between 2018 to 2023 (by 14%, to 7434). However, the number of atheists declined (by 7%, to 6549). (Incidentally, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster also declined, by 4.5% to 3297!)
Christian – not further defined
Of high proportional increase is the number of people who state that they are Christian, but do not further define their denominational affiliation. This population has increased at a rate considerably higher than population growth, increasing by 69% from 216,177 to 364,644 from 2013 to 2023. However, the rate of increase of this population has also slowed – from 42% in the 2013 to 2018 period to 18% in the 2018 to 2023 period. (The annualised rate of increase is 3.7% in the 2018-2023 period, down from 8.5% between 2013 and 2018.)
This continues a trend of declining importance of denominational affiliation. Now, 22.5% of those who indicate they are Christian do not name any denominational affiliation in the Census, compared with 11.5% in 2013.
Christian – denominations
The number and proportion of people naming an affiliation with most Christian denominations has declined markedly over the past ten years. Generally, this continues an expected decline, including as these populations age. The largest declining denominations are shown here:
Denomination
2013
2023
% change
Anglican
459,771
245,301
-47%
Baptist
53,493
28,548
-47%
Brethren nfd and Open Brethren
12,852
5,097
-60%
Catholic
492,321
449,484
-9%
Methodist nfd
97,320
41,337
-58%
Presbyterian
316,332
179,535
-43%
Also showing an overall decline are the Pentecostal groupings of churches (down 11% overall). However, individual Pentecostal ‘denominations’ show varying patterns of growth and decline. Looking at the larger groupings, some grew between 2013 and 2018 but declined to 2023 (Destiny, Elim, New Life, Vineyard). Only Assemblies of God showed sustained growth in both periods, although most of the growth occurred 2013 to 2018 (8%, cf 9% for the decade; 1% 2018-2023).
Denomination
2013
2023
% change
All Pentecostal
74439
66213
-11%
Other groupings (with over 1000 adherents) to show sustained growth in both intercensal periods are Seventh-day Adventists (up 25% over the decade, to 18,204), Korean Christian (4,110), Reformed Baptist (195% increase to 1,152), Plymouth or Exclusive Brethren (28%, to 7,170), Churches of Christ (together all subcategories increased from 2145 in 2013 to 4203 in 2023; up 96%). Wesleyan Methodists first featured in 2018 and increased by 11% to 5,136 in 2023. Tongan Methodists showed sustained growth: from 4509 in 2013 to 12540 in 2023 (178%), with most of that growth occurring in the 2013 to 2018 period. Some other ethnic churches also showed sustained growth: Cook Island (no denomination stated), 38%; Samoan Congregational, 136%; (Methodists not elsewhere classified also grew by 207% over the ten years to 3753.)
The number of people simply calling themselves Evangelical declined by 32% to 4149, while those saying they are “born again” increased from 7917 to 29,061 over the decade (but had peaked at 33,486 in 2018). “Jesus followers” were first recorded in 2018 and increased to 2073 in 2023.
Christian – overall
Overall, the number and proportions of Christians in Aotearoa has continued to decline, but the rate of decline has been relatively stable over the decade: 1.5% per year between 2013 and 2018 and 1.4% per year between 2018 and 2023.
Altogether, 32% of New Zealanders state that they are of Christian religious affiliation – 1,620,555 people.
Māori religions
The 2023 reporting separates Māori religions, and I have not included any Māori religions or Christian denominations above. Overall, Māori religions, beliefs and philosophies have increased by 16% over the decade. An increase in Rātana is partially offset by a decline in Ringatū.
Other religions
Many other religions are growing. After Christianity, Hinduism is the largest religion, and its adherents increased by 59% in the decade from 89,085 in 2013 to 142,008 in 2023. The number of people of Islamic faith also increased, by nearly 50%, from 45,960 in 2013 to 68,538 in 2023. For context, the number of people affiliated with Hinduism and the Islamic faith (210,546) is now larger than Pentecostal, Methodist, Baptist and Brethren combined (141,195).
The number of people of New Age religions increased by 17% overall between 2013 and 2023 (to 21,540), with a higher rate of increase in the latter 5 years (1.9% per annum between 2018 and 2023, compared with 1.4% growth per annum 2013 to 2018).
Final thoughts
Overall, there is an ongoing decline in the number of people affiliated with Christianity – but much of that decline is due to people no longer naming an affiliation with a particular historically large denomination. Christians are increasingly likely to name themselves as simply that: Christian. Some smaller denominations are growing, and there continues to be growth in some ethnic groupings of churches.
More analysis is needed on all this data. The ethnic differences need to be unpacked further, as do other groupings. When available, cross tabulations with age and ethnicity will enable further analysis and insights. Watch this space!
Card from Jesus Deck – A Census of the Whole World
It is an exciting day for me! My first Monday (aka AngelWings day) since a massive release of 2023 Census data!!
As well as being generally interested in a whole host of data (and I’ll be back to make some comments on that), I’m excited because it means that I can start to prepare the 2023 Community Profiles: I have been providing such profiles to churches for the past 30(!) years…
I came up with the idea of producing Community Demographic profiles when I was doing my honours in human geography in 1992 – I took a course/paper on geographic information systems (they were new and exciting then!) and SuperMap 2 had just been released, containing the 1991 Census data. It was amazing! I could see the potential for churches to understand their communities, and wrote an assignment on it, later pitching the idea of providing community profiles, to (the newly established) Vision New Zealand.
They said yes, to fresh-out-of-uni me! Alan Withy was a key supporter, and Bruce Patrick as well. I remember Keith Hay Homes helped fund the purchase of the software and some generous denominations also pitched in advance payments, which enabled it to go ahead. (The software and hardware was Quite Expensive, as you might imagine.)
I developed the original profile, and have streamlined and amended over the years. I’ve done hundreds and hundreds of them… certainly over 1000.
I’ve provided profiles to churches of all denominations, but especially for Baptist churches, having produced them FREE as part of my role there since 1997. Most Baptist churches ask for them as part of the process of finding a new minister. They were also part of the church review documents (when external consultants did reviews). I also reviewed each BU Tindall Application based on the demographics (which Tindall loved and wanted me to do for more groups, but this idea fizzled with the delay to the 2011/2013 census).
In 2008, I took a roadshow (well, I flew) to Christchurch, Wellington and Auckland where I walked through what the 150 participants might learn from their profiles. When I was asked to speak at Arrow leadership training, I’d provide the profiles (free!) and we’d work through them together.
Having moved to Adelaide, and with the delay to the 2011 Census, I was seriously considering stopping providing profiles before the 2013 data came out. I was doing my PhD by then, and wondered if it was time to stop. BUT! I attended a course taught by John and Olive Drane, at which John randomly handed out cards from the Jesus Deck. The card I was given is pictured and it seemed very much like a God-prompt to continue😊And here I still am.
What’s involved in preparing profiles? A three-stage process…
I take the data from Stats NZ and get it into a format that I can work with. (That small sentence requires Quite A Bit Of Work)
I prepare a profile template into which I can copy and paste data from the spreadsheets
Once all that is done, it is pretty speedy to produce a profile (provided the church provides good information on which areas to include)
Today’s task is to see what will be involved in getting the 2023 data into a usable format. Each time has been different and a new tool has been released this time around. I’m hoping it will be as intuitive as the demo seemed to be and that the path forward will be quickly obvious…
People find the profiles helpful, saying:
“Thanks for this work – very, very interesting.”
“Many thanks for this, it makes interesting reading”
“Your resource looks really good and is something that would be helpful for local congregations to get to know their local context.”
I was excited this week to receive proofs of a book chapter I’d been invited to write, as well as notification that another short article has been published. So that’s nice timing, just before my Research Leave starts! It is a brief response to the Canadian census data, which reflects on our 2018 NZ census data. You’ll find it in the journal Post-Christendom Studies in a special edition on the 2021 census.
I’ve recently had a new article published in Witness (a USA-based journal). At the moment, it’s only available to members and subscribers, but I am permitted to provide a copy of it here on my blog. I’ve also included the abstract below.
I didn’t expect to go there, but analysing the data from the case study church took me back to my PhD research on contemporary conversion.
ABSTRACT:
The covid-19 global pandemic radically interrupted all areas of life, including forcing churches to adapt their worship, mission, and pastoral care within new constraints of physical distancing. This article explores a case study of how one church communicated the message of faith; connected with, and cared for attenders, the wider community, and others; and experimented with different forms of worship and ministry during covid-19. Drawing on data from a questionnaire, focus groups, interviews, content analysis and participant observation, the article demonstrates the importance of amplifying a message consistent with one’s values, providing opportunities for warm connection, and continuing to make iterative change to ministry practices. Considering this alongside recent research on contemporary conversion, the paper affirms the significance of relational authenticity in engaging in Christian witness, including when the church is forced into unfamiliar and undesired realities. Churches can be encouraged by the potential fruitfulness of multiple voices communicating the significance and meaning of their faith; being honest about life’s challenges; and encouraging and resourcing engagement in spiritual practices as means of Christian witness, including in challenging times.
Taylor, L. M. (2021). “Reaching Out Online: Learning From One Church’s Embrace Of Digital Worship, Ministry And Witness.” Witness: The Journal of the Academy for Evangelism in Theological Education, 35, 1-14.
I don’t know if you experienced and remember the sense of
hope that perhaps the world and the church might be different in the future, because
of the pandemic. Maybe we’ll discover ways to live without trashing the planet.
Maybe we’ll find new ways of being the church in our local communities. Maybe
we’ll live into new ways of caring for one another. Maybe there are things that
we learn and do that might become part of our future, rather than just being
stopgap measures.
One person I interviewed described it like this: “What might
be normal going forward might be different, but we get to build that. We get to
decide what that is.” There was a sense of determined anticipation that the future
could be different, and we could be involved in shaping that.
At the same time, there was some resignation by then (March 2021) that much had returned to an old normal. That many church members simply wanted a return to what was, rather than a turn to what could be. That’s not surprising: a return to familiarity can be comfortable and comforting.
But let’s be honest. The Church is in decline and the things that have been done over past generations are not all that will be required into the future. So dream a little dream! (Or a big dream, even.) Imagine what could be. Look back in your journal on your computer and see what new and fresh things sparked a sense of joy and anticipation. What old or ancient practices were reinstated? What new things grew? As I write this, we’re still in Alert Level 4, here in Aotearoa New Zealand. None of us want to be here. So read this in the light of the previous nine things I also wanted to say.
Look back and draw on past strength; and live into and out
of your values. Those things will help sustain you. Lean into God, in whom our
hope and strength are found. Name the challenge: it’s hard, right? Prioritise connection
and invite participation. Be “good enough”: perfection not required; perfection
not possible. Invite people (online) into your place, even if it’s a bit messy
or muddly. Keep an eye out for God at work. Get people involved, reaching out
to others. And, strengthened and empowered by all that, dream a little dream of
what might be.
There are many things that are crucial to our wellbeing as
humans. In addition to our more obvious physical needs, some scholars talk in terms
of three inherent needs: autonomy, belonging and competency. Needless to say, pandemics
impact negatively on all three! Competency relates to a sense of purpose and
mastery – having something important to do and knowing that you do it well.
Belonging relates to a sense of connection and attachment to others: more
difficult to achieve when physical distancing is mandated, and travel
restricted or prohibited. Autonomy relates to a sense of being in control,
which is obviously diminished by uncertainty around lockdowns and the wider ongoing
pandemic context.
One way that all three can be enhanced in covid times is through the simple act of reaching out to others. In the context of the church, this can be approached informally as everyone is encouraged to care for their friends and whanau. It can be approached formally through creating pastoral care structures that ensure each person is linked to others in the church; each caring and being cared for. Or there might be an approach somewhere in the middle, where informal care is encouraged, and those with particular needs matched with someone who can check in on them. However it happens, it’s good to celebrate its significance!
Autonomy is enhanced as the caregiver makes the effort to
offer care: as they decide for themselves to act in a way that is caring towards
another. This can give them some sense of having control over their actions.
Belonging is enhanced as relationships deepen, and the caregiver sees what they
are doing as making an important contribution to the church community. Competency
is enhanced as the carer regains a sense of purpose: they are doing something
that is important and is valued.
We often see such actions in terms of the benefits for the recipients
of that care, but in reality, they also benefit the one doing the caring. There’s
reciprocity here – the benefits go both ways.
Therefore, ministers can be encouraged to name and celebrate
the importance and significance of caring beyond one’s own bubble. Of taking
the time and making the effort to reach out to others. Sounds like a win-win to
me!
(Of course, we need to ensure that there are clear ways that
people can escalate any concerns that they may have about those they are reaching
out to. In this way, appropriate pastoral, spiritual and practical care can be
offered to those who need it.)
I’ve just submitted a journal article – the first to come out of my current research on how churches responded to covid-19. It’s based on a case study of one church (I’m calling it ABC).
In it I note the congruence between ABC’s vision and values and what they’ve done over the past 15 months. I hope it will encourage churches to live into and out of their (presumably good!) vision and values. To not try to be something online that they are not offline. And to keep the wider purpose at the centre of what they do.
Hopefully the article will make it through peer review in the next few months. (Peer review is like getting your essay marked, but you (hopefully) get a chance to fix the things that need fixing, and it gets published).
Once it’s published, I’ll be able to post a link so you can read it for yourself. Watch this space (but don’t hold your breath: these things take time!)
One of the things that I do in my not-working-for-Uni time, is provide demographics based on the Census data to local churches. It’s something I have done since forever (er, since the 1986 data was released as Supermap2 in the early 1990s).
It has taken a bit longer than usual, but I’ve now got the NZ 2018 Census data ready to be made into data on your local community.
Why do this? Because I believe it’s important for churches to be engaged and embedded in their local communities. And part of that, is understanding who makes up that community. I reckon that God was and is into local communities – God sent Jesus, after all. That was pretty local.
If you’re interested, there is a sample profile that you can download here. (Page 1 is below). Details on how to order are here.
Today (26 February) marks twelve months since the first person suffering from covid-19 arrived in New Zealand. As I re-read the media release from the 28 February 2020 (the date the case was confirmed), I was struck again by how well New Zealand has, from the outset, handled this pandemic.
This time last year,
isolation was already possible and required: a negative pressure room in the
hospital was used for the patient: a woman in her 60s, and her family members
were placed in isolation. Contact tracing was underway and close contacts were being
tested. The messaging from the Ministry of Health was reassuring; from the headline,
notifying of a “single case” to the final sentence advertising the free 24/7 covid-19
Healthline number. Medical staff were using protective equipment, and district health
boards across the country had “been preparing” for this.
In addition, however,
the “high degree of uncertainty” was noted: this was a “rapidly evolving” situation.
It was uncharted territory. While there were principles, protocols and plans to
draw on, the actual path was unknown.
The need to work
together as a team was named and affirmed: “Keeping individuals, families and
our communities safe and healthy in the current global environment requires a
team effort and that’s what we’re seeing across New Zealand.”
Of course, none of
these systems were perfect. All required (and continue to require) iterative
change as more is known about the disease, as case numbers rose, as things began
to return to a new sort of normal, and as cases continue to crop up.
Twelve months on, it is appropriate to pause and be glad of how we’ve traveled this past year. It’s also appropriate to pause and remember the 2369 people in New Zealand who have suffered from covid-19, and the 26 people who have died, along with their friends and families who continue to mourn their loss. It is appropriate to think of all those who have worked so hard to help us as a nation to come through as well as we have.
This twelve-month marker is a good opportunity to look back over
the past year and see what we have learnt and can be learning. I’m sure I’m not
alone in doing so! Many will be considering this remarkable period from various
perspectives. Me, I’m thinking primarily about how churches responded to the
pandemic.
As I have been trawling church websites, and listening to church
leaders, to church services and to international discussions over the past year,
my particular question has been around how churches are working to support human
wellbeing. How have they engaged in pastoral care? In what ways have they been
involved in their wider communities? What has been the shape of worship, when
gathering in person was not possible. What
changes that were made during lockdown have been retained once restrictions have
been lifted? I’m curious about what has changed and what motivated those
changes, what has remained the same or returned to normal, and what the future
might look like. I have the privilege of 5 months set aside to focus primarily
on these questions.
To date, I have primarily explored the worship services
offered during lockdowns and afterwards. In writing this, I am drawing on
analysis of those services, and the data from an online questionnaire completed
by nearly 100 church leaders in New Zealand and Australia. It is early days in
terms of my analysis and writing, but here are some things that I have observed
so far. (I’ve opted not to point to the wider literature here.)
Some churches were ready to go online, some were not, but
generally they “went” regardless.
Many online services on the 29th of
March began with words along the lines of “this is not as anyone would have expected.”
Watching the earliest services, one gets a sense of the leaders’ discomfort at
being on screen; their shock at the unfolding situation; hope, trust and eager anticipation
that they could still be the church despite distance; and a strong desire to do
their very best, while aware that today’s best had room for improvement.
Some churches were able to build on existing
innovations. For instance, one was already live streaming their services, but realised
that there was much more that they could be doing with the technology.
That leader also perceived that they had also been
prepared spiritually, noting that during 2019 they had explored the theme of
exile, considering how they would remain connected to God in the midst of great
loss.
There were various reasons why some churches did
not offer online services. Some did not have the technology or skills required
to do so. Others reported that their congregations did not want to meet online.
Some had members without internet access, or without the knowledge or ability to
access online services. In some cases, that was perceived to be true of all
members. One leader reported that their leadership, “wanted our ‘scattered’
worship to be accessible to all members, including the 25% who did not have
internet access and were probably the most vulnerable and isolated group” and
so they instead provided printed worship resources via email or into
letterboxes. Another leader reported, “We
decided to let each person go to God for guidance.”
Churches and church leaders made iterative changes to their ministries
as the weeks passed: for example, improving or streamlining the way that they
offered their online worship and offering new online gatherings, and regular reflections
or prayer times.
One church leader was initially concerned about privacy
(and they noted, laughing, “not sure how it was going to go”) and on the first
week recorded selected reflections from their sermon, rather than the full Zoom
service. In subsequent weeks, they recorded the entire service, and protected the
privacy of other participants by being the only face on screen.
Other churches sought to increase ways that
people could participate: “We eventually got the technology together to allow
people to be involved.”
Finding ways to participate was frequently seen by leaders
as important, indeed a priority. Many approaches were taken.
Prayer needs were shared in the chat or comment
functions
Responsive prayers were led by families in their
homes, allowing multiple faces and voices to be heard and seen
Digital prayer and praise walls were created
Photos of regular attenders were shown before or
during the service
One leader reported: “Well we’ve just had our
zoom church service we did it live there were people there with their mics on
and so the responses had other voices; the prayers had other voices the
readings, and even the singing, and it was fabulous.”
Some leaders reported that meeting online
increased participation – more people were involved than would have been in
previous in-person worship.
One noted the “most common comment they received
weekly [was an appreciation that] they were able to see the service and
participate.”
Covid-19 offered a unique context of solidarity in that ministers,
worship leaders and preachers were in the same situation as their
congregations. They were preaching and speaking into their own challenging
reality as much as they were speaking to others. As they did so, there was
evidence that they offered preaching and worship that was both centred on God, and
designed to bring hope, courage and peace to the listener.
For churches that drew on them, the lectionary texts
provided a ready means for this to occur. On March 29, for example, the Old
Testament text from Ezekiel 37:1-14 provided a rich metaphor of wilderness days,
disorientation, a “dusty sense of hopelessness” and a longing to return to love
and to God and to how things should be. The need for a new orientation was
noted, along with a realisation that the new normal to which we might return
will hopefully be different from the way that way things have been in the past.
In this, we see also how the language of change was used
positively: covid-19 was causing a pivot that was welcomed by many, from churches
of various denominations and sizes.
One leader noted that this was a time of “societal
disorientation” and spoke of the need to trust that a time of “new orientation”
will come. They paraphrased journalist, Rod Oram, as saying of the airline
industry: “They won’t fight the tide. The airline business will come back, but
it won’t be the same.” The underlying message here seemed to be that the same
was true of the Church: it will return, but it can be (or, perhaps, needs to be)
different.
One church, already offering online services
before covid-19, seized the opportunity to improve their systems and platforms.
Another noted their hope that the church and
nation would “find new and different ways of being church and of being community
and of being country.”
Ministers worked hard to ensure their congregations’ pastoral,
practical and spiritual needs were met: one part time leader reported that they
“worked at least twice the amount of usual and is pretty tired.” Many sought to
reassure their congregation that they were not alone. In many congregations,
pastoral care was shared as new networks including prayer and care chains were established
or revitalised. One noted, “the world was flooded with messages of uncertainty
and turmoil, so it was important for us to bring reassurance to as many people
as possible regardless of their recent connection or disconnection to God and
church.” In some cases, such as this, care extended beyond the church, including
as community ministries were adapted, and new initiatives established.
Technology was embraced and initiatives such as daily devotions
or chats offered online during lockdown. Small groups met over Zoom for social
and spiritual purposes. The potential reach was far beyond the church’s usual geographical
bounds, extending internationally in some cases
Some churches returned to old practices and forms as quickly
as they were permitted to (or earlier), which others embraced the ongoing
changes and continue to adapt and innovate.
Evident in the media release reporting the first case were preparedness;
words of reassurance; a naming of the need for values of communality and solidarity
to be at the fore; recognition that this was an unfolding situation and that there
was ongoing need for iterative change. To greater and lesser extents, these same
characteristics are present in the data on how churches responded to COVID-19.
While no one, pre- covid-19 would have expected there would
be an immediate move to online church services, there was still some sense of spiritual
and practical preparedness in the data from churches and ministers. This was evident
in the speed with which churches were able to begin offering online worship and
ministry, however messily, and in the way that they were able to draw on past
spiritual and practical resources. It was, arguably, also evident in the appropriateness
of the lectionary text, drawn on by churches all over the world, on what was (for
most nations) the first week when services could not be held in person.
Reassurance abounded: both in words spoken in sermons and
worship and in faithful online presence. It was a reassurance that found
expression in communal life and in solidarity.
While churches can seem allergic to change, the covid-19 lockdowns
demonstrated that many (perhaps most) can change, and quickly when the
situation requires it. Many churches continued to adapt their practices, and
some continue to do so. Perhaps covid-19 has also demonstrated to the church
that we don’t need to be certain that the changes made will be perfect: rather
iterative improvements and adaptations can be made.
There is much more that could be said! Watch this space and
keep up via
