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
The NZ Census data was released today, and the religious affiliation data makes sobering reading.
As expected, the number and proportion of people with no religion has overtaken the number and proportion of Christians. Massively.
Just 36.99% of New Zealanders state an affiliation with a Christian religion.
48.19% state that they have no religious affiliation.
A quirky 6.66% objected to state.
Other religions:
Buddhist 1.12%
Hindu 2.63%
Islam 1.31%
Jewish 0.11%
Maori religions 1.33%
New age etc 0.42%
Other 1.94%
I’ve started to do some comparative work with previous years’ data, plus denominational breakdowns (and match ups).
More tomorrow.
The long awaiting national census data was released yesterday, and there is much to digest. As expected, the number and proportion of people with no religion has overtaken the number and proportion of Christians. Massively.
However, as we seek to make sense of the implications, there are a few things to be aware of.
Number of Christians Interestingly, the number of people affiliated with Christianity declined by only 6.5% from 1,858,980 in 2013 to 1,738,638 in 2018. The number of people affiliated with Maori religions, including Ratana and Ringatū, increased by 18.3% from 52,947 in 2013 to 62,638 in 2018. Taking both these categories together, the decline in numbers was just under 6%.
Question wording
It is also important to note that the wording of the Religion question changed dramatically from 2013 to 2018. In 2013, there was a tick box of options, replaced in 2018 by on open-ended question, inviting a thorough response (“Give as much detail as you need to name your religion, eg Presbyterian, Ratana …”). For Christians, the new wording was a perhaps difficult. The question, “What is your religion?” would, for many, be answered, “Christian” rather than specifying a particular denomination, but the examples provided presumed that a denominational affiliation was required. This change in wording is likely to account for some of the drop in denominational affiliation, and the concurrent increase in those who stated they were Christians, without necessarily further defining a specific denomination (the number of those who responded “Christian” was up 42%, from 216,177 in 2013 307,926 in 2018). (More on this next time.)
Everyone responded Another key difference in 2018 was there were no reported “no responses”. When you consider that nearly 350,000 people did not respond to the question in 2013, this is a major point of difference that needs to be factored into interpretation and analysis. I need to check for sure whether it was compulsory to answer the question in the online form, but if that was the case, as I presume it was, this would likely increase the number of people selecting the “No religion” or “Object to state” boxes (and perhaps account for some of the 4,000 “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” affiliates!) Alternative data sources, including previous census data were used to fill gaps. (Again, I am not clear if that was just for paper-based forms, or if it was also necessary/possible on online completions.)
Data quality Statistics NZ rated the religious affiliation variable data as high quality. Some 8% of responses were sourced from responses to the 2013 Census. While some of those respondents may have changed their religious affiliation, I reckon this is pretty accurate data. Although the pastafarian affiliation may be a little high!
So… Proportion of Christians is definitely way down. Actual numbers of Christians has also dropped, but less dramatically. In 2013, 350,000 people skipped the question. Not the case in 2018. I suspect that is makes the difference between the 2013 and 2018 data larger than it would have been if people had been required to state in 2013, when they would have ticked the “object” or “no religion” box, rather than choosing one of the religious affiliations.
This article recently went up online on Practical Theology.
If you can access journal articles for free through your institution, you can find it here:
https://doi.org/10.1080/1756073X.2019.1595317
If you’d otherwise need to pay, there is a link at the bottom of the abstract that you can use to access it for free.
ABSTRACT
Actor, Andrew Garfield ‘fell in love with Jesusʼ as he engaged in Ignatian spiritual practices in preparation for playing Father Rodrigues in the movie, Silence (directed by Martin Scorsese, Paramount Pictures, 2016). While the importance of spiritual practices for faith formation is well recognised, spiritual practices are generally associated with developing spiritual maturity rather than with such pre-conversion engagement. This paper considers Garfieldʼs account of meeting Jesus alongside the lived experiences of other recent converts who similarly engaged in spiritual practices before their conversions to Christianity. It argues that understanding the Christian faith as performative helps explain how Christian faith is formed and made real through such embodied acts of ritualised practice.
Access the article for free here:
https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/PrDXNGjbeS6HajjvUMXf/full?target=10.1080/1756073X.2019.1595317
It’s reassuring to me, and perhaps to you, that we don’t need to have it all together. We don’t need to have all the answers. Rather, it’s about what I call ‘relational authenticity’.
Have a read … and, as always, much more I could say!
Original article is from: Tui Motu Magazine. Issue 220 October 2017: 18-19
Why are previously unchurched people becoming Christians today?
That was the BIG question that I explored in my PhD.
What did I discover?
Here’s a bit of a summary… Within each of these brief headings and summaries lies much additional material!
Why ask the question?
Christian church attendance and religious affiliation in Western countries is declining. Decreasing proportions of people are raised in the Church. However, Christians are called to bear witness to the life-giving gospel of Jesus Christ. The purpose of this research was to investigate why some previously ‘unchurched’ people become Christians: thus, encouraging and enabling more effective engagement by Christians in conversion. Combining social scientific practice with theological reflection revealed a substantive theory of religious conversion contextually located in late modernity/postmodernity.
What did I do?
The research began with the lived experiences of previously unchurched Australians, who recently converted to Christianity. It used critical realist grounded theory to answer research questions about the conversion process; the roles of other Christians and God in conversion; and the deep processes occurring within these converts. Semi structured interviews generated rich data, which was analysed using iterative and in-depth grounded theory methods.
What did I discover…
About the conversion process?
The research found that following initial exposure to Christianity, participants experienced a catalyst that encouraged them to further explore Christianity. They began to engage in various spiritual practices, usually following a specific invitation. Having made a series of decisions to continue to explore and engage, they reached a point where they called themselves ‘Christian’.
About how they perceived other Christians?
Converts generally had a positive perception of other Christians, and understood them to have been helped by their faith; to live differently because of their faith; to share openly with others; to be deeply hospitable; and to allow room for complexity, doubts and questions in their faith.
About how they understood God’s role in conversion?
God was understood to be loving, powerful, patient, accepting and forgiving. In addition, God was seen to work through others; curate unique conversion experiences; be present; speak; help; grow the participants; and to have acted in the past in creating, sacrificing, redeeming, and Jesus dying.
What was going on deep inside?
Converts experienced ‘affects’ as they journeyed towards Christian faith. a yearning or wanting more; a desire to live better or become who they are; a sense that faith relates to everyday life; a sense of welcome, warmth, belonging and homecoming; a sense of knowing; and, because of their fledgling faith, they saw things differently.
So, what is it all about?
For those I interviewed, conversion can be understood as resulting from their desiring, observing and experiencing relational authenticity. Religious conversion is fuelled by a desire for authenticity. God enables authenticity to develop and flourish. Religious conversion is resourced by Christians who embrace and exhibit authenticity in their personal, social and spiritual lives. This genuine authenticity is relational in nature: focusing not (just) on the self but also on relationship with God and significant connection with, and responsibility toward, others. This understanding rightly challenges the notion of authenticity as a narcissistic actualisation that prioritises the self over external relationships and responsibilities. When relational authenticity is sought, and realised, healthy transformation results. This transformation sees new converts ‘becoming’ the people they were created to be: unique persons who see their worth and their responsibilities in the light of their relationships with God and with others.
Want to hear more?
There is a very brief article in here on the role of other Christians in faith formation.
We (Student Soul) gave these out at Salmond College: encouraging students to remember and give thanks for those who have been a blessing in their lives to date.
It is good to reclaim All Hallows Eve as a celebration of good people!
Hey world! It’s Halloween.