(Note: one recent figure for the 2007 population of England was 51,092,000).
1. ______ (number) people take part in a Church of England service each month…..
2. ______ (number) participate in a Church of England service on Christmas Day or Christmas Eve
3. ______ (percentage) of the people in England regard themselves as belonging to the Church of England
I guessed slightly above these figures which seem to have been roughly rounded down. Provisional figures for 2008 are linked here. Figures slightly down, but a mixed picture. What is interesting is the number of people who regard themselves as “Church of England” even though they may only turn up for weddings and funerals. Perhaps this is in part from the church’s involvement in education and the fabric of society.
Average Sunday Attendance at 960,000.
In spite of my having traveled widely and frequently throughout the United Kingdom over the years and even having lived there for a while, I still cannot understand how it is that British polls find far more British citizens saying they believe the established Church of England is an important and vital part of their communities than actually bother to attend worship more or less regularly. In contrast, my experience of Americans who are non-churchgoers is that they have a predictably low opinion not only of religious practices and doctrinal claims, but also of the privileged untaxed status of religious institutions.
2 million, 5 million and 15% respectively.
Guessed 1.5 mil, 2.5 mil, and 20% (!?)
There is something puzzling about some of the statistics given on the Church of England website linked here, particularly the claim that ‘39% of the population attend a Christmas service of some sort.’ With a population of 50m people that would mean some 20m people attending throughout England. But (unfortunately) this is nonsense, because the same webpage states that 3m people attended a Church of England service on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day. This would mean 17m people from other denominations worshipping at their own churches. But this is impossible – the second largest church, RC, estimates some 4.5m people in England and even if all were at Mass on Christmas, it could not bump up the overall total for the nation to anywhere near 17m. I suspect that the C of E is including parents attending Nativity services at schools – but even then, the figure still looks unsustainable to me.
#6. It’s not puzzling if you consider the huge popularity of the Carol Services. I’ll bet they’re including that.
I found this figure very interesting: “85 per cent of the population visit a church or place of worship in the course of a year, for reasons ranging from participating in worship to attending social events or simply wanting a quiet space.”
IMO, it shows that although Britain seems to be more secular than the U.S., the churches remain important parts of British life. And I think that there is always hope for people to be touched by God’s love if they walk in the door. There’s nothing more sad, IMO, than a church that is mostly locked.
Thanks to Pageantmaster (#1) for the 2008 link, and to Fr. Tee (#6) for also providing a Brit’s perspective. Undoubtedly as an American, I can’t grasp what the national church means to an Englishman, even a secular, agnostic one.
But I share Henry Greville’s perplexity (#3). As far as I’m concerned nominal Christianity is meaningless. All too often, and this applies in the USA as well, people exposed to most forms of “mainline” religion are merely inoculated with enough of Christianity to keep them from coming down with the real disease.
I tend to sympathize with the ascerbic Danish philospher Soren Kierkegaard, whose scathing [b]Attack upon Christendom[/b] (1854-55) is a violent diatribe against the whole idea of an established church (Volkkirche). As he ironically noted (although it’s an exaggeration, of course), when everyone is supposedly a Christian, then no one is really a Christian. Much as in any large group, when everyone is responsible for doing something, no one is actually responsible.
The CoE may actually be in a little better shape than some other European state churches. But that is damning with faint praise. The whole idea of the marriage of a particular church and the state, or even of Christianity in general and the culture in general, is clearly obsolete. It’s time to rediscover once again how to not only survive but thrive as a conscious minority group in an increasinglyly non-Christian society, one that’s not only increasingly pluralistic, but more and more aggressively hostile to authentic, biblical Christianity in any form.
But the pre-Constantinian Church thrived in a syncrestic, hostile, pagan environment. And so can the post-Christendom Church too, if we are as willing to pay the price as our ancient forebears in the faith were.
Sorry if that provokes or annoys you, PM. Nothing personal.
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of Christ-against-culture, post-Christendom style Anglicanism
“85 per cent of the population visit a church or place of worship in the course of a year…..”
This includes football, bingo and the Shrine of St Diana of the Flowers.
Rev Handy #8
[blockquote]Undoubtedly as an American, I can’t grasp what the national church means to an Englishman, even a secular, agnostic one.[/blockquote]
Well, I am not sure we grasp it any better than you do, it is like lots of things over here, which seem to work, but without any discernable logic behind them.
[blockquote]marriage of a particular church and the state, or even of Christianity in general and the culture in general, is clearly obsolete.[/blockquote]
Again logically hard to defend, but again the successful parts of our church are taking the sense of ‘ownership’ many of the English feel towards the national church and using it as an opportunity for evangelism.
Overall, I would say we are holding position on numbers, but this belies what is happening, which is some parts are growing healthily, but there is a crisis with the overall structure, where there are a great many churches over the country which are not numerically or financially viable, and which are declining. I would certainly support your call for evangelism and new thinking, but do not necessarily think that it will be helpful to do so by returning everything to Year Zero in a Khmer Rouge sort of way.
[blockquote]Sorry if that provokes or annoys you, PM. Nothing personal.[/blockquote]
Not at all Rev. Handy – feel free to provoke or annoy away if you wish, although I have never read your comments in that light. I really don’t mind at all, as it gives me the chance to work through what I think about it, and you are always courteous and friendly about it, and also helpful in that I learn new things, such as what Søren Kierkegaard had to say on the subject. So overall I take great pleasure in our exchanges.
PM-
Passionate advocate of Anglican-style Anglican Christianity.