Posts

Posted on

Forgottenheimer: Oppenheimer’s undetonated bomb, and a missed opportunity – contains spoilers

Oppenheimer. Universal Pictures,

It seems somewhat late in the day to be writing about Christopher Nolan’s latest film, Oppenheimer. In part, that is because my emotions and reflections have turned out to be just as complex as Nolan’s own narrative. I have been searching for clarity.
I will therefore get straight to the point. If you will forgive the hyperbole, in my view Nolan’s epic, despite its multi-layered narrative and wonderous cinematic creativity, is deeply disappointing. That is because it is the only film in history that we expected to bomb but in reality, lacked impact. Whilst I find myself questioning whether I should go back and rewatch the film for anything that I have missed, one of the most telling markers of good storytelling is that you are so drawn in that you cannot fail to take its themes home. Even without being particularly visceral, a good film will return to you and invade your thoughts when you are back home doing the hoovering.

Piecing together the narrative

In the case of Oppenheimer, my only thoughts were ones whereby I was trying to piece the narrative together. In order to enjoy this film you will need to understand the historical context in which it takes place. Heck, you may even find it easier to read the text from which the film was inspired, American Prometheus (Bird & Sherwin, 2021) in order to be adequately prepared. Oppenheimer was the architect of the atomic bomb, in a race against time, developing a weapon that could arguably end World War II before our enemies made their own advances. He was a theoretical physicist who displayed some uncomfortable personality traits – including, according to the film, lacing his lecturers lunchbox apple with cyanide. He was a hero one minute, but derided the next. President Trueman, for example was unimpressed whe Oppenheimer shared his concern that he felt he had blood on his hands, famously derriding Oppenheimer as a ‘cry-baby’. Oppenheimer’s reluctance to support the further development of a hydrogen bomb, as the United States hurtled towards a cold war, led some politicians to be sceptical of his support – and the easiest way to disempower him was to question his loyalty to the states by suggesting he had communist sympathies and may have leaked secrets to the Russians. This set in motion an enquiry as to whether he remained suitable to continue working for the United States Atomic Energy Commission.

Perhaps it is the way that my mind works; as I viewed the film I had to think back to my university lectures in Physical Chemistry, trying to remember the composition of the bomb, and how the nuclear material needed to be refined (illustrated by an increasing load of two sets of marbles in a two fish bowls). If this were a lecture, and I was in the audience listening, I would have been sitting there nodding politely, perhaps even smiling whilst wondering whether I was the only one not quite understanding what was being said. It was like reaching the point in a Maths lesson where you are really not following, and the teacher has no idea. This way in which the narrative of this film weaves about is a nightmare! It is filled with flash-forwards, and flashbacks, in colour and black and white, with I believe, colour representing the memories of one of Oppenheimer’s detractors, Richard Strauss. And yes, I did not realise that until I read a review from someone else. Significantly, YouTube and the internet are full of articles that break down and explain the narrative.

A crime against humanity

My primary concern is that I didn’t feel a profound sense of Oppenheimer’s moral turmoil following the bombings. We should be acutely aware of the sheer devastation caused by the uranium fission bomb (‘Little Boy,’ equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT) on Hiroshima and the plutonium implosion bomb (‘Fat Man,’ equivalent to 21,000 tons of TNT) on Nagasaki. This knowledge should be seizmic in our souls.

Little Boy – US government DOD and/or DOE photograph, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

U.S. Department of Defense, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Fat Boy U.S. Department of Defense, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Atomic bombing of Japan. Left picture : At the time this photo was made, smoke billowed 20,000 feet above Hiroshima while smoke from the burst of the first atomic bomb had spread over 10,000 feet on the target at the base of the rising column. Six planes of the 509th Composite Group participated in this mission: one to carry the bomb (Enola Gay), one to take scientific measurements of the blast (The Great Artiste), the third to take photographs (Necessary Evil), while the others flew approximately an hour ahead to act as weather scouts (08/06/1945). Bad weather would disqualify a target as the scientists insisted on a visual delivery. The primary target was Hiroshima, the secondary was Kokura, and the tertiary was Nagasaki. George R. Caron, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The wide variation in the death toll stems from the inadequate record-keeping at the time. Estimates range from 129,000 to 226,000, complicated further by the distinction between immediate casualties and those succumbing to radiation poisoning. What I want to emphasize is that although Oppenheimer’s flashbacks touch upon this terror, it is presented fleetingly, assuming that the audience is already aware of the unimaginable scale of destruction caused by these weapons.

Photo of what became later Hiroshima Peace Memorial among the ruins of buildings in Hiroshima, in early October, 1945, photo by Shigeo Hayashi.

 

The patient’s skin is burned in a pattern corresponding to the dark portions of a kimono worn at the time of the explosion. Japan, circa 1945. Gonichi Kimura 1945 National Archives at College Park, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

 

Siblings losing their hair. The younger brother died in 1949 and so did the elder sister in 1965 of aftereffects of atomic bomb. Kikuchi Shunkichi日本語： 菊池俊吉, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons1945.

This, in my opinion, is the major flaw in “Oppenheimer.” In fact, judging by the numerous explanatory articles and videos available online, you might find yourself needing a manual to decipher this film before delving into introspection. I may be simplifying things, especially considering the film’s title is “Oppenheimer” – centered on the individual rather than the bomb itself. Nevertheless, even when Oppenheimer’s opposition to the United States developing a hydrogen fusion bomb becomes evident, the lack of vivid description (beyond cold facts and figures) of what ground zero looks like for a ‘typical’ nuclear bomb means that the audience can’t fully grasp the gravity of the situation and the depth of Oppenheimer’s emotions. Time Magazine, citing a nuclear engineer at Berkeley University in California, underscores that a hydrogen bomb would possess a hundred to a thousand times more destructive power. [2]

A missed opportunity to tell the story to younger generations

Regrettably, this film is rated 15 in the UK instead of 12A. While I acknowledge that the themes in this film are mature and warrant parental guidance, I believe that the ages between 12 and 15 are crucial for helping young individuals contemplate actions, consequences, and the world around them. The language used is relatively mild, but there are instances of obscenities. Similarly, the intimate scenes, though mild and potentially relevant in terms of conscience and key narrative themes, come across as overly clever and, in a way, overly theatrical. This approach diminishes the gravity of these moments and, frankly, feels somewhat absurd.

For instance, in one scene, Oppenheimer’s relationship with Gene Tatlock, who is also having relations with the Communist Party USA, is depicted with them in bed. Oppenheimer’s mind seems preoccupied with theoretical physics and matters of conscience, while Gene takes control of the situation by sitting on top of him, grabbing the Bhagavad Gita from a shelf above his head, and reciting the line “Now I am become death, the destroyer of souls.” This phrase is, of course, repeated by Oppenheimer later. In another scene, Gene and Robert sit naked, facing each other, as a portrayal of the competing desires between Gene and Kitty (Oppenheimer’s wife) begins to unfold, with Gene vying for dominance in their love triangle. These scenes are not explicit or titillating; they are more commonplace, peculiar, and a sophisticated, creative effort to highlight Oppenheimer’s character flaws and how he is both the instigator and victim of his own inner turmoil. They certainly do not offer gratuitous moments through pornography. I’m not convinced that they add significantly to the script, and I believe they could be portrayed differently for a younger audience.

While I’m tempted to delve into the discussion of what content should be accessible at various age levels, my main point is that even if the film did underscore the gravity of the nuclear experimentation and the ethical dilemmas it raised, its UK age rating makes it inaccessible to those under the age of 15. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that our young people should be as well-informed about the threat of nuclear warfare as they are about the Holocaust. “Oppenheimer” represents a missed opportunity, especially with its release date on July 21, 2023, so close to Hiroshima Day on August 6th. [3]

A cult following?

While the film may not have a significant impact in certain areas, I have no doubt that it will gain a dedicated following. It’s not entirely accurate to call it a “cult following” because the film isn’t meant for mere entertainment; rather, it’s a vehicle for understanding how personality, conscience, power, authority, and consequences intersect. It delves into the connections between theory, practice, and perceived risk, as well as ethics and utilitarianism.

Oppenheimer is initially celebrated for his work at Los Alamos but later faces derision from those who question his loyalty. Strauss is motivated to undermine Oppenheimer after witnessing a conversation between Oppenheimer and Einstein, which leaves Einstein seemingly indifferent towards Strauss. This eventually leads to Oppenheimer losing his security clearance. However, Strauss’s ambitions for a senior political role are thwarted when it becomes clear that his vindictiveness, exposed for all to see, was the driving force behind this move. Consequently, Strauss fails to garner enough votes in the Senate for his appointment. This power struggle, rather than the ethics of nuclear warfare, becomes the central lens through which the story unfolds.

Ultimately, Oppenheimer is finally recognized for his achievements by John F. Kennedy. In all of this, Einstein’s earlier words to Oppenheimer, that he will be praised for his actions because they benefit those who applaud him, prove to be true. After unleashing the nuclear bomb, Oppenheimer becomes a pawn in a political game. Therefore, the film’s reluctance to help viewers step into the narrative by providing a clearer backstory is what prevents it from making a more profound impact. Regarding the bomb’s impact, longer moments of reflection, possibly with silence, showcasing the devastation and fires, could have underscored this point. Such scenes don’t have to be visceral; they simply need to be telling.

Looking for the spiritual core

For those seeking a deeper, spiritual reflection on the significance of Oppenheimer’s story, CBS News provides profound insights through a 1965 interview. Oppenheimer’s responses to the newscaster’s questions followed a somewhat expected pattern: he viewed the bomb as a necessary evil, a harsh measure taken with reluctance, aimed at preventing further suffering. He candidly admitted, “You naturally don’t think of that with ease. I do not think our consciences should be entirely easy.” However, a sense of caution pervades Oppenheimer’s responses. He appears to sidestep personal reflections and instead emphasizes the collective conscience of the era. Based on the information available to him in both 1945 and 1965, Oppenheimer seemed to believe that the use of the bombs was justifiable.

Nonetheless, I was deeply struck by the contrast between corporate and personal conscience. Regardless of the rational arguments constructed by others to justify the use of the bomb, did it still conflict with Oppenheimer’s personal conscience at the time, even if it seemed rational on the surface? Regrettably, this is a question that remains unanswered, as Oppenheimer carried it with him to the grave and beyond, leaving us with a perpetual ethical dilemma.

Curiously, just as the film inadequately references historical context, it also fails to explore the divine or our responsibility to it, except for Oppenheimer’s misquoted words from the Bhagavad Gita, which the audience is left to interpret. It’s worth noting that this Hindu epic involves its hero, Prince Arjuna, conversing with Krishna, an incarnation of the god Vishnu, who is the preserver and protector of the universe in Hinduism. Arjuna is uncertain about how to handle a family conflict, and Krishna convinces him to fight. However, when Krishna reveals his true power, the world seems to burn (to borrow your phrase), and Arjuna pleads with him to stop. In this sense, Krishna to Arjuna is what nuclear research is to science—initially desiring the benefits but recoiling once realizing the destructive force unleashed. The parallels between these narratives are striking.

Oppenheimer harnesses nuclear science but is cautious about the consequences and where it might lead. However, the film unfortunately doesn’t delve further into this aspect to shed light on Oppenheimer’s awareness of his accountability to the divine. It seems that featuring Oppenheimer’s reference to one of Hinduism’s sacred texts should prompt consideration of the idea that regardless of our individual beliefs about God, there is more at play here than a limited human-centered ethical conversation.

Oppenheimer, and Physicists ‘knowing sin’

Interestingly, Oppenheimer did speak of sin relatively soon after the bombings, and so it would have been possible to begin to enter this territory. Personally, I would not be looking for the film to do more than introduce the question – because we can reflect on it in the car park later. But to close, during his 1965 CBS interview, Oppenheimer stated:

“Long ago I said once in a crude sense, in which no vulgarity and no humour could quite erase, that ‘Physicists had known sin’. I didn’t mean by that the deaths that were caused by the result of our work. We had known the sin of pride. We had turned to effect in what proved to be a major way the course of man’s history. We had the pride of thinking that we knew what was good for man, and I do think that this has left a mark of many of those of those who were responsibly engaged. This is not the natural business of a scientist.”

Regrettably, from my perspective, while “Oppenheimer” possessed considerable beauty, creativity, and an unmatched level of sophistication within its intricate and multilayered narrative, it failed to make the impact it should have. It may not be a total disaster, but it certainly fell short of expectations. “Oppenheimer” runs the risk of fading into obscurity and becoming “Forgottendheimer” because it places too little emphasis on the crucial ethical question of whether it is morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons and the complex personalities and dynamics that are involved in making such a decision.

[1] Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – Wikipedia
[2] https://time.com/4954082/hydrogen-bomb-atomic-bomb/
[3] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/08/06/japan/hiroshima-attomic-bombing-78th-anniversary/
[4] (26) From the archives: Robert Oppenheimer in 1965 on if the bomb was necessary – YouTube 2:15

Posted on

It’s a Barbie World, and I am still making sense of it all

As I write I am recovering from the Barbie movie. I went because I thought it was no use hearing the opinions of others – I needed to judge for myself. The film reviews had already painted this as a movie that whilst being almost cartoonish in style, made some playful but poignant observations about the assumptions we might make about gender roles. Herein, there is a mix, some of these might be unconscious, and some we may be fully aware of, and regret. If anyone was looking for a sequel to our Methodist Church Justice, Dignity, and Solidarity training, looking through the lens of gender, I would consider this to be compulsory viewing.
In the sky, a large styled pink “B” with Margot Robbie as Barbie sitting holding out her right arm and Ken lying down in an angle with his head resting on his right clenched hand. A tagline reads: “She’s everything. He’s just Ken.” The poster art copyright is believed to belong to the distributor of the film, Warner Bros. Pictures, the publisher of the film or the graphic artist.

 

A helpful film makes you think. While Barbie does touch upon the well-rehearsed and valid aspects of patriarchy’s impact, it avoids the increasingly hackneyed, sensational, and hostile arguments put by its most vehement proponents. Curiously, while the film implicitly addresses concerns over male dominance, it also takes aim at a particular brand of feminism promoted by Mattel, the producers of the Barbie doll. Whilst this brand of feminism is credited for broadening horizons for girls worldwide, it is criticised simultaneously for perpetuating unattainable expectations regarding appearance and career, impacting many negatively. Barbie is among others a film director, film and music producer, teacher, dentist, doctor, paratrooper, campaign fundraiser, police officer, architect, astrophysicist – the list is endless. In my view though it is not accurate to say that there are fewer less skilled roles for Barbie: there are. Nonetheless, one of the striking moments in the film is where Barbie from Barblieland enters into conversation with Sasha, a young adolescent girl living in the real world, who states, “Barbie, you’ve set feminism back by 50 years. Every woman feels bad about herself when they see you. You’re a fascist!” That comment made Barbie cry.

Cover of Earring Magic Ken. Fair Use; Used for purposes of illustration

The narrative is supported with barbs towards Mattel (which could be also read as product placement); all Ken wants lives to be acknowledged by Barbie and gets no attention; his only friend Allan was discontinued after rumours began to circulate that he and Ken’s relationship was more than platonic. Then again, Allan returned as Midge’s husband in the 90’s – but sadly, they did not survive for long. Indeed, Pregnant Midge (who also came with a toddler and pram) was also withdrawn in fear that Mattel might be promoting teen pregnancy unwittingly. Earring Magic Ken was withdrawn, again, because of how gay he seemed. Palm Beach Sugar Daddy Ken (with an $82 million dollar fortune) was scrapped – this should be celebrated since Barbie does not need a sugar-daddy. Even Tanner, Barbie’s dog, is withdrawn because he defecated unsafely. (In truth, it was the magnet inside, unsafe for children that did it, rather than the defecation which was seen as a marketable add-on).

It was the line about fascist feminism that shocked me most. Gretta Gerwig’s willingness to champion the feminist cause and yet, at the same time, to be critical about the less helpful aspects of the Barbie project is refreshing. It brings self-reflection and honesty to the table. What interested me more however is a broader thought, derived from Gerwig’s work – that in declaring the freedoms we hope for; in our pressing hard to redress the balance, in our discourse, in our practical action, if we get the balance wrong, people see hate and intolerance justified under the guise of a just cause rather than love. Calling what are left wing movements towards greater freedom ‘fascist’ is peculiar, because fascism has historically been anchored to far right ideologies, where violence is used to bring about suppression and conformity. Even so, however framed,  intolerance-whilst-arguing-for-tolerance is indeed a marker of our times. It is the big question we are all wrestling with. It is, for example, at the forefront of Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil’s action. We all care for the planet but to what extent can campaigners disrupt lives to promote a worthy cause? The issue is that many onlookers are suspicious of simplistic arguments, and disagree with the form of protest. Moreover the accusation that extremes of feminist activism might have fascist tendencies could almost have been lifted from the playbooks of Andrew Doyle (GB News), Piers Morgan (TalkTV), or Richard Madeley (Good Morning Britain).

Where then does this leave us?

I entered a Barbie world, and I am still making sense of it all. In recent weeks I have been considering Jesus’ parables. Rather than beginning by exploring their meaning (which almost defeats the object), my approach has been to explore why Jesus spoke in parables in the first place? In my view, this has something to do with how Jesus manages conflict. Whilst Jesus can and does speak the truth directly and uncompromisingly (ask any of the scribes or Pharisees who were about to stone the adulteress – ‘Let He who has not sinned cast the first stone’, or derrided by Him publicly as ‘whitewashed tombs’ or a ‘serpents’ – John 8, Matthew 23), Jesus also manages conflict by speaking in parables. Whilst Jesus’ parabolic teaching is judgmental in the sense that it allows Jesus to point the finger at the state of the world, and what Kingdom values look like, Jesus does not poke people in the eye.
A helpful example is that of the lawyer who asks Jesus ‘Who is my neighbour?’ Jesus does not respond by saying, “What a stupid question. Whatever a neighbour is, let alone a good neighbour, it is definitely not you!” No, he tells a story. He invites the lawyer and the bystanders to step into a scene and think through their values. Who is our neighbour? How should we behave? In essence, Jesus states that our neighbour is whoever is beside us, or who we pass by, and we are called to love them, even if we have been conditioned to hate them. Whilst the message is personal, it is not given as a personal barb. It does not try to settle arguments by destroying the person we are trying to persuade. There is something in this, in how as Christians we seek to help people engage in issues of Justice, Dignity, and Solidarity without increasing conflict and hostility, by helping us all see life from a different perspective.

Compulsory viewing?

I believe that Barbie should be compulsory viewing because it presents a unique perspective on the place of men in feminist debates, shedding light on gender expectations and the influence of patriarchy woven into the film. The initial scenes, where girls reject the traditional baby dolls they were given as children and exchange them for Barbie, are both poignant and harrowing, demanding our attention. Witnessing this powerful portrayal of societal expectations and gender norms, I could not help but be deeply moved.

Even so, this marked the outer limits of Barbie’s rebellion. As one of the few males in the cinema, I found myself drawn not only to the message of women’s emancipation but also to the introspection it prompted regarding male dominance as a product of patriarchy. Instead of feeling alienated or blamed, I felt invited to be a part of the solution and engage in the conversation with warmth and understanding. This movie challenges us all to confront the legacy of patriarchy and its impact on shaping unconscious biases – and it is refreshing to see how the complexity around this is acknowledged. There is an irony throughout the film where the kind of lines that might appear on a protest placard are delivered with a level of sarcasm, suggesting that creating a utopia is not as simple as we might imagine.

By addressing gender expectations, Barbie encourages us to reflect on the ways in which societal norms have shaped our perspectives, and it motivates us to actively support the broader movement for gender equality. It is essential that we foster an environment where individuals of all genders can come together in dialogue, acknowledging the influence of patriarchy while striving to create a more inclusive and equitable world. Barbie compels us to embrace change, think critically about gender roles and their limitations, and to be aware of how patriarchy has historically promoted male dominance, which has, in turn, disempowered women.

Similarly, given the film’s thought-provoking critique of Barbie-feminism; “Thanks to Barbie, all problems of feminism and equal rights have been solved”, I find myself anticipating how a more comprehensive critique of matriarchy might surface in wider society. At present, this feels underdeveloped. Exploring both sides of the gender debate will further enrich our understanding and pave the way towards a more comprehensive and nuanced conversation about gender dynamics.

References:
Morgan, Piers, ‘Vile woke fascists bullying us over ‘trans’ rapists and gender-neutral awards pose a severe and unexpected threat’, 150123, https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21162988/piers-morgan-transgender-protests/
Lewis, Isobel, ‘Good Morning Britain: Richard Madeley criticised for calling climate activist a ‘fascist’, 140921 https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/richard-madeley-gmb-climate-protest-b1919758.html
Doyle, Andrew, We should stop letting activists get away with redefining words to suit their political purposes, 300122, https://www.gbnews.com/opinion/andrew-doyle-we-should-stop-letting-activists-get-away-with-redefining-words-to-suit-their-political-purposes/216297
Posted on

We Believe: Churches Together in Whittlesey and District. This is what we stand for.

The statement below reflects Churches Together in Whittlesey and District’s ongoing understanding of how God is calling local Christians and churches to support each other in partnership. It is the culmination of a year’s reflection, as our shared values have surfaced through prayer, conversation, and action. (I write as one of the local ministers who is part of this group, with a sense of gratitude as our jouurney has unfolded).

The desire for churches to work together has renewed following the Covid-19 pandemic, as leaders have recognised that we can understand the needs of our community more by conferring with each other, and in certain areas we can have a far greater impact by working together and supporting each other, than working alone. We are One Body with congregations meeting in different times places, to accomodate different needs. My earlier article, ‘Churches Together, What’s the Point?’ highlighted that whilst there is considerable warrant on us striving towads gathering for shared worship, an alternative starting point – and arguably the more fruitful route in helping people discover the joy of journeying together – rests in shared mission. Whereas encouraging congregants to ditch all their morning services to gather in one place for worship is a challenge, sharing in mission, with opporutunities in different times and different places, may be more achivable. It also is highly relational; we then join for a joint service not because there is an ecclesiological edict to do so, but because we are connected to our friends in other churches and enjoy fellowship together. (I should say that we have had some success in joint worship, but the trust of my argument remains).

We Believe is not intended as a credal statement. It is a creed of sorts, fashioned around Jesus’ prayer for the disciples that they should be One, supporting each other through the hardship that is to come once Jesus is taken from them, and as they face persecution in the future. Its starting point is therefore about how we value each other, and how we relate well to each other, irrespective of the differences we share. We Believe, in my view, determinedly emphasises our common faith in Christ. It asserts boldly some key theological drivers.

If the Good Samaritan was good not just because he was caring enough to tend to the wounded man, but because he had the capacity to love the person that he had most likely been conditioned from birth to hate, then how much more should we be obliged to support our fellow Christians? Should not the love of God blow apart our differences?

God has called us as Christians (rooted in and living out our discipleship as part of a local church), to mission. There will be times when by working in partnership we can achieve more than if we work alone. To resist this is to work contrary to God’s purposes.

Whilst we regret the conflict that has existed, and remains (sadly in some areas) between Christians of different denominations, we celebrate the richness of our traditions, and with that our diversity. God would have us listen and learn from one another. Whilst we might yearn for increased unity, we recognise that diversity is a part of life, and for the sake of peace, and the Gospel, we must learn to live with contrasting convictions, and where we disagree, to disagree well. Our conflict must never obscure our shared belief in Jesus as Lord, and the mighty truth of the death and resurrection of Christ. (This, I must confess, is part of my Methodist identity, having surfaced as part of our ongoing discussions around human sexuality).

There is no place for self-interest and self-preservation in the life of the Church, as if we promote the life of our own church first and disengage in our support of others. There is no room for the fear that members from one church will leave for another down the road who is more appealing. The core task, for us all, is to discern and meet need. Our focus should not be so much on doing the work of the church, but on doing the work of the Kingdom, from which the Church, and local churches are birthed. We are not called to serve so much in our church, but in God’s Church, and it is God who has domain over what this looks like locally. Focus on building the church and we will be dead in the water. Focus on making disciples, and affirming constantly that we want them to find a spiritual home, a church, where they can be loved, love others, and fulfill their potential, and God’s blessing will come our way, irrespective of where they go. If your church has a reputation for nurturing people, it will grow. And we all have the capacity to nurture. What one person loves in worship style and approach will be different from another. (I won’t reveal my preferences but there are some churches that will uplift me, and leaders who I know I can always turn to, but by the same token, I know that there are churches that will not sustain me for where I am in my life right now. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. It is all part of the mix.

And finally, at this moment in our history, and whilst affirming the importance of conscience and freedom of religious belief and expression, as churches, working together, we need to assert ourselves in the fight against discrimination in all its forms. In this present hour, our concern continues for racial justice within the Church, and for the Church’s voice in affirming the dignity and human rights which should be afforded to those who are part of the LGBTQI+ community. In this respect, to remain silent would be to perpetuate, in some contexts, the untruth that the church is die-hard traditional, unconcerned, uncaring, and out of touch with reality. In respect of LGBTQI+ issues, whilst many within and outside the Church will appreciate that our debates will be multilayered, emotional, and complex, the more urgent message for us to relate is that as God’s people, we have compassion and we are clear about what we do stand for where human rights are concerned.

Below is the statement ‘We Believe’, agreed by Churches Together in Whittlesey and District.

We Believe

We believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and that He died for us, and that God raised Him from the grave by the power of the Holy Spirit. That same Spirit is at work in us.

We believe that Jesus’ desire for us that we would support each other, in remaining faithful to God and to each other, through the joys and sorrows of life. We are disciples travelling along the same road.

We believe that God has a mission to save the World from sin, death, and all that enslaves us, and that as Christians and local churches, we have our part in that mission.

We believe that by supporting each other in our discipleship, and the work of our churches, we can do more than if we were to walk alone. To this end, we assert that to work in isolation, where the possibility of partnership exists, is contrary to God’s will.

We believe that diversity is a part of life, and that inclusivity is an act. We embrace the diversity and richness offered by our individual traditions. We have much to learn from each other. Whilst our Churches may differ in certain areas of doctrine and practice, God calls us to live with contrary convictions, and where we disagree, to disagree well, in such a way that does not undermine the gospel.

We believe that God calls us to build the Kingdom, rather than to focus on building our local churches, but that in working for the Kingdom, our local churches will flourish.

We believe in One Church, which is God’s Church, of which we all share a part. We celebrate moments where this unity becomes visible.

Churches Together in Whittlesey in District affirms the Churches Together in Britain and Ireland’s focus on racial justice, the fight against discrimination in all its forms, and in particular whilst respecting the rights of conscience and religious freedom of belief for all people, stresses the dignity that should be afforded to those who are LGBTQI+, and affirms their human rights.

Posted on

Icelandic Pride Part 1: Pride is about Human Rights

During a recent driving holiday touring Iceland, it slowly dawned on our family that we had arrived during Pride Week. Initially, we bypassed the capital, Reykjavik (the home of 65% of Iceland’s population of 372,000 inhabitants, and potentially, the largest number of balloons). However, our first sight of Icelandic Pride did not come via public notices, balloons, or glitter, but by how at least two churches – perched on hills above local villages – had painted their steps in pride colours.

Church Steps, Holmavik, Langley Mackrell-Hey, 2022

 

Church Steps, Holmavik, Langley Mackrell-Hey, 2022

Granted, this was not the case in every town, but it was nevertheless eye-catching, impossible to ignore, and dominated the view. In some places, Pride was unavoidable; the rainbow was beneath your feet as you followed a walkway to a civic building, or in the case of Reykjavik, a street where the individual pride colours were the width of a running track lane.

Pride Walkway,Reykjavik. Langley Mackrell-Hey, 2022 (Permanent since 2019)

Here, by default or deliberate design, the rainbow pointed directly to the iconic Hallgrímskirkja Church tower, stopping at its precincts (which, to be fair had a design of their own). However, just in case you had any doubts as to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland’s solidarity with the Pride movement, in previous years, the central isle at Hallgrímskirkja drew the eye deliberately and unmistakably towards the Pride carpet laid over the steps that led the way up to the communion table. Sadly, I did not see inside the Church during our visit – because when I arrived they were holding a funeral.

The interior of Hallgrimskirkja Church in Reykjavik. Iceland.  (Taken 9 August 2020/Alamy 2023)

 

 

 

 

As a superintendent minister serving the Methodist Church here in the UK, I found myself in holiday-humour overdrive. Where did the authorities lie for this to happen in those churches that participated? Was the land owned by the council – and did they simply paint the steps up to the church, leaving the congregation to work out how they would respond? Had a group of Pride carpet-fitters conducted a series of raids, dressed in balaclavas (garishly coloured of course), and installed carpets thinking, ‘No one will see this until it is too late’? (This would be some achievement in the midnight sun). Or dare I believe that pride was truly owned by the people, and church people at that?

One short answer might be gleaned from the events at Glerá Church in Akureyri (Iceland’s second capital – population, 18,000), where the Pride flag is painted on the walkway leading directly to the doors of the church. Here, the council outlined its plans and asked the church if they would finish the job – and the church agreed. Reports highlight that permission from the church’s executive committee, ‘took a while, but was successful’.[1] I discern a measure of realism in that statement. Iceland is not a panacea of Pride, but it is getting the job done.

I have been stirred by Icelandic Pride. Before I say more, I must freely admit I am trying to piece a narrative together from very shaky foundations. We did not attend a Pride march. I could well be romanticising things because of the changes that I yearn to see in my own country, below the surface. I continue to seek clarity from the Church of Iceland about the passage of events. However, I cannot deny that away from the Pride march, where Pride found its way into towns and villages, the Pride movement felt like it was at a different stage compared to us here in the UK. Crucially, in Iceland, it feels as if Pride’s human rights dimension has taken centre stage. The question, if you are in Iceland, is ‘Why would you not be on board?’ All I saw was tolerance, kindness, and respect in all things, and bewilderment that anyone could be wary of Pride or even homophobic.

Embedded Icelandic pride

Icelanders are not the kind of people to throw volcanic rocks at those who disagree with them. There is however, understandably, some derision from within the LGBT+ community towards the conservative evangelicalism that reaches them, particularly from the United States. (And I say this as a proud, liberal evangelical ministering in the UK). For example, the Reykjavik Grapevine featured an article from one of its reporters, Sam O’Donnell, who relayed an account of a heated conversation between an American tourist and a church attendant at Hallgrímskirkja:

“Excuse me. Is that a rainbow flag in the church?” The tourist asked.
(It’s a fair question. The bright colours don’t always give it away.)

“Yes, it is,” responded the attendant, confirming that the tourist’s eyes did not deceive.

“Why would a church have that?”
(Another fair question. Churches have historically been in favour of executing gay people and not flying rainbow flags.)

“Because we believe that God’s love is inclusive for all people, irrespective of their sexuality or background.”
(This church aims to rectify history’s transgressions. Nice.)

“Jesus would never accept that.”

“Yes, he would.”

“No, he would not.”

“I’m afraid we will have to disagree on that.

O’Donnell writes as someone who grew up in what he describes as the ‘Evangelical Christian Church’, and asserts that he, is certain of God’s unconditional love and would ‘tell the haters to leave the judgment to God.’ His closing comment is that most Americans who visit Iceland realise this, and refrain from entering into theological debates with church attendants.[2] Nonetheless, his sideswipes against what has been done in the name of Christianity have significant warrants. More than this, I submit that O’Donnell is being generous in using the word ‘historical’. In 2019, Sky News reported that Detective Grayson Fritts, also a preacher at a small American church in Tennessee called for the execution of homosexuals[3], and in 2020, Newsweek reported that Pastor Dillan Awes stated that “every single” gay person in America should be executed by the government.[4]

We might be tempted to view O’Donnell’s thinking as a generalisation from the particular.  Locally, we may well know of Christians and churches that are sympathetic to or even directly engaged with Pride. The argument that the Church Catholic has been complicit in sustaining homophobia, is difficult to refute. (The Church Catholic with all its denominations and congregations is, after all, a large entity),  

I take as my definition of homophobia the guidance given by the Methodist Church in Great Britain.[4a])  At its base, homophobia is the denial of the image of God in another person, due to their actual or perceived sexual orientation. A homophobic attitude or action denies someone’s dignity and worth. It can manifest in physical violence and emotional or psychological abuse.  It may surface in stereotypes and assumptions based on a person’s active or perceived sexual orientation, or it may include language that is hostile, hurtful and offensive. Most recently it may result in coercive spiritual practice, such as conversion therapy. Significantly, it is not homophobic to hold to the traditional view of sexuality. 

Whilst I am tempted to follow this line and cite examples of homophobia within Church institutions, I am more aware and filled with more dread about those periods where as Christians we have been complicit in our silence. This, I feel, is the centre ground for the fight against homophobia today. I suspect that aside from those bold individuals who served the Church and yet felt comfortable asserting their identity and being transparent about their sexuality in the UK, the Church has arrived late to the Pride Party. 

My point in highlighting this story is not to shock the reader with visceral examples of where homophobic attitudes exist in church settings – or on its fringes. Calling for gays to be executed is hate speech, and it does indeed serve as a healthy antidote against our complacency, especially when the inhumane views of a protagonist in one part of the world can move from screen to screen and be available on a different continent, in one mouse-click. Neither is it to project the baseless view that all conservative evangelicals think the same. Indeed, I know of countless colleagues who whilst they are against same-sex marriage or undecided, are amongst the most loving, understanding, accepting, and peace-making people I know. They have wrested with their consciences and shed tears over this issue. Moreover, I have yet to meet personally a conservative evangelical who has called for the death of gays.

Rather, I recite O’Donnell’s story as I suspect that it reflects how Pride has become interwoven with certain sections of Icelandic culture. Culture being, ‘The way we do things around here’[5], or the way we do things when we are not consciously thinking about it. We do not know who the tour guide was (although I am assuming that they were not an ordained minister). We do not know their gender or sexual identity. But we do know that they had enough resource at hand, and were confident enough when confronted, to defend the church at some depth – even to the point of, “We believe that God’s love is inclusive for all people, irrespective of their sexuality or background.” That is quite a statement. Not simply ‘The Church believes’, but ‘We believe’. And so there it is – the centre ground in the fight against homophobia. Moreover, note that although O’Donnell is critical of this particular tourist and what they represented, it is he who celebrates the attendant’s response by summing up with, “This church aims to rectify history’s transgressions. Nice.” O’Donnell recognises that ‘This Church’ is different.

The Pride film on the journey back with IcelandAir, The Colourful spirit of Iceland, Celebrating Reykavik Pride) takes care to emphasise how the founders of the first pride parade were astonished by how the people of Reykjavik came out to support. Whilst there was work to be done to establish the legal rights of LGBT+ people, Pride was not an in-your-face, we-are-here-to-stay, protest movement. In fact, there was little protest. Rather, neighbours stood by the roadside to support those who were ‘different’; to affirm them and to assert that they had a right to be true to their own identity rather than living a lie by omission and hiding their sexuality. I am, nonetheless, discerning enough to suspect that at least some of this is the marketing on the part of Pride and IcelandAir to encourage tourism to what would appear to be one of the most gay-friendly cities in the world. However, it felt to me as if there was a difference and that somehow Iceland was further on in its Pride journey. One hypothesis is that Iceland’s unique size, small communities, and familiarity between people in certain regions, accelerated Pride’s growth. For example, Peterborough’s population is around 215,000, whereas the population of Reykyavik is around 131,000 and 233,000 within the wider region. Meanwhile, a city in Iceland comprises anything from 10,000 to 100,000 people. Whilst some rural communities are remote and isolated, if you paint a pride rainbow on a city or village street, everyone will know about it.

Contrasting with Pride in the UK – and changes in the Pride flag

Whilst we have Pride walkways in the UK, they are dwarfed by our civil infrastructure and not always obvious. Certainly not as obvious as a six-lane running track-width pride walkway starting at either end of town and stopping at the entrance to, say, our cathedral.  Even so, the painting of steps and walkways by councils is not new. Aberdeen, Bristol, Coventry, Derby, London, Liverpool, Plymouth, and Swindon, among others, have not been shy in their investment in paint. The flag is appearing elsewhere. Cheshire Police have modified the livery of their squad cars. At the Cricketing 100 match held at Manchester between Birmingham Phoenix and the Manchester Originals in August 2022, the base of the stumps were painted with the Pride Flag, and players were invited to wear rainbow laces in support of LGBT+ people – the latter being something that is far from new in sporting circles but now making featuring as part of the closeups and commentary. I even visited my local garden centre this afternoon to find that I could purchase a set of batteries in pride colours. More than this, varieties of the LGBT flag are growing, including the Social Justice Pride Flag by Moulee (2018) with its reference to the Indian self-respect movement, anti-caste and left-wing political movements. Meanwhile the light pink, white and, cyan additions within the Progress Pride Flag and the New Pride Flag (both 2018), emphasising the rights of trans-people, and trans-people of colour, are particularly striking.

2018 Social Justice Pride Flag by queer activist Moulee. Courtesy Wikipedia.
2018 Progress Pride Flag by Daniel Quasar. 5 half sized stripes representing trans and non-binary individuals (light blue, light pink, white), marginalized POC communities (brown, black), as well as those living with AIDS and the stigma and prejudice surrounding them, and those who have been lost to the disease (black). Wikipedia.
2018 New Pride Flag is a call to action for the LGBTQIA+ movement to center the movement’s most marginalized. It was designed by a two spirit Afro-Taino, Julia Feliz. Wikipedia.

Elsewhere in the world though, Pride can struggle to make it on to the pitch. The Pride armband, originally intended to be worn by the England football team in Qatar (along with six other European nations), was never worn by their respective captains in our recent World Cup.

One Love Armband Design. Wikipedia.

The idea originated in the Netherlands as a direct response and protest towards Qatar’s laws against homosexuality, and the discussion that ensued highlighted clear differences in the human rights stance in other countries. In a bid to ease the tensions, FIFA, football’s governing body, viewed the Pride armband as a political statement – and according to FIFA rules, equipment worn by players must not have any political, religious, or personal slogans. All it took therefore was the threat that participating captains would be served with a yellow card (two yellow cards in two appearances would mean that a player would forfeit the next match), for them to deflate Pride.[6] However, this saga raised significant attention in the UK. I am however questioning how the conflict over Qatar’s human rights record might have been reported elsewhere beyond Europe. It’s a shame that Iceland did not make it to the finals.

A significant twist

Perhaps complementing this discussion over Pride armbands, and hidden from more extensive commentary, was the fact that a ‘senior Qatari official’ alleged to Sky News that its representatives had approached FIFA having made plans before the tournament to suggest that captains be permitted to wear a ‘No place for Islamophobia’ armband. This featured a Palestinian headscarf pattern.[7]

FIFA claimed that it was unaware of such a proposal, and one wonders whether this was official posturing, but for the record, whilst I support LGBT rights, I am also against Islamophobia – the fear, hatred of, or prejudice against Islam or Muslims.[8] My concern is not so much the fact that people from different cultures may find that they hold contrasting world views and values. It is that where we disagree, we should strive to disagree well, and live in peace. It is that we learn to live with contrasting convictions. I recognise that to a degree, some differences seem insurmountable. How does a country that has been so deeply conditioned to reject homosexuals to the point that this is enshrined in law and punishment, undo such attitudes? And thus here we stand at the crunch point of liberation theology; how far should we be prepared to go to support our human brothers and sisters who are living under oppressive regimes and protesting for change? How do we work towards the coming of the Kingdom? What does non-violent protest look like? Let us not forget that whilst a select number of European teams looked to protest with Pride, the Iranian football team (and other high-profile athletes) faced arrest, torture, and death when they returned. And all they did was refuse to sing the national anthem, or if they were a woman, refuse to wear a head covering.

To conclude

Returning to Iceland – and with perhaps insights for elsewhere, what began as a focus on the recognition and rights of LGBT+ communities gains further traction when the focus is on human rights generally. Thus to argue against LGBT+ rights is to argue against human rights – and hence my initial point. The issue beyond this is how as Christians we respond. In my view, this point might be simple, obvious even, but it is an important one. Whilst we may know of people who struggle with anything other than the traditional view of human sexuality, and whilst the proportion of people identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB) in 2018 was 2.2% (Office for National Statistics [16]), we can all agree on the need to make progress where human rights are concerned. For the moment, Iceland seems to be heading in the right direction

This article is the first in a series detailing how my experience in Iceland has impacted my ongoing thoughts as a Methodist Minister serving in the UK. My thoughts do not necessarily represent the views of the wider Methodist Church. My intention in writing this article is to be open about my own thinking, in the hope that I can encourage others, and in the hope that I can learn through others as we enter into dialogue.

I am mindful of two further articles that could stem from this:

The second is a focus on how Pride and the decisions of the Icelandic government have influenced the Church of Iceland, which has now adopted gay marriage.  In particular, there is the potential to explore how the Icelandic Church is engaging with Pride today in a way of acknowledging its failings in the past, and bringing healing. 

The third article is focused on the Pride movement here in the UK, and in particular how the Church in the UK might engage with Pride. One key question is ‘What does Christian Pride look like?’, since whilst the Church may support the human rights dimension of Pride, we also look to retain a particular understanding of what healthy, holy, relationships look like. 

As a final note, I would like to thank colleagues and friends who have encouraged me to write about my experiences. Thus far, whilst I have journeyed with congregations as part of our Methodist Church God in Love Unites us discussions, I have been reluctant to put pen to paper. Part of this stems from the fact that I am straight and I would rather that the voices in support of Pride came from within the LGBT+ community. Meanwhile, the tone of the LGBT+ debate in certain circles is deeply unpleasant, with protagonists on both sides of the debate being openly hostile with each other, in a way that I can only describe as unchristian. This is particularly evident on social media, where the sound byte or video clip rules, where all humanity can be lost, and where hatred can surface so easily. As a minister, I strive to balance an openness about what I believe (It is impossible and unhelpful to hide this), whilst being willing to listen and support those who think differently from me. As I shall demonstrate no doubt in a future article, the fact that a church community may have agreed to register their building for same sex-marriages does not mean that they are free from pain over the issue. This will take some time. But crucial to this journey is the calling that is on us to create communities that are open, honest, respectful, and trusting when it comes to discussing difficult issues. Without this, we will make little progress. 

[1] https://grapevine.is/news/2022/06/16/glera-church-makes-statement-of-inclusivity/

[2] From Iceland — Tourist Vs. Rainbow Flag: 0-1, Rainbow Flag (grapevine.is)

[3] https://news.sky.com/story/tennessee-detective-calls-for-gay-people-to-be-executed-during-church-sermon-11742169

[4] https://www.newsweek.com/pastor-gay-people-solution-killings-bible-1714037

[4a] homophobia-edi-committee-guidance.pdf (methodist.org.uk)

[5] Widely referenced and originate from Deal and Kennedy in the 1980’s

[6] World Cup 2022: what is the OneLove armband and why did FIFA ban it? | Reuters

[7] Muslim nations proposed World Cup armband to raise awareness of Islamophobia | World News | Sky News

[8] Islamophobia | Muslim Council of Britain (mcb.org.uk)

[9] My Google search terms were ‘Methodist church gay marriage uk’ last checked 020123.

[10] https://www.facebook.com/peterboroughmethodistcircuit/

[11] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-61981557

[12] https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/first-same-sex-church-weddings-7827532

[13] https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/northumberland-same-sex-weddings-churches-24696986

[14] https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/20145259.hove-methodist-church-host-first-same-sex-marriage-summer/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YyxUz1LhSE&t=5s

[15] https://www.methodist.org.uk/about-us/the-methodist-church/marriage-and-relationships/archive-marriage-and-relationships-2019/managing-group-conversations-around-marriage-and-relationships/a-model-statement-on-living-with-contradictory-convictions/

Sexual orientation, UK – Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

 

 

Posted on

Churches Together. What’s the point?

Why are we doing what we are doing, and how do we rebuild our local movement post-pandemic? 

This article was compiled in September 2022, originally for a Churches Together group in one of the villages where I serve. Here, Churches Together were looking to re-establish itself post-pandemic but questioning how our local movement might find renewal. Why should people in churches be attracted to Churches Together?

When our Jewish brothers and sisters celebrate their Passover meal, they begin by priming the youngest child to ask a question to the oldest adult present. This question is, ‘Why is this night different from all other nights?’ It is, arguably, one of the most important elements of the evening. It marks the beginning of the storytelling as the family recount God’s faithfulness in delivering His people from slavery and leading them to the promised land. It prevents the true meaning of Passover from being lost, and it reinforces the tradition.

The danger for us as Churches Together is that we assume that our congregations and even ourselves as leaders understand our purpose. And so, as we stand on the edge of something new (and it is clear already that God is doing a work among us – you can feel the fellowship, playfulness, and delight around the table), it is worth us stepping back and asking the question, ‘Why are we doing what we are doing?’ This is helpful because there are many good reasons that churches should work together. Some are scripturally based. Others surface from our practical experience of how God can do great things when Christians lay aside their differences and work together. But some are better than others.

The main reason for our questioning, ‘Why are we doing what we are doing?’ is to strengthen ourselves as we draw strength from the consensus that we hold. The second is to help us think realistically and strategically about how we grow ChurchesTogether, locally, as a movement. The word ‘movement’ is key. I put it to us all that our Churches Together groups are not so much a committee or an organization seeking to ensure that churches play together nicely (and if possible avoid clashing with each other’s events). We are a movement; a group of people who believe that churches through Christ change lives, and that this outworking of the gospel cannot be contained within our walls. As Jesus reminds us, you cannot fit new wine into old wineskins. Or, to use another gospel reference, we are going to need a bigger boat. Crucially, the more that we are able to support each other and work together, the more growth we will see in our churches.

Why do we do what we do?

Looking to scripture:

Whilst there is a scriptural warrant for Churches Together, I would suggest that this is not always the most helpful starting point because it is open to interpretation. It is however possible to investigate the context and background of Jesus’ words and penetrate the surface. In John 17:21, Jesus prays with the disciples that they, ‘may they all be one… that the world may believe that you sent me…’ What are we to make of this?

The word ‘One’ has been interpreted by some to mean ‘One Church’ (with the schism that has given rise to Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Methodist, Baptist, Reformed, Pentecostal etc being viewed as sinful). The vision here is that we should all be part of the One Holy Catholic Church (‘Catholic’ here meaning ‘universal’ or ‘all-embracing’ rather than Roman Catholic of course). However, this thinking is difficult because it infers that somewhere within our mix of denominations is the ‘one true church’ that Jesus would have us follow. So then, which one of us has it all right, and who is going to concede that they are wrong? As for me, I always think that if I find the perfect church, I am going to get out as soon as possible, lest I make it more unholy by being there in the first place. Therefore, whilst the idea of calling people to be One Church might appeal in the first instance, it highlights the division that exists, within seconds.

What then can we say? Well, perhaps the most insightful and least contested statement would be to recognise that Jesus here is not speaking to the Church, or anything like the Church as we know it. (Arguably, the origins of the Church as an institution are closer to the 4th Century when Christianity was adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire). Rather, Jesus is speaking with passion to a band of disciples who need to stay together and support each other lest they be scattered by the conflict and persecution that is to come. The call to be ‘one’ is woven into a prayer that the Father would protect them, and that the Holy Spirit will be their advocate and help them discern the truth as they journey on.

If then there is a scriptural warrant for Churches Together, it is that we should help Christians support each other in their discipleship. Our task is to set the tone and provide spaces in which people can form mutually supportive relationships with each other. And our role as leaders is to model this ourselves and to point and celebrate where this is happening in others. Since Jesus comes declaring that the Kingdom is both here and coming (as opposed to the Church is here and coming), our task, surely, should be one of breaking down the barriers that prevent people from across different churches relate well to each other. There are significant gains to be had from people in one church supporting the work of another, and vice-versa. This said, there is some danger in people calling themselves Christians and yet not being anchored to one particular church. We would therefore be wise to encourage people belong to one particular church and to serve others from there. One of the best ways in which we might appreciate the contrasts of another tradition may well be to know our own well enough in the first place. There would appear to be no contradiction in making a spiritual home in one place and yet visiting the house of another to support them, and be supported by them.

Creating a Missiological Juggernaught rather than an Ecclesiological nightmare.


‘Ecclesiology’, in its crudest sense, is a term that refers to, among others, how we ‘do Church’. It is a heady mix of culture (‘the way we do things round here’ or ‘the way we do things when we are not consciously thinking about what we are doing’). It is influenced by a blend of the tradition in which we have been raised, our view of scripture, our experience, and our reason (God gave us a brain for reason), to refer to what is known as the Methodist Quaderilateral. Our Ecclesiology determines, among others:

  • Who leads? Minister, vicar, priest, or pastor?
  • Who has the (real) power and how this is balanced between leader and congregation?
  • When does worship take place? Morning, evening, or beteen when the cows need milking?
  • How do people worship? Do they cross, kneel, crouch, stand, sit, raise their hands, or swing incense?

In short, we would be unwise to mess with culture. We are all different. Whilst we can be refreshed by being exposed to a different tradition, it can also be a struggle, for deep reasons.

‘Mission’ is a term that is easier to describe. It is less to do with worship and more to do with how we serve. There are some interesting definitions:

  • Mission is about loving our neighbour.
  • Mission is about working out what God is doing and joining in.
  • Our mission as well as to serve others is to make disciples.
  • To make disciples, we need to evangelise (invite people to commit to Christ and take the first steps in their Christian journey).
  • Disciples are always connected in some way to a local church.

Speaking candidly, the Spirit moves differently in different contexts, and I have never seen any two Churches Together groups take the same form. I have seen quite a few iterations of Christians from different churches working together, local churches working together, and Churches Together. (They can vary significantly in their outworking and affiliations). Even so, Churches Together in Britain and Ireland seems a good starting place. Whilst some colleagues from other denominations are close behind me in terms of the number of churches they serve, our Methodist stationing system places us frequently across multiple congregations and therefore, working with multiple Churches Together groups.

Joint Worship

We should not give up on joint worship. However, we should concede that apart from where congregations from say two or three different local denominations have unite permanently, the quest for joint worship has always been difficult. This is because people are a product of their culture. For example, a morning joint service means that every church in our context apart from one must move its congregation. An afternoon service suggests that meeting for worship is an optional extra. Across the board, however, acts of worship that are in open spaces, and on high seasons and holidays, are supported by congregants. Perhaps this is because everyone sees the value in public witness, and this is something that we can do better together than alone.

The second starting point is often the much more fruitful one, because whilst individual Christians from local churches may well have hurt each other (sadly) to the point of struggling to co-exist in the same space, and whilst churches might differ theologically over key issues such as baptism and communion, any resistance to work together and alleviate the sufferings of others, is a total anathema to the gospel. It is inexcusable. Neither is there any room for protectionism as if one church should be wary about supporting another because they might ‘poach’ members – the answer to this is to be better at our invitation and evangelism.  There are more than enough people in our villages, towns, and cities to fill all our churches.

Our country is experiencing an increase in the cost of living that we have not seen for decades. Our national conscience has been moved to the point of everyday people taking in Ukrainian refugees. There is now much focus on local churches providing warm spaces. Meanwhile, we as Church leaders are failing Jesus if we cannot, by cultivating supportive relationships between members of different churches, alleviate the suffering that some people are going to experience. To turn this argument on its head, why would we not do all we can to work together and do even more good? And why would we not do it when in the very act of serving others and being an instrument from the Lord, members of our congregations will discover life in all its fulness? (John 10:10)

I am not sure how I ended up writing an essay! This may well be a helpful document for other church leaders as we reflect. Whilst people have an inkling that working as part of Churches Together might be good, and plenty can see that Churches Together can provide an overarching and informative view of what the needs are in our context, I am not convinced that people have grasped the reasons as to why churches should work together. Its a classic, ‘We just do this because we have always done this’. Perhaps there might be an element of doing it because it is fun and we enjoy being together. However, I am not sure that we are doing it because in by being faithful in this way, we are showing our unity for the love of God, and we are demonstrating our love for our neighbour that is so much more powerful than words.

Some simple truths

Perhaps the points below might be helpful as a simple reminder to those who attend our churches about some of the core truths that lead us to work together, wherever possible:

  • We may worship differently but our core beliefs are the same, and we share the same calling; to make disciples and to show God’s love to the World.
  • God calls us to be one as Christians first (never mind our denominational affiliation), supporting each other as disciples. Through Churches Together we encourage people to be there for each other when the worst happens. Equally, we celebrate with our brothers and sisters when we experience the best that life has to offer.
  • As Church Leaders there is an obligation on us to model this ourselves; it is in and of itself, an act of witness to the presence and power of God across our churches.
  • There are more than enough people in many villages, towns, and cities, to fill our churches; it is the Lord who builds our local churches by the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, whilst it might be tempting to preserve our own numbers and to limit our efforts to support our own congregations, it is in fact counterproductive. Our task is to simply help people find a church that is right for them. We care more about them than what church they eventually attend.
  • Churches Together provides a way of helping churches coordinate their efforts so that in their individual efforts they do not undermine what each other is doing.
  • Churches Together can take simple steps to permission give and remove the invisible barriers to mission that can so easily impede us; through sharing information about what churches are doing and what help is available to those who are in need; by celebrating and highlighting examples of where a member of one church finds fulfillment in supporting a mission project in another; of discerning what additional needs exist in the town and encouraging joint projects between churches, or a single project under the umbrella of Churches Together.
  • And yes, our united acts of worship, particularly those that are in public (in the form of gatherings for worship, and times of reflection and prayer) will provide a visible witness to a world and can therefore be the first steps in evangelism from which people can invite to find a home in a local church. However, the danger is that they will end-up being constrained to within the (literal) walls of the church, where newcomers will rarely venture, and they will cater for those who are committed to church unity rather than pressing the argument home amongst those who may well be asking the question, ‘What is the point of Churches Together?’
Posted on

Buried in Paperwork, but for the right reasons

I can honestly say that it has been both one of the busiest and productive periods that I can remember in my ministry. From remembering the passing of our former Queen, Elizabeth 2nd, to overseeing roof repairs at Westgate New Church (specifically the bookshop), to collating and applying for grant funding towards our hoped for lay employee, it has been pretty non-stop.

Malcolm, our Church Secretary at Whittlesey, commented to me the other day that things were going well, apart from that we seemed to be buried in paperwork! I hope he does not mind me quoting him. He is right though, in that whilst we do need planning and paperwork in the life of the church, we must never lose sight of what ‘church’ is. It is about faith, and fellowship, and finding love and fulfilment in ways that we had never anticipated.

Paperwork has a structure – here the microscopic structure of paper: Micrograph of paper autofluorescing under ultraviolet illumination. The individual fibres in this sample are around 10 µm in diameter. By Richard Wheeler (Zephyris) – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10688563

 

 

 

On the other hand, I am ok with paperwork so long as it gets us somewhere. One useful phrase I have picked up over the years is, ‘Prayerful planning prevents poor performance.’ If we are to move forward as a church then we need to understand each other, engage quickly over areas where we need to make decisions, hold lightly to what is ultimately not important, and plan for the future. And for this to happen, we need paperwork. I was so grateful to know that someone in the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church had prepared paperwork and prayers/suggestions in the event of the death of our sovereign. I have also been grateful for the paperwork where the costs of our building work at Westgate New Church were agreed, and contracts signed. As we search for a solution to some of the concerns about our entrance and how it could be remodelled to provide a more welcoming accessible space, I am grateful for the paperwork that runs two and fro from our surveyor, even though we are all concerned about the costs! I am also grateful for rotas in the life of the church. Without planning and paperwork, we don’t know what we are doing. Finally, I am glad that we have the ‘paperwork’ that is the gospels and epistles; fragments of the accounts, collected together on the life, death, and resurrections of Jesus, and of the conversations that took place between churches.

So paperwork is not always a bad thing. But Malcolm is right. Amidst of all of our planning, we need to remember that we still have a church to run, and reach out to newcomers. The paperwork should inspire us, excite us, push us forward. At tomorrow’s meeting we will therefore begin by agreeing some Christmas dates and talking through how we support our children and young people, in worship, right now. We will move on to talk about the progress we have made with our hopes to employ a lay employee and improve our building – but the paperwork in this is there to serve us, to keep us informed, to add clarity – if it does this then fine. If not, well lets just say that the paperwork is best used for something else!

Posted on

26mph. Jesus did not come to make bad people good. He came to make dead people live.

26.7 miles per hour – to be precise. And that’s on the flat without ducking down on ‘the drops’ and carrying a rucksack. I am of course referring to my most recent bike ride from Peterborough or to be precise, Gunthorpe Road to Queen’s Street. The route took me north via Newborough, then right on to the Thorney Road (facing winds of 25mph, gusting at 30mph – I checked), then turning right to be wind-assisted for the second half, up past the Dog and Doublet and into the town. What a contrast.

Not me. Just me in my head. By Wikichops – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=62320658

 

 

 

 

 

I am sure there are people who have gone faster. I once did a funeral for a man who managed to live a long life despite receiving a speeding ticket for travelling at 50mph on a bike through the Mersey Tunnel. I was so sceptical about this that I did check what was possible – and yes it is – but you rely on the hill rather than spinning legs to achieve those kinds of speeds. And of course, those who know my figure will know that I am more like a human cannonball than a dart – but this does have its advantages when it comes to preserving my momentum.

El Pollock / Queensway Road Tunnel, River Mersey / CC BY-SA 2.0, Wilipedia

Seriously though, for me, 27 miles per hour – faster than I have ever gone even
when travelling downhill – is fast enough. Goodness knows how people cope at higher speeds, especially when you don’t know the road (and more to the point, where the pot-holes are). Experience tells me that falling off even at half that speed hurts. At a few days over 50 (Ahhh, I year you say), I don’t bounce. However, in that moment my thoughts are not on slowing down, but just concentrating.
There is something in this; so often we have the potential in life to go faster but we need to balance this with keeping ourselves safe. Sometimes our fears are ill-founded and we need to stay alert, keep pedalling, and keep our hands off the brakes. At other times we need to take the risk seriously and slow down. Somewhere in between the two is what Jesus declares to be ‘Life in all its fullness’. Hold back and you will miss out on life. Push it too hard and we will end up flying through the air, and not in an angelic way. But in my view, more often than not we are more conservative and risk adverse than we need be. Life is meant to be lived to the full. Whilst we can find fulfilment in an arm-chair, it is not meant to be lived there, at least not in the spiritual sense. Even if mobility prevents us from leaving our homes easily, we can still ‘get out’, exposing ourselves to new experiences; reading a different author, watching a different TV programme, phoning up someone we have not talked to in ages, setting up a Facebook account (or any other form of social media). There is a whole world out there. God wants you to live in it, experience it, to feel the reward of the wind pushing you from behind, having faced everything it can muster up as you face it beforehand.
I am minded of the quote that came to mind last Sunday morning, “Jesus did not come to make bad people good. He came to make dead people live”. For me there is more to life than just a pulse. So the next time you are tempted to tap the brakes just hold off for a second – one second – and ask whether there is more life to be had in this, or whether you really do want to slow down and miss out on a whole new experience. Sometimes our nervousness is unwarranted. Risk is everywhere. It’s how much risk we are prepared to tolerate that makes all the difference.
Posted on

Towards a policy on Prayer Ministry in the Holy Spirit

The Peterborough Circuit has a history in offering prayer ministry for healing and wholeness,, as do countless other churches and circuits. We might term this ‘Ministry in the Spirit’. In one sense, this feels like an odd statement to make given that the Holy Spirit is present every time we pray in Jesus name before Father. However, the phrase does of course point to a particular openess, approach, and expectation to God in those being prayed for and those who are suporting as they offer prayer. This policy (which remains under review) is driven by three considerations:

First, as we gather post-pandemic, the practice of inviting people to respond and request prayer, and come alongside other who will listen and support them in prayer, has the potential to deepen the sense of koinonia (spiritual fellowship, community, partnership) between people.

Second, the offer of prayer ministry is a testament in itself in that it projects the expectation that God has a work to do in people’s lives. Prayer ministry is an intensely evangelical act – evangelical in the sense that it encourages people to centre their lives around the Word of God and the work of the Holy Spirit and gives them the confidence to share their faith with others. As the latin summary of our Christian Tradition puts it, what we pray, reflects what we believe, and how we live (Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi).

Third, in order that people feel secure and to mitigate against hurt or harm, appropriate safeguards must be in place. These will relate to our ongoing experience of safeguarding issues, and the present context of the church, particualry in relation to God in Love Unites Us, our inclusivity towards members of the LGBT community, and the Methodist Church ban on conversion therapies.

The following is offered as an initial policy, to be held under constant review.

General Principles of Prayer Ministry

  • We believe God hears and answers prayer. We want to see that in our lives and in the lives of individuals who seek prayer ministry.
  • We will minister with God’s grace and mercy without judgement or prejudice.
  • We aim to provide a safe space for people to share their needs and concerns in confidence.
  • We will listen to the person. We will listen to God. We will assure people that God loves them. We will give people the confidence to open their hearts to the Holy Spirit.  
  • We believe that prayers spoken in the name of Jesus have the power to free us from sin (which ensnares us), death, and all that oppresses.
  • We believe that from the point where someone steps forward to receive prayer,  the Holy Spirit begins to bring or continue works of healing, restoration and hope.
  • Whilst we draw strength from the prevalence of exorcism and healing in the gospels, we also acknowledge the damage that can be done through unhelpful declarations, invocations, promises, and practices. Our focus is therefore not to rationalise what is happening but to simply help people encounter Jesus and have confidence in opening themselves up to the work of the Holy Spirit.
  • We uphold the Methodist Church’s Safeguarding teaching, particularly around physical abuse, emotional abuse, spiritual abuse, controlling behaviour, and coercive control.
  • We uphold the position of the Methodist Church against conversion therapies. Our approach, for those people who are questioning their sexuality or gender identity, is to support them on their journey but to emphasise those values that will enable loving and committed relationships.

Our personal discipleship and approach

  • The Team Leader in any setting will be any minister, or a fully-accredited Local Preacher or Worship Leader.
  • Any safeguarding concerns will be forwarded to the Team Leader and thereafter to the Circuit Safeguarding Officer.
  • We will maintain our own spiritual health through our daily prayers, reading of the scriptures, and worship. We will be support and be supported by a local church.
  • We will maintain privacy, unless we have obtained permission to share. Only in the event that we consider that the person’s own life or that of another is at risk, or if someone discloses that they have been abused, will be breach this.  
  • Individuals from other Christian denominations may be invited to assist in prayer on a case by case basis at the discretion of the circuit superintendent. The principles of Safer Recruitment will apply.
  • We will pray with humility, sensitivity, gentleness, value and respect, and will always protect the dignity of those seeking care.
  • Someone coming for prayer will never be prayed for alone; they will be supported by a second person (even if they are watching and listening at a distance).
  • Whilst we do not require men to pray for men, or women to pray for women, we recognise that this may be helpful in certain situations and so will always ask the person whether they are happy with who is listening and praying. We will be sensitive in our discernment to offer this as conversations unfold.
  • After having prayed for others, we will seek assurances that all is well in ourselves, and we will pray for God’s protection and blessing over each other.

How we Pray – what does ‘good practice’ look like?

  • Welcome people. If unknown to you, introduce yourself and ask their name.  Spend a few moments putting them at ease. Assure the person what they are sharing will be kept confidential. It may be more helpful for people to sit for prayer; if you can, offer this but sit beside them rather than stand above them.
  • “What do you want God to do for you today?” is a good starting question. Give people time to express why they are seeking prayer; listen well, don’t judge, and remember we here to offer prayer rather than advice or counselling.  Keep folk focused on what they want God to do for them. Do reflect back what they have said, particularly if there are strong phrases that highlight how they feel. Make sure you have tissues to hand.
  • Never touch someone without asking permission. If you wish to lay lay a hand on a specific area (that they may have referred to), ask the person to put their hand there and you lay yours on top, if they would be comfortable with this.
  • Invite the Holy Spirit to come upon the person. Allow time for the Holy Spirit to minister. Encourage the person being prayed for to close their eyes and receive.  Keep your eyes open, be watching, and listen for what God is saying.  Speak thanks and blessing for what God is doing.
  • If you feel led to pray in tongues, please do so silently unless you have explained to the person what this is. An acceptable thing to say is, ‘Is it ok if I pray for you in a special prayer language – it helps when I do not know what to pray but I know I must pray something?’ Do not speak the tongue out loud but under your breath.
  • People will be moved powerfully by the Holy Spirit. Reassure than that this is normal and that they can trust God. Frequently, the Spirit enables the release of emotion, and the person can lament or be moved by joy: this can surprise us. Affirm what you see, assuring then that God can release pain and anger etc. If someone becomes very distressed or noisy, pray that they come to a point of calm. Act sooner rather than later. Seek help if needed.
  • Unhelpful declarations: Do not say ‘You are healed’ (the best testimony on healing comes from the person being prayed for). Just pray for healing. Rejoice with the person. Advise them to consult with their doctor and continue with medication etc. Avoid, “Do this or that and all will be well”, “You need more faith”, “It’s your fault you are not healed”.
  • Unhelpful invocations: Do not speak to the ‘demon within’ someone, yet alone attempt to deliver someone. Just because Jesus, the Son of God did it, that does not mean that you have the discernment to identify what is at work or the authority to deliver someone here. There is need for sensitivity and deep discernment in this area, and much harm and hurt can be caused if this is handled badly. Focus instead on the power of Christ to release us from oppression, and (should this relate), speak of ‘spiritual oppression’.
  • Unhelpful promises: ‘You will find a partner’, ‘You will get pregnant’ are obvious no-no’s.
  • Respecting boundaries: ‘I will keep a secret’, ‘Would you like to meet 1:1 later’ are an obvious breach of boundaries that potentially isolate you from other members of the team, and leave you vulnerable as well. Take care.
  • If you feel you or the person needs further support, ask for their permission to refer to the Prayer Team Leader.
Posted on

Why I have faith in the Methodist Church’s ‘God For All’ Strategy… Speaking the truth about how the Church has a track-record of change and is prepared to retain its spiritual integrity and confront reality.

I find it relatively easy to forgive people who are sceptical of the Methodist Church, even when they are close to the point of undermining it. After all, the Church belongs to God, and not to us, and whilst congregations rise and fall, the work of God continues. God is big enough to handle the complaint, and we are big enough to listen, even if we become wound-up. Curiously, I find that this distrust of the Church is more apparent in those who are activists and pioneers in the life of the Church. This, I suspect, is for two reasons. Please therefore indulge me in what will be a long introduction to why I have faith in the Methodist Church, and in God for All . (You can, by the way, take my faith in Jesus as read). And also, please do not read this as my questioning our investment in pioneering, innovation and even enabling people who we know will agitate. I write also as a pioneer coach, or at least, someone who does my bit to help bridge the link between the experience of leaders on the margins, and the institution at the center.

First, as a leader I am well aware that there can be genuine problems with how the institution of the church feels at odds with immediate needs on the ground, and of how some our or policies and procedures can feel archaic and non-sensical. This is sometimes a fair point. The issue is not however that the policies are necessarily wrong. it is that they are framed with an approach and in a language that seems overly legalistic and archaic. If for example, I invite a group of Christians who are gathering as a congregation to see themselves as a church, I will often get a good response. However, if I were to suggest that they need a steward, a treasurer, a property secretary, a pastoral secretary, and a safeguarding officer (and the list could go on), they may well look at me in horror (apart from agreeing that safeguarding was the most important thing). However, if I say, ‘That’s an impressive jar of money that people have given so far – do you think someone should start a bank account’, or ‘It’s great to see so many people here, do we have anyone who can keep track of who people are and how we can contact them?’ the result, I guarantee you will be different. Sadly, we overlook all too easily that many of our regulations have been formed, by our reflecting on experience – and sometimes bad experience – in the white-hot hear of mission. Thus you might think that a requirement of fourteen days notice for a church council meeting to take place is unwieldy, until you find yourself in a new church that has become insular, cliquey, and planning things behind everyone’s backs. Or until you find a leader who because they have not considered safeguarding, ends up compromising themselves or wholly unprotected if something goes wrong.

The second reason why people may be sceptical is because – and this is my one and only objection to Fresh Expressions, as someone who is still an Advocate for the movement – we have baked-in to the call for people to develop new forms of church and mission the argument that the inherited church has failed. In other words, we are asking and releasing people to do new work – which, however we measure it, has been hugely successful, but then we ask them in the same breath to trust the inherited Church, the wider body that is in decline, to manage what is fragile and new. Unsurprisingly, people have reservations and Fresh Expressions becomes the victim of its own rhetoric. What people forget of course is that whilst the inherited Church has struggled to adapt, all of this new work has been funded through the generosity and time of people in the wider Church, who have given greatly. Arguably, if we were to measure the level of giving towards mission, we would find that inherited congregations have sacrificed a great deal. Rather than calling for ministers (for example) to serve them tea and biscuits until they die, they have accepted that whilst they miss their minister, and even need their minister, their minister needs to go where they are needed the most. Of course, I am not suggesting that this is always the case, but in what is approaching now twenty years of experience, I have seen a significant shift.

So having addressed two reasons why some innovators and pioneers might be sceptical of the Methodist Church, allow me to share why I have confidence in God For All. In the main, it is a judgement built on my experience on what the Church has got right, and it begins with Our Calling (now 20 years old, reaffirmed in 2018), something that remains a versatile tool for church reflection. It gave way to a process of change that I have lived through. Whilst the Church may be slow to react in certain instances, no one can question the Methodist Church’s ability to ask difficult questions, have the integrity to follow them through, and implement difficult decisions. We might not like the decisions I grant you, but please don’t present the image of a sloth like church that is unable to cross the road in time to avoid oncoming traffic.

Following Our Calling came the Conference Reports:

Where are we heading? (2003)
Priorities for the Methodist Church (2004) – here we identified how, among other issues, people struggled with the capacity to speak of God, and to evangelise.
Team Focus (2005), resulting in the restructuring of the Connexional Team.
Reshaping for Mission (2006) which encouraged circuits to merge for mission.
Fruitful Field (2011 onwards), representing a wholesale change in our understanding of ‘formation’ wherein previously we had focused a disproportional level of resourcing on ordination training, a the expense of other formational needs among lay people.

Methodism’s Hidden Harvest (2016) began to highlight some of the benefits of the Church’s partnership with Fresh Expressions, concluding,

31% of circuits have a fresh expression
37,000 people worship regularly in a Methodist Fresh Expression
24,000 of those attending have no prior experience of church
59% of fresh expressions are lay-led

You can read the report here:

3307-fx-research-report-methodism-s-hidden-harvestDownload


Following this trend and after a period where the Church, nationally, set out with its Reimagine agenda (a shift that included that was much broader than fresh expressions, encouraging circuits and churches to reflect on their mission and develop new work, the Methodist Church then began a lengthy, grass roots consultation which led to God For All, the conference paper for which is available via the link below:

conf-2020-4-evangelism-and-growthDownload

The thing that excites me about God for All as a progression of this is how:

• It has arisen from the wholesale consultation across the wider church, thanks to the early work of the Evangelism and Growth teams.
• The Methodist Church has ‘put its money where its mouth is’. £22.7 million pounds over five years, including £1 million on encouraging personal evangelism, £6.6million for New Places for New People (new work), £8.6 million for working on the margins, in comparison to basic staffing costs of £2.7 million.
• It is a strategy for growth that can be owned fully by the Methodist people and comes from the heart of the church. (I say this having experienced how Fresh Expressions rejuvenated the church, but was not as owned by the Methodist Church, at its grassroots, as much as it could be). This I feel is something that has emerged from the heart of the Methodist Church, of which Methodists can rightly be proud. Of course, I use the term ‘ownership’ and ‘pride’ in the best possible way. Ownership is not about us holding on to, and refusing to share something that is precious to us, it is about churches surviving because the self-govern, self-finance, and self-propagate, albeit in the context of Methodist subsidiarity. (And to that drawing from my ‘what’s healthy in mission perspective’ I would include self-theologising, in the sense that there is ample room within God for All for local churches to discern the shape of their mission. It is not one-size fits all approach.
• It holds the church to account, asks, ‘And so What?’ and suggests a way forward. I believe that the structural changes are much like a new wineskin that God is for us. Now this is in place we need to grow a crop for the new wine. I view God For All as encouraging the variety and blend of people and resources that we need. Another important feature is that I think Methodism is ahead of the curve here in terms of mission. Whilst I can see synods in other denominations are being excited about the stories and good practice that are surfacing from Church at the Margins and/or pioneering contexts, God For All seems to be a much more coherent approach, where different variations in missional work are being woven together in one garment, and no longer is one act of mission taken as more valuable, or given more profile because it is more shiny than another. We need both The Methodist Way of Life, and Everyone an Evangelist for example. Without wanting to sound dismissive, beware any local church that thinks it can deflect difficult questions about their lack of growth – some of my own included (we can all do it) – by over-emphasising (as they fade into oblivion) the importance of spiritual growth alone. Considerable work has also been clearly done on how the different facets of God For All feed into each other. Until this point, I have for example seen dioceses in the Church of England develop say a 2020 vision to reach equity of fresh expressions versus inherited church staff and projects, but God for all seems to go deeper, broader.
• It focuses on us encouraging adaptive (hard) rather than technical (easier) change. I am minded that in their report on Reshaping for Mission, the Strategy Research Team concluded (in my own words) that we were good on the ‘reshaping’, but poor on the ‘mission’ part. I see God For All as being something that can address this.
• God for All faces up to the need for evangelism and growth, and refuses to dodge the fundamental issues by overemphasizing the importance of our ‘spiritual growth’ whilst ignoring our need to make new disciples.
• The foundational tenets of centering our lives on God, prioritising evangelism, and developing transformational leadership (TL) resonates with me. I am excited by how centering our lives on God will be driven by The Methodist Way of Life. From my perspective, this is a resource that needs to be pushed at circuit level, rather than appearing as an option. Doubtless the pandemic has had a significant impact on the different means by which the message, and the commitment cards can be distributed. From my experience, this is an urgent area of review and we may need some even sharper directives from the connexion to accelerate this.
• Linked to Transformational Leadership, if this is taken seriously (and it is a technical phrase that should not be banded about unless you mean what it implies) I find the concept of ‘individualised consideration’ as key, as well as helping teams discover their collective identity and the power that they do have. There is a strong links for pastors here in helping individuals connect their sense of self to a project and then to others within a group. Additionally, I think that the focus within TL on helping people think for themselves is empowering, as is an openness towards what is unexpected or remarkable. I can think of projects that have started in one direction but have had benefits in another. I am not sure whether we have focused as much as we could on how we understand ‘leadership’ in the church – perhaps an area of further work.

• The remaining elements excite me because:
… they arise from our having reflected on our Methodist tradition and have theological depth. They are so clearly anchored people cannot refer to tradition as a way of resisting change. Church on the Margins for example, is exactly what John Wesley did.
…they show a sophistication of thinking – the very fact that leaders are recognised separately from pioneers, evangelists or leaders is telling.
…The focus on Digital Mission simply says to me that the Church is aware and alert to new mission fields, and engaging with this.

So there you have it. That is why I believe in God for All. Above all, and retuning to my opening comments about why people may be sceptical of the Church, we would do well to remember that we are called to follow Jesus, but to follow Jesus is to be part of the Church; the two go hand-in hand within the Missio Dei, Sure, we can talk about how ‘church’ can exist in different forms, and how churches can organise their own affairs (there is a surprising degree of latitude in our current policies, membership aside) but to lose faith in the Church, and its capacity to, just occasionally get things right, is really to lose faith in Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Posted on

Reflections on Adapting to Change from Bridge Builders II: Leadership and Resilience in Ministry

Welcome folks. It has been a very heavy week for me – but for better reasons than sadly, the number of funerals that have come my way as per the last two weeks. This week and next week, as a product of my Ministerial Development Review, and with the support of the Circuit, I am attending a Bridge Builder’s course.

This organisation specialises in helping people manage conflict – and when I did the first course two years ago it transformed by perspective. It helped me take less on myself and gave me some very practical skills to respond in the best possible way when difference and tension collide within my own family, within me, and within churches. One of the lessons I learnt was that some forms of conflict are a natural part of the creative process. The art of moving forward seems to revolve around acknowledging feelings, and what we are passionate about – and noting through all of this the common ground that we can agree on. A good example of this have been some of the really helpful conversations that we have had about God in Love Unites Us. The issue of same sex relationships can be a polarising one, but I have been proud of how we have lived phrases such as. ‘We can think differently, but love the same’. Another, Wesleyan, principle is that we can ‘disagree well. The main thing during our conversations as a National Church has been that despite our differences, those who are part of the LGBT+ community have felt listened to and respected – as have those who struggle. As with any form of conflict, progress begins when we have the confidence and the forbearance to face our emotions and share how we feel. Meanwhile, scripture calls us to discern a way forward which accepts that we bear in mind the health of the body as a whole. I did not intend to speak on God in Live Unites Us as I set out to offer my weekly bulletin today, but it has naturally led in this direction, and to me reminding us all to pray for the Church and our forthcoming District synod, and to invite anyone who wants to share their thoughts on the report to contact our synod reps, or anyone in CLT. Thoughts shared in writing are of course the easiest place to start though.


This second part of the course – four days over two weeks, is on Building Resilience in Ministry, which feels somewhat ironic given that if all of us were not resilient in the first place, given everything we have experienced, we would have fallen by the wayside already, I will report a little more on this once the course is over, but so far I have been encouraged by a focus on the Psalms which has underlined for me that a cycle of how feeling disorientated (either by difficult events or as things seem chaotic before a new order of things is established) is very much part of the human condition. There are of course times of blessing. The reality is that rather than pushing back against the discomfort of disorientation, we step more to it in the knowledge that a sense of order will emerge. Linking this to the pandemic, there is a tendency to go back to the way things were before – which is now a distant land, and in reality, unobtainable. Instead, we need to sit with the discomfort, in that heady mix of celebrating the good things that we have put in place despite the pandemic whilst questioning how everything fits back together as we emerge into face to face worship. What will we drop? What will we continue? What will we adjust? It all feels uncomfortable but we have no option to go back; we must move forward. My thoughts and prayers are with every church in the circuit as we reflect. Be reassured as you hear me acknowledge how challenging this might feel. We will get there in the end. And we will be all the better for it, having been crafted into the kind of churches that God wants us to be, fit for our present age.

Posted on

Pajama Sunday? Why not? We have a Sunday for just about everything else – and we could in fact be saying something serious.

Sheep Onesie for sale by Onesieful. (Teenager not included – but lets give it a try).
https://www.onesieful.com/products/premium-fluffy-sheep-adult-onesie-onesieful

A great idea which began as a joke on our Livestreamed morning prayers. during the warm-up, but then became serious. I was joking about how so many people admit that they link in with prayers as they get up in the morning, sometimes watching in bed, and still in their pajamas. (I am not one to judge as I am certainly not a morning person). I suggested that I should present prayers in my PJ’s and dressing gown in solidarity, and even suggested that we should have a ‘Pajama Sunday’ in the church, since we have plenty of other Sunday’s with a clear focus. Jokingly, I asked that if we did that, what would it stand for.

The response came back that we could remember that God accepts us for who we are, wherever we are, and whatever we are wearing. I think that this is profound. So what do you think? Is this something we should pursue? On the one hand it could feel quite gimmicky, and we would I am sure, have to say that people would have to wear their PJ’s on top of other clothes, but the point we would be making, just at the moment where we may want to welcome new people into the life of the church, or those who have been distant from us, could be powerful. Do let me know? I should say that I am aware of a church in Peterborough where this happened for real at a midnight communion service. I gather that folks simply showed their usual welcome. Good on them. Irrespective of whether we feel this is right to pursue, the point is a meaningful and timely one.

Posted on

Change Begins with the Spirit – or in my case being dive-bombed by an angry bird

During my daily prayers I have been focusing on the All We Can theme, ‘Change begins with the Spirit’. At the beginning of the week we remembered Jesus turning the table in the temple. Today we remember the ten commandments.

My two reflections? 

With respect to the former, we often think of the Holy Spirit in peaceful terms; the Spirit who brings comfort, counselling, serenity. The Spirit that is gentle, like a dove. But there are times when the Spirit is anything but gentle. What we see is dramatic. Disturbing even. We often think of birds as gentle, but my experience has been varied. I remember whilst I was on a camping holiday in Norway once, where I obviously came too close to a bird’s nest on the rugged island in which we were staying. Consequently, one of its parents I suspect, became agitated, swooped around me, and (I thought) was about to dive bomb me. I was already running at the time (hence my being in a very isolated location). All I can say is, it made me run a lot faster! Suffice to say, I think that it is worth us checking our understanding of how the Spirit is at work lest we construct for ourselves and unbalanced view of how we expect God to work in our midst. Granted, if we need the peace of God falling on us as gentle as a dove, God would supply it. But at the same time, sometimes we need the Spirit to shock us and re-center us as to God’s purpose. This is what happens when Jesus turns the table, and we see how serious He is about bringing religious reform of the structures and practices that rather than freeing people to experience God, are simply getting in the way.

Arctic Tern Divebombing, Source: Wikipedia


In respect of the Ten Commandments, I have often shared the story of how one of my churches, when I was a probationer, had the ten commandments on wooden plaques either side of the pulpit. It was a typical preaching house for those of you who are familiar with the layout. I must admit that whilst I valued the ten commandments, I hated these boards. For me they were perhaps the most unwelcoming sign to a newcomer. In ye olde English they conveyed a ‘Thou shalt not’ God of judgment. To compound things the antique wood, dust, and peel, projected a God, and a faith that was staid and irrelevant, unchanging, even resistant to the modern world. Meanwhile, the ‘Thou shalt not’ raised the question of what would happen if anyone disobeyed, and the spectre of an angry God, with a pointy finger, who would vapourise us if we broke the moral code. It is, I admit, a polarised view of the Ten Commandments, but I still felt that it could do more harm than good when taken out of context. There was no reminder that yes, whilst in the same chapter of Exodus 20, God describes himself as jealous, punishing children for the inequity of parents to the third and fourth generation, God also says that he also shows his steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who serve Him and keep His commandments; and this is before we even apply the teachings of Jesus who would help us to see how God is compassionate, how the law is to be interpreted in love, and how God longs to welcome the sinner. Thus, I rest my case. Moreover, we often overlook that the law is given not because God is a killjoy God, but because She longs for life to flourish. And in these most pressing of times, that lesson will surely be not lost on us. The very reason for the covid directions that are in place is to allow life to flourish. It is simply regretful that one consequence of this is how our contact with others has been severely reduced. 

Andrew Martin/Pixabay


What are we to take from this? Well for me, we remember that there are times that the Spirit moves dramatically, even dare I say it, violently – violent in the sense of vigorous, extreme (to our eyes), barging into situations so that God can have Her way. Not though in the sense of intending to deliberately cause harm. Personally I praise God for this – but I am reminded of what a bad idea it would be to be on the wrong side of God if She chooses to act in this way. Second, we are reminded that if and when this happens, God’s purpose is to allow life to flourish. That may well be a tidy and challenging piece of theological reflection, but the real question is, how will this shape our response to God as our churches emerge from lockdown. What tables need to be turned in our churches? What barriers need to be torn down in order for the work of God to continue. And please do note, a barrier is not the same as a boundary. Boundaries are the structures that we put in place to ensure good order. That’s what the ten commandments are; boundaries, not barriers to life in all its fulness.

Posted on

Me, Jesus, and the Church. Seven Episodes where people share how they came to faith, how their faith has supported them in difficult times, and how the Church has been a lifeline.

Videos available on YouTube: Link below

I would like to continue to draw your attention to our most recent series of online interviews – Me, Jesus, and the Church. This provides a means by which we can hear from people about their background and their coming to faith, but also how they have found it invaluable to be part of the church. I sense that this link, especially when we are living in socially distanced times, is hugely important. There are always those who will explain that they are Christians, but they do not feel the need to go to church, or to be connected to church. The stories surfacing through Me, Jesus, and the Church are deeply moving, and we are now at episode four in what will be an eight-episode series.

This week we hear from Susan Halford who began her working life grading eggs and has since worked with figures throughout her working life. In terms of Susan’s faith, the first part of the interview focuses on how conversations with the owners of a local fruit and veg shop, initial involvement in Crowland Methodist Church, and her reading the gospel came together to the point where she gave her life to Jesus. In the second half, Susan shares how she has always found that being part of a small group vital in helping her remain faithful as a Christian. The advantage of these videos of course is that if a church has projection facilities, they are easily accessible. As for who the future contributors might be, I am always open to volunteers (some folk have already offered) but you may find that I approach you to share…. Everyone has a story to tell.

Visit https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfd1gKrJ4irDkDKdctPFxaw9JEjZn695s to view the full series.

Posted on

Our future online – Peterborough Methodist Circuit Livestream Team Paper (and a work in progress).

This paper stems from the first meeting of the Circuit Livestream Team (involving Matt Forsyth, Dale Sherriff, and myself –this initial meeting could have included more people but we also felt the need to meet quickly). In this meeting we recognised four priorities.

  1. We need to look at how we support Dale and Grace in delivering their livestream worship, so that the process is less intensive and that we can release Grace to focus more on enabling youth.
  2. We need to encourage more people to create content in the form of readings, sermons, prayers etc. Sue Moore has been extremely helpful in this and coordinates who will assist week to week.
  3. We need to outline how we see the place of online worship as part of how we operate as a circuit, complementing what is offered in local churches. The case for this has been stated and restated. However, there is always a need to reassure people that we are aware of the strengths and challenges of online worship, and that no one feels disenfranchised.
  4. In terms of developing online worship, we have come a long way and have asked people to assist in particular ways as our needs have surfaced. We are now at the point where we can step back, look at who does what, and to formalise these roles. This will help us affirm people, give us increased confidence to work together in raising the profile of what we are offering as a circuit, focus on how we enable discipleship (and where possible local church attendance) through our online presence.

    It would have been easier(!) to simply look at our needs in terms of overseeing online worship. However, from the outset it was clear that we needed to look at online worship from a much broader perspective. As a circuit we need to understand how online worship links with local church attendance, how we celebrate our successes, we need to identify where the tensions and areas of concern are, and then look at how these might be addressed by people who are appointed to different roles.

    These roles are:
    Circuit Social Media Administrators
    Circuit Livestream Worship Leaders
    Circuit Worship Content Creator
    Circuit Online Pastoral Leaders

Online worship refers to worship that is either presented live, or pre-recorded worship that contains live elements (such as the ability for people to comment and offer prayers real time). It includes platforms such as Facebook Live, YouTube Events, and Zoom.

Increased engagement through online worship

In resorting to online worship as an additional means of engaging with people during the covid-19 pandemic and the lockdown, the circuit discovered that we were able to reach parts of the Church that have previously been difficult to reach people:

• who are housebound through illness or infirmity.
• who cannot attend church easily because they care for family members.
• who work shift patterns that include or make Sunday mornings difficult.
• who have simply found it difficult to engage with church because they have had challenging experiences in the past.
• who have recently experienced a challenging life experience that has disrupted their church attendance such as a bereavement or moving from one location to another.

The evidence for this is measurable and irrefutable. Most poignantly, there are people who now engage in online worship regularly where previously, year on year, we may have questioned in pastoral meetings why they were a member of a Methodist Church and yet ‘we never see them’.

Acknowledging those who cannot connect online

It is obvious that the Church must accommodate people who are not able to engage online. This can happen for various reasons:

• Access to the internet can be poor in some areas (although this is increasingly rare).
• Some people lack the equipment to engage online.
• Some people lack the skills/confidence to engage online.
• For some people, online worship does not appeal because of its style or format.
• Some simply lack the inclination to learn something new.

This said, our experience would suggest, albeit anecdotally, that as the pandemic unfolded and the impact of shielding and social distancing increased, we witnessed an increase in late adopters who had begun to engage with online platforms such as Zoom, driven by the desire for their own families to retain contact. This has then increased people’s confidence to engage and even contribute to worship online. Meanwhile, as a circuit we continue to champion paper resources, such as The Vine, and all those church leaders to ensure its distribution.

Is online worship a threat to the ‘tradition’ of the Church?

The short answer to this is, ‘No’. There is or has been, without question, an underlying unease among some people about the level of profile we give to online worship, whether we are undervaluing gathering physically. The natural fear is that this will undermine people’s willingness to attend local church services. However, the evidence to date is that despite the provision of online worship, people are even more keen to see each other in person.

In respect of a threat to ‘tradition’ (a word which can be helpful because what makes something ‘traditional’ is often subjective), livestream worship can admittedly feel less traditional because of the lack of high-quality resources that include hymns, organ, choir singing etc. However, this is changing.

An additional observation is that online worship frequently transcends the geographical boundaries which often, in part, defined local church attendance. Thus, we might define Circuit Worship as worship for those who live within the circuit. However, online worship often incorporates people from across the circuit and beyond. A range of factors might be in play here; the time of the worship, a sense of connection with Peterborough, an affinity towards any given leader (which also happens in local churches), lead people to engage in livestream worship. Equally, there will be members of the circuit who engage with a former minister who is engaged with online worship elsewhere.

Our focus is to ensure that online worship complements what is happening in local churches, encourages local church attendance, gives us a platform to emphasise the best of our Methodist Tradition, and develops a relationship with local churches that is mutually beneficial.

A Theology of Online Worship

Commenting on an emerging theology of online worship may feel a little abstract here, but people often find it helpful to relate their experience to the scriptures, events, and parables that we read in the Bible. Ultimately it helps us understand and make sense of what God is doing. A deeper reflection on this is well beyond the scope of this paper (which began by asking what needs to be in place to support online worship – and then took a step back to ask honest questions about where the benefits and challenges of this might lie). However, the following areas might be helpful.

• The feeding of the 5,000 (All of the gospels). The reason for Jesus’ presence here was to heal the sick. God did a miracle in meeting the need for nourishment, yes, but someone offered the little they could (the five loaves and the two fish), and it made all the difference. Everyone in their own way, has offered what they can to contribute to online worship.
• Paul Preaching to the Philosophers on Mars Hill (Acts 17). Paul occupies the public space of the day, engages with Greek philosophers, and relates the story about Jesus (starting with his pointing to a statue of ‘The Unknown God’. Although online worship can become insular (Facebook groups for example can become like an echo-chamber of chatter from like-minded people), our approach has been to try and be as open as possible. Online gives us huge potential to reach out to new people. Linked to this, we are very much following the footsteps of Jesus into Gentile territory. Online worship provides a less threatening way of inviting people to think about faith.
• Valley of Dry Bones – ‘Can these bones live?’ in Ezekiel 37. ‘I will open your graves and bring you up from them.’ Arguably this is one of the most powerful illustrations, in that we know of people whose faith has been rekindled because of online worship.
• Early Christians worship in their homes (Acts 2) – as well as worshipping in the temple. They then gravitate to gather in larger homes or buildings – in this sense worship was always in ‘third’ or ‘borrowed’ spaces. Without question, both online and paper resources have recentred Christian spirituality around the home.
• The Good Shepherd. Pastorally we are capitalising on the greater reach that online worship affords and can provide additional support to those who are unwell, or housebound by increasing their sense of community.

Can online worship be ‘church’?

One of the early concerns about online worship was the extent to which we could call this ‘church’ or ‘church online’, since the word church (‘ekklesia’ in the Greek) means ‘assembly’, and broadly speaking, Christian tradition understands that ‘church’ takes place whenever people gather together physically. In one sense, there are aspects of church that cannot be offered online.

• Holy Communion (even if the Methodist Church permitted communion to be shared ‘online’) would be a pale imitation of what people would experience in church.
• The lack of corporate responses and singing is a challenge (even though zoom provides opportunities for choirs to sing, this is not the same as everyone in church singing).
• Fellowship cannot take place in quite the same way. People who worship online cannot shake hands or embrace as they might do face-to-face (although increasingly one suspects that physical contact will still be limited in the future).

This said, it is too easy to ignore aspects of our Christian history where people have retained their Christian faith whilst longing for but unable to gather in worship. The clearest examples of this are Paul, imprisoned whilst He wrote Philippians, Philemon, and Colossians (two years in Caesarea, three years in Rome, before his execution). Meanwhile, an elderly John the Evangelist was banished to the Island of Patmos for two years because his preaching Christ was undermining the way of life in Ephesus. This said, both Paul (and one suspects that John) communicate with other church leaders by letter – and, more than this, their writings gave encouragement and direction.

Whilst we should, without question, encourage people to attend their local churches, we would be unwise to dismiss the different forms of fellowship that can exist online – when in effect, the coronavirus has led us to live a form of exile and, we suspect, will continue to shape how we are able to interact in the future. Curiously, a group of people meeting online can develop a sense of community and even sharing, especially in story and prayers, that we may struggle to achieve in church. People can interact at any time during an online service whereas unless this is called for by a leader of worship, this is unlikely to happen in local congregations. Online worship allows people to leave and re-join acts of worship less conspicuously.

The cost of online worship financially

To date the circuit has relied on the equipment that people own themselves, rather than purchasing large pieces of IT equipment. Presently, the superintendent is supported through the provision of additional equipment (so far, a limited amount of additional lighting, a microphone, a green screen, and a breadth of extension leads). Those who lead livestream services (rather than those who contribute to aspects of the service – sermons, readings etc), have been supplied with minimal lighting.

In addition to this, most people use their own computer equipment, and we are grateful for this. However, in some circumstances, especially if a service is compiled, recorded, and then broadcast later, more powerful equipment is required. It is important that we acknowledge this generosity of giving all round as people press into use old resources and/or invest in their own personal equipment.

The cost of online worship, spiritually

There are some dynamics around livestream worship that are not present, or are present to a much lesser degree, compared to worship that is face to face.

Livestream worship:
• Whilst being as simple as pressing the ‘Go Live’ button on Facebook, becomes much more complex when we are wanting to include different contributors, images, and music. Closed Zoom worship requires a good grasp of the screen sharing facility (and provides mixed results). Meanwhile, Circuit Worship is managed using (free) production software such as OBS, streamed to a single hub (Castr) and then relayed back to Facebook Live and YouTube. This gives the best mix of quality and accessibility but relies on the person leading worship having to learn new skills.
• This then means that the person leading worship is also taking responsibility for managing the stream. Whilst there are people able to phone and feedback on any problems, ‘We can’t hear you/you sound like a Dalek!’, livestream worship in its current format lacks the equivalent of a steward or assistant in the room. Elements of this can feel high pressured, especially in the event of technical problems, but we are learning also how gracious and faithful the congregation is in terms of being willing to wait until any difficulties are resolved.
• Whilst the Holy Spirit is most certainly at work there is a sense in which livestream worship leaves the person leading worship having to generate their own energy from an environment which can at first feel sterile and lacks face-to-face interactions. A good analogy is that of it feeling like one is playing in a sport’s competition but lacking the interaction of the crowd (in for example singing and smiles) which feeds back into the mix.
• In addition, we should also acknowledge that it is not only those who lead livestream worship, but also anyone who creates video content (prayers, readings, reflections) have pushed against their own self-conscious feelings (no one likes hearing themselves or seeing themselves on camera), and no doubt multiple attempts at recording to try and communicate as effectively as they can.

In short, this means that Livestream Worship may well demand more of its leaders than face-to-face worship with local congregations, where church happens ‘around us’.

Some brief observations: Recorded Worship and Live Worship

It is worth exploring this issue. One suggestion as we look to the future (in which livestream worship will feature on the plan alongside local church worship), is that we alleviate pressure by having people record worship beforehand and broadcast it later. There are some challenges with this.

• First, compiling and recording a service for worship (as is the case with Dale and Grace), is more resource intensive and time consuming than livestream. Combining several video scenes into one requires a powerful pc (an hour of video can take for example four hours to encode). In addition, it can take four hours for say YouTube to upload and convert it ready for broadcast.

• Second, our successes so far rest in how people are able to interact live with the person leading worship, or in the case of a video that is premiering having been uploaded, the leader(s) who remain in the background to encourage prayers. It is possible for one person to be leading whilst another assists those who respond with prayer requests, but pre-recorded worship has its limitations in that the leader(s) cannot adjust how much time they spend on one aspect of worship over another, should this be needed. A good analogy is the difference between taking to a Powerpoint presentation, where one can spend more time on one slide than another if the congregation needs it, or even jump slides to focus on what is important, or turn off the presentation all-together – compared to speaking to a video of a Powerpoint presentation and being limited by time.
 
Thinking about four roles

Bearing all this in mind(!), apart from underlining that online worship will always complement local church services, and more than that the two can be of mutual benefit to each other, it is clear that we need to formalise some roles to safeguard what is already happening. In some senses these roles are not new, but they lead us to question what more we can do to improve our online outreach as a circuit. These roles are:

Circuit Livestream Worship Producer (as previously identified and appointed by the circuit)
Then…
Circuit Social Media Administrators
Circuit Livestream Worship Leaders
Circuit Worship Content Creator
Circuit Online Pastoral Leaders

These roles are outlined in greater detail below:
 
Circuit Social Media Administrators

From the outset we had asked people to assist on Facebook as ‘administrators’ and YouTube as ‘managers’. A Social Media Administrator has ‘access all areas’ across all circuit sites and platforms. In effect, Simon Stewart has taken the lead in this, with other livestream presenters being able to assist when they are not presenting.
Admins work in partnership with Circuit Livestream Worship Leaders, the Circuit Livestream Worship Producer (previously defined), the Circuit Social Media Enabler (previously defined) and the Superintendent. This forms a core group that has oversight of all online circuit material.

The role of an administrator is as follows:
• To manage ‘static’ content on the platforms that they help administer. This includes being able to change the look and content of the sites, and to post material on behalf of the circuit. They are free to take the initiative in sharing reminders and promoting resources that are in-line with the aims of the circuit, as they see fit.
• To encourage more people from within the circuit to contribute to creating content for livestream worship, or lead livestream worship per se.
• Admins monitor the feed of multiple sites (currently three) at the same time, bearing in mind the Safeguarding and best practice requirements of the Methodist Church.
• Admins work in direct partnership with Livestream Worship Leaders to determine the nuances of where the risks lie in livestream worship, in terms of understanding the capacity for people to disrupt (which is different on different platforms). Admins then put in place measures to mitigate against any disruption.
• Admins assist in the management of copyright. Whilst we have copyright covered, in some instances we still need to report what music we use, and when. Background music is an area of concern where we need to apply for individual licenses each time we use a track (or we need to establish a clearer pattern of what tracks we use and when).
• Admins have the ability (and are trusted to) block comments on YouTube and Facebook as and when necessary, to restrict access, and even to shut-down a broadcast as a last resort.
• To assist the person leading worship by posting readings etc, and collating prayers as they surface, allowing the person leading to sum up.
• To feedback any problems to the presenter during worship, often via phone or text, in the event of a problem that they cannot see themselves.
• To ‘hold’ folks together if a livestream must be restarted, by remaining as presence – assuring people until things are resolved or redirecting people for example from Facebook to YouTube.
• Given the responsibilities that this covers, an admin needs to be both IT literate, recruited (as usual) through Safer Recruiting with the Circuit as the Responsible Body, trained in Safeguarding, and DBS cleared.
• Ideally, we are looking for a team of Admins and develop a plan for who is on duty during morning prayers and Sunday Services.
• Admins assist the Circuit Livestream Worship Producer and the Circuit Social Media Enabler in feeding back on the level of engagement in online worship.
 
Circuit Livestream Worship Leader

• Is qualified (or under supervision and training) as a Worship Leader or a Local Preacher.
• Takes responsibility for leading an act of worship that is Livestreamed.
• Both manages the livestream – and leads the worship.
• Receives submission in the form of prayers, reflections, sermons and collates these.
• May present live using OBS, but similarly may convert an act of worship to video, and upload this, or schedule and upload.
• Engages ‘live’ with people during online worship.

Circuit Livestream Pastoral Leader
• Is present when a Livestream is broadcast, monitoring comments.
• Actively acknowledges participants prayers, and thoughts.
• Signposts people to other means of support.
• Looks to help people grow in their discipleship.
• Encourages people to make a link with a local church.
• Identifies, and passes on pastoral concerns to ministers.

Circuit Worship Content Creator
• Need not be qualified as a worship leader
• Uses their creative or production skills (writing, photography, interviewing, video editing) to create content for online worship.
• Identifies content elsewhere which may be useful to the circuit – eg material produced by other charities, highlighting specific Methodist foci during the year, thereby helping the Livestream Worship Leaders plan ahead.
• May help manage the online storage of resource material (songs etc.)
• There could be scope for such a person to assist in copyright administration.

Posted on

Subway to Heaven? A priestly response to the global fast-food company’s Christmas invitation; ‘O Come All Ye Hungry’.

I visited my local branch of Subway this morning. At first, all I wanted was a take-away coffee, but once in the queue, having skipped breakfast, I was tempted by a bacon, egg, and cheese sub. (For the uninitiated, ‘sub’ is short for ‘submarine’, as in submarine bread roll, rather than submarine, as in ‘Dive, Dive, Dive!’). Anyway, whilst up-periscoping to pay, I noticed Subway’s Christmas T-Shirt slogan, ‘O Come All Ye Hungry’, emblazoned on the back of the young lady who was serving me. This led me to question whether, since my last visit, thw world’s largest fast food franchise boasting over 44,000 restaurants across 110 countries in 2016 had become a charity – and would I be getting a free breakfast? Alas, I did not have the wherewithal at the time to ask, but I did wish the staff a merry Christmas.

Really though. Subway, are you serious? Have you thought this through? If you take the line of a Christian hymn which calls the faithful (O Come all ye faithful, joyful and triumphant) to remember and celebrate Jesus, His life, and all that He stood for, can you not blame me for at least questioning your charitable intent?  The reality, of course, is that when you say, Come All Ye Hungry, you mean Come all Ye Hungry, give us cash, and we will feed you. Meanwhile, I have lost count of the number of churches who are running Foodbanks, providing meals to offer food and fellowship for people on low incomes, running Night Shelters, and doing All We Can (this is the name of the branch of the Methodist Church in Britain which focuses on providing relief and development to some of the world’s poorest communities to end the suffering caused by inequality and injustice).

Granted, Subway, you are not the only commercial enterprise, by far, to twist elements of the Christmas message to increase sales. I have also been invited to participate in the Twelve Deals of Christmas. I read from your national website that you seek to make a positive contribution within the communities in which you operate. Thus, I am wondering what action accompanies this slogan as part of the local charity initiatives that you sponsor? I am heartened by your drive for low fat products with Heart Research UK, and your encouragement of sport in schools. However, if as you say, almost 60% of stores are based in British and Irish high streets, your Christmas slogan raises the question of how you might at be at work in addressing the poverty and hunger which makes it difficult for people to make healthy food choices in the first place. I am, I have to admit, only informed by the marketing material that you display on your website. If your franchisees do contribute to Foodbanks, or give free sandwiches to the needy via some kind of voucher system, then I applaud you all. If not, in saying. ‘O come all ye Hungry’, you have just walked rather publicly into a spiritual lamppost.

During the season of Advent, many of the established churches within our country focus on how John the Baptist called people to, ‘Prepare the Way for the Lord’ – for Jesus, the Christ, whose immanent birth we remember at this time of the year. John is remembered in particular for his willingness to speak out and say what needed to be said, his peculiar dress sense (wearing camel skin clothing), and his eating habits (favouring locusts and honey). Those who join John in turning their lives into something that is much more wholesome and positive ask him how they should respond. The answer is to share what you do not need, resist the temptation to swindle people, and use the authority you have with respect. Thus, if we take ‘O Come all ye Faithful’ seriously then it does indeed mean attending to the poor and hungry. Whilst I am unconvinced that a free locust and honey special for the needy would appeal, during Christmas countless numbers of people join together to help meet the needs of those who are particularly vulnerable. I am interested to hear what Subway is doing whilst others, many of whom are not religious, are part of the machinery and the people-power to create a highway to a better life, or if not a better life, some respite from the challenges that they face. Being a Methodist, I am not a betting man, but if I were, I would put money on the fact that within five miles of each of your high-steet outlets, somewhere there will be a faith community or a secular outreach project that is trying to feed hungry people.

My purpose in writing about Subway is not so much to single you out, but to remind us all that the call for Christian celebration has its roots not just in celebrating Christian values but recognising the humanitarian responsibility we have to support the poor and oppressed. I am wondering what would happen if Subway partnered with the Church and the local community to take Christmas seriously (we run our own franchises in quite a distinctive way and continue to retain a strong local presence and visibility. Whilst some older branches have been forced to close, we are opening up new ones, developing new activities, and expanding our opening hours. Could we, together, build a Subway to Heaven?  Could we work together, as we have done with other local food retailers, to take a little of what is not needed by the rich, and feed it to the poor? Could we birth a little more of heaven on this earth? What we need, as do countless other churches and community groups, is the resources, both financial and material, to attend to the spiritual as well as physical health of some of the neediest people in our community.

Merry Christmas to all, to Subway, and especially to the staff of all take away coffee branches who have supported me with a cheery smile throughout the year. At the very least, what about a scheme that asks little of you and something of me. Next time I buy myself a meal, you offer me the chance to buy a second at cost price, for someone who is in need. At least then you will be honouring your slogan of, ‘O come all ye hungry.’

Rev Dr Langley Mackrell-Hey is a Methodist Minister based in Peterborough, UK.

Posted on

Peterborough Pioneer Hub: Praise God for a wedding that was not upstaged by the bride.

Yesterday, before finalising my Pentecost Sermon I felt compelled to view the sermon given by Bishop Michael Curry as part of  the Royal Wedding ceremony. I was prompted by Sky’s news video headline, ‘Reactions to THAT sermon’ (sic.), and the sudden realisation that a black preacher from a progressive denomination in the United States, with all of his heritage in tow, would be addressing a white Royal family and assembled guests. This invitation, in itself, said something powerful about how the tapestry of our culture as viewed by members of its highest echelons, is changing for the better. For me, Curry’s sermon was powerful not only because he brought a refreshing style to what would usually be viewed as a ‘traditional’ event, but because of how the Holy Spirit worked in and through him.

By ‘traditional’ I am referring to a style of worship where people’s idea of solemnity stems from the presiding minister adopting a peculiar form of public speaking where liturgy is recited and vowels are accentuated in a way which suggests that God is a million miles away; in an accent – a holy voice – that the presiding would not use in other settings. This caricature is, I admit, the worst representation of what traditional done badly looks like. It conjures up the image of a remote God, one that was so powerfully taken off by Monty Python in the Meaning of Life in portraying the worst of what public school religious services have to offer; ‘Dear God, you’re so very, very, big. Gosh we are all impressed down here, I can tell you….we sing the hymn…O Lord don’t burn us don’t put us in a vat. Don’t lightly fry or roast us, or boil us in chip fat.’ (Not word for word, but I am sure that you get the sense of it). I am not against tradition per se – quite the opposite, I am in favour of it – but the danger within any tradition (including those that are more charismatic) is that congregations mistake style for substance and somehow miss out on the sense of awe. Yet, on Saturday, I felt that despite his excitement and arm waving exuberance (I love a good arm-wave by he way), Curry’s message prevented this. And yes, whilst much could be attributed to Bishop Michael Curry, we must also acknowledge that the Holy Spirit was at work. Not quite as much at work to raise an ‘Amen, Preach it Brother’, response from a white face in the middle of the nave, but there was evidence that God was at work. At least it got a response.

This is not to say that the Spirit absents himself from our worship. Far from it. As far as my own practice goes, I never ask the Holy Spirit to ‘be present’ at the start my services – because I believe that she is always there. I suspect that there is a case to be made that if the conditions are not quite right, the Spirit loiters at the back, or in the lobby – because there is such a thing as resisting or even quenching the Spirit. But she/he is always present, longing to do more. Nevertheless, I do pray that God the Father would make us sensitive to the Holy Spirit’s presence as we reflect on Jesus’ teachings.  We know that the Spirit brings many things; conviction, comfort, help, gifting’s, power, and boldness to name but a few. And yes, there are times where we seem to sense the presence of the Spirit in a much more tangible way.

On Saturday Curry spoke directly to the congregation of how Jesus did not receive and honorary doctorate for dying on the cross (as if the cross is something that can be acknowledged and moved on from, with no real engagement), quoted someone else’s view that Jesus Christ was the greatest revolutionary in human history (a clever way of saying something without having to say it yourself), and how the power of love is such that when we apply it, we can change the world. There was no let-out here, and as Annabel Crab of ABC News pointed out, in terms of Episcopalian preaching, he was barely tapping the accelerator. His points were driven home with reference to how love gave black slaves in the deep South the ability to find the strength to endure and fight for freedom from slavery, and a list of what would change if we did more with the power of love. He stated:

He (Jesus) didn’t die for anything he could get out of it. Jesus did not get an honorary doctorate for dying. He didn’t… he wasn’t getting anything out of it. He gave up his life, he sacrificed his life, for the good of others, for the good of the other, for the wellbeing of the world… for us.

That’s what love is. Love is not selfish and self-centred. Love can be sacrificial, and in so doing, becomes redemptive. And that way of unselfish, sacrificial, redemptive love changes lives, and it can change this world.
“If you don’t believe me, just stop and imagine. Think and imagine a world where love is the way.”

Imagine our homes and families where love is the way. Imagine neighbourhoods and communities where love is the way.

Imagine governments and nations where love is the way. Imagine business and commerce where this love is the way.

Imagine this tired old world where love is the way. When love is the way – unselfish, sacrificial, redemptive.

When love is the way, then no child will go to bed hungry in this world ever again.

When love is the way, we will let justice roll down like a mighty stream and righteousness like an ever-flowing brook.

When love is the way, poverty will become history. When love is the way, the earth will be a sanctuary.

When love is the way, we will lay down our swords and shields, down by the riverside, to study war no more.

When love is the way, there’s plenty good room – plenty good room – for all of God’s children.

“Because when love is the way, we actually treat each other, well… like we are actually family.

All this to a mixed congregation, some of whose ancestors had grown wealthy off the back of slavery, or had sent men and women into battle, who had grown richer whilst the poor became poorer, whose very existence and status had undermined the prospect of equality. Meanwhile, celebrities who were one step removed from Royal life were reminded of the craziness of our world that it can put such emphasis on one vocation over another. I am a fan of football, and of rugby, but it is difficult to see how kicking an inflated pigs bladder around a pitch can make a difference to injustice in the world. On the other hand, fame, notoriety, and celebrity can provide an opportunity to direct people’s attention to charitable needs; and I think it right therefore that David Beckham, Elton John and the rest were in attendance.

Bishop Curry said the word ‘love’ 57 times.

I was particularly interested by how different members of the congregation responded. Media access has allowed the Royal Family to project itself as a global media brand, so it was unsurprising, particularly post Diana, to see media involvement. Yet Sky News employed lip readers who could be attentive to what people were saying as they went in, and whatever one might say about the Bishops sermon, the footage from inside the chapel showed that some of the guests were unable to contain their surprise. I must say that in my own services I am very careful about making judgements on the basis of how people look, because sometimes people can look like they are waiting outside a dentists, and yet they come up to you after the service and say how they found the service helpful, even asking theological questions. Others do engage, but I am pretty much sure that they would engage with anything you gave them. Yet what the guests said to each other as they went in, and the looks on people’s faces during the sermon, were amazing. The Mail Online states, ‘One woman who was speaking on her phone as she walked in was read saying, ‘I am not hungover today, so that’s really good.’ Earl Spencer chats with his wife about a friend who works in Africa. Actor Edris Elba rates the venue as ‘not bad’, Zara Tindall (heavily pregnant) needs the loo (I am not sure that I would have printed that, but it is, at the very least a great leveller). On the way out, Meghan asks Harry if they should kiss – and he says, discreetly, ‘Yes’. Meanwhile, the Queen tells Prince Philip, ‘Keep Waving’. Finally as the couple pass into they Royal gardens, Harry is seen to say. ‘I am ready for a drink now!’

What interests me is the normality of all of this, despite the pomp and circumstance of the occasion, and the guest’s respectability. More interesting were the responses to Bishop Curry’s sermon.  Princess Beatrice was struggling to contain her amusement (or was it excitement at the shakedown). Prince Philips eyebrows almost went through the roof when Michael spoke of Jesus Christ as a revolutionary. Charles and Camilla looked to be in a reflective mood as they heard him speak of the power of love. Harry was nervously twitching. Camilla also seemed to be leafing through the order of service as if she was losing interest, but the lip reading suggests she had simply lost her place.  Meghan was loving every moment of it. On a serious note, it felt to me that despite Bishop Curry having no formal authority here in Britain – he was a guest preacher – he nevertheless spoke with an authority that came from God, leaving people with the understanding that whatever they chose, they had to do something with THAT sermon. The line about Jesus not receiving an honorary doctorate for dying on the cross was particularly powerful. Jesus’ death demands a response. We need to honour Jesus far more than we are honoured. Jesus invites us to give our life in service in response to him, not simply our life in service. 

Finally, Praise God for a wedding that was not upstaged by the bride. I love presiding at weddings, and very few people ask for a church wedding, especially in a Methodist Church, unless God has some kind of spiritual significance to them and the vows that they make. However, it seems to me that in most cases, the groom ends up saying yes to everything for a peaceful life, as relatives amass to make the wedding a perfect day for the bride. All the groom is left to do, in the worst case scenario, is to say ‘yes’ to everything, and ‘I do’, and ‘With God’s help I will’ to everything else. Very often, and despite best intentions, the focus comes off God on the run up to the ceremony, and can be lost. I think that our Anglican and Catholic colleagues may struggle with this more, in that I have a friend who is an Anglican priest, serving in an ornate Church, but rather than looking for God on their wedding day, they are looking for a fairy-tale venue. Today I even heard of churches who were attending Wedding Fayres so that people might be aware of what they can offer.

I rejoice that whatever people may say about the ceremony and the wedding, God remained centre-stage. Interestingly, ABC news suggested that the Bishop stole the ceremony; that he became the main story in a sense; the person that everyone was talking about, rather than the bride. My view is that I would much rather have people talking about the Bishop who spoke of the power of love to transform the world, who reminds the assembled that God is the key to everything, and God is the one to whom we are accountable, rather than what the bride is wearing and how the cleaners are going to get the confetti off the carpet.

Praise God. God Save the Queen, and the Royal Family, and the assembled guests, and us all, so that we might do great things through the power of love, and honour God as God should be honoured.

 

 

 

Posted on

What is Church? Peterborough Pioneer Hub – material used in our Cafe Service reflection. Prepared by Helen Crofts, Circuit Misson Enabler.

Comment from Langley…

Last Sunday marked the first meeting of our Pioneer Hub, and I was left with a deep sense of awe as I began to sense what God was doing. Along with the awe was a sense of privilege of being able to journey with others of like mind. it was as if there was already a sense of holding each other before we had even started journeying together.

Worship was simple. Whilst it was Ascension Sunday, there were no formal prayers, no written liturgy. The only thing we used for worship was four videos incorporated into a Powerpoint presentation, and the understanding that we would move into a time of open prayer, and then Helen would lead us in a period of reflection on ‘What is Church’. Helen’s approach was somewhat refreshing in that rather than start with the pre-packaged definitions of Church, we would give everyone a Bible, and a prompt sheet (we are not quite that cruel), and ask us to tell us, by looking at scripture, what ‘church’ is about. I attach a copy of those resources here. The description which resonated most, was that ‘church’ was a community of believers who centred their lives around the person of Jesus. Church is of course about more than that; we turned to Acts Chapter 2 and considered what the early Christians actually did. We looked at the kind of Church with which the Apostle Paul wrestled with in Corinth (or rather the kind of behaviours in church that are less ideal.) Nonetheless, the consensus was that whatever church looked like, it began with a community which both individually and corporately looks to Christ.

I wonder what, amidst all of the things that we feel we ought to do, or more than that, are legally obliged to do, would happen if we challenged ourselves as to whether we were, genuinely, a community that looked as it should to Jesus. Sure, we will aspire to this, and for much of the time, we may well be faithful, but I suspect that there are moments when Jesus has ceased to be the centre of what we are doing.

I once had a disagreement with my father about his beliefs. For him, I think church-going was just as much, if not more a community activity rather than a faith driven one. I remember saying that Christ was at the centre of the Church, touching and transforming lives. He argued that Church was about faith, hope, and charity (and he used the word charity, rather than love). In the end we agreed to differ, but without wishing to sound conceited or arrogant, or make any kind of judgement about the depth of his faith – I leave that up to the Lord, it seemed to me that he was more in it for anything other than a relationship with Christ. He was direct and transparent about this. He did not embrace the concept of receiving Christ as Lord of his life.  I remember how to him, my becoming more involved in the Christian faith was a phase that would blow over. He simply did not appreciate that for me, attending church was so much more than being a member of a social club. And when I shared how I believed that God had done a work within me – of how  I felt at peace, energised, and full of hope for the future, he remarked that this was ‘just a phase’ that I was going through. Years later, when he attended my ordination, I remember standing before they lay hands on me and thinking to myself,  ‘This is some phase!’ It turns out that what he thought was a phase has now lasted over twenty-five years.

Dad died over a decade ago. Towards the end of his life he struggled with guilt and yearned for forgiveness. I remember talking to him at one point: he had tears in his eyes. Without going into details, he was certainly burdened with shame from some of the poor decisions he had made. I do not judge him for that. I know that he found it a relief to confess. How I still do not know to this day where he was in his journey with God. I do remember feeling sorry for him that he had not found some relief earlier. Perhaps it was fear that had kept his soul locked up. I remember thinking that this kind of release, this kind of deliverance, was the very thing that Christ came to offer. And yet, to go through the process of receiving this is risky because it means being honest with those around you, and I dare say, not losing face. Once you present yourself as calm, composed, and assured in what you believe, it can be difficult to admit to others that you were wrong. 

My point is that whatever church is, it is so much more than a social club. I think I made some people think (including myself) when I said during our discussion that for me, church is a bunch of messed-up people who centre their lives on Jesus, and find healing as they journey as disciples together. The truth is that we are all imperfect. We are all messed up. But to this day I wonder, just as Wesley did (see his Second Sermon, The Almost Christian) whether we all need to be on our guard against slipping away from being an Altogether Christian and becoming more like an Almost Christian who has all the trappings of the religious life but lacks that inner spark which comes from accepting Jesus as Lord of our lives, and being changed and sustained by the Holy Spirit as we look to our Father in heaven.

I include in this post a handout that Helen produced. This may give further insights for reflection, and a piece of artwork by Murray, who was reflecting on the nature of the church. All art is subjective of course, but Murry’s upper image is of the Church going beyond its walls (and all that which constrains it) as it seeks to honour God in its mission. The lower image is that of how God has a path for us, which sometimes we follow, and at other times we deviate from. The dark markers are the milestones that so often surface as we make a change in direction because the Holy Spirit convicts us. Often these times are turbulent but we look back on them with thankfulness. The early church was a place where the ministry of God’s Holy Spirit was taken seriously, as was the task of taking the gospel beyond the immediate community. This was no pub darts team. And it was no phase.

Discussion starters 13_5_2018 (1)

 

 

 

 

Posted on

For Starters in Peterborough. Encouraging discipleship through fresh expressions. Seven helpful insights.

For Starters is led by a blend of church leaders based in Peterborough and Ely, all of whom have experience of directly leading fresh expressions or providing crucial oversight. On Saturday 17th March, their purpose (apart from simply encouraging people to start new work), was to help people recognise how fresh expressions were already proving an effective means of encouraging discipleship within local churches.

The ongoing task

The definition of a fresh expression is ‘a new form of church for those who are not yet members of any church’, and the Fresh Expressions movement has given rise to a vast number of projects. By nature, they are evangelistic, and one crucial task shared by all fresh expressions practitioners is that of encouraging people into discipleship. Indeed, this should flow naturally from our evangelism. According to William Abrahams’ The Logic of Evangelism, 1996, all evangelists should aspire to this. Thus, I thought it would be helpful to cite seven observations on how fresh expressions are proving useful to local churches as they focus on both.

  1. The first rule of discipleship is to put your faith in Jesus and follow.
    This is a working definition of mine that developed in light of the Methodist Church’s focus on discipleship some years ago. During this period I sensed that whilst many people were familiar with the word ‘disciple’, we lacked a clear definition. One the one hand, it is too easy to believe that we have faith in Jesus without giving any serious consideration as to whether really following his radical example. Vice-versa; whilst we might think that we are a Christian because we have Christian values and are involved in some kind of service, there is a world of difference between having Christian values, and accepting Jesus as Lord of our lives. Discipleship is a blend of both having faith in Jesus, and following. I find this definition helpful because everything else we do in terms of ‘being’ church flows from it.
  2. The second rule of discipleship is to be human and to be open to change.
    Crucially, disciples reflect on what they have experienced, are open to God changing them, and are willing to take practical steps to change how they will do things differently the next time a similar situation arises. Thus, if we are not reflecting on how we feel, the judgments we are making, others’ needs, and how we are doing what we are doing, we are not behaving responsibly as disciples. Truth be told, we are probably not even behaving as responsible human beings. One of the most important qualities for church leaders is the ability to reflect on both their own state of heart and mind (the ‘being’ bit) and their practice.
  3. To be a disciple is to deal with disappointment.
    Richard Gibbs (former Pioneer minister, presently serving as a parish priest in the Ely diocese), argues that pioneer ministry inevitably involves a measure of disappointment balanced with encouragement as one thing works, and another is less successful. Richard suggests that our initial response, particularly if we are tired, is rarely the most helpful – often giving rise to panic and rash action. He says, ‘Don’t forget. Tomorrow is another day, and the sun will rise again,’ and ‘The best thing about disappointment is that the negative feelings will pass’. However, one important factor in dealing with disappointment is for pioneers to have good oversight; ‘Get some proper oversight’ says Richard, ‘oversight that connects you with reliable authority, not just permission, which can be unreliable.’ Ideally, pioneers should have a high degree of responsibility and authority, rather than a high responsibility but no authority to make meaningful decisions that can pave the way for change and success.
  4. People learn to be disciples through our own behaviour.
    Both Ed Olsworth-Peter (Adviser for Fresh Expressions of Church and Young Adults, Ely Diocese), and Charlie Nobbs (Pioneer and New Initiatives Trainer, Peterborough Diocese) questioned, separately, the Emerging Church mantra of ‘belong, behave, believe’ by stressing how our behaviour and church culture heavily influences how newcomers understand commitment and the nature of discipleship. Charlie states, ‘Being a valued member of a group trying to live out together ways to follow Jesus on a daily basis makes a huge difference. How could you gather a small group like this?’ Ed notes a shift in contemporary culture, particularly evident on social media, whereby people are moving away from valuing material possessions and are now looking for authentic and immersive experiences that make some connection with the past.
  5. Discipleship comes naturally to Messy Churches.
    Charlotte Nobbs (local Messy Church leader, Peterborough Diocese), gave the best counter-argument to the somewhat clichéd question of how messy churches can encourage discipleship; it is happening within core teams who organise, within young people who can be appointed as group leaders, and within newcomers (particularly whole families) who contribute in practical ways. Messy churches are places where people (and not just young families) gather and learn about the Christian faith in different and often tactile ways. They provide non-threatening opportunities for newcomers to become more involved and therefore exposed to Christ-centred values of hospitality, creativity, and embracing of all-ages. Charlotte was substantially correct in questioning why some leaders within the inherited church felt it appropriate to question how discipleship was developing in Messy Church, without necessarily considering how that same question might apply to their own church congregations.
  6. To be a disciple is to give your whole life to a community.
    Chad Chadwick (Youth Missioner, Peterborough Diocese) shared something of his ‘table church’ fresh expressions project, which comprises all of the essential elements of ‘church’ whilst enabling a sense of fluidity as people incorporate teaching and fellowship into their lives by gathering around different ‘tables’. These include fellowship, confession, and communion. Whilst this is inventive in itself, the most moving thing about Chad’s work was how he was devoted to developing a sense of family where the lines between friendship and ministry were blurred. Here, ‘church’ has ceased to be a ‘service’ offered for an hour on a Sunday and has become something that is lived by a community every day of the week, with particular emphasis on shared meals. Chad’s work reminded me of one youth leader, Elaine, who once said to me, ‘It is not good enough to be there for people for one night of the week. You have to be prepared to give your lives to them.’
  7. Discipleship is about denial, sacrifice, and following Jesus.
    Helen Crofts (Peterborough Methodist Circuit Mission Enabler, and a member of the Methodist Church Pioneer Pathway) drew from three passages that speak on the cost of discipleship; Matthew 16:24-26, Mark 8:34-36, and Luke 9:34-36. Discipleship is about us surrendering to God and being prepared to deny ourselves, not least our own personal agendas and our desire to live a comfortable life. Discipleship is also about taking up our cross. Helen shared how in her view, this is what separates disciples of Jesus from admirers of Jesus and that taking up the cross involves suffering to a greater or lesser extent. Linking back to our first point, Helen also stressed that discipleship is also about following Jesus and allowing his teaching to penetrate the very core of our identity; living for others, forgiving as we have been forgiven, going the extra mile, and learning humility.
Posted on

Peterborough Pioneer Hub: Our Vision in a Leaflet

This is a tri-folded leaflet explaining our vision and intent as the Peterborough Pioneer Hub. Please pray for us as we look to grow our work through a network of local Advocates, Associates, and Affiliates. So far we have over twelve associates who are willing to support each other in a set of spiritual disciplines and continue to grow in discipleship – and we have no doubt that more will follow. If you are interested in joining us in this work, please make contact. Please also hold in your diaries May 13th, 4pm at Southside Methodist Church, Peterborough, where we will hold the first of our Pioneer Hub cafe services.

Peterborough Pioneer Flyer

Posted on

A Matter of Life and Death: Reflections from Peterborough on the prospect of local churches developing growth plans or end of life plans.

How should we as the Methodist Church respond to the not so recent Statistics for Mission Report that details how, despite reaching half a million people a week through our church activities, we are in a state of decline? Can the Methodist Church, as Mark Woods of Christian Today put it, ‘pull out of its nosedive?’ Will our training take over, and will we stay panic free whilst resisting the increasing G-force for long enough to make a difference? Is this really the end? Or could it be, as Damian Arnold writing for the Times intimates (despite some inaccuracies as to the contents of Loraine Mellor’s Presidential Address), that our youth, pioneer and fresh expressions focus, and our dogged efforts to meet need wherever we see it, might be enough to turn things around?

If fresh expressions and pioneer ministry were not challenging enough for those who would prefer to Keep Calm and Carry On, the Methodist Conference’s Notice of Motion whicht encourages local churches to develop growth plans or end of life plans will serve as a slap in the face to anyone who is at risk of falling unconscious. And besides, Keep Calm and Carry On, that phase made iconic with various additions; ‘You’re only 45‘, ‘Enjoy the Party‘, ‘Carry on Bellringing‘; emblazoned on a multitude of consumer goods, only works if you have a plan in place. Understandably, the idea that local churches might develop a growth plan or end of life plan has stimulated rather a lot of discussion.

Care when speaking of death

My first instinct was to forget about the concept of death. Not because I am frightened of it, nor because I don’t believe in resurrection (of course I do), but because it is not hard to convince small churches that they are dying. To compound matters, in my experience, as people tire they lose the energy and belief that something else is possible such as adopting a different pattern of worship, working in partnership with other community groups, or simply giving more of their focus over to fellowship and mission. Our challenge is to present people with a different narrative other than accepting closure as an inevitability. To push the point further, if you present a tired and small church with its age profile, low membership, and anticipated future cost, persuading them to close is not difficult. They may not like it. The surrounding community may be ‘up-in-arms’. But ultimately, they will see the (human) logic in it and accept it. The trouble is that human logic can be ungodly. Of course, the aim of the end of life plan (given the Spirit in which Elaine Lindridge spoke to this motion) is not to close churches, but to renew them. At the same time, I accept that some churches are financially comfortable, failing to engage in mission, and expecting an unwarranted level of circuit support. Could the end of life plan be the shock that resets the heartbeat of many of our churches back into the right rhythm again?

The key question is how we help churches move to a position of seeing life amidst death, rather than death amidst life? It is not so much that churches need to accept that death will occur at some point. Rather, they need to embrace change and movement if they wish to stay alive. It is not the local church that needs to go, so much as the traditions which we maintain that are no longer helpful or appropriate for our present contexts. Churches often place unreasonable expectations on themselves, fuelled by the fear of offending a ghost from the past who started this or that, but who in reality would have never expected them to have carried on regardless for so long. Perhaps that is another real-life Keep Calm slogan that we must disown.

Guarding against euthanasia

My overriding concern is that what has begun with deep missiological intent will be used unwittingly (or even deliberately) to sanction a form of ecclesial-euthanasia by the back door. How do we guard against this, particularly given that some churches may already recognise their frailty, be over-conscious about their inadequacies, and see themselves as a millstone around the neck of a wider circuit which may be struggling to resource the whole? I look forward to seeing the connexional resources; these will, no doubt, attempt to counter this. But the truth of the matter is that what we need is not only good resources but also determined leaders who are prepared to question why the rest of the crew might be preparing to bale out when they have not explored all the options. Superintendents take note: we set the tone for mission. This is happening on our watch. Of course, I say that as one myself, rather than assuming some ascendency that I do not have.

Two reflections and a powerful thought

Three reflections emerged on this theme at our recent Northampton District superintendent’s meeting. The first is my own – from my past experience as an NHS Chaplain and drawing from the difference between hospital and hospice care, and the fact that treatment options are never constructed in a vacuum as if patients are ever left to diagnose themselves: local circuits have a key role to play. The second follows input from Andy Fyall (Stamford and Rutland) who reminded us that just because we make a funeral plan does not mean that we expect to die tomorrow. The third, which I suspect will receive deeper attention from elsewhere, is that Jesus had an end of life plan. I will leave that hanging for your further reflection. It really is quite a powerful thought.

End of life plans and the NHS

In my last post, I also worked as an on-call chaplain for the NHS. It was enjoyable. However, rarely was I called upon to celebrate good news. Most of the time I was asked to pray with those who were dying. Sometimes they were on their own. At other times I arrived to find a cloud of witnesses (or relatives) by the patient, with some family members having travelled long distances to be alongside them. My first move when checking in at the nurse’s station was to ask what requests had been included on the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) plan. The idea behind the LCP was to make patients as comfortable as possible. It allowed a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death when the time came. It also included details about what patients had requested in terms of spiritual support.

By 2013, attitudes to the care pathway had changed. Whilst there were good examples of its implementation, a government review found that in some cases there were significant failings. In some instances, communication between patients and families was poor. There were concerns about treatment decisions being made without relatives being informed, family members not being told their loved ones were dying, and doctors communicating hurriedly and inappropriately. One major difficulty rests in how it can be difficult to diagnose when someone is about to die. Furthermore, in some cases, patients recovered despite their relatives being told that death was approaching. In 2014, the LCP was phased out, usurped by the One Chance to Get it Right report. This highlighted five priorities of care. The concept of a ‘pathway’ was dropped – a patient’s final days and hours are now viewed as a ‘continuum’. Staff should be proactive rather than reactive in their communication with patients and families. The dying person decides who else to be involved in discussions about end of life. The needs of families are explored and met as far as possible. The care plan (which includes food and drink, symptom control, psychological, social and spiritual support), is agreed and delivered with compassion. End of life plans are personalised and not generic. (Reference; ‘What happened to the Liverpool Care Pathway?’ Produced by Compassion in Dying.)

Consequently, If there is a parallel to be drawn between churches and people in terms of how they decline (and that is a big ‘if’), the failures of the LCP serve to remind us about the dangers inherent in pronouncing that death is inevitable. It also challenges us to ensure that the local church is in control of what is happening, rather than its relatives. Come to think of it, Gareth (my presbyteral colleague) and I are even beginning to question whether we can in fact talk of a local church going through death and resurrection. People die and will be resurrected. But churches? Whilst I realise that the death and resurrection motif is an easy one to grasp when a church faces closure, I find myself questioning whether this is a step too far in our extrapolation. Where does it say in scripture that a local church dies? In our own polity we do not use this term: we speak of ‘ceasing to meet.’ Moreover, Ekklesia describes the people of God who are called out to form a body of the faithful. And just as God can call people into this, God can call them out of it to gather together with others elsewhere. Taking this line then, the crucial issue for us to explore with people is not when they anticipate that their death will come. The focus needs to be on where and how they feel God is calling them to serve. Another issue is that just as hospitals exist as a place where all of our medical resource and expertise can be put into action to improve someone’s condition, circuits can do the same for struggling churches. They have the power to turn on the oxygen and monitor what is happening. How will circuits discern who is for the hospital and whose future days might be best lived out in a hospice?

Funeral plans

A funeral plan is not quite the same as an end of life plan. Some funeral plans come with a free pen, should you be persuaded by the smiley-face presenter on the television. Thinking seriously, I am still shocked, and continue to pray for a lady in one of our churches whose son died tragically from a heart attack at the age of 45. My initial thoughts combined two facts together. The suddenness of it all, and the fact that her son was my age. There comes a time in life when you accept the probability that you have less time ahead of you than you have spent.

At our superintendent’s meeting, Andy Fyall helpfully pointed out that just because someone creates a funeral plan does not mean that they are expecting to die tomorrow. Whilst the end goal is to ensure that those who are left behind are not left with the cost of the funeral fee, or feeling duty-bound to curate our steamroller collection, it will invariably focus the mind back to what you want to achieve in this life. This is, without doubt, what the church end of life plan will intend to do.

To close…

One thing that has been a constant surprise in my own ministry has been how older members of my congregations have in fact been surprisingly open to new mission initiatives. The reason for this? They know that they are in their twilight years and are desperate to leave something behind for the next generation. So, will growth plans or end of life plans help local churches? Concurring with Rachel Deigh (Church Growth Plans versus End of Life Plans – http://www.seedbed.com/church-growth-plans-vs-end-of-life-plans/), I think we need both. I think that the end of life plan feeds the growth plan. However, one thing I am sure of, whatever the future holds, is that talk of end of life (which inevitably conjures up images of death) will need to be discussed with great care, and the outcomes will depend on our how we approach this as church leaders.

Posted on

A ‘Network of Networks’ for Fresh Expressions: What might this mean for Methodism? (Reflections from the Peterborough Pioneer Hub)

This report was originally compiled for the Discipleship and Ministries Learning Network East Central Region,  and has been adapted/expanded.

Over the next five years, Fresh Expressions wants to avoid becoming anything more of the mission organisation that it is already. They want to release rather than control what is happening by developing deepening their local networks. Fresh Expressions want to create a movement that is ‘releasing, connecting, and enabling’. At the recent Hub conference in September, Phil Potter encouraged its leaders to be driven by two maxims; ‘Your success is my honour’, and ‘Partnership without ownership’. (In the case of the latter read, ‘Partnership without control or manipulation.’) Fresh Expressions do not want a monopoly. They are striving to promote unity whilst encouraging diversity. Fresh Expressions do not want a top down leadership. They do not want to form a community of their own. They do, however, want more to be than a list of names but less than a centralised organisation. Amidst this they are asking, ‘What do we stop, what do we start, and what do we enhance?’ I must confess that as I write this I am slightly confused as to whether I should say ‘they’ or ‘we’. That is precisely the point. Fresh Expressions are looking for more local leaders to own what is happening. Having been invited – and accepted the offer – of becoming a Fresh Expressions Associate – I should feel entitled to use the word ‘we’. This does not quite come naturally to someone like myself who is wary of misrepresenting what the movement or its leadership is saying. Nevertheless, be in no doubt that this paradigm shift is exactly what Fresh Expressions is calling for.

Nationally, a ‘network of networks’ is emerging, whereby multiple denominations and church groups are connecting with each other because they are geographically close (For example, For Starters in Peterborough), draw from similar traditions (such as new monasticism), share identical training needs (in developing pioneers), or serve particular mission fields (‘rural’ as opposed to ‘city’). Nationally this is patchy, and messy. In some cases, people from across different denominations align themselves to Fresh Expressions, whilst in others, there is a direct denominational link. Across the whole, some groups are more robust whilst others are more fragile. Unsurprisingly, Fresh Expressions has given rise to web-based forms of information sharing and support that can transcend local boundaries (for example, the Cumbria Fresh Expressions Facebook Page). Within the Church of England, there are some particularly striking examples of networked leaders; a bishop’s hub (incorporating some 30 bishops), and DDO hubs (incorporating Diocesan Director of Ordinands) who have a crucial role in assessing and forwarding people for ministerial selection.

As I reflect from a wider Methodist Church perspective, I sense that Fresh Expressions has done two things. First, it has spoken prophetically in a way that has encouraged local churches to modify and adapt their worship and mission, bearing in mind the needs of those who have little or no previous experience of ‘church’. Second, it has given Church leaders the warrant and confidence to call for change.

Some observations that might relate to us:

‘Slippage’ in the language around fresh expressions

Over the past three years, I have observed subtle changes to the language used by Fresh Expressions, or by its adherents in local settings. One example is the shift away from talking about ‘church’ to using the term ‘congregation’, or speaking of ‘new ecclesial community’. In my view, this reflects two issues. First, I suspect for free church denominations, the word ‘church’ is troublesome. For Methodists, a ‘church’ has a distinct legal definition; a church is formed only when twelve Methodist members unite. Local churches form a church council which oversees mission and ministry across the whole and are required to appoint key individuals: secretary, treasurer, stewards. Second, if the aim of a fresh expression is to create a ‘new form of church’, why would we constrain ourselves to this single model? Personally, apart from the challenge of making members, I think that the model we have is a good one; everyone is accountable to each other; decisions cannot be made in quiet corners; children and vulnerable adults are safeguarded from harm; those who hold office are properly vetted and approved; the teaching of the church is preserved; no one exists in a bubble – we want to form new churches and not cults. The problem is the language that we use switches some people off. In my experience, if I asked people to fill these positions I would receive a stare which questioned what century I thought I was living in. But if I asked a group who held the contact details of those who attended, or who looked after the money, or who liaised with visiting speakers, people saw sense. Nonetheless, talk of ‘church’ is troublesome. To talk of an ‘emerging ecclesial community’ has double appeal in that it honours the idea of creating ‘church’ without using the word. Talk of creating new congregations is helpful because a congregation (such as a new worship service) can be held by the wider church and as such, is less of a threat. It can, in theory, sit as a new church within the old, where newcomers can make it the primary local for their discipleship. The second issue – married to some of the above, and for other reasons that I will outline later, is that I suspect we are lacking confidence in ‘C(c)hurch’ as we know it.

Another concern is how the term ‘pioneer’ is being used in multiple contexts; fresh expressions are at ease in calling all fresh expressions leaders ‘pioneers’, whilst the Anglican and Methodist Churches have different pioneering pathways, and local circuits are free to appoint ‘pioneer workers’ at their own discretion. The challenge how we encourage one without disenfranchising the other. Here in Peterborough, we see ourselves as a Pioneer Hub rather than a ‘fresh expressions hub’, or a ‘mission hub’ because we recognise that the core of all things new is the apostolic dynamic of the Holy Spirit who brings openness, creativity, innovation, boldness, and even a measure of entrepreneurship. Not convinced? Remember that the apostle Paul was a tentmaker who supports himself and is, therefore, free to minister. Consider how the Holy Spirit leads him into unchartered territory.

What are we creating through fresh expressions?

In the 2014 Statistics for Mission Report, The Methodist Church stated that 2705 projects self-declared as fresh expressions. 548 churches stated that their projects were intended for those who do not attend church at all, whilst 304 stated that they were for those do not attend church regularly. The amount of independent research is limited, but to date, this suggests that very few have the intention of becoming a new church: they are fellowship groups or mission projects. Nonetheless, they are significant because they (i) retain people whose needs are not entirely met by traditional worship, (ii) provide a space and context in which personal evangelism can take place, and (iii) allow people to use their gifts and grow as disciples. Even so, given the 2017 Methodist Conference’s Notice of Motion 102 (which encouraged local circuits and churches to pray, promote acts of personal evangelism, nurture new disciples, and plant new societies), an examination of just how many fresh expressions might have the potential to become new churches would be well justified. Perhaps the broader question (if we are looking for an approach that could encourage both congregational development and church planting), is how we enable groups to become self-determining, self-financing, self-theologising, and self-propagating. (Drawing from insights in Indigenous Church Mission Theory).

One difficulty is that even if some fresh expressions do possess this ecclesial potential, comparatively few circuits will be able to draw from previous experiences of church-planting. (Most new societies are formed by merging declining churches, or by a declining church merging with a stronger ecumenical partner.) Granted, there are examples of church plants that are not a consequence of decline, but finding clear and detailed accounts of this is difficult.

Fresh Expressions are raising sharp questions about how local churches help those who attend local projects understand that they are part of the wider church, and vice-versa. My own experience of working in fresh expressions has been how some newcomers are skeptical of the Church as an institution, and therefore resist becoming members. This may be due, in part, to Fresh Expression’s argument that the inherited Church is failing in its missionary endeavours and therefore must change and adapt. Whilst this is helpful on one level – in calling people to action, it also asks people to trust a denomination that has a track record of sustained decline. Another issue is that whilst Fresh Expressions clearly defines what we mean by C(c)hurch – with reference to how ‘church’ emerges in the New Testament and the Four Marks of Church – we do not stress enough the importance of belonging to a denomination. This is key for Methodism, because connexionalism guards against insularity. And the question of how fresh expressions are incorporated into local churches is our business.

In terms of what resources we need, I would develop the following for my own context, if I had the time.

  • We might create an audit tool to help churches assess their fresh expressions. Is their project a separate congregation, or is it a stepping-stone to the inherited church. Much more clarity and honesty around these areas will help churches discern their vision for the future, and deploy their resources accordingly. Strictly speaking, a fresh expression is not a stepping-stone to something else, but that is not the point.
  • A separate issue is that for some reason, the most recent Statistics for Mission reports have focused less on fresh expressions. Is this because we lack the data, or because we consider them less important? The difficulty for those who are sceptical of fresh expressions, is that there is no clear alternative response to addressing church decline (apart from ‘keep calm and carry on’ or ReImagine Church with the challenge of encouraging re-imagination rather than cloning something and reproducing it at a different time, with less crappy biscuits – acknowledgement to Trey Hall for the ‘crappy biscuits’ reference). There may be theological objections around how we understand ‘Church’, whether we are pandering to consumer demand, the theological breadth of fresh expressions (are they top-heavy in their conservative-evangelicalism, are they too narrow in their understanding of church etc)…but in Fresh Expression’s absence there is no real alternative to what we are already doing.
  • We might develop a resource to help fresh expressions use Methodist membership as a means of evangelism and deepening belonging. (This could be of used by the wider church, and would outline for those who have experience of other denominations, why membership is important). This might need only to be a conversation starter, but it would need to counter a skepticism towards the Church as an institution, explain why Methodism has membership (whereas the Church of England does not), and outline the benefits and expectations of membership. Is there a resource that could be used or adapted?

One possibility might be for us to develop of highlight training for ‘Class Leaders’. This might be ideal for fresh expressions and allow us to refocus our efforts on promoting prayer, evangelism, mutual accountability, and discipleship within projects. It could also revive our pastoral system wherein the notion of a class leader – in contrast to a past

Posted on

What’s with the Clownfish and why we should love our anemone.

If you look carefully you will see that the clownfish is at home in the tentacles of the sea anemone. They live in a mutual relationship; in symbiosis. The clownfish protects the sea anemone by feeding off predators and emitting a high-pitched sound. Meanwhile, the sea anemone protects the clownfish as it is immune to its stinging tentacles. There is something in this relationship which reflects the balance of independence and mutuality that must be present in churches and fresh expressions (as new forms of church) in order for them to mature. This thinking can be extrapolated to include New Places, New people projects that sit within the Methodist Church’s God for All strategy.

One has to be honest and say that there is a point where the beautiful image breaks down – and that is in that what the clownfish does not need (and excretes away), nourishes the anemone! Nevertheless, this remains a powerful example.  As my former presbyter colleague, Rev Gareth Baron put it at a circuit meeting, we need to learn to ‘love our anemone’. (Let’s face it, everyone loves Nemo, but whilst many people are attracted to fresh expressions, the wider church has a crucial role.)

Rev Dr Rowan Williams, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, once coined the phrase, ‘a mixed economy of Church.’ At the time he was responding to tensions within the Church of England between what had been inherited and what was emerging. His response was to argue that leaders should strive to develop a mutuality between the two. Whilst fresh expressions –  or any kind of venture involving new Christians – have much to learn from the inherited church, the inherited church would do well to heed the lessons that originate from the honest appraisal of those who view the church with fresh eyes. This extends to other areas of Church mission and matters of policy in general where questions of orthopraxis grate so clearly against our orthodoxy. Herein, those of us who should be wiser need to guard against a degree of paternal arrogance that assumes that we know best. As repeated 3Generate Manifestos produced by the Methodist Church so clearly highlight, whilst we recognise that we have a responsibility to nurture our children and young people, we must not overlook that God can and is already speaking prophetically through them. The danger is, of course, that rather than being part of the body, children and youth are seen as an addition that we attend to occasionally, where we assume that our ‘adult’ way of seeing the world is always right.

Rev Graham Horsley, former Churchplanting Secretary of the Methodist Church and latterly Fresh Expressions Missioner has suggested the phrase ‘mixed ecology of church’ might be more useful. It speaks of a living relationship and encourages us to understand that this is characterised by dependence on each other, where our very existence is in the balance, rather than a one-sided relationship, where what is new-born exists at the good intention and well-meaning of what is mature and growing older.

The literature survey that I carried out for my doctoral research shows that whilst the wider church needs to reflect on its attitudes towards fresh expression, some fresh expressions leaders – and beyond that, commentators within the emerging church movement, seem to favour the idea of jettisoning the tradition of the Church, and starting anew from ground zero. Significantly, one of the points I made in my thesis about Fresh Expressions is that it risked becoming a victim of its own rhetoric. On the one hand, Fresh Expressions makes the case that the inherited Church is failing in its mission, and therefore there is a need for a novel approach. On the other, it has to convince people to remain within the institution. If you are a clownfish you need the anemone – and vice-versa.

Posted on

Reflecting on Fresh Expressions and Pioneer Ministry: URC Eastern Synod Learning Community. Case Study Three: Manging Competing Values in Fresh Expressions and the wider Church. Full Text. Rev Dr Langley Mackrell-Hey

 

This is the third case study, originally written as a contribution to the URC Eastern Synod Learning Community which met recently in Peterborough. The community provides support to those engaged in pioneer ministry and fresh expressions of church, and includes members of the Methodist Church.

This final case study draws from Quinn & Rohrbaugh’s Competing Values Framework. This is a well-established tool for understanding how effective organisations need to balance stability and control, with flexibility and change. Quinn & Rohrbaugh’s work is grounded in their understanding of four previously established models of organisational culture and has been used to explore and improve the dynamics that are at work across a range of organisations in (among others) education, healthcare, not-for-profit charities, and businesses.  In my view, it is particularly useful to the Methodist Church and other denominations as we hold in tension the need to sustain what we have, whilst rethinking how we engage with new people and fulfil God’s mission beyond our church walls. More than this, the Competing Values Framework provides a means by which we can appreciate ‘difference’ in the church, and how, whilst we might have a different set of gifts and a different outlook when we compare ourselves to others, the Church needs pioneers, and pioneers need the Church. Finally, the Competing Values Framework helps practitioners – particularly those who are charged with oversight – appreciate people’s strengths, understand how each individual might contribute to any given from of mission, discern when they will be of greatest use as a project develops, understand how they are likely to become frustrated (and the consequences of this if they withdraw), and recognise how conflict might become a constructive rather than a destructive force.

The simplest way to explain this is to present my simplified adaptation of the framework, and then to outline how this has developed: Slide17

(http://changingminds.org/explanations/culture/competing_values.htm)

The framework is based on two competing tensions in any organisation; a horizontal tension in which pastoring what we have, sustaining our existing work, and remain unified, is held in balance with the need for the local church to look outwards, reflect on good practice, adapt what works elsewhere, and innovate. The second tension, depicted vertically, relates to how power and authority are mediated. Here, the tendency for decision-making to be centred around the core leadership of the church (to maintain stability and control) is balanced with the need for leaders to delegate and invite others to take this initiative (allowing flexibility and discretion). Consequently, it is possible to view the Church as containing four groups of people. These have arbitrary labels of administrator, counsellor, inventor, and marketeer. Alternatively, you could view the church as comprising people who control, collaborate, create, or tend to translate what has worked well elsewhere into their own context. Of course, people are much more complex – but a good number of my own local church stewards have found this model helpful. I am sure we all know of people who, whilst they have a range of gifts, would see themselves as occupying one segment, or perhaps bordering two.

The benefits of the framework are that first, people understand why they perhaps feel that they do not fit in the inherited Church but nevertheless have a vital role. In general, those who are diagonally opposite tend to become frustrated with each other. The counsellor or collaborator who is mindful of safeguarding the ‘clan’ will be nervous about the pace of change that the marketer demands. Administrators (or those whose natural gift is to control and regulate) will be frustrated by the inventor or entrepreneur who thinks up ten ideas before breakfast. Second, the model emphasises how despite our differences, we need each other. Organisations are not so much strengthened by the excess of people they have in one quadrant, as disadvantaged by where they lack expertise. Thus, even though a ‘family’ church might be dominated by those who fit the ‘Counsellor’ (or ‘Clan’) model, involving a wealth of people who are personal, nurturing, participative, loyal, open, and trusting, they will be ultimately disadvantaged if they lack ‘administrators’ who can bring structure, policy, a sense of dependability and permanence, or ‘inventors’ who are entrepreneurial, innovative, and celebrate freedom and uniqueness. Furthermore, the framework leads us to reflect on what can go wrong if one segment dominates; too much bureaucracy can stifle rather than enable development; too much emphasis on the clan leads to sectarianism; too much of a focus on innovation drains resources and can lead to missed opportunities (if they are not followed up properly); too much marketeering leads to a focus on ‘achieving’ rather than ‘becoming’, and being hoodwinked into believing that all we need do to encourage growth is to clone (and be better at) what another ‘successful’ church is doing elsewhere.

Ian Bell, the VentureFX and Pioneer Pathways co-ordinator for the Methodist Church has repeatedly drawn from the insights of Gerald Arbuckle, a Roman Catholic anthropologist who argues that dissent within leadership (in the form of proposing alternatives) is crucial in refounding churches in response to local need. Arbuckle writes:

We require radically different and, as yet, unimagined ways of relating the Good News to the pastoral challenges of the world…we need pastorally creative quantum leaps in our thinking, structures and action. Thus prophetic people, or ‘apostolic quantum leap’ persons are needed within the Church to critique, or dissent from, the pastorally and ineffective pastoral wisdom of the present. Without these people the Church simply cannot fulfil its mission. (Gerald A. Arbuckle, Refounding the Church : Dissent for Leadership (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1993). 22.

In my own research, as I surveyed a range of fresh expressions and looked at how they were overseen, it became clear that local churches (and crucially church councils) comprised more people who would fit the left-hand side of the quadrant than the right, with people who were more inventive or marketeering, being fewer in number. Thus, as I reflect on where the Methodist Church and Church of England stand on pioneering at the moment, I sense a move to rebalance the church so that those with pioneering gifts are included. Fresh Expressions and pioneer ministry, therefore, is not an optional addition; it is vital to the future of the Church.

Thinking theologically about the model

One difficulty with the Competing Values Framework that it (obviously) lacks a scriptural or broader theological base. Attempts to relate the Jesus movement and what follows with this model are fraught with difficulty. Whilst Jesus has a clear aim and models good practice, we know little about the disciples’ giftings, and how they related to each other. Whilst James and John see themselves as superior, Peter can be petulant and over-commit, and Judas is a self-interested thief, we simply do not have enough detail to reflect on how they relate to each other and analyse it against the framework.

Strikingly however, two aspects of Quinn & Rohrbaugh’s work do resonate with the tensions that become apparent as the early Church grows. One crucial issue discussed at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) is what Jewish-Christians should expect of Gentiles who want to join them. Essentially, this represents a horizontal tension over the extent to which synagogue leaders should hold to their traditional Jewish roots whilst welcoming newcomers. The Jerusalem Council concludes by stating, “We should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.” Gentile believers were urged to abstain from sexual immorality, food that has been offered to idols, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood. These might not seem like significant concessions today, but back then they were major issues of religious identity and culture. The Church, of course, has since evolved. There is now a diversity of theological belief and expression. However, I think that we would be wise to reflect the Jerusalem ruling when we think about how we reach out to the ‘Gentiles’ of today – to those with no or very limited prior experience of ‘church’. How do we not make life difficult for them? What is immovable? What is, ultimately, dispensable? Acts 15:5 is a stinging reminder that a small but skilled conservative group of people can have a disproportionally significant impact overall, imposing their expectations on others in ways that have the potential to undermine church growth. (I should acknowledge that whilst I talk in this way, my inclusivity reflex is reacting to the concept of ‘us’ and ‘them’. However, it is right to note that there are those who unless we change, will struggle to make our church their home.)

Aspects of Quinn and Rahrbaugh’s analysis are also helpful when reflecting on the model of leadership that emerges. Whilst Peter takes the lead and together with John becomes the spokesperson for the apostles (most notably before the Sanhedrin), the developing pattern seems to be one of conciliarity, where the apostles confer with each other before pronouncing judgement. This becomes particularly clear in Acts 15, where whilst Peter opens the debate, Paul and Barnabas share, and James concludes in support of Peter’s initial thoughts. Leadership in the early church might be said to exist in a ‘high accountability, light touch’ mode as Philip in Samaria, Paul in Damascus, and Peter in Lydia operate itinerantly but remember their commitment to the whole. This puts the apostles at the higher end of the vertical axis. The opposite of this would be a low accountability, heavy shepherding model of leadership, where leaders have less freedom to adapt their model of mission, and must ask for permission to act.

I am tempted to argue that a low accountability, heavy shepherding model of leadership exists only in Jesus day, as the disciples listen to Him, and replicate his practice. However, I am mindful of how, at times, even Jesus adopts a lighter touch when delegating his authority and sending out the disciples on mission in pairs (Luke 10:1). Also, whilst the apostles seem to operate in high accountability, light touch mode, and speak with an authority which is underpinned by the miraculous, we cannot discern how they relate to and nurture established Jewish leaders, and new gentile believers. I also discern a difference between speaking with authority and challenging certain behaviours on the one hand, but nevertheless allowing local leaders to put this in practice themselves, on the other. The apostle Paul is strong on principle, to the point of using satire to great effect (1 Corinthians 4:8-13; 2 Corinthians 11:16—12:10). However, he writes because he cannot be there in person. He must delegate. On balance, therefore, my conviction is that indeed, ‘high accountability, light touch’ is the dominant mode of leadership in the emerging church.

My own experience has been that the opposite – low accountability, close-control leadership – can do more harm than good. In the worst-case scenario, it places too greater emphasis on a central, charismatic figure, discourages people from dissenting and speaking their mind, and if the leader is not willing to delegate, deskills people. As I write this, I am mindful that there are moments when John Wesley, the founder of Methodism appears to be highly autocratic. He and his brother Charles laid the template for Methodism with its innovative mix of societies, classes, underpinned by preachers who gathered to review the scope of their mission. Whilst he spoke with authority, and closed societies that were underperforming, he was nevertheless forced to delegate. Without this, the movement could not possibly grow.

The important question for Methodist presbyters today – and I would suggest leaders of other denominations irrespective of whether they are ordained – is how we should oversee fresh expressions? What is the role of a minister in a fresh expression? How do we properly authorise and commission fresh expressions’ leaders? What aspects of ‘church’ must we insist take place – not because we want to impose ‘church’, but because we want to enable it from ground zero? How much do we do ourselves (if anything) and how much should we delegate? How much freedom should a fresh expression be given to make its own decisions, and what needs to be referred to the (Jerusalem) church council? How do fresh expressions connect with the wider church and vice-versa?

Thinking about where we stand

Quinn and Rohrbaugh’s work suggests that the best managers are those who can move between the different roles. Rather than seeing their diagonal opposite as their nemesis, they recognise their potential. If you are a pioneer, there is no room to hide in your favoured quadrant and claim that anyone who does not see life as you do is a loon. If you stay among your own kind, you will simply not get anywhere. Sure, life will seem harmonious but deep down you are likely to become frustrated that you are not making any progress. Instead, a good pioneer and a good overseer will have the capacity to mix with people from the other quadrants.

As a Methodist Minister, I am in the unenviable position (which I believe is shared by URC ministers) of being, effectively, both the Chief Executive and Chair of trustees for my local churches. Rarely would this happen in business – the individual who is tasked with overseeing development and encouraging new ideas is the same person who chairs the discussion. Whilst there is provision for ministers to hand over chairing the meeting to someone else, this has not been the inherited tradition. What follows is a sensitive balance as ministers suggest new ideas and allow others to test their viability, responding positively when their idea is reworked or a complete alternative is suggested. Frequently, the discussion seems more natural when someone else other than the minister presents. To put it succinctly, I long for an entrepreneur or pioneer to speak up. The difficulty is that in order to do this they need to be at the same meeting, and getting them there can be a challenge. Some, by nature, feel uncomfortable in a command and control setting. Administration and meetings are simply a turn-off for some people. Even so, the ministerial task is to enable a discussion to take place and to help people who appear to have competing values see the strengths in each other.

Crucially, the antidote to this conflict is to help churches see that whilst they comprise people who are different in personality and giftings, what unites them is a shared common goal: to grow the church. Unfortunately, this may not be the case. As John Wesley points out in his 2nd sermon of 44, ‘The Almost Christian’, some people exhibit a form of godliness whereby outwardly they appear to be in right relationship with Christ, but inwardly they have not experienced the love of God. This results in their lacking the drive to love their neighbour. Conversely, Wesley states that Altogether Christians are born of God, are confident that they are saved, have a faith which ‘purifies the heart’ and seeks to glorify God. Implicitly, Altogether Christians yearn for others to experience the transformative power of Christ. Whilst Wesley’s thinking is a challenge to all of us – which of us can ever say we have arrived? – I am minded that for some people church is more about community fellowship than faith; it is about starting with charitable works rather than starting with the gospel, which invariably leads to charitable works. For some, evangelism is almost a taboo word because we are nervous about forcing our faith on others (whilst this would be bad evangelism it does not excuse us from finding sensitive ways of presenting the gospel), because we do not believe wholeheartedly in the transformative power of the local church and the fact that we have something priceless to offer, or because (I am afraid to say) that despite generations of commitment to our local church, we are more ‘Almost’ than ‘Altogether’ Christians. Perhaps the first task for ministers then, is to ask churches, ‘Why are we here in the first place?’

How we create is what we create

Originally this framework was used to explain what was happening at one of our suburban churches in Peterborough. One concern – which seems to be a cry that often arises from local churches who incorporate fresh expressions is, ‘When are we going to see them come to church on a Sunday?’ I still have to pinch myself at times, not quite believing that after over ten years of advocating for fresh expressions, I am still having to remind people that this need not be the case. For some newcomers, the requirement to attend Church on a Sunday is a hindrance, particularly if their family situation is complex. However, despite the voice of concern or opposition (which we often hear disproportionately because we are sensitive to upsetting others), there are times when we need to assert ourselves, and model what we consider to be an appropriate response. We must – and here it comes – inhabit a different part of the quadrant than we are used to. The VentureFX definition of a pioneer (stated on the Fresh Expressions Website) states:

VentureFX pioneers begin with communities of young adults. As they explore what it means to be disciples of Jesus there, new and relevant form of Christian community are beginning to emerge. They are based on pursuing a radical and authentic lifestyle rooted in the teaching of Jesus, but marked by a re-imagination of what church might need to look like for them. (https://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/pioneerministry)

That has certainly been our experience. As Jeff Degraff (who has published some inspiriting YouTube videos on the Competing Values Framework) puts it, ‘How we create is what we create’. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45veR-Se-rI)

Southside For All began life as a midweek after-school club. As the wider church celebrated this work, a minority asked, ‘When are we going to see these people come to Church on a Sunday?’ In response, rather than retreating to the left-hand side of the quadrant and trying to engineer this, two of our staff stood in the upper right quadrant, and asked, ‘What does it mean to be church in this place?’ Southside For All originated from the observation that at the end of the sessions, the parents and carers did not want to leave. They valued each other’s fellowship and appreciated contact with the minister, mission enabler and volunteers. As the leaders reflected on the growing sense of community they reasoned that it would be better for them to capitalise on the relationships and networks that were already present, rather than to disrupt this by expecting people to withdraw from this and migrate to worshipping on a Sunday morning. This process has not only been about asserting a new direction as leaders. It has been about giving confidence to others who are pioneering or entrepreneurial but lack the confidence to speak up.

As for what the future holds, one of the advantages of the framework is that it reminds us of how projects need different phases of management. If we want to start a work quickly we need a blend of innovators and marketers, but to gain stability we need people who can administrate and pastor long-term. One hope is that by standing in the red quadrant, our leaders will encourage others of like-mind to step forward who can continue to move the project forward as the newly emerging church begins to question how it develops further. Meanwhile, we hope that having grown in confidence, those who volunteer (and have links with the Sunday morning congregation) will discover their role in providing stability through planning, and creating a sense of family. I remember how when the magician Paul Daniels used to finish his act, he used to say, ‘And that’s magic.’ I think that we as mission practitioners, need to do much the same in reminding people just how far they have travelled; what our initial thoughts and feelings were; how God overcame them; where we are now; where we think we might be headed in the future; and say, ‘And that’s mission!’ Our end goal is to try and ensure that the next time we engage in something new, we are more open to what God can do, and harbour less anxiety than we did the first-time round.

Posted on

Reflecting on Fresh Expressions and Pioneer Ministry: URC Eastern Synod Learning Community. Intro and Case Study One: Bringing Order Out Of Chaos When Discussing Contentious Issues. Full Text. Rev Dr Langley Mackrell-Hey

This week the Peterborough Circuit were privileged to host a meeting of the URC Eastern Synod Learning Community, with our mission enabler, Helen Crofts, and I, sharing insights from our experience of Fresh Expressions and Pioneer work. The aim of the community is to provide a forum – a community of practice – in which people can reflect and learn together. During the day, Helen shared the stories of three contrasting fresh expressions of church. I followed each with some reflections of my own about how our experiences resonate with the missional and theological emphases that are driving a paradigm shift in how established Churches are approaching church planting and community development. This is the first instalment. I want to offer something distinctive. In my view, whilst there are many inspiring accounts about fresh expressions that are strong on vision and example, very little is written about ‘process’. I find myself questioning what relationships and authorities (formal or otherwise) have been navigated in order for something to succeed; what conversations have taken place; how those conversations have been managed.

Brief thoughts about the impact of Fresh Expressions.

Perhaps one of the most impactful aspects of Fresh Expressions is that the movement, and the projects that it has spawned, are still with us. They have not died out. Fresh Expressions are not a fad. In their own way, I think that there is case to be made that this rediscovery of the need for mission, community development and church growth to be appropriate to context, is having a greater impact than some of the more historic models of church planting that have had significant momentum (and remain respected today). The uptake of Fresh Expressions; the ecumenical spread of the movement; the way in which it has given and continues to give warrant for new initiatives; is arguably greater than, for example, the legacy left by the House Church or Cell Church movements in the UK. (Graham Horsley, the Methodist Connexional Fresh Expressions Missioner spoke in depth about this at the ReImagine Church Conference).  Whilst I fully acknowledge that there remains a valid question about the extent to which fresh expressions are ecclesial in character, the argument that Fresh Expressions has catalysed an unprecedented rise in the number of new fellowship and mission ventures is difficult to refute. When one of our near neighbours, the Diocese of Leicester, states its intent to match their 320 inherited churches with 320 fresh expressions by 2030 (employing three Pioneer Development Workers, and aiming to recruit 620 pioneers), the scale of investment becomes too great to dismiss. Ely Diocese shares a similar vision of becoming a ‘50:50 blended economy’ by 2025. Although I would want to stress that there are, of course, a host of other denominations investing in fresh expressions, the significance of this particular move, and the subsequent drive to develop ecclesial fresh expressions within parishes, is a clear signal that things are now becoming serious. At the same time, I am concerned about how the need to justify expenditure may influence what is expected of them.

Church as Functional and Relational

One observation, made by the Church Army in Strand 3b (in a section commenting on the joint Anglican-Methodist Report, Fresh Expressions in the Mission of the Church), is that the established Church risks overemphasising the importance of what might be termed ‘practice’; issues such as legal identity, how and where the sacraments are shared, and how ecclesial process and discipline is observed. Often this is done at the expense of valuing and measuring more relational aspects of church; attention to how the Holy Spirit is leading, relationship building, discerning needs, facilitating fellowship, encouraging discipleship.

In my view, one of the key questions raised by our experience of fresh expressions is, ‘What makes church, Church?’ Essentially, when people question why adherents to fresh expressions might not attend on a Sunday, or why a community meets in a library, they are asking questions about the nature of church, and are invariably doing so from the standpoint that their (inherited) practice is the norm. The same is true, when proponents of the wider Church, standing in its inherited tradition, assume that their view of the Church is right, and fail to recognise that some of the insights from fresh expressions contexts may well be prophetic. Often, the crucial issue is how the functional is balanced and woven into the relational.

Case Study One: Crowland Methodist Church  

Around eighteen months ago, Crowland Methodist Church reached a decisive point; as the congregation surveyed the building, considered the long-term costs of remaining open, and looked at its internal resource, it became concerned about its future viability. There was no question that the Church would cease to meet, but there were questions about whether a move to different premises – a downsizing in space to more modern facilities, accompanied by an upscaling of mission – might be the best option. We explored this to the point of visiting some smaller premises that were owned by the Salvation Army and were now vacant, with myself as the superintendent liaising with Trustees for Methodist Church Purposes to explore the legal possibilities of selling and relocating. There was of course, no avoiding the fact that we needed a ‘meeting’ to decide.

Using De Bono’s method to manage challenging conversations

Slide7

Helen and I worked together and led a discussion using De Bono’s method. I have written about this before; one of the advantages of De Bono’s approach is that it invites everyone to share a view on every aspect of an issue; the facts are agreed upon; everyone shares how they feel emotionally (and it is acknowledged that these feelings do not have to be logical); everyone is expected to share their thoughts on the benefits, then the drawbacks, then the opportunities, before sifting through all the material, discussing further and moving towards making a decision. For those who are nervous about adapting secular practice for sacred context, I found it helpful to at least reflect on the theological links here. I am reminded of how the Apostle Paul reminds us that we are to act as one body – the Body of Christ – and that we, therefore, depend on each other in all that we do (1 Corinthians 12:12-27). Thus, in discussion, we need to hear from every part of the body, because each experiences the same situation from a different perspective. De Bono’s framework helped us find a way of unpacking and issue thoroughly, whilst encouraging this. For the process to work, any given organisation is clear about its purpose and objectives. As we shared, it became clear that whatever decision we made, the Church wanted to retain its relationship with the local community – and one of the strengths of the church was the uniqueness of the building and how it served as a home for community groups – and its core purpose in making disciples….

 

Slide10

At the same time, the Church was transparent with both the wider community and the local Anglican Abbey about our situation. This did two things. First, it generated questions about how the Methodist Church might work in partnership with the Church of England. Second, it made the wider community aware that whilst we did not want to move premises, this was the only viable option unless something changed.

In the end, the Methodist Church opted to remain in the building and redouble its efforts. I feel that this was a decision based on holiness and a willing to accept the risk that efforts to appeal to the local community and fundraise would pay-off. Here, there was a tacit acceptance that fundraising and faith could go together. There was also a distinct sense that this nervousness about the future had held them back in their mission. Discussions with our Anglican neighbours gave rise to MAP, a Methodist-Anglican Partnership whose focus is on supporting each other in mission. The traction for ecumenical partnership in Crowland begins from this point, rather than to unite two congregations into one. This said, joint worship (held twice a quarter) is proving enriching. I have observed this elsewhere when our understanding of how we ‘do’ ecumenism seems to rest on uniting for worship rather than for mission. It seems to me that often, for deep cultural reasons, we have struggled with the former but always do better at the latter. This question, about how to develop a form of ecumenical working that enables local people to focus their efforts in the right area, with a level of autonomy that is workable, has been a sizeable piece of behind-the-scenes work. Meanwhile, the community has seen our plight and responded to requests for funding, as church leaders look to maintain and adapt the building for future use.

Lay and ordained working in partnership

Crowland Methodist Church is not the same place. On the one hand, I am convinced that this is due to the partnership that exists between lay and ordained. There have been times when Helen and I have both been present to focus on a single issue and support each other, rather than operating like lone-rangers. I know that the same is true for my colleague Gareth as well. This is not only true of Helen, but also of Nicky, our Children;s and Youth Outreach Worker. There is something about this fusion of lay and ordained that adds a credibility to anything that is put forward. (Remember how Jesus sent the disciples out on mission in twos!) Also, in doing this I sense that we are addressing a potential weakness in the model of itinerant presbyteral ministry that we have inherited. One advantage is that whilst it is easy for a congregation to view the challenge and vision that a minister brings as idealistic and unworkable when this is supported by properly commissioned lay leadership, there is less room for manoeuvre. Another advantage is that properly authorised lay ministry can offer a measure of continuity that the current model of Methodist stationing cannot achieve. This is a crucial point given that ministers are appointed (or re-invited) every five years, and in my view, the uncertainties around this process can undermine church development.

Methodism has always been a grass-roots movement. The very structure of our church, with our system of local preachers appointed to Churches, as well as the fact that our presbyters often have pastoral charge of multiple churches, demands it. I note from conversations with some of you that this question, of how you find a sustainable model of ministry as you shift from single to multiple pastorate ministries, may be a crucial one. The Methodist circuit system certainly has its strengths. At the same time, I should be honest and stress that I suspect in some places, the circuit model is being stretched to its limits. This becomes particularly acute as I reflect on how multiple pastorates potentially weaken the personal and pastoral relationship which exists between presbyters and their churches, on how presbyters are forced to discern where to focus their energies (and accept that operating across the church by simply being ‘present’ is not workable). I have, in the past, adopted a policy of ‘active neglect’ in my own ministry, accepting that some things that I would like to do can simply not be done, and that it is better to acknowledge this, and focus on what you can do, rather than exhaust yourself trying to do everything, and not really doing anything well. It is a difficult task, and I know from previous experience in support groups that many presbyters struggle with the line in the ordination service, ‘let no one suffer as a result of your neglect.’ I think that there are still times where I practice active neglect, but as I have journeyed in my own ministry, particularly as a superintendent, I note that I now practice what would term ‘active delegation’, where ‘delegation’ means handing the entire responsibility for a piece of work over to one or two properly commissioned individuals. At Crowland, and across our circuit, this has meant taking delegation seriously, as Helen, our Mission Enabler, and Nicky, our Children’s and Youth Outreach Worker take sole responsibility for developing new work. For me, lay ministry is not second class to ordained ministry; we are all Christians, and we are all committed for life. Ordained ministers are not necessarily better than lay ministers; it is simply that they have complimentary roles. In fact, often, lay ministry brings with it specialisms that ordained people do not have.

The ‘Emerging Church’ in Crowland

Crowland Methodist Church is changing. This whole experience has given rise to a toddler group, a messy church, a youth group, an Explorer group (a fresh expression of Church – with ecclesial intent – that meets in the library) and renewed engagement with the community. Significantly, Explorers has led people to discover faith and resulted in confirmations. It also incorporates an offering as part of its worship and is contributing towards the costs of ministry. I grant you that what it gives is small in comparison to our larger and more established churches, but I think that the principle is fantastic. One of the valid concerns of the inherited Church is how fresh expressions are often dependent on the wider church for funding. There is also something important happening here in terms of how the step of taking an offering and taking charge of what you do with the finance, is empowering.

As for the theological themes that resonate, I think that much of the conversation about the purpose of the Church links to Acts Chapter 2, and considerable reflection on, ‘What do they do that we don’t do?’ and ‘What do we do that they don’t do?’ (This is one of the helpful exercises offered by Mission Shaped Ministry which I have used, on multiple occasions elsewhere, to help congregations question what constitutes ‘church’). There is also a deep focus on ‘becoming’ church rather than ‘being’ church. Our perspective on all of this is not that we have arrived, but that God is doing His work among us. To speak of being a church is to suggest that we have arrived, whereas we should be striving constantly to become the people and the presence that God wants us to be. Secondly, I believe that the Church (and those who committed themselves to this conversation) have managed to discern the way ahead because they have been open to the Holy Spirit, and offered themselves in sacrifice (Romans 12:2). This may seem to be somewhat of a random reference to scripture but it is, in fact, one of the key passages used during annual Methodist covenant services. The congregation at Crowland were prepared to go to the brink to do God’s work; they put the mission of the church, and their relationship with the community above personal preference, and ironically ended up remaining in a building, rather than moving. Perhaps ironically, one reservation was whether in staying in the same location we were being radical enough. The same of course might not be true for another congregation elsewhere, but it is the principle of mission and relationship having the ascendency over all else, that counts. Finally, I see a resonance between the story of what is happening at Crowland, and that of Jesus’ willingness to engage with the Samaritan Woman at the well (John 4), since much of our work has required a change in mindset, and a boldness, to discern the need the needs of different groups of people.

My final reflection originates not only from my experiences at Crowland but my reflections more generally about the nature of presbyteral ministry in the Methodist Church. I think that Methodism is at a point where its understanding of the nature of presbyteral ministry faces considerable challenge. If we continue to define our understanding of presbyteral ministry in relation to the sacrament, preaching, and pastoral care, we will have to accept that elements of this, which were being undertaken by presbyters, may well be taken on by the laity. We are seeing this evidenced already through the increase in lay pastor roles, the criteria by which dispensations are granted for lay presidency at holy communion being expanded to include missional need (as well as deprivation), and ministers having pastoral charge of more congregations (although we need to monitor the extent to which this is the case). Conversely, if presbyteral ministry is considered in more functional terms (as outlined in the received but not adopted by Conference document The Nature of Oversight), presbyteral ministry is more likely to shift towards one of leadership, management, and governance, where presbyters have an increasingly crucial role in enabling, rather than doing-it-all, whilst inhabiting a rule of life which still includes preaching and celebrating the sacraments.

Posted on

‘For Starters’ event in Peterborough to encourage Pioneers and Entrepreneurs in the Church. Talk on ‘sustaining yourself’ – full text. Rev Dr Langley Mackrell-Hey

It is good to be with you today. For those of you who don’t know me my name is Langley. I am the superintendent minister here in the Peterborough Circuit of Methodist Churches. My role as a minister is to have oversight of what is happening. Oversight is everything that we do to ensure that the people of God can live out the calling that God has placed upon them. It is not something we ever do alone. God looks over us in love, we look over each other in love. I have been a minister for coming up to fifteen years now, and for most of that time, I have worked alongside people who have been hungry to do new things. For the last ten years, much of my role has been to pastor and nurture new leaders. We will dispense with the conversation about whether this might be termed, coaching, mentoring, spiritual direction, or supervision. I have been asked to comment on where, in my experience, people have struggled, and the lessons that we can learn from this about how we sustain ourselves.

One: Understand the nature of pioneering

Pioneering is understood differently by different denominations. Some people see it as a deliberate intention to reach out to those who are not yet members of any church and form a new Christian community. Others just see it as the task of creating some new form of mission. Whatever, the image that we often have in our heads is that the pioneer is the trailblazer, out on the edge, doing something new. And in one sense we are right. However, you might be surprised to see me display this image – of ploughing and sowing and link this to pioneering. (The original presentation included a modern image of ploughing and seed scattering). However, I use this image to stress that our calling has not changed. It is simply that pioneers often see potential in ploughing a different field, or spreading the seed in a different way.

I think that there is also a strong argument that we need to view pioneering or entrepreneurship (or whatever you want to call it) as an attitude of mind, where our vision is to encourage the church to reflect on how its mission is appropriate to context. I also suspect that for too long we have celebrated pioneering people who work on the edge of the church, whilst overlooking people who are pioneering and work at the centre. To illustrate, one of my observations about pioneering is how so many groups of people want a part of the ‘pioneer pie’; presbyters who feel called into ministry to initiate new work, and who, given the opportunity, would have opted to focus on pioneering from the outset; Methodist deacons, who refer to themselves as ‘a mission focused, pioneering religious community’; VentureFX pioneers who have led a small but impactful number of projects intended to grow new Christian communities; those who are now part of the Methodist Pioneering Pathway – and this is simply what comes to mind before we begin to think about how pioneering is viewed and enabled within other denominations. Thus, I think that the very notion of pioneering, much like Fresh Expressions has the potential to bring about renewal in the life of the Church. I also suspect that some pioneers are also present at the heart of the Church. They may not be entirely satisfied that God has led them to work at the heart of the institution, but they have a crucial role in highlighting where the processes and disciplines of the Church are fit for purpose.

But why do I think that this is important to looking sustaining yourself? The answer is that I think our current focus on pioneering risks disenfranchising some people who feel that they are not the genuine article and therefore feel undervalued.

Two understanding the nature of conflict

Sometimes conflict can be an uncomfortable business! Frequently, when we are pushing to do something new, the result can be hostile because what people hear (rather than what we are, in fact, saying), is that what they are doing already is not good enough. In some cases, this may well be true, and facing that reality can be painful. Also, to suggest that we should try something new is, by implication, to suggest change – and many people struggle with change. The mix of thought processes and raw emotion that govern this are deep. Some people will resist admitting that something is not working or needs improvement, and in their minds to expose themselves as a failure. Edgar Schein, author of Organisational Culture and Leadership refers to a kind of Survival Anxiety that can surface. For those who accept the need for change, there follows a Learning Anxiety. This is akin to living in a twilight zone between having accepted the need to do something new, and yet not being fully confident that it will produce better results. Often what people fear most is being exposed as a failure. Whilst I don’t think that these insights make life any easier, many of those with whom I have journeyed have found it helpful to understand why they are encountering resistance.

Perhaps part of looking after yourself is to think about how you manage the kind of conflict that comes from culture change – can culture can be defined as ‘the way we do things round here’. One significant question is how we manage conversation and conflict in such a way that they are held corporately, and that we do not end up being in the firing line, because we have been the one who has suggested a change. Herein, we would be wise to draw inspiration from de Bobo’s thinking hats. We have used this in one of our churches where we were discussing the challenging issue of whether we should move premises, or remain. (At the time the Church was facing considerable costs for the upkeep of the building and either had to invest heavily – at some risk – or downsize. DeBono allowed us to avoid the spiritual equivalent of a Wild West cowboy (and cowgirl) bar brawl, where everyone interjects with their own passionate opinion, and the fog of war descends. Debono encourages everyone to work through a series of questions; what are the facts; what are the positives; what are the cons; what does our intuition and emotion say (with and emphasis that this need not be logical); what are the possibilities? I thoroughly recommend it. Alternatively, even simple things such as paying attention to how you arrange the seating in your meetings can be helpful. Are you setting yourself up to be at the end of a shooting gallery, or is the room laid out in a more inclusive way? Sometimes I have arranged for people to sit in a circle for a meeting, granting the secretary a small table for note writing. The change in dynamics – and in particular, a sense of mutuality – can be dramatic. Granted, these pieces of wisdom might not appear scriptural but they are tried and tested ways of managing difficult conversations, drawn from professional expertise in other fields. Not everything that might be labelled ‘secular’ deserves suspicion. For example, the last time I had a headache, I was quite happy to take a painkiller.

Finally, understand that just because something is difficult does not mean that it is bad.

Three: Remember that you are part of the Church

Jesus says that he is the true vine and His father is the gardener. He says to the disciples that they are the branches, and that we are charged with bearing fruit. He commands us to remain in him. I put it to you that as we go about fulfilling our calling, we need to remember that to be connected to Jesus, is to be part of the Church, his body at work. I say this because often we can create an unhelpful divide. We look at the Church, and its failings, and we struggle to understand why no one sees things as we do. We then think that we are the only sane ones and that everyone else is a loon. At times, we can spend more energy focused on what is not right, than we do on doing something about it. We get so disheartened in fact that we are tempted to go it alone. But beware of becoming a lone-ranger!

The real problem comes when something goes wrong; when you have a pastoral crisis, what happens, who looks after you? What is someone who you are reaching out has a crisis that you don’t feel you are qualified to deal with – for example, someone dies?  What if you suddenly find you have a disagreement with someone in the church – and there is no one to hear your side of the story?….If something goes wrong, and you are not properly embedded in the Church, you will find yourself in difficulty.

Perhaps one of the hardest things to accept as a pioneer or an entrepreneur is that whilst you might have an innovative idea, that idea will require a team of people, with giftings that are very different from your own, to bring you idea to life. To make matters even more challenging, some of these people may well wind you up. But you need them. And they need you. Just like the clownfish needs the anemone and vice-versa. As one of my colleages put it, ‘Love your anemone!’

Four: Think about what success might look like

It might seem odd that I am suggesting that prayerful planning is key to your well-being as a pioneer. In my experience, one key question that we do not think enough about is what success looks like. Now, on the one hand, this can be a very difficult question to answer. On the other, unless we have some idea of what we are aiming to achieve, even in the broadest terms, we will be unable to judge whether we are making any progress. And if we cannot judge this, we can become disheartened very quickly.

A recurring theme for me is that pioneering is more like turning the soil and planting seed, with the hope that the seed will germinate and grow into something great. Pioneering is a process. Success and failure are part of pioneering. Very often, some of the people that I have mentored have come unstuck because they have focused too much on the end goal, which may not have worked out. However, what they miss is the deep impact that they have made by simply being there in the first place. How their work has given rise to informal and more formal conversations in the church. How whilst they might not have seen one thing happen, other things have happened that are equally good.

An example from personal experience is that recently I have had it on my heart to offer a faith course, written my myself in at least one of my churches. The idea is that we would target issues that really concern people, such as anger management, pornography on the internet, finding a life partner, thinking about spirits and life after death, and that we would use music and video to introduce a theme, have a time of testimony, give a presentation of the gospel, have a quiet time, offer a prayer of commitment, and end with tea and cake. Sounds simple. I scattered this idea. I am seeing what germinates where. One church said, that is not for us, we feel called to set up a Foodbank. Another went, we like the idea but what about doing it across two churches. They are still talking. Another said, ‘We like the idea, but why not use Alpha? And then the room got excited. Someone said, ‘I came in through Alpha, it’s what introduced me to Jesus and how I first came to Church’, and another said, ‘So did I’. And someone else said, ‘And last time, another church did the catering for us so that we could all focus on learning together.’ And then I chipped in with, ‘And we would always invite other local preachers to help us with the small groups’. And we all said, ‘Let’s think about doing it properly. Let’s give ourselves the time we need. Let’s start by gathering people who are outside of this room first – not just us’. I don’t know where it will end. But the conversation – the bringing people together, is just as important as the end.

But then I am left with my little idea – and my three sessions that I have organised. Now I could think that because my idea had not been accepted, this was a waste. But on the other hand, it turned the soil for a whole set of questions. And my little idea was squashed. But not wasted. No doubt some elements of what I have put together will appear elsewhere – or another church may want to run with my material. But my point is that pioneering is sometimes about being that protagonist – that protagonist who knows the system and turns the ground. I am not sure that we can always be precious about our ideas.

Know what you want to do, have a plan, and don’t overlook the successes that you are having, even if you do not reach the end-goal.

Five: Prayerful planning is key

This might seem a little obvious but what I am offering you here is a much more nuanced look at the importance of prayer and planning. If we want to stay healthy in ministry, we need to pray and plan. If we do not we will end up feeling disheartened, stressed, tired, burnt-out, anxious, depressed, and lying on a sofa surrounded by chocolate wrappers – aka the Vicar of Dibley – when a binge followed a bad night.

I have mentioned the prayer word. At this point I must admit that I feel a little bit disingenuous because depending how you measure it, I am the world’s worst pray-er. I thank God that I was not called to be a monk. I have been on silent retreat. I reckon I could be silent for a day but I would burst. Some forms of prayer just aren’t for me. Instead, I need activity to occupy I suppose one side of my brain, whilst I pray with another.I say this because I think that so often we can be discouraged because we have only experienced one type of prayer and within minutes it puts us to sleep. I would suggest that this is not only to do with tiredness, but also, differences in learning styles. So, I would suggest that in order to keep yourself safe you need to develop a rule of life, a way of living that keeps you anchored to the best of Christian Tradition. Praying to God the Father. Being attentive to the leading of the Holy Spirit – this is particularly important since the Holy Spirit will direct, block, allow you to respond to opportunities as they arise, and of course give you all you need for the task ahead.

At the same time, I want to alert you to the importance of planning. There is a danger that when we read our gospels, and our epistles – especially Acts Chapter 2, that ministry just – well – happens. There is an argument to say that if we are living holy lives, preaching the gospel, meeting the needs of the poor, and offering a place of Christian community, the Church will grow. I mean Acts 2 is holy chaos! On the other hand, it is clear right from the offset, that there is also an element of planning in Christian mission. If you read the Epistles, in particular, you will see that early church has a sense of process, of understanding how we work together, and of discipline, in the sense of agreeing on expectations so that Jesus’ name is honoured, and no one is overlooked. What we cannot do is merely believe that pioneering can happen on the fly. The last time I looked, the Methodists had a plan of preachers, showing who goes where. Night Shelter has a rota. We planned this event, Helen being sure that I know what I am supposed to be doing! At the same time, we need space to allow God time to show us his plans, rather than us – with our limited fields of view – almost predicting exactly how the end product will look. In Methodist circles, I call this, ‘the Methodist bootprint’ effect, where our previous understanding of what ‘church’ is – how we measure ‘church’, and how churches ‘usually’ operate, ends up quenching the spirit and stifling what is new. There needs to be a balance. Pray. Plan. But do not be tempted to behave like Mystic Meg.

Six: Know yourself.

The second thing that I want to say, is that to look after yourself you need to know who you are – in God. You need to know something of your calling and be secure in that. You need to know how you operate – what your gifts and personality amount to. You need to know what the warning signs are when you are approaching burnout. You need to practice not just reflection on what is happening around you, but reflexivity. Reflexivity questions how our upbringing, our physical condition, our state of mind, affects how we are reading and interpreting a situation – because we can do often misread the signals of those around us. And we need to account for the fact that we are changing and hopefully maturing all the time.

There are some helpful tools out there – and there is no need to spend any money unless you are really interested. You just only need to know enough to be able to reflect on your own identity. One of the tools out there is Myers-Briggs, which is a way of measuring personality type, which is in itself a measure of how we perceive the world around us, and how we make judgements. Another one which I have found especially helpfully is Belbin’s team roles. Are you the Co-ordinator, the Resource investigator, the Specialist, the Evaluator or the Implementer? Are you the Shaper of the Completer Finisher? One of the attractive aspects of Belbin’s roles is that they can change over time – and I have certainly found this as I have reflected on my own ministry.

One of the key things that I would recommend if you do not have it, is to find a mentor – someone who can sit with you, perhaps once a month, and help you make sense of the world that is around you. Because if you don’t, you are going to feel like a contestant on Big Brother, or I am a Christian Get me Out of Here. Which brings me back to my very first point; you cannot pioneer on your own, you need to need to be accountable to someone, pastorally cared for by someone, listened to by someone. Don’t think you can go it alone.

Don’t end up like Nemo in a Dentist’s fish tank.

Posted on

Memorial to the Methodist Conference – Grant Funding: balancing holiness, risk and sustainability

The Peterborough Circuit Meeting 18/01/17 (Present 36, Voting 29, For 26, Against 0) welcomes the transparency with which the Methodist Church lays out the eligibility criteria that projects must meet to access its various streams of grant funding. However, we note the difference between criteria and assessment, and having examined the application forms for all funding streams, call upon conference to commission a review of how, in its allocation of grant funding, the Church balances missional need, perceived risk, and potential reward. In our view, the requirement that new projects forecast the growth and scope of their ministry over five years (as would be required for stationing) may well, in some cases, be unrealistic.

Whilst we recognise the need for prayerful planning, we are concerned that the request for a ‘work plan’ (which requires projects to present a schedule of ‘activities, targeted beneficiaries, beneficiary-numbers, and measurable anticipated outcomes’ for each year of funding), as well as a five-year financial forecast, is impractical for new and innovative projects where the primary focus includes (separately or as one), serving the poor, community development, and/or ecclesial formation. Crucially, whilst practitioners are required to predict the participation, scope, and scale of their projects, the criteria fail to acknowledge how success in new ventures requires flexibility and an openness to opportunities as they arise. We therefore ask Conference, within its review, to scrutinise how the grant application process balances questions of sustainability with an openness to holiness, risk, and sacrificial giving.

Posted on

Memorial to the Methodist Conference: Fresh Expressions and Ecclesial Formation

In light of Fresh Expressions, the Peterborough Methodist Circuit Meeting 18/01/17 (Present 36, Voting 29, For 25, Against 0) calls upon Conference to review its standing orders relating to ecclesial formation; namely S.O. 605 (new churches may only be formed when twelve Methodist members unite), S.O. 612 (the minimum membership of established churches is six), and S.O. 051 (an exception to the ‘one member, one society’ principle).

Whilst we wish to affirm the broad recommendations made within Fresh Expressions in the Mission of the Church, we urge Conference to consider the critique offered by the Church Army Research Unit in 2013 (Report on Strand 3b). This suggests that our understanding of ‘church’ is underpinned by a practice rather than a relational approach, which is unhelpful and even unrealistic for fresh expressions. Whilst we recognise that Fresh originates from a joint Anglican-Methodist perspective, we find considerable merit in the Church Army’s argument. For a Methodist fresh expression to constitute itself properly as a new church, those who are already members of a local Methodist Church (and who may well serve a vital role in both), are forced to leave one for the other. Moreover, whilst the Church is encouraging fresh expressions to configure themselves in ways that are appropriate to local context, it seems incongruous that they should be expected to adhere to the twelve-member rule, especially when established churches retain their legal status until they have less than six.

The Statistics Office has reported to us that out of over 2,700 fresh expressions, only one has constituted itself as a church, and that in the main, new churches are formed through the amalgamation of declining churches, or through local ecumenical partnerships. We therefore request that conference reduce the qualifier under S.O 605 to six, and to extend the provisions of S.O. 051 to allow dual-Methodist membership in local contexts.

Posted on

Zebras and Zebroids: Why we need to encourage a mixed ecology rather than inbreeding

Talk on Fresh Expressions for the Fresh Ways Consultation Hinkley Hall, Leeds; 1-2 June 2015

Factoid for today 

In biological terms, horses and zebras share the same genus. However, they are different species. Horses have better balance, can run faster and have been domesticated. Zebras have much better hearing, are more energetic, leap about all over the place when they get excited, and can change direction quickly when they are fleeing from predators. The reason that these two species are different is of course because they adapted to survive in different habitats. And I think there is a link here I think between fresh expressions communities and some of the communities that exist in the wider inherited church. Fresh expressions are like Zebras.

Allow me to introduce myself for those of you who don’t know me. In my previous circuit, I had oversight of fresh expressions and mentored those in leadership. I am also doing research through Durham University on how as Methodist ministers we can best enable the development of fresh expressions. I have been doing this for about five years now.

I have been asked to set us off thinking about how fresh expressions might be integrated into circuit structures, or the circuit zoo as I would prefer to think about it. The first thing I want to say is that horses and zebras tend not to share the habitat – and they definitely do not interbreed. You can create a Zebroid’s but you have to go about things artificially, and when you do create offspring, they are stunted and infertile. My view is that whatever we do with fresh expressions it would be wrong to subject them to some kind of artificial ecclesiological insemination in the hope that we can create something that is easier to handle. At the same time, we do need to make sure that the fresh expressions we have are safe, can grow, and can reproduce. -just as we would do for any other congregation. But I would suggest that in oversight terms, the needs of newly emerging congregations are different from the needs of inherited congregations.

I want to make five observations about the nature of fresh expressions so we are clear on what we are wanting to incorporate within the structures and disciplines of the wider church.

1/ Fresh expressions are forms of ‘church’ intended to reach those who are not yet members of any church.

The Fresh Expressions website provides a much more detailed view of what this might look like. The definition has always been a work in progress. Most recently, this phrase appeared – fresh expressions encouraging congregations alongside traditional churches. I think that this is helpful because as a Methodist, the word church – as in ‘fresh expression of church’ has a significance. Legally, church means 12 members all who need to be locally resident. Churches need stewards, a treasurer, a church secretary, and class leaders – whether or not this has indeed been how we have planted church in the past – and by the way, I would really appreciate a research conversation on that. But talk of ‘congregation’ is, I think, more helpful because anyone can be a congregation – congregations are not bound in quite the same way as churches, who are legally required to conform to a quite particular ecclesiological construct. This aside, what fresh expressions do require, irrespective of how they structure themselves, is good oversight. Oversight being everything we do to enable the people of God to fulfil the calling that God has placed upon them. In our Methodist understanding this involves mutual accounablility – looking over, and looking after each other. The key thing for Methodist fresh expressions is how we balance Locality (when and where something happens), Intensivity (in that there is an intimacy within fresh expressions communities) and Connectivity (how are we linked to each other). This is one of the helpful points in Fresh Expressions in the Mission of the Church – although if you are going to read it, I would encourage you to read the Anglican report Anecdote to Evidence, and the accompanying report Strand 3b, by the Church army, which criticises some of our thinking and expectations of what makes church, Church.

2/ Fresh Expressions can come about through –

a local church redeveloping (but not rebranding) and existing act of worship which is changing mindful of the needs of newcomers

A new venture where the church sets out to nurture a new Christian community

A circuit mission project – note that the purpose of the Methodist Church is to advance the Christian faith and allows us to find us the most appropriate way to do things.

Note that our purpose as The Methodist Church is to advance the Christian Faith. This gives us a very broad remit. Our responsibility is to ensure that appropriate oversight is in place, and in that we can draw from members of the wider church at every level. And we are encouraged to exercise our disciplines with a light touch lest we suffocate this new work. I think that is something worth discussing.

3/ The other point for discussion is how the mixed economy is working. The idea of a mixed economy is that what is inherited and emerging can live alongside each other and from each other, rather than what is emerging being constricted and swallowed-up by the inherited church. In my view, one of the markers of a healthy fresh expression is that it looks to develop from within, rather than seeing itself as a stepping stone to something else. There are very limited examples of where this has happened but on the whole, horses and zebras don’t mix. However, I think that we secretly hope that we can get them together and breed zebroids? Another critical marker is where baptism and communions take place. If we are serious about fresh expressions developing their own ecclesial identity then we will put our rites of passage where the community meets, and find sensitive ways of conducting them, rather than in effect, telling them that they are not grown up enough yet to stand on their own. Linked to this, I think we need to look at the mixed economy working – what power balance exists between those who lead and are part of fresh expressions and those who are in the wider church. Are we at risk of getting a church shaped mission rather than a mission shaped church? This was one of John Hull’s concerns at the beginning of the movement but I think he was concerned about the evangelical wing of the church of England giving rise to, in his view, and unbalanced approach to mission. My view is that the opposite is true, that the inherited Methodist Church will hold back fresh expressions development. We need more Bread Churches and Zak’s places.

TOP FIVE 

I want to close by spicing up the debate by giving you my top five chart of fears and realities that I think surround fresh expressions:  

5 Fear: A fresh expression will lack diversity and only reach one group of people.

Reality; yes they might, but I think we will find, if we look at the present diversity in the church, that things are pretty monochrome as they stand! Besides, there is such a thing as positive discrimination in favour of those who are being overlooked.

4 Fear: Investing in fresh expressions leaves some declining congregations feeling overlooked.  Reality; In my limited experience, this is just not true. Declining congregations want nothing more than to hear good news stories about what God is doing in other places. About people who are coming to faith. In fact, they can’t get enough of I and will even get involved. At the same time, they realise that their own context is different. And if declining churches do kick, I would suggest that this is part of the grief process – think anger, disbelief and lostness and also realise that such congregations are just as likely to kick out about fresh expressions are they are about anything else.

3 Fear: Fresh expressions are fellowship groups – they are not really ‘church’ are they?  Reality: There is an argument that relationships rather than practices are the foundation of church development and from this, practices that embody and fortify those relationships will come. What we should question is our tendency evaluate fresh expressions in such a way that if we applied the criteria to many of our existing inherited congregations, they would not quality. Where is the Holy Spirit at work in our churches and how is our biblical literacy getting on?

2 Fear: Fresh expressions cost a lot of money.
Reality – There are two answers to this. When do the parents stop paying for their children? Answer – given by Steve Lindridge, ‘In my experience never’. The other fresh expressions cost very little but they do mean putting the right resources in the right place at the right time. Besides, I think we should be looking at more volunteer lay ministry.

The number one 1 Fear:

Having a fresh expression is like having a blender without a lid on it. …Someone else has to tidy up a great mess. 

Reality: Most fresh expressions are led by ministers, lay employees or, in the main, mature and experienced members of the Methodist Church who are moved by compassion and are very loyal. They also give financially to the work of the Church. Personally, I would be more worried about negotiation with other groups in the Methodist Church such as a choir, or an organist who struggles to play new material, or the folk in the kitchen who view a filter coffee machine much like a nuclear reactor that they are not trained to use.

To discuss:

What does it mean to interpret the disciplines of the church with a light touch?

What would help the ‘mixed economy’ to work better?

Posted on

Tending to those half-way down the mountain. Embracing and Communicating change. February Message for Circuit Service 2 Kings 2:1-12, Mark 9:2-29

Our mission – wherever we are, is to share the Good News of Jesus Christ and show God’s love through worship, witness, and service.

If you’re part of our Crowland community, you’ll recognise reflections here from a sermon I delivered right before Lent—a message that’s stayed with me, I have not been able to shake it off. But the context for today is different. It is wonderful to see people here from across the circuit. As we all know, we are navigating through some tough times, actively seeking where God wants us to go next. Accepting that change needs to happen, and talking about change, and making decisions for the future, is difficult. Today I feel led to stress how important it is that we are open to the Holy Spirit. As for the transfiguration, I have been led to think about the parallels between where we are now, and the questioning and chaos that is going on half-way down the mountain, where Jesus steps in and brings healing and peace. We need to listen to Jesus.

Elijah and Elisha – 2 Kings 2:1-12

Elijah and Elisha are two of the most significant prophets in the OT. Elijah is the older one – his name means my God is Yahweh. Elisha’s name means God is Salvation – God has the power to save and sustain life. They belong to a community of prophets. They are celebrated for leading God’s people through a time of crisis and change. They called people back to worshipping the one true God, rather than false god’s, and to honouring God’s law. But now there is another change. Elijah’s ministry will close, he will be taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot, and Elisha will take over. It is easy to be distracted by this vision, but the real story is of the intimate relationship between Elijah and Elisha, and how Elisha struggles with change. He does not want to be separated from Elijah. When he turns up for worship and sees the other prophets, they say to him. ‘You know that this is the day don’t you’ – I paraphrase – and Elisha says – and this is exact – Yes I know, so be quiet’. In other words. I know. I don’t want to talk about it.

2 Kings 2: 3,5

How revealing that is! Elisha, faced with the prospect of change, and an uncertain future, says what all of us say directly to others. “Don’t say anything”. “I don’t want to talk about it”. And the same is true for us as we are in this moment where we are questioning what is sustainable for us as a circuit of churches with staff – not just financially, but in terms of energy – and seeking God’s will. According to the human playbook our first response is predicted to be, ‘We don’t want to talk about it’. But we have no option. No matter how painful it might be, and how insecure we might feel. I am always moved by leading the covenant service. I am moved not just by the prayer, but by the preamble. To receive from God, we need to give from God, we need to make ourselves vulnerable. If we honour God, God will honour us.

The other important thing about this story is having accepted that change is going to happen, Elisha asks for a double portion of Elijah’s spirit – the Holy Spirit. Elisha has seen the divine spark at work in Elijah, and reasons that this is what has made him robust in times of great challenge – there was one moment – after he had defeated the false prophets of Baal – when Elijah ran away. He thought he would be better off dead but he is visited by an angel and hears God in the still small voice if you remember. And he recovers. But Elisha can see that it is the divine spark – the Holy Spirit that sees Elijah through that. We understand that the Holy Spirit is our comforter, counsellor, helper, friend, the one who convicts us, and the one who empowers us. We can face all things if we ask God’s spirit within us. Without the spirit we are nothing but dust in the wind.

Elijah and Elisha cross over the Jordan. It is symbolic as a place of transition. Are you at a life-changing moment?

Sandra – who is involved in our livestream worship community said this – it is hard to choose from so many life changing moments when God has moved mightily and amazingly in my life – sometimes at times of real difficulty – each strengthening and deepening my faith. I remember one time when I was searching for work and felt drawn to work for a mental health charity. I encountered many battles for others. Many lives were changed including mine. I often see God’s hand at work in bringing volunteers alongside me. The work kept me sane and helped my family. It is difficult to be brief on how God has been with me over the past 15 years.

Elijah and Elisha’s journey across the Jordan reminds us that we all face moments that can change our lives. But change is not all bad. Change can be exciting. Rewarding. Sometimes small changes have big consequences. And how might God be calling your church to embrace change. One thing covid did, peculiarly, is to accept that we had to do things differently, but I think we are at risk of backsliding and taking comfort now things are more settled.

Let us move on to the Transfiguration and exorcism
(Mark 9:2-29)

It is easy to be distracted by Jesus, whiter than white, transfigured on the mountaintop.

It is easy to be distracted by His conversation with Moses, the greatest high-priest known to Israel, and Elijah, one of the greatest prophets known to Israel.

It is easy to be distracted by Peter’s clumsy offer to set up tents. There was Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, talking about how Jesus’ mission would unfold (Luke tells us that), and Peter may as well be asking if anyone wants tea, biscuits, and cake. Peter, you might be missing the point here! There might be something more important going on!

Jesus is trying to give Peter, James, and John – three of his key leaders – confidence by allowing them to see this. The point of it all is the voice from heaven that says to them ‘This is my beloved Son. Listen to Him’.

Another of my church leaders – who has experienced the death of her teenage son some years ago, said this; ‘Listening to Jesus has made a big difference in my life, especially at the hardest points when I felt so alone. Knowing the Holy Spirit is in and around me and my family and friends, gives me hope for the future’.

And so there we have it. In our own lives, within our Churches – as well as being open to the Spirit, we need to listen to Jesus. One of the most heartening pieces of feedback I have had from one of our church leaders is that whilst we need to look at what our finances say, and be honest about the people and energy we have, we also need to have faith. Let us be sure that we are not too earthly in our thinking to be of any heavenly use. Neither should we have our head in the clouds. God has great things for us. If the attitudes of James and John are to go by though, we cannot comprehend what that will be because our God is too small, and we only think in certain ways.

Down the mountain

For me it is impossible to remember the transfiguration without being honest about the chaos that is going on down below – that Jesus steps in and sorts out. For today we will forgo a detailed look at the difference between exorcism and healing. The point is that Jesus steps into a chaotic situation, where I am sure that everyone has their ideas, and everyone has an opinion, as a family is in crisis and a young boy is desperate for release.

You can either view this as how we can have spiritual highs in one place, and spiritual lows in the next. I remember visiting one of the members of our churches, who has since passed away. Although it was sad, it was deeply important, and it left me feeling that I had done some good. She knew she had little time left. She recognised me. She said my name – and there was such appreciation in her voice. We prayed. We prayed against her fears. We prayed for her peace. Then I left the ward, to find a message pinged on my phone, and chaos unfolding at Westgate New Church on the day that we were expecting people for BoB, our lunchtime fellowship.

The problem half-way down the mountain was that the toilet floors were being replaced, the contractors were in, but somewhere along the line there had been ‘a communication issue’! To make things even more challenging, the contractors thought that we could work around them – but they struggled to understand our context. I mean, when we looked at the access we had, it would have meant asking those who come, and who use walking sticks and strollers to shimmy down the main corridor with their backs to the wall! And as for the kitchen floor that had been repurposed as a cutting station – we will say no more – there was nowhere for Suzanne to cook. What started out with good intentions descended into chaos – and then organised chaos as we had to cancel BoB.

There was a period of frantic activity as we tried to call round everyone before they boarded their local bus to reach us. And then we had to work out what had gone wrong. I should say that the story ends well. We have new toilet floors and a new kitchen floor. I think that is enough of an example of chaos down the mountain. I won’t even mention the tarmac lorry that arrived ahead of schedule the other day because another contractor was so pleased with the progress that they were making that they delivered early!

I should say thanks to Bernie for his work at Westgate New Church, and all those other property secretaries who help across our churches, and to our trustees. But here is the important point – when we survey the scene halfway down the mountain – whilst we can be frustrated, annoyed, trying to work out who arranged what, frantic in our efforts to sort everything, ultimately we will find a way through the chaos so long as we remember that we are routed in Jesus, that we treat each other with grace, and that we keep the main thing the main thing. Whilst BoB did not happen, every person knew that they were cared for. And those new toilet and kitchen floors are lovely! Remember that God is with you when you encounter chaos halfway down the mountain. Remember that how you behave when you are halfway down the mountain is crucial because it is a witness to others.

Another way of looking at this link is how the mountaintop is where the leaders gather – the mountaintop for us might be our Circuit Leadership Team, our Circuit Meeting, our Treasurers meeting, our Gathering, our Circuit Services – the places where the core gathers, and then down the mountain is where the rest of our churches are at. And communicating to the crowd is a nightmare because it is about the challenge, it is about the process, it is about the people, and it is about what we can, and cannot do, and it is about trying to involve as many as people as possible as we strive to discern how God is leading us to work together in the future. Some people are early on in that conversation. For others it is new.

And there are the insecurities. Shortly, the Circuit will be publishing the findings from our first gathering. These are really encouraging. To give you a teaser; we celebrate these Circuit Services and our involvement in Social Action are things we celebrate, we mourn Numbers at Worship, and our decline in membership but nonetheless celebrate new members that have joined us and become involved. People see music as being of deep significance to our Methodist identity, followed by Pastoral Groups, Social Action, and our link with Connexion and District in equal measure. But there were three written points that betray our fears – amongst the positives there was one written comment that I need to address – there were three but the other two – we need to act now, and we need to think through the scenarios, are in play, even though yes, I would prefer the future to be sorted in one nice, easy move.

The point – just one worrying comment, among many positives, is that we, as a circuit, already know what buildings are going to close. And by buildings what I think the person really meant was churches. (The feedback is anonymised to encourage people to be honest, open and transparent). That’s the fear that is getting in the way – the fear that someone somewhere will close your church. Well, allow me to assure you. Nothing is decided. More than that, there is not a boardroom where a group of directors make decisions that you are not involved in. There is no them and us. There is no church and circuit. We are all the circuit. The circuit meeting is filled with representatives from your churches; stewards, treasurers, and more.

There are exceptions, and they are not set by us – if your numbers fall or you cannot function, there is no option but to close or merge, but beyond that, you have the power. And think about it – none of us would want to force things – that would be counterproductive – we are One Body and we are rightly reluctant to cut off one bit because we say it is not needed. But we do need you to be honest and help us find a way forward that is sustainable. And I am hoping that because you have the security, you are better placed to ask yourselves the challenging questions. How might God have a better future for you? For your church?

We do need to act now. To which I respond, we are acting now, yes there is an urgency, we do have a plan – but informing and mobilising people takes time. We need your help. We need to help people understand and take people with us. Personally, I have a mix of vulnerability, and excitement about the future. I am mindful that we have people’s lives in our hands. I am mindful that we are dependent on people’s generosity. I can see where the future leads if things do not change. But God is a God of change.

Let’s revisit what Jesus says when he is confronted by the chaos.

Jesus comes down the mountain, he sees chaos, and at the heart of this chaos is the struggle that the disciples are having to bring healing to a young boy. He is clearly frustrated. I close with three lessons. First, he looks on the scene and declares:

You unbelieving generation, how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you?

Now, I think that is a word to those of us who have caught the vision that God is doing a new thing but are frustrated in how difficult it is to communicate this to the crowd. The good news is that Jesus felt it. Take comfort in that. Take comfort in how the story ends, with a healing, but remember that you are not Jesus, and criticising people for their lack of faith, when you think you have it, is probably not a good idea! We need to take people with us. Note that Jesus’ focus is on a generation, a group of people, not just one or two. Mark 9:19

Second, Jesus affirms the importance of belief. Do you believe that Jesus can make a difference to your life, your church, your community. The father of the boy says he believes, but there is an element of unbelief there – ‘I do believe, help me overcome my unbelief’. Is that not true of us all? Mk 9:24

Third, Jesus talks about the importance of prayer. Leaving aside a complex look at healing and deliverance, it is prayer that focuses and changes the mood of the scene here. Prayer puts the focus on God rather than our wisdom. As I stand in the middle of lent, I am minded that our focus needs to be on prayer – and repentance, to allow God to work in us, see things God’s way, and to be open to change.

There is one final point. If you notice, Jesus tells Peter, James and John not to speak of the transfiguration until his death. He also tells people not to disclose that he is the Messiah. This is known as the Messianic Secret. My first thought was this was a strategy from Jesus to ensure that He is gossiped about – since when you ask some people to keep a secret, they think it so precious that they share it everywhere. But no, Jesus tells people to hold back – people will not understand his role, he is managing the timing of his death, he is wanting time to prepare the disciples and for their faith to grow, he does not want unwanted attention from the authorities.

You however can gossip as much as you like….

Tell people newcomers are finding a home with us.

Tell people how faith has guided and been precious to the faithful who have died.

Tell people how by working together we are helping people who face, illness, poverty, sickness, and injustice.

Tell people our churches are actively changing lives.

Tell people, despite the challenges, God’s support never wavers.

Tell people God will provide, but we will need to give something ourselves.

Tell people every prayer, every service, brings us closer to God’s vision.
Tell people every act of faithfulness truly counts.
Tell people with God, we risk nothing and stand to gain everything.

Tell people that God has a promising future for us.

Tell people we’re seeking God’s direction in every step we take.

Tell people that we have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

Tell people that just as Jesus died and rose again, we are being raised.

Amen

 

Posted on

Let go of the grave clothes: Easter Message from Rev Langley

We like to think that the resurrection solved everything for the disciples. Sadly, it did not. It takes time for our minds to focus away from the all-consuming grief that comes from our witnessing death, or hearing word of it. In Mark’s gospel, the women prepare to anoint a dead body, and are more concerned with how they will roll the burial stone away. They arrive to find that the problem has been solved for them. Having heard news from the angel that Jesus has risen, they leave not in joy but in confusion, terror, and fear, tinged with amazement. In Mark’s gospel we read how the other women were so overcome with mourning and weeping that when Mary tells them that Jesus is alive, they will not believe. In John’s gospel, Mary Magdalene assumes that someone had stolen the body. Her grief is so locked in that even when Jesus speaks to her, she does not recognise him. Not until He says her name. Whilst He does break through with Mary, the disciples – let’s not forget that the women were disciples as well – were in death mode, unable to comprehend what had happened. Who can blame them?

As I walked through Good Friday to Easter Sunday, a phrase would not leave my mind. ‘Let go of the grave clothes’. Whilst I admit that there is no scriptural reference to support this (the grave clothes are visible in John’s account, but no one touches them), I would suggest that this is an important principle. There is, arguably, a link with Mary who embraces Jesus, leaving Jesus to say, ‘Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father’. Without seeming to be disrespectful, I am not sure that Jesus is saying that He has so much power in him from the resurrection that Mary is likely to get a lightning bolt if she holds on for any longer. I think it is to do with how the Jesus she is clinging to is far too human in her mind to be of any earthly use. So, ‘Let go of me Mary.’ Or to put it another way, let go of the grave clothes (which were admittedly whiter than white).

This is my word for you, for your church, for us as a circuit. So often, the Jesus we look to, even when we know Him to be resurrected, is far to earthly in our minds to be of any heavenly use. Our God is too small. We are so locked into the expectations of decline and death, that we have little hope of realising the resurrection. And yet Jesus is so much more, and offers us so much more than we can perceive. In our lives, in our churches, in our circuit, we can so often be clinging on to the grave clothes to preserve what has been, rather than looking to Jesus who promises are new way of life; a new way of doing things that will yield results that are far beyond our expectation. The Kingdom of Heaven is come here on earth. Let go of the grave clothes.

God bless you this Easter.

Posted on

Reflection and Eucharistic Prayer based on Jesus’ response to the Canaanite Woman seeking Deliverance for her Daughter

This communion liturgy was written for cafe worship and in response to the challenging dialogue, in Matthew 15:21-28.

The Canaanite Woman, Les Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry, Folio 164r, Condé Museum, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Matthew 15 describes a visit made by a woman to Jesus, then in Gentile territory, She was desperate for Him to deliver her possessed daughter. Jesus’ response, “Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs”, has proved one of the most challenging sayings of Jesus because, from a cursory reading, it appears to support the discriminatory and inhumane attitudes shared by many of his compatriots, towards the Gentiles.

Whilst the principle that Jesus comes to the people of Israel first, and then to the wider world is understandable, we are made distinctly uncomfortable by how Jesus’ words could be taken to uphold some kind of two-tier hierarchy (in which ‘they’ (the Gentiles) are favoured less than ‘us’.

Michael Angelo Immenraet, Jesus and the Woman of Canaan. Between 1673 and 1678. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. Complete with large dog. Spot the look of surprise on the face of the nearest disciple. Michael Angelo Immenraet, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

This is not helped in the least by his referring to them as ‘dogs’.

Softer readings of the term, derived from the original Greek (which means ‘puppies’ rather than the ferocious animals we might assume), do little, in reality, to counter this. Meanwhile, the suggestion that the word for ‘dogs’ in Greco-Roman contexts, was also used to refer to philosophers, is tempting to hold on to (as if Jesus is saying that his truth claims need to be received as more than philosophical ideas that are up for debate).

However, Jesus is too far removed from this context for this to offer any kind of reprieve. The Gentiles knew that they were despised by their neighbours. Our only hope, unless we suggest that Jesus is having a bad day, and has been caught off-guard, is that he is saying it sarcastically, as if this phrase, ‘It is not right to take food for the children and toss it to the dogs’, is a common saying that Jesus is ridiculing. However, there seems little evidence of this, and we cannot know the tone in which Jesus is speaking.

There are, however, some positives. In the first place, the woman, an outsider, is prepared to risk people knowing that she has approached Jesus. Second, this seems to be a rare occasion where the person – let alone a woman – challenges Jesus and leaves affirmed. Her response, ‘Even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs’, is met with praise and the declaration that her daughter has been healed that instant. The core message is that Jesus, most likely seeking solace, tolerates being disturbed by someone in great need. The woman’s humility and persistence changes her life, and the life of her daughter.  Beyond this is the fact that whilst Jesus’ initial response leave us perplexed, He nonetheless disregards the boundaries of religious tradition that would have forbade He even talking to this woman, let alone bringing healing to her family.

I commend this liturgy to you, to use or edit as you wish. As general guidance to those ministers who are looking to write their own liturgies, page 221 of the 

Methodist Worship Book is a significant help. My personal experience is that this freedom that is offered to Methodist presbyters can be particularly helpful in ecumenical settings, given how we can shape our liturgies around particular scriptural and missional themes. This liturgy features elements of the Methodist Communion service for Pentecost (also for renewal, and emphasising the power of the Holy Spirit), aspects of Ordinary Season (1) – particularly a rewording of the familiar prayer recognising that we are not fit to gather the crumbs up from the Lord’s Table.  The Liturgy borrows from elements of the Iona Tradition by placing the Peace at the end, rather than at the beginning. Here, the emphasis is on how, having shared in communion, we find greater peace, and are drawn to a deeper level of commitment, then we were when we first began. We are a people who are now compelled to live at peace with each other, to respond well to those in need, and to bridge the divide. Meanwhile, the Lord’s Prayer is entered into earlier, as we emphasise that God meets our daily needs and that this rite is both a reminder and a fulfilment of this. 

One line is derived from considerable reflection, in that we pray that God would ‘help us unravel those strands of our traditions (sic.) which we have spoilt, that now limit our love’. This is rooted initially in the idea that aspects of the Pharisaic Tradition which were intended to help people draw closer to God had in fact become more insular and created division. A more detailed analysis of that paradigm is not possible here, but Jesus is clear in his speaking out against rules that misunderstand the action itself (ie food laws or washing hands) with the point of the action (this should be an outward sign of an inward commitment to righteousness, rather than a display for the sake of one’s one pride). Meanwhile, my emphasis is on how we can spoil the best of our inherited traditions in much the same way; we have the tendency to cherish the past to the point that we end up not preserving a mission but a living museum of what used to work. And in the worst of cases, we withdraw from the world, feeling resentful of those in our communities who do not seem to be supporting us. We say, ‘We are here for anyone and everyone just so long as they are prepared to walk through the Church doors’.

This is, I grant you, a pessimistic view of church where amazing things are happening, but our overriding learning from Fresh Expressions, and then New Places for New People, and also Church at the Margins, is that we still need to encourage each other in reaching out to new people who are not yet members of the church, and to be open to the kind of changes that need to be put in place so that the Church meets them where they are, rather than expecting them to conform to a model of church that may work for us, but may be less than ideal for them. We need to visit the land of the Gentiles and to be receptive.

Another element from the Methodist Worship Book which may prove helpful, especially in countering any sense of hierarchy, and emphasising mutuality, is for the President to adopt the confessional stance laid out in the Second Preaching Service within the Worship Book, Section B. Here the President would lead the way in confessing their own sins, with the pardon being pronounced by the congregation,  and then the congregation confessing their sins to the President.

I confess to God and to you
that I have sinned in thought, word, and deed;
May God have mercy on me.

May God grant you pardon
forgiveness of all your sins
time to amend your life,
and the grace and comfort of the Holy Spirit, Amen

Silence, after which the people say

We confess to God and to you
that I have sinned in thought, word, and deed;
May God have mercy on me.

May God grant you pardon
forgiveness of all your sins
time to amend your life,
and the grace and comfort of the Holy Spirit, Amen

_______________________

The Creed 

The Offering

The Lord’s Prayer

The Lord is here. His Spirit is with us.
Lift up your hearts. We lift them to the Lord.
Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is right to give our thanks and praise.

Almighty God. At the beginning of time, your Holy Spirit
hovered over the surface of the deep.
You formed the heavens and the earth.
You brought light to the darkness, and life to all.

You convict us, and draw us,
that we might turn to you
and know life in all its fulness.

We remember your faithfulness through the generations
And how your covenants unfolded.
You raised up a holy people to reflect your love for the world
so that we might find purpose, and care for one another.
You sent prophets, priests, and kings to lead your people.
You defeat sin and death, and all that oppresses.

We give thanks today, that despite our sin:
Our tendency to withdraw from you, and from each other
Our lack of humility and willingness to embrace the risk of rejection
Our negligence, weakness, or even deliberate intent:
You sent your Son Jesus, so that you, the one true God
who was unknown, or overlooked and forgotten by so many,
would be revealed through His exorcisms, healings, and nature miracles.

And so with angels and archangels
and all the choirs of heaven
we join in the triumphant hymn:

Holy Holy Holy Lord
God of Power and Might
Heaven and Earth are full of your Glory
Hosanna in the Highest
Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord
Hosanna in the Highest. 

As we gather at this table, we remember Jesus’ final meal.
Where, as the future looked bleak,
worry, confusion, questioning, and betrayal hung in the air.
We acknowledge Jesus’ sacrifice, dying on the cross for us:
Journeying unto death so that we might be shaken to our senses.
He who welcomes our questioning, who loves beyond the border
urges us to seek the Father’s forgiveness and love our neighbour

Whilst we are saddened by Jesus’ death, we rejoice in His resurrection
and the knowledge that your Kingdom is here, is coming, and knows no bounds:

Christ has died, Christ is risen, and Christ will come again.

You lead us from longing to belonging.
Although our life may be challenging.
Although love’s cost, paid through grief can be great.
Although we may feel at times abandoned and lost.
You never leave us, you are our comforter, counsellor, helper, our friend.
When we are weak, we are carried by our church family.
When we are strong, we join our church family in carrying the weak.
Your spirit convicts us as to how, and where, you are leading us to serve.
You call us to welcome the stranger, to question that which divides us,
You call us to unravel those strands of our traditions which we have spoilt,
that now limit our love
We give thanks for those who stand with us now, whom we cannot see,
those who join with us in worship, prayer and service.
Who together with us, and the angels and archangels
praise you, and proclaim the eternal truth:

Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord.
God of Power and might
Heaven and earth are full of your glory,
Hosanna in the highest
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,
Hosanna in the highest.

We remember how, on the night before he died Jesus took bread, broke it, and said, ‘Take, eat, this is my body’, and how he took the cup saying. ‘Drink from it all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’.

We offer you these gifts of bread and wine, and with them ourselves, as a holy living sacrifice:

You send forth your spirit.
You bind us in love.
You renew the face of the earth.

Pour out your Holy Spirit so that these gifts of bread and wine
may be transformed and may become for us the body and blood of Christ.
Unite us with Him forever
And bring us with the whole of creation
To your eternal Kingdom

Through Christ, with Christ, in Christ,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
all blessing and honour and glory and power
be yours forever and ever, Amen.

The bread is broken in the sight of the people.

We break this bread to share in the body of Jesus Christ

Lord, we come to your table in humility,
trusting in your mercy
We are not deserving of the crumbs under your table
but it is your nature to bring healing
and to shape us into the people you are calling us to be
So feed us with the body and lifeblood of Christ
so that He may grow in us, and we may grow in Him.

The bread and wine is shared; helpful options here, which reinforce the theme of Jesus calling us to love our neighbour, is for the bread and wine to be shared amongst the congregation by passing it to each other.

The Peace

The Peace of the Lord, which surpasses all understanding and knows no bounds, be with you now and forever

And also with you

Posted on

Recognising the prophetic question and thinking about the five P’s

Recognising the prophetic question

(An edited version of this article featured in the New Places for New People blog for the Methodist Church of Great Britain).

When you see the prophetic it stands out like glitter reflecting the light. Scene here – glitter remains spilt outside Messy Church (biodegradable of course)

 

Methodism is full of meetings. I don’t mind that, just so long as our meetings are grounded in prayer, have purpose, and we are making progress. Many of us who chair meetings or who take an active part are able to identify when we are not at our best. We all know of meetings where the minutes have served more as a reminder of what we promised to do months ago but have forgotten. Alternatively, we will know of meetings where the focus seems to be on keeping the show (of ‘church’) on the road by shoring up what is barely working, rather than being honest about what needs to change.

Have you heard of the five P’s? I am not sure where I first heard them. There are most likely variations but I remember the phrase, ‘Prayerful Preparation Prevents Poor Performance’. Herein the notion of ‘performance’ (a word that does not come naturally) needs to be coaxed within our understanding of discipleship, and how if we want to grow the church, we need to start by making disciples. In NPNP settings, where we have clear intent, where our focus is on growth and sustainability, a prayerful approach to preparation comes naturally. In a smaller setting, if people are not coordinating well and working as a team, things fall apart quickly. The same is true of established settings, apart from it can be easy for us to be lulled into a false sense of security because ‘we have always been here’.

There is a phrase I want to add to the five P’s. It feels clumsy, but I think it is invaluable – Prayerful Preparation – that is open to the prophetic – Prevents Poor Performance. Perhaps a wordsmith can come up with something more succinct. This addition comes from my experience in a church meeting where, aside from the well warranted need for us to maintain our building, one of our members asked the question, ‘How much money are we spending on people rather than buildings’? Before you, the reader, recoil because our buildings need maintenance, and we often find ourselves in a non-negotiable position, I would ask you to suspend judgement and hear me out. This was an important question – a prophetic question born out of holy disquiet, and it needed unpacking. What is the underlying concern here? How, if aired, might it help the community focus on its sense of call? In our context we still opted to carry out this work but we intend to spend more on people – a layworker in fact, part-funded through a bequest.

Those of us who chair meetings, and those of us who are key leaders in churches and NPNP ministries have a responsibility to draw out the prophetic voice. That is a challenging task because biblically it would seem that prophets are always at risk of having rocks slung in their direction. Hence sometimes, even though the prophetic question will not change a particular outcome (damp issues have to be dealt with), it can help shape a community. It can also call people back to a sense of accountability to each other, working together. That for me, is the difference between administration, which we all need, and solid Christian leadership. May the Lord be with us all, and may we not quench the Holy Spirit as we encounter the prophetic. Wherever we are.

 

Posted on

I might forget your name – but Jesus’ won’t.

This article is dedicated to those who forget or confuse names and places easily, and who in trying to remember someone’s name can’t get another out of their head. Batman made an appearance in one of my recent services. Because I had called someone Robin by mistake.

Not a great image to have in your mind during worship – By Greenway Productions-producer of both the television series and the 1966 film. – eBay itemphoto frontphoto back, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=105593132

Once again, I continue to thank God for the new people that the Lord is bringing us, who are making Queen Street their spiritual home. My challenge is how I get to know you all. I need to be honest and share how I am absolutely terrible with names. It is something that I find deeply humiliating and difficult, because I love people and feel like an absolute idiot when I cannot remember someone’s name when I am facing them, or in passing conversation I get names wrong. My sister, who is a psychologist, says that I have dyslexia. It is more of a family joke but I suspect there is some truth in it. There is also a level of ADHD there. Yes, I am high functioning (I think people who have doctorates have to fall into this category). I am not a great reader – my attention span is short (research reading is different from novel reading). Whilst I don’t struggle with spelling, I do get place names confused. It is a cognitive weakness.
I remember on one occasion, when Ro and I were living in Yorkshire, we agreed to meet each other – she would do the shopping, and I would meet to help her pack, at Morrisons. That was four miles away. I ran to Tescos – which was four miles in the opposite direction. By the end of the day I had practically run a half-marathon. (And yes, I still can’t remember whether I have the names of the supermarkets right). In formal settings I tend to be fine, but those of you who see me at work in the vestry – say before a baptismal service – will know how carefully I sit there and write the names of the child and the parents – again and again, on every page of the liturgy. It’s the same with a wedding and a funeral. We all find our coping mechanism – but it is when we are off script that we find our weaknesses. And there are people who have it far, far, far worse than me. I mean, here I am writing quite naturally. You would not know. Unless you agreed to meet me somewhere and I had not written it down. I live or die by my diary! Fortunately mistakes happen rarely – but it shows when things are informal or when I am rushing. Getting days and dates confused when I am firing off e-mails rapidly is another one – but we all correct ourselves.
About a month ago, in a moment of hilarity, whilst confidently leading worship, I managed to rename Paul Abel – who was sat at the front – ‘Robin’. I did it not once but at least twice. The eyebrows usually give it away, followed by (once it became impossible to ignore, the question. ‘Who is Robin?’ – since ‘Robin’ was about to lead us in prayer. Thankfully we are a close family at Whittlesey, and I feel so loved and valued, so acknowledging it was easier – but I did feel like a right muppet. I know why my brain went where it did: Robin was the name of Paul’s former minister, who I talked with some time back. However, during the seconds that followed the only word association I could get if ‘Robin’ was not ‘Robin’, was ‘Batman’!) Thankfully I did not blurt this out. The conversation with my wife that followed was interesting. She is a saint. She keeps me grounded, and I don’t ask her opinion if I am looking for a soft answer but on this occasion she conceded that I did manage to pull things back from the brink. My concession afterwards; ‘I might forget your name Paul, but Jesus won’t!’ seemed to come from nowhere. And despite my human frailties, and my embarrassment, we were back on track. I think this was more of a prophetic utterance than due to any quick thinking or creativity on my part, since I was utterly vulnerable and more open to the Holy Spirit. I might forget your name but Jesus won’t. Just think about that for a moment.
This brings me, conveniently, to a point where I can focus on what we are about at Queen Street. I have been around for long enough to know that the mark of a loving church is that you can be open and vulnerable, and people will embrace you. That despite our weaknesses – and we all have weaknesses – people love us for our strengths, and for what we bring to the church community. People are asking me why we are growing at Whittlesey. I don’t have an easy answer apart from to say that as a church we know what we are about – who we are here for, and why. I also know that whilst I have a role, everyone gets that we all have a responsibility to nurture each other. We are here to lead people to Jesus, the one who knows our name, knows us, and has a purpose for our lives. Making disciples makes church. It does not work the other way round. And so this is why, even though the formula is simple, we are holding our revival service on the week after Pentecost. What we have is previous. We have a place where God is bringing healing in so many ways. Do come along. Do bring a friend. We will share the gospel. We may hear some testimony. We will offer prayers for healing and wholeness. We will make sure we give people an opportunity to give their lives to Jesus. We cannot lose. We cannot fail. Because God’s purpose is in this, and in all that we do. We simply need to be open to God. In a sense, it does not matter how many make it, or whether it is about renewal or first-time commitment. We are being faithful. And if you can’t be there, praise God that you will be where God needs you to be – with family and friends etc, and do please pray for those of us who are.
Posted on

Christmas Message. There is Room for Hope, There is Room for Blossom, and for There is Room for You.

We are still in advent – but Christmas approaches. One of the texts that has resonated with me has been Isaiah’s prophecy that the desert will come into blossom as God brings restoration to a people who have been occupied by foreign powers, and whose communities have been decimated. Isaiah’s words are quite literally birthed from the rubble and give comfort to those who survey the scene as the dust swirls at their feet; the desecration of holy spaces, the buildings once used for one purpose now occupied by another, the absence of loved ones who have died or who have deported, and longing that separated families might regather. The parallels between this scene, and for example the ongoing conflict in Ukraine are profound and poignant – but the war in Ukraine continues. My prayer continues to be that the war would cease, that both sides observe the Geneva Convention (since conflict can bring both the worst – and the best – out of us), and that negotiations would ensue. 

It can be difficult to have hope that the blossom will come. And yet, despite this tragedy we have seen evidence of the best that humanity has to offer, as families from other countries have looked to house refugees. One important aspect of Isaiah’s prophecy is that we are not referring to how the seasons give rise to new growth, but how God can bring about the conditions by which that which is dormant within us can be brought to life. I note that whilst the spiritual dust swirls at the feet of those who have a direct connection to Ukraine, it also stirs at the feet of anyone here who experiences grief through the lost of loved ones, hardship as we struggle to pay the bills, and exhaustion as we battle the elements that can drain the life from us. But the blossom will indeed come, and there are times when you can see it blowing in the wind. These can sometimes be the briefest moments where we see God breaking through. In the simplest things.

I remember one moment this year when I prayed for someone who was homeless in Peterborough City centre. I had simply said ‘hello’, and a conversation ensued (as it often does). His story was difficult. When he said (almost in tears) that he would welcome a prayer I crouched down and asked, ‘What is your name?’ And that was the point where something changed because for him, to ask his name, was to give him dignity. For him it was, I hope like blossom in the wind. For me it was blossom because it demonstrated how people were open to prayer and the touch of God in their lives.

As I reflect on the Christmas story, I wonder how many places Mary and Joseph visited, only to receive the line, ‘Sorry we are full’, ‘Sorry we have no room’, ‘If only you had booked ahead earlier’. That must have been heartbreaking. However, I am more intrigued by the family who said, ‘There is no room’, and then stopped and looked at a heavily pregnant Mary and said, ‘But we can still find space for you.’ When it comes to loving our neighbour and showing it in action, we have more space than we think we do to make room for someone else. This can come, quite literally, as a revelation. Moreover, whilst some people have opened up their homes to support refugees, this openness can be shown in other ways. What does it mean for you to make room for someone in your daily living? Is it about us listening more and showing that we are willing to hear someone’s story when they share that they are in difficulty? Is it about us recognising that there is something we can do to support others that would have little impact on our routine; buying extra food and donating it to a food bank? Is it about giving just one hour of our time to volunteer in a warm bank? It it is about texting someone, to say, ‘Just checking you are ok.?’

Sometimes the smallest gestures have incredible consequences – let alone the feeling of fulfilment we get when we realise that we are making a difference to other people’s lives. One of the most moving things about our Livestream services has been the sense of community that arises as people from different places connect for a brief moment on the journey. The depth of sharing, caring, and praying is undeniable. However, whilst this depth of prayer and dedication to hearing the scrupture is wonderful, our desire is that those who are able become part of a local church – if they are not (almost all of them are). At the same time, we realise we are reaching those who are unwell, those who care for loved ones, or those who work shifts.  

The Methodist Church focus for this Advent and Christmas has been the truth that ‘There is Room for You’. God has a place for you, a space for you, and a plan for your life. That is good news. The Church has showcased examples (of which there are countless others), where there is room for (among others), people of all ages, orientations, and genders, where this room for families under serious pressure, room for those who are experiencing poverty, where there is room for those who are homeless, where there is room for refugees, where there is room for difference (and especially those who are neurodiverse). This is good news. However, as we know from Jesus’ ministry, what is good news for some, is bad news for others. The priviso is that because there is room for you, you need to make room for others. I am minded that as we journey through winter, and as people struggle with the cost of living and staying warm, there is no room for our insularity. We are a Church. We are not a private members club. Whilst we may well focus on creating warm spaces, if we seek to honour God and be faithful to the Christmas message, whenever anyone new comes, it is incumbent on us to show them a warm welcome. Insularity is a significant word is that to be insular is to fail to let others in because we are content with our own comfort or isolation, and we are unwilling to be troubled by the difficult experiences of others.

Let me put it this way. We long to experience God’s blessing. We cherish our friends in the life of the church. Sometimes we even feel so cosy we are nervous about how new people might change things – the feeling of a group or even what we do. But to turn the ‘There is Room for You’ paradigm on its head, why should God offer room for you if you are not prepared to make room for someone else? That’s the deal. Ironically if we are unable to do this, all we will face is loneliness, isolation, and ruin.

Every blessing

You can view the There is Room main video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-DxY1hSohE

There is Room monologue

 You can view the playlist for other videos on https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoWWaJT3-_P7oX7x8SmIdGQkANPBfzrc3

There is room. There is room, for you. There is a space in the world, for you. There’s a place in God’s story, for you. Love actually is all around, in the glistening lights, the warmth of the fire on winter nights. The ‘here-ness’ of you, and you, and you. Of course there is room. How could there not be when the music is playing, the people are praying and all of the universe is saying ‘you are loved’. This is where the story starts. The story that God is not apart. She’s here, right here. Whether you’re a wise man or a shepherd, feeling like an angel or holding a story that’s hopeful or shameful. This is the time when we welcome the stranger, like Mary welcoming men to the manger and discovering that these strangers, are angels. With messages of love for you and me, messages to hang on the Christmas trees of our hearts. This story is yours, because God is here, not there; near, not far, because Christmas is coming and of course, there is room.

Proudly powered by WordPress