As I reflect on this report, the danger is that I become preoccupied with the statistics of decline, rather than overlook the Good News of the growth that we are seeing. There is even a sense in which I struggle to relate the editorial from christantoday.com to our situation here in Peterborough – this states that the Methodist Church is in a numerical nosedive and questions whether we can pull-out in time. Moreover, these figures are not new: I am not shocked. Whilst I do not wish to sound dismissive, the Methodist Church has been in ‘decline’ for the entire of my ministry to date. Despite this, I cannot deny that God is at work. I have seen lives transformed. In my early ministry, one person who converted to Christ stated, ‘I was not happy with who I was becoming. Now I am.’ Others made life-changing decisions, taking up careers that were in line with a sense of calling that God had given them. I have also encouraged people to take up office and they have blossomed through it. Thus, whilst there is decline, much of my time is spent managing growth. In the unlikely event that any of my ministerial colleagues feel that my response is in any way an attempt to big up the Peterborough Circuit, I would like to stress that I see little evidence from across our District that the Methodist Church is flapping like a fish out of water, gasping for air, expending energy as it tries in vain to do something significant. If I really did not have confidence in the Church, if I honestly felt that God was not at work, I would have left years ago.
Here on planet Peterborough whilst we do face challenges, the ground is not rushing up to meet my face; I am not sensing any unusual G-forces, and I do not feel a sense of dread. Whilst I could be in Kubler-Ross’ first stage of grief – which is denial (at being confronted with Death and Dying), I do recognise the severity of our situation. Despite this, I see our decline as an opportunity to celebrate what is working, rather than lament what is not. As a Church, we need to focus more on inviting people to become involved in our corporate life, and we need to invest in evangelism (which, by the way, is not a swearword, and can be done sensitively). Even so, the striking thing about Methodism is its adaptability and resilience. This is due, in part, to how it is structured, and how it balances local autonomy with national accountability. As a minister, whilst I identify with the local churches over which I have pastoral charge, my security rests with the Methodist Conference and the circuit in which I am appointed to serve. Chiefly, it is the ‘circuit’ (of churches) who meet as a ‘circuit meeting’ which serves as the principal driver for mission across Peterborough. Thus, even though local churches might close and/or a lack of funding affects staffing options, there is huge opportunity. It is more a case of game-on rather than game-over. By the way, we still have an opening for a part-time Pioneer Team Leader. If you are interested, do get in touch.
Whilst it might be tempting to dismiss the Methodist Conference as an ecclesial-administrative knees-up that is in a perpetual state of deliberation but going nowhere, we would do well to remind ourselves that Conference has made decisions that have been impactful and penetrating – whatever our view on the outcomes; four examples come to mind – Our Calling, Reshaping for Mission, Holiness and Risk, and Fruitful Fields. Those who might be sceptical of the institution, consider yourselves warned. In 2015, I revisited Conference to photograph its proceedings (all ordinands attend: Conference stands to receive them before their ordination). However, my heart sank when I arrived early and surveyed desk upon desk, complete with papers and binders, laid out as far as the eye could see. ‘Is this the powerhouse of the Church?’ I thought to myself. An hour later, during morning worship, and as Conference sung Sing the Faith 662; ‘Have you heard God’s voice: has your heart been stirred?’ I had to stop because I was so touched by the Holy Spirit and moved to tears, that I could no longer see through the viewfinder. By the way, whoever took the photographs of Conference this year did a superb job, and the coverage of the Conference, streamed live on the web, was excellent. If you are interested, it is possible to view the sessions of Conference again. I have had a good look and skipped through. There was not much evidence of death. In fact, I would suggest that the debate on Statistics for Mission should be compulsory viewing for Pioneers as an example of how practical ideas can be sharpened by institutional process.
The crucial question is whether Conference (and we as its ministers who are sent to serve in our circuits by Conference) can work in partnership with others to bring about a change of culture in our local churches. As Stephen Skuce’s research into Reshaping for Mission highlighted, whilst we can promise much on the mission outcomes, and restructure well, the effort counts for little unless it equips our local churches to engage more effectively with their local communities: the wheels need to turn and the rubber must hit the road. Significantly, our memorials on fresh expressions and fundraising probed this issue. Rhetoric on its own is not good enough. Permissions, practice and processes must fall in-line with what Conference decides. The notice of motion, put by Elaine Lindridge, that all churches should be required to construct a mission plan or an end of life plan within two years, and how this developed, is a case in point. The end goal is that local churches should reflect on their mission seriously. The challenge for the Conference is how to develop something that will have a consequence for those who are reluctant to participate. Ministers need more power to their elbow when confronting churches that might be financially rich but performing poorly in a missional sense, living a life where their security comes from funds that sit in a bank on a rainy day (when elsewhere in the circuit it is lashing it down), and not from any real grasp of Methodist purpose. Herein, there may be striking parallels with John Wesley’s Second Sermon, ‘The Almost Christian’, wherein Wesley points to how we all need to guard against having the outward form of religion, but lacking a depth of relationship with Jesus Christ. This makes the difference between our being ‘Almost’ there, rather than ‘Altogether’ there. Our first calling as preachers is to ‘save souls’. Whilst this language may appear a little archaic, our congregations need to remember that their purpose is to do more than keep worship going on a Sunday and shut up shop for the rest of the week, or if we have customers, to leave them to their own devices, assuming that a self-service ‘take it or leave it’ mode of operation will be enough to grow the church. I hope that Conference’s decision that this notice of motion be passed to Methodist Council proves to be a wise one, in that what we need is action, rather than this idea to be kicked into the long grass.
The reality of ministry; managing growth and decline
During my own ministry, I have observed how churches can have periods of stability or decline, followed by periods of significant growth. I have seen three churches close. At other times, new things have emerged. Today, in some of my churches, Jesus declaration that ‘The harvest is plentiful and the workers are few’ has come to fruition. I am co-ordinating efforts in two to welcome newcomers properly. Note that I speak of welcoming, rather than membership. In one, we are co-ordinating ‘meet and greets’, helping newcomers link with me as their minister, and our key pastoral leaders. In the other, I am writing to newcomers who have been with us for some time, sharing our conviction that they are already part of us, letting them know that if they have any questions about faith we are available, and inviting them to think about taking up membership. The challenge rests in meeting each person’s individual needs, rather than giving an ‘Eh up! We are running a faith and membership course if anyone is interested.’ For us, long gone are the days when we can hold a yearly confirmation course and expect a crowd to arrive en masse (as per my Anglican upbringing). This might be appropriate in some places where people have similar needs – and we have used this approach before – but I am not convinced it would be right for us now. Some people are seasoned Methodists who can transfer straight in. Others are committed Christians from other denominational backgrounds who need time to acclimatise to our Methodist way of working (and, I hope, gain the confidence to challenge us about how we operate), whilst others are exploring or are new to the faith. Everyone has a different need. So, we are making sure we welcome people but are meeting their needs individually.
Membership, the principle way in which the church measures commitment to a local congregation, can for a challenging issue for some. Personally, I value everything that membership offers; it enables people to affirm their faith, to assert their belonging, to have a say in decisions, and to take up certain roles in the church. However, some people are not comfortable with this formal sense of belonging. Unpacking this is often complex. For me, the objective is not necessarily membership, but assuring people that whatever they decide, we consider that they are part of us and that we want them to make our church their spiritual home. Unconditional love – which is the love that we want people to experience and share as Christians, can by never, by definition, be conditional on membership. The challenge for anyone who dislikes the membership concept however, is to find an alternative system that fulfils our obligations under charity law whilst preventing trusteeship becoming something that rests, in the worst-case scenario, with a small, powerful, but insular group of leaders who decide on everything and ultimately constrain growth.
In these two churches, whilst we have lost some members who have gone up to glory or moved out of the area, we have made new members – and crucially these new members have taken up leadership roles. I take much encouragement from this. It demonstrates that whilst membership figures might make churches appear static, or even in slight decline, the churches concerned have the capacity to welcome and nurture new talent. To welcome newcomers and to help them find a role in the church, irrespective of whether membership appeals to them or not, requires us to understand our purpose in making disciples, and a willingness to adapt. We may need to sit in a different pew (and I mean this both spiritually and practically), to give way to the voices and opinions of others, or to allow someone to take on a task and do it differently to how we would do it – oh, and more than that – to have the humility to thank them when we realise that they have done it better than us.
Challenging the narrative of closure
As I look back on the last four years in Peterborough, it is not so much declining membership or a lack of commitment that has been the major challenge. Rather, the task has been one of helping churches find a way of operating that works for them, especially if they have fewer people to carry out key tasks. It is not only the smaller churches that struggle in this.
More widely, and throughout my ministry, the challenge has been one of reversing what I now term, ‘The narrative of closure’. This, I feel has been embedded across the connexion since well before the advent of fresh expressions. Unconsciously we seem to have sent out the message that unless we can meet every Sunday morning throughout the year (or in the afternoon if you are in a rural area where farming families shaped their worshipping life around tending the herd), we are somehow not a ‘proper’ church. To this day, when regular Sunday worship ceases to be viable, or when we cannot find enough people to fill the necessary roles, local churches collapse in on themselves and fold. Very often there is simply no energy left to explore questions of how they might retain a presence and a mission. People have nailed themselves to the cross of Christ rather than carried it, or carried it for so long that they can carry it no further and have collapsed under its weight.
Quietly, I have banned talk of ‘closure’ in my circuit, in the sense that if there is no other option but to allow this to happen, then so be it. But nationally, I remain unconvinced that the apparent end of the road is really the end of the road for some of our struggling chapels. There are other options whereby a church can remain open; as a class of another church or as a circuit project for example. Often there is the possibility of allowing a local group to fulfil its godly potential, even though it might be judged as sub-ecclesial by others. The irony, especially when there has been a discussion about how smaller churches might be inhibiting our wider mission (by draining resources) is that sometimes they exhibit a level of resourcefulness and community engagement that is disproportionately higher than larger churches who think too much of themselves. This is certainly true of one of my smaller churches which has been the only one to grow its membership recently and raise over £80,000 to repair its roof. More than this, it has been able to couple its fundraising with community development and mission in a way that is seamless. Another of my smaller churches offers its building as a venue (providing a space where young people from other denominations can meet, and being used by community organisations every day of the week). Its most recent innovation has been to start a Foodbank in partnership with Churches Together. Whilst the future might not be entirely secure, at least we are moving forward with integrity.
What do we do with the statistics, and where might fresh expressions fit?
The report is neutral in its tone, but as one would expect it generated considerable discussion at Conference. The role of the Statistics Office is to collect and present our statistics in an accessible and understandable format, and in this, they have excelled. However, my experience of fresh expressions does not fully resonate with the report, which quite correctly states that membership is not the only means of measuring people’s commitment. I find myself wanting to shout from the rooftops that fresh expressions may have an important role in reinvigorating church life. We cannot airbrush them out of the conversation as some phase that seemed like a good idea at the time, but we have now gotten over. My central argument is that by now we must have approaching 3,000 fresh expressions; something that has been widely celebrated over the past decade. If these groups are following the Fresh Expressions definition, these will be ‘new forms of church intended for those who are not yet members of any church’. The question of how many of these churches have what might be termed ‘ecclesial intent’ formed part of my doctoral thesis and my conclusion was that few were thinking in this way. Nonetheless, Fresh Expressions has given rise to a profound shift in attitudes towards creating new fellowship groups, and new forms of mission. In some cases, fresh expressions provide a lifeline to dedicated Methodists who need more than what their local church offers on a Sunday morning. The section on how the Church is focused on AGAPE attendances (Activities, Groups, Associations, Programmes and Events) is deeply encouraging; we are reaching approaching half-a-million people – a third of this activity is focused on work with children and young people; 37,000 attendances report as fresh expressions and 12.7% of new AGAPE activity is fresh expressions based.
Ensuring that Practice and Discipline is fit for purpose
Herein there remains a deep question about how we take other forms of church seriously (which begs the question ‘What is church?’) and how our process and discipline might unlock the potential that we already have in our midst. My research suggested that this was often lacking, and that the ecclesial development within fresh expressions was inhibited, rather than aided, by our practice, discipline, and local church culture. We require membership to form a new church. A new church requires twelve members (whereas in existing churches, this number can decrease to six). Methodist members can be members of only one church. Conference’s response to the memorial referred to a report which acknowledged that, ‘a number of fresh expressions have become churches in the circuit where they reside’ (but this was not qualified in the original). Whilst I welcome our insights being included in the Church’s ongoing reflection, it seems to me that the Methodist Church, whilst attempting to retain the best of its tradition and discipline, is reluctant to reduce its grip on its established process and disciplines. How we apply and interpret these disciplines is also important. Personally, I like the idea of fresh expressions being subject to a different set of Standing Orders.
At present, I believe that we are neutering fresh expressions rather than learning from them. Whilst fresh expressions can grow from local church initiatives or circuit projects, and can begin from a ‘class meeting’ (small group) construct, the requirement of what they must live up to seems decidedly one-sided. It seems incongruous that the Church can, on the one hand, celebrate fresh expressions and on the other, overlook their potential. Or say, ‘That’s great. But when you look like us (the wider church that is in decline) we will consider you valid’. During my research, I reflected a great deal on how our church culture and process denied fresh expressions the warrant to become anything more than circus sideshows to the main event. Perhaps one of the most troubling conclusions was that whilst a minority within the Methodist Church were sceptical of F(f)resh E(e)xpressions, no one was able to offer an alternative. Now we have reached a tipping point. Notice of Motion 110, adopted by Conference, which encourages circuits to form new societies is an interesting one because this is exactly what we hoped some fresh expressions will aspire to become. I suspect that this suggestion might highlight further how our provision and processes for ecclesial formation are a blunt instrument for our present context. Where are these new members going to come from? What church can spare twelve members to form a new church? Does anyone appreciate, in the case of new members, the length of time it takes to nurture people in faith to the point where they may well consider membership? Whilst it is true that new church councils can be supported by members of existing churches, the basic requirement on the number of members required to form a church still stands, and a member cannot belong to two churches in a legal sense (unless you live in another part of the world for half of the year). Whilst there are some circuits that could plant new congregations using a ‘seeding’ model, in many cases this would deplete what we already have. We need a better model of churchplanting other than merging churches, forming LEP’s, setting up circuit projects to authorise work or designating declining churches as ‘fresh expressions’. Whilst these may be effective in some cases (and it would be good to have published examples), in effect, they by-pass route 1 in Standing Orders.
Thinking ahead
It seems to me that our most significant challenge is to recognise where the success stories are, to learn from them, and to pass the lessons on. Admittedly, this is where Fresh Expressions – the national charity composed of representatives from multiple denominations – is at its weakest. It is strong on vision and examples of the work, but weak on the processes, discussions, and authorisations that have given rise to it. In fairness, this is beyond Fresh Expressions remit, since it is committed to renewing churchplanting across multiple denominations; it does not have to concern itself with the details of how this is delivered in partner Churches. Worse than this – and I say this as a proud supporter of Fresh Expressions vision – the movement has constructed its argument on the premise that the Church is failing in its missionary task and that we need to do something different. Whilst they might be right, this is an unhelpful point to press, because if fresh expressions are to be incorporated into the life of the church, its leaders will need to have confidence that Methodism can indeed embrace them. This is precisely where practitioners, having started in the sunshine, end up stumbling about in the dusk. I am not sure that we need more faith in God. I think that we need to have faith in the Methodist Church, and in ourselves, which is quite a different proposition. One thing that I do know is that we will not encourage this by highlighting our failures. Organisational change – and repentance in the gospel – begins by being honest and recognising that the way we are operating is not right, that we need to change, that we can change if we want to, and that this is our responsibility. Finally, I am reminded that we, as ministers are sent into our circuits by the Conference, and that there is a difference between managing decline, and providing leadership when and where it is needed. Let us pray that what has been discussed and proposed at Cconference will indeed have a real impact locally.