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
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….
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.