(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 – thatis 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.
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 Godin another person, due to their actual orperceived 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.
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks to Dale and Grace for covering the Livestream Worship whilst I was on leave. For me, the break was successful – as a staycation, with some time away visiting relatives, celebrating birthdays, and attending to those routine things that can become easily overlooked. Although things ended up taking a lot of unexpected planning; two cars off the road at the same time, a hire car, keeping a family commitment to visit Woburn Safari Park (yes, in the hire car.) I am not sure how righteous I am, but the sun kept shining, and most importantly the combination of the hire care and the Safari Park was uneventful (I did not really think that through). Whilst the family were excited at the prospect of entering the monkey enclosure (and had shared with me horrific videos of how capable baboons are of destroying car trim), the most exciting thing we saw was a grey squirrel. The park were carrying out maintenance at the time, and we think that this scared them away. Other aspects of the safari were amazing though. The brown bears were cute. The lions and tigers were out. The rhino, which came within five feet of the car, munching the grass whilst a keeper tried to direct them off the road, was so graceful. The aim of the holiday was of course to try and come back rested for September. I think we made some progress, although as is the case for a great deal of people, life is still hectic, and a holiday is not so much a rest as it is a change of routine and focus.
It is Synod this Saturday, and this will be held via zoom. If you are a synod rep, Sue will be doubling up on the District’s efforts (you should have been approached independently anyway), and passed on the zoom link.
EDI Toolkit image
There is continued focus on how we all emerge from the lockdown, on how as a Church we continue with our EDI (Equality, Diversity, Inclusivity) work, not least in the wake of Black Lives Matter.
The focus on MHA (Methodist Homes) continues, with insights from the United Methodist Church in America. I have put myself forward to represent the synod at Conference 2021 (I have also offered in previous years), but the ‘competition; for this is considerable. It is good to have so many people who want to be a part of sharing in the future direction of the church, not least because this year we will be returning back to the God in Love Unites Us report, and discussions that promote ‘good relating’ and healthy relationships irrespective of whatever view we hold.
Incidentally, I was telephoned by a lady this week who was enquiring about whether the Methodist Church, or in fact any church in Peterborough, could marry her and her female partner. I was able to share where we were as a church, and to offer to meet them both, not least to encourage them pastorally. It is an interesting position to be in, but even though we continue to journey with this as individuals, and as a church, the least we can do is to show that we care about how people feel, and the struggles they face as they seek to find ways of being affirmed in themselves, and voice their commitment to a significant other in their lives.
I would continue to ask everyone to pray for the Garden House, the Night Shelter Project, and Peterborough Foodbank, as each of these projects try to discern the best way of operating and supporting ‘the poor’ in the future. Pray for all who grieve the loss of loved ones. I am also deeply concerned about the potential for an increase in poverty within individuals and families as the furlough scheme comes to and end. Mental health is also a serious concern given the shortage of resources within the NHS, the impact of Covid, and now the added facet of children and young people returning to schools having had such an extensive break from what existed before. Please pray for staff, support workers, pupils, and the families and networks of support that surround them. Our youngest started at Secondary school this week….
Please pray for your CLT who in the background have been doing a sterling job, meeting monthly on zoom and being involved in all kinds of planning that most of us won’t see. As we approach our next circuit meeting, please pray for our Property Team, and our Finance Team. Give thanks for all the successes we have seen in our local churches as leaders have made such great efforts to reach out to their membership, and their local communities, in all kinds of creative ways. Pray for our local church leaders as we discern how, and in what capacity, we emerge from the lockdown. Pray that we are attentive to what people need and are willing to start afresh as we plan worship services.
Many thanks for people’s kind words and encouragement over the Plan. Deciding that it was wiser not to publish it in its entirely, and allow space for flexibility as churches decide when they want to hold their services, and what resource they might need from us, was not easy. However, it is allowing us to incorporate requests as they surface. We are beginning to emerge from the lockdown in a socially distanced and sensible way; I have had one face to face church council at Crowland. A face to face trustees meeting in planned for Whittlesey. I visited a café worship service at Brookside before I went on leave. I have a socially distanced midweek service at Oundle today, and on Sunday I am leading communion for the first time. If you are thinking about how you may incorporate communion in your own church, it may be worth chatting to the stewards at Brookside and Crowland who have found different ways of offering this.
Livestream. We continue to broadcast prayers Monday to Thursday at 830, which keeps me honest (but demands a completely different change in routine). Sunday livestream continues at 1030. Livestream worship is functioning as a new ‘church’ on the plan as we ask readers to record themselves, and preachers to deliver their message, and we have a community that listens in and shares with each other. Although I sense that a lot of churches are loyal to the livestream, and do not want to undermine it with 1030 services, I would urge you to go ahead and arrange worship at times that work best for your congregations, and we will see how we can manage this across the plan.
Whist Dale and Grace have been able to release me to visit churches in the morning (and offer a different style and content) – we need to look at involving more people who would feel confident to host an entire act of worship. Matt Forsyth, who does a great job with All We Can, has offered to assist us. If you are interested in doing this – in hosting weekday prayers, or Sunday worship – assistance will be given – do let us know. We would not necessarily start with all the bells and whistles – prayers for example can simply come via your mobile phone stood against a set of books in a well-lit room. What people want to see is not so much our polished professionalism, but our honesty and integrity. If you feel a calling to help us make Livestream Worship happen (and by implication, help me and others be free to travel elsewhere in a morning across the circuit), please let us know. I should also give a word of thanks to Simon who during my worship monitors how people are responding across the three sites; YouTube, the Circuit Facebook Page, and my own profile. Numbers attending worship or viewing later have remained healthy. Weekly prayers are developing a significant following of anything from 18 to approaching 30 people viewing live.
When Dale and Grace lead morning worship they prerecord the service and listen in, having allowed space for prayers. They also welcome and encourage people in the comments section. When I lead worship it is live – prerecording might be possible, but at the moment I am resistant to doing this because it could well take longer (you should see the number of takes required to record a five minute promo!), plus it adds to the workload – record a service, then lead the same service live the next day. Technically it is possible to post a video to be broadcast at a specific time, but things can quickly become complex, and more costly. So prayers please as we discern a way forward. The aim is to allow livestream worship to continue. It is a lifeline in shepherding some people who, for good reason, cannot make morning services, or any services for that matter. Meanwhile we do of course want to encourage those who can to return to chapel. The beauty of livestream and social media is that it can be watched back.
I could continue, but I think this is a good summary of where we are at present, and where my ‘headspace’ has been. Thank your for your continued support and prayers. It has been a joy and a delight to support churches across the circuit, particularly over the conversations as we emerge from lockdown. Please do not forget that Rev Dale continues to be available to encourage people 1:1 (that may be you), especially if you are discerning where God is leading you, or you are in a group within the church who is looking to start something new, or expand that they are doing.). Remember to question what ‘hubs’ (i.e. support groups) and ‘habits’ you are offering people in your church. Also, we give thanks for Rev David, who continues to support me at Elton, and is often called upon as a source of encouragement in other churches as we seek to respond in a timely fashion to churches as they plan ahead.
To close – So Will I (100 Billion X) Hillsong – extract.
This hymn has been popular in morning prayers.
God of creation. There at the start. Before the beginning of time. With no point of reference. You spoke to the dark. And fleshed out the wonder of light. And as You speak. A hundred billion galaxies are born. In the vapour of Your breath the planets form. If the stars were made to worship, so will I. I can see Your heart in everything You’ve made. Every burning star a signal fire of grace. If creation sings Your praises, so will I
God of Your promise. You don’t speak in vain. No syllable empty or void. For once You have spoken, all nature and science follow the sound of Your voice. And as You speak a hundred billion creatures catch Your breath, evolving in pursuit of what You said. If it all reveals Your nature so will I. I can see Your heart in everything You say; every painted sky a canvas of Your grace If creation still obeys You, so will I.
If the stars were made to worship, so will I. If the mountains bow in reverence, so will I. If the oceans roar Your greatness, so will I. For if everything exists to lift You high, so will I. If the wind goes where You send it, so will I. If the rocks cry out in silence, so will I. If the sum of all our praises still falls shy. Then we’ll sing again a hundred billion times.
God of salvation, you chased down my heart, through all of my failure and pride On a hill You created the Light of the world, abandoned in darkness to die And as You speak, a hundred billion failures disappear where You lost Your life so I could find it here If You left the grave behind You, so will I. I can see Your heart in everything You’ve done Every part designed in a work of art called love. If You gladly chose surrender, so will I. I can see Your heart, a billion different ways. Every precious one, a child You died to save. And if You gave Your life to love them so will I
Like You would again a hundred billion times. But what measure could amount to Your desire? You’re the One who never leaves the one behind.
There has been one recent development in the circuit that has excited me. I share it with you even though it is very much in its infancy. Last Sunday at our Pioneer Hub, Rev Dale Sherriff, one of our supernumerary ministers who was previously involved with Inspire (the Methodist movement intent on encouraging people to grow in their discipleship and engagement with mission), shared some of his thinking about how we might encourage people across our circuit. What he had to say seemed to link well with the ‘Tending to our Roots’ aspects of our ‘Reimagine Strategy’ as we continue to look to the future. (Remember the Tree, and the questions about how we develop prayer and small groups?)
Dale’s reflection began as he questioned the different way in which, historically, we have physically gathered as a church. Whilst we cannot do this now, it seemed to me that some of what Dale had to say might be helpful for local church leaders to think about as we come out of isolation. How will we regroup? How will we gather?
As a Methodist Church, we have gathered in four distinct ways in the past. Whilst I use the historic language here, the principles remain true to our heritage.
As a Circuit (for larger gatherings – something which we reintroduced before the pandemic hit.
As local churches (as Sunday or weekday congregations)
As a Class (the class-meeting language is not often used, but in essence a class is a study and fellowship groups which has been as eqally important (if not more important) than gathering for worship services.
As a Band (again the language has fallen out of widespread use, but a band is a group of say three people who pray for each other – we might refer to this as a prayer triplet).
As for the link with the dragonfly? Well the dragonfly has four wings. Every one of them is required, but they can work together and independently. In the same way we could envisage that these are rather like the four different ways in which people can gather. I should mention of course that the pastoral system of the Methodist Church runs alongside this, but at one time all pastoral groups met as classes. Some still do of course. However, as a way of helping understand the balance we are looking for as we look to the future, this way of thinking may be helpful for many.
The words Class and Band may need revisiting. It may be that using the term Life Group might be more appropriate. Many churches offer fellowship groups, but in time, as we return from lockdown, we may want to question how we can expand and encourage the work in our existing groups. How might they be enhanced to balance spiritual nurture and fellowship? Likewise, could this be a time where we look at encouraging more prayer triplets in our churches? I love the idea of remembering, not least in light of the Coronavirus Pandemic, that Jesus promises Life in all its Fullness (John 10:10). Could these ideas help us as seek to capitalise on the increased depth and scope of engagement in our churches? I merely share this as an idea that is stirring within me….
I seem to be involved in a losing battle where my family are concerned. It has to do with the celebrations around Halloween. Every year we have resisted the idea of trick-or-treating; no easy task when our children’s friends are set to enjoy themselves. It is not that I am a killjoy. I want my children to have fun – and they will – but I object for three reasons. First, unlike other religious festivals I am unconvinced that we know what Halloween stands for. As for the Church, we celebrate All Souls Day; the truth that when we die we go to heaven, and that we are people of the light. Yet, I am not sure we understand why we celebrate Halloween by carving out pumpkins and making lanterns. It has its roots of course in the belief that magic spells and secret rites can ward off evil spirits. The tradition in the UK with the Celts who believed that you could ward off evil spirits by lighting bonfires, making a lot of noise, and giving them a shock. Of course Halloween in its current sense – and its focus on trick or treating – gained traction in America. But at its roots the tradition draws some influence from the times when if you were not a puritan Christian, you would bury a dead cat under the floor of a new house to bring good luck. (And there are plenty of things that were worse than that). Whilst I would hope that we no longer believe in such superstition, more esoteric beliefs are still present. Today I was invited, via the BBC website, to meet the real witches. The following is a direct quote:
Tonight, after they have finished work and the sun has set, a group of women will gather at one of their homes. But this is no ordinary girls’ night in. This is a coven of witches, and 31 October – Halloween – is their new year. Denise Frain, who lives in Bolton, Greater Manchester, is hosting. “I have got a fire outside and we will do certain spell work. We’ll sit in a circle for protection, then we will celebrate and put food on the altar for the ancestors.” The witches have been preparing for today. They’ve visited a nearby cemetery and written down names from graves which look old, overgrown or unattended. They will read out the list at tonight’s ritual.
Helen Davidson, 44, who runs this coven, explains that all members are “hedgewitches” – solo witches who do not follow an organised faith like Wicca. “Hedgewitches don’t pray to a specific god,” she explains. “We just love being around nature…In the past we would have been known as the wise woman. It’s kind of like that crazy little lady who lived down the road who knows a lot about herbs and concoctions. I seem to be quite good at protection or banishing spells,” she says. “I helped one of the witches not that long ago. She had to end a relationship and it was not nice for her. “I said, what we need to do is protect you from this person, to keep them well out of your life and do a cleansing around the house. A few weeks later, that person left the town to never be seen again. Sometimes things like that are needed.
The article goes on to note how Denise, 48, felt different from a young age, and drawn to ‘an Earth-based religion’. It then turns to Matt Rowan, a London hedgewitch who felt that he did not fit with Christianity and feels that its magic allows him to be protective and nurturing. He speaks of how he prefers the term ‘witch’ rather then the more negative. ‘warlock’, and of how he has charged items with the power of positive energy and visualisation so that they provided protection to a friend who was afraid of snakes. He states,” He hasn’t been bitten yet… whether that’s luck or anything to do with me I don’t know!”
I want to make it clear that whilst these beliefs and practices trouble me – they run counter to a Christian belief in God, the teachings of Jesus, and the work of the Holy Spirit – my position is that everyone has the right to their own beliefs. I would never decry someone of another religion – for example, a Sikh or a Muslim. Neither would I decry a witch. Everyone is entitled to their own freedom of expression – so long as no harm comes to others of course. (Unfortunately, historically, Christianity cannot hold its head high in this respect. Let us not forget that at one time the established church was complicit in persecuting witches in our own country). Indeed, I wish people of any faith, and none, well. I pray that we will all know life in all its fullness, and all know the peace and love that goes with that. May we all be drenched in the love of God – or just love, if we do not believe in God.
Second, what concerns me more, is whether, as we quite literally buy into Halloween, we are aware of its origins. I want to know, as we might well know in relation to Christmas, or Hanukah, or Diwali, or Ramadan, why we do what we do (or choose not to partake)? What are we celebrating? Whilst I find it slightly grating that our shops are gearing up for Christmas before remembrance, at least most of us understand that we give gifts because Jesus was God’s gift to the world. Ask children in a primary school why we celebrate Christmas – particularly in a Church school – and they will tell you. Ask them during Halloween why the walls are covered in spiders’ webs, and why we carve out pumpkins and illuminate them, and they will not have a clue. This is my issue and it goes far deeper than the reality (in which I believe) of spirits, ghosts and ghouls. (A good proportion of Jesus’ public ministry was concerned with delivering people from evil, and bringing healing – both physical healing, and healing in the broadest sense of personal wholeness and community peace). My issue is that in life, one key principle is that we should know why we are doing what we are doing. This is not a religious position. It is a humanitarian one. It is about knowing what motivates us, how we come to a decision over something, and therefore ‘why we do what we do’. Just going along with the crowd or saying that we are doing something because we fancy a laugh and having a bit of fun, seems a tad risky.
Third, I object to Halloween because of its focus on death and blood and gore. In our shops, there are, quite frankly some horrific things of this sort that are designed to appeal to children. Whilst I think that it is good for our younger generations to talk about what frightens them, and even confront their fears, I fail to see how Halloween benefits this. Finally, with reference to trick or treating, I fail to see how this is anything more than legalised doorstop mugging – technically, the threat to do something unpalatable unless the recipient gives you something in return is robbery! Yes, I know that, this is a bit of fun, but again, why are we doing it? What if things do turn sour – and for someone, they will. What of those who do not want to be disturbed at night? What if the mischief goes to far?
Despite my protestations, as I shared at the beginning of this article, I have lost the argument with my own kids. They have been carried away on a tide of anticipation about the volume of sweets that they can scrounge. Yet, I do believe that my humorous protestations – given in far less detail than in this article – have had some impact. My children are visiting the homes of people they know. They will be supervised. One group are amassing as Winnie the Pooh, Tiger, and Piglet. One child is dressing as a skeleton. This is hardly the stuff of horror. And they know, because of the way in which we live as parents, something of our faith and values. Perhaps having lost the battle, we will win the war. After all, as the apostle Paul writes, ‘We wrestle not against flesh and blood, against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. For us, Jesus, and not spells, is the answer.
God bless you all – Langley. Oh, and happy All Souls Day when it arrives.
(The quotations in italics, cited in this article are attributed to Francesca Gillett, “Halloween 2018: The witches who’ll be doing ‘spell work’ tonight”, BBC Website, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46026349, published 31st October 2018, 1300hours).
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.
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.
