Category: Peterborough Pioneer Hub

Posted on

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

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

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

Care when speaking of death

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

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

Guarding against euthanasia

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

Two reflections and a powerful thought

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

End of life plans and the NHS

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

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

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

Funeral plans

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

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

To close…

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

Posted on

Reflections on Cafe Worship and how it can improve the depth of teaching and quality of engagement for those who attend.

At our last Local Preachers and Worship Leaders meeting we talked about alternative worship, and in specific café worship. But what is café worship, and how might we prepare for it? I have some empathy with this, since I think I have only attended one or two different cafe worship services myself. Thankfully, there is plenty of information on the Fresh Expressions website outlining how café worship can be a valid expression of worship and church. As I reflected on how I would plan my own cafe worship at a local church, and what worked in practice, I am minded that there are some things that can be done in this environment that would be harder to achieve in our usual settings.

I began preparing by questioning how the layout of, and activity in café worship might improve the quality of engagement and depth of teaching that we aspire towards on Sunday mornings. This is not to say that one is better or worse than the other. It is to say that each has their own strengths. I began to suspect that, done well, café worship might provide:

  • A helpful space in which the fellowship of the church and the likelihood of building relationships becomes easier (meeting for food and drink always brings people together).
  • A means by which we can encourage people to share their faith, and enter into discussion (because people can sit face to face in smaller groups).
  • A way of incorporating tactile activity such as craft (tables provide a surface, whereas pews/chairs do not).
  • Learning at greater depth, because different groups of people can reflect on different aspects of a story/theme, and their findings can be collated with ease.
  • In general, a greater willingness to reflect in creative and fresh ways. Whilst I hope that this would be the case in any service, it is helpful to have a space where ‘permission’ for this to happen has been given by the congregation.

Planning Café worship – linking with a worship leader

It has been some time since I have led café worship at Brookside Methodist Church, but I was able to offer myself on Easter Sunday. Brookside offered a worship leader to assist. She shared earlier in the week how she had been thinking about the ‘stone from the tomb being rolled away’, and what ‘stones’ might symbolise for those who would be present. She had already thought about how café worship could use a prayer activity which symbolised how, by the power of the Holy Spirit, God could remove that which burdened us. I think that this is significant; café worship began with a member of the congregation who was already thinking about the theme. This naturally matched the Easter story in the gospels. We agreed that I would lead the opening worship and the teaching, and she would select the songs and lead a prayer activity.

Planning Café worship – thinking about teaching

Introduction

I was mindful of Hope Revolution and their link with Guvana B, a Christian Gospel/Rap Artist who has won major awards. As part of his ministry, Guvna B has produced a music video entitled ‘Cannonball’ that incorporates powerful sketch/art cartoon illustrations, and some stunning lyrics. I asked the Church to prepare and play the video by passing the internet link to them. Anyone who uses a PC or a tablet can search and find material (but I appreciate that not all local preachers are skilled in doing this, or that all churches are able to do this – but I am sure that there would be help available provided you plan in good time). I printed the lyrics out separately – because they flowed so quickly.

Teaching

I have been studying John’s gospel as part of the Lent Course – and I found myself naturally comparing John’s version of events with the other gospel writers. In terms of where the teaching might be headed I thought it would be useful to focus (a) on the ‘supernatural’ signs of God’s presence that were present in each account, and (b) to ask people the question, ‘In spiritual terms, what might the ‘stone’ represent?’ This would be the core of the teaching and reflection.

Café worship at Brookside takes place around tables, and as I thought things through I realised that it would be easier to (a) print out different gospel accounts in different colours and cut away all margins – this simply makes life easier, and (b) each table could have a different account and work through these questions independently, in two stages; so we took the first question; people discussed on their own; then we collated all of our thoughts from each table. We then repeated the process with the second question.

This is a good example of where we allow the congregation to feedback, and our job as preachers is to ‘fill in the gaps’ that are missed.  In my case I also wanted to set the second conversation on the right trajectory by pointing out what John in his gospel omits; no earthquake, no temple curtain split, no guards (I drew from my earlier preparation for morning worship here, where I had noted that in Matthew, the resurrection miracle begins the minute Jesus dies, with the earthquake opening the graves and the dead being raised to new life). I make the point that whilst these things are significant, John omits them because he does not need them to put his argument across – and that indeed, if he did include them they may well have complicated his presentation. John is interested in telling us that Jesus is the Son of God (we remembered the ‘I am’ sayings), and that he wants us to do four things; recognise Jesus, accept Jesus, make our peace with Jesus, and follow Jesus’ calling. This then leads nicely into the second section, where we question what the stone might stand for – what prevents this from happening? I was also able to show how the fact that Jesus has been resurrected slowly dawned on some of the characters in the story (note how in Luke, the apostles did not believe the women – although the story is told slightly differently elsewhere. In John, Peter and the beloved disciple believed when they looked into the grave, but there was no evidence that they believed Jesus had been resurrected, they just believed Mary’s was speaking the truth when she said that Jesus body had gone!)

It may be worth noting that as well as the teaching having depth because we were looking and comparing four different gospel sources (this is something that instantly beings a level of maturity to our reading, treatment and interpretation of scripture), I was also minded link with the Old Testament as particular themes surfaced. For example, the concept of having a ‘heart of stone’ is within Jer 32 (and we also remembered how God transforming our heart of stone is a key lyric in ‘I The Lord of Sea and Sky’). If the theme of ‘oppression’ were to surface there are multiple entry points, but the most obvious is the release of Israel from slavery. As I spoke of John’s focus on the ‘I am’ sayings of Jesus, I referred to Moses experience of the burning bush.

Thus, when I have led café worship, I both respond to what the congregation are saying by providing further explanation, and steering the conversation towards a focal point in prayer.

Café Worship: Enabling encounter

In a sense, the entire act of worship is designed to encounter God, but for the prayers, people were invited to hold a stone (originally people were going to write on a stone or paint it and to perhaps mark it with the symbol of an experience or feeling that was holding us back from God). As we remembered the opening theme of ‘Cannonball’ (that Jesus is like a cannonball from heaven who crashes to earth and destroys death and all that oppresses), people were invited to take their stone and place it on a bowl of water. The worship leader walked everyone through this activity, and shared how the stone was symbolic of the shattered (or moved) stones of the cemetery, and of how God cleanses us and removes the blemishes that are upon us.

The sample order of service

The service lasted about an hour and a quarter. I noticed how, rather like Messy Church, the adults helped the younger children to take part – and how their input at times was enthusiastic and profound. The order, with the songs interspersed, looked like this:

Intro to theme: Jesus as a cannonball/God longing to release us from all that oppresses. The stone was rolled away. Today we will think about how God was present in power, and we will also think about what the stone might symbolise for us

Cannonball video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI-ZtaSOGkA 

Langley highlight the lyrics (which will be on the table)

Resurrection reading from Luke’s gospel

2 Songs on Video – God sent his Son (Because he Lives); Up from the grave he rose

…..eating cake and drinking tea is possible from now – note however, everyone munched all the way through, but I do not think that this limited discussion/engagement.

Encourage people to look at other passages (printed out) and discuss – Matthew 28:1-15; Matthew 27:50-54; Mark 16:1-20; John 20; 3-29 (Each can fit on a single sheet).

What are the supernatural signs from God?

Feedback and dialogue

What does the stone stand for?

Feedback and dialogue

Prayer activity – Worship Leader

Song – Rejoice Rejoice

Repeat of Cannonball video.

 

Refection: What was prominent and what was less so?

Whilst the teaching and reflection elements of the service were strong (I am not sure of any regular services where we have been able to present all four accounts of a single gospel event), prayer was focused, albeit concentrated, in one area. If I were to do this again, I would probably incorporate a prayer of confession and the Lord’s Prayer towards the end of the prayer activity. Even so, there were aspects of penitence in the stone exercise. Prayers for each other, or the needs of the wider world were also not particularly prominent. This said, the service would have been ideal for people who were exploring faith. In its current form the service is for leaders and churchgoers who are seeking worship that engages them differently. The service was also very strong on fellowship and avoided any notion or pretence that could get in the way – about wear people should sit, how they should behave etc.

Perhaps one of my ongoing apprehensions is how you lead worship, and perhaps work though some important teaching point whilst everyone is eating cakes. This said, my experience was that this did not detract. I did however have to think about how I minimised movement during the worship – because movement distracts when you are trying to prevent, and also makes noise. I did this by suggesting that people loaded up on coffee/tea at the beginning of the table exercises.

What surprised me?

I was most surprised by how the children engaged and how the adults enabled this, with the children highlighting the signs from God. I was encouraged (but not surprised) by the depth of analysis that came from each of the tables. There was a depth of contextual understanding which people had gathered from TV programmes – about for example, how the gravestones were designed. I was really pleased to be asked some direct questions; ‘Did the Jews believe in the resurrection’? I was not expecting (but welcomed) a sustained focus on how God brings healing – especially from past hurts, which came from one of our local preachers. This was particularly useful on the lead up to the stones exercise.

Closing remarks

This experience, and my subsequent thoughts, reminds me of the critique made by the Church Army (which is a mission arm of the CofE) about how established Churches have the tendency to overplay the importance of ‘function’ and underplay the importance of ‘relationship’. To put it simply, whilst I can ask myself questions about what the worship included (as if we need to complete all items in some checklist for an act of worship to be ‘proper’), this rather misses the point.

Café church, as it unfolded for me, was all about relationships. It begins with the relationships and fellowship that people have with each other. People reflect both individually and together. They gather (just as the first believers did) around the person of Jesus, sharing, and doing life together. There is a clear intent (as should be the case in any form of worship) to bring people to a moment of encounter with God. This raises an interesting question for all our worship preparation – how are we bringing our congregations to this place of encounter? When we share in communion, this focus is clearer, but what about how we move people to a point of encounter and response in our preaching. I must be honest and say that in my own services, the encounter is presumed and sits somewhere after the sermon and before the prayers of intercession.

I think that another important difference between how I approached this café worship service, and how I approach preaching services, is that often in my services (apart from all-age worship) a lot of the focus is on me – or rather (I hope) on God speaking through me. However, in café worship the role of the preacher seems to be to facilitate conversation, with a much greater emphasis on what God is saying through the congregation. However, to prepare for café worship, preachers will need to prepare just as hard (if not more) than they would if they were preparing a regular service. They will also have to be confident with their material to the point that they are comfortable answering questions.

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thinking theologically about the model

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thinking about where we stand

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

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

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

How we create is what we create

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

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

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

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

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

Exit mobile version