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.
Question. If you combine a group of church leaders from across the denominations, all of whom are experienced in mission and fresh expressions, and the desire to encourage new work in any form, what do you get? In Peterborough, one response has been For Starters, a series of events (well we have had two now), intended to encourage anyone who feels called to start – something. Anything in fact, from a toddler group, to a drop-in for pensioners, to a new form of church. For Starters reaches out to anybody; you do not have to be in a leadership role or even see yourself as a leader. The only requirement is that you have a sense that God is calling you to follow Jesus in mission. This is empowering stuff; never mind your insecurities; just be honest about what God is saying to you.
Why I was not bored
I must confess (after a decade of living by the rule of Fresh Expressions – six of which were spent in research) that nothing turns me off more than hearing glib examples of new things that are happening, without any acknowledgment as to the challenges that people face when starting new work. There is almost something dishonest going on when this happens. For Starters got the balance right. The presentations were energised but honest and this, in turn, encouraged people to say things that they might not have had the confidence to share elsewhere. I heard real-life frustration from people who longed to see their church grow but despaired of the fact that whilst newcomers might value fellowship, they recoiled at the idea of being invited to something that felt religious. (We still have much to in helping break unhelpful stereotypes of what church looks like and feels like). I heard questions from local leaders about how they could encourage local development when one or two staunch church members belonged to the ‘not over my dead body’ brigade. These are the very people that we need to equip and support in our churches, and one of the things that For Starters is doing is helping build confidence by setting local people next to experienced leaders who can listen and guide.
For Starters also appeals because it offers new insights that I had not heard before, or if I had heard them they were put forward in a way that gave them real weight. Thus, I thought that it might be helpful to share my own reflections. I found seven new insights to consider when starting something new.
1. People are not so much afraid of change: they are afraid of loss.
Ed Olsworth-Peter (Adviser for Fresh Expressions of Church and Young Adults, Ely Diocese) offered guidance to how church leaders might help the PCC – or in our case, church councils – understand why we need to invest in fresh expressions. Ed began by pointing out that people are not so much afraid of change, but of loss. The danger is that as new work is proposed and begins to flourish, other members of the church start to feel threatened, as if investment in one thing will mean the active neglect of what they have been doing. Ed talked about the need for a ‘blended economy’. This seems like Rowan William’s ‘mixed economy’, or my own idea of a ‘mixed ecology’. Irrespective, the principle is similar. Rather than working in opposition, what is inherited and what is emerging can only flourish if they support each other.
The key to heading off resistance may be for leaders (specifically those who chari meetings) to point out that we all want the same thing, that we are all committed to the Church, irrespective of when it happens and what it looks like. God calls us to build his Kingdom, rather than our own empires. And lest we think that fresh expressions only have one way of doing things, there is considerable breadth in what this looks like. Projects can incorporate the traditional, the sacramental, or patterns living that draw from monastic disciplines. They can be for everyone, or aimed at one group of people – older or younger – especially if they are intended to address a specific need.
2. If the numbers attending your ‘life’ services (especially baptisms) are not resulting in increased church attendance, then you need to be honest about how you are inviting people, and whether what you are offering is suitable.
OK, I admit. This is not new. Fresh expressions are here to stay, and are very much alive and kicking. However, there are times when it is patently obvious that the familiar ways of working are not….well, working. What did strike me as new, and perhaps often overlooked, is the scale at which our outreach as a church can become disconnected with church attendance. Sid Bridges (Holy Trinity, Orton Waterville) shared about the growth of Refresh, which effectively, looks like a blend of Messy Play, Messy Church and a Worship Service. Prior to this, Phil’s church was conducting eighty infant baptisms a year, and preparing 10-20 children from the local school…but guess what…the uptake in terms of new families coming to church was poor. This looks like family fun and fellowship that is wholly ecclesial in nature. It is not just a toddler group with a prayer at the end. The most revealing thing that was said? Kids are disappointed if they cannot go.
3. Fresh expressions are contributing towards the costs of ministry.
One other observation from Refresh (and the same could be said of some of our own fresh expressions) is that the concept of taking up an offering or inviting people to contribute to the costs of ministry, is beginning to become embedded within local projects. Some of those who attend Refresh are opting to give towards the work of the Church. The question for Phil has been whether money given to the church by those who attend the project should be ring-fenced and reinvested into Refresh, or whether it should go towards the broader costs of Parish ministry. At present, what people give contributes to the whole.
4. God is already speaking through those who are not yet part of the church: be attentive. Listen and act on what they say.
Helen Crofts (Circuit Mission Enabler, Peterborough Methodist Circuit of Churches) gave examples of the importance of what Fresh Expressions would refer to as ‘360 degree listening’ when thinking about how to discern the way forward. Listen to God. Listen to the Church. Listen to yourself. Ask, ‘What would Jesus do?’ Walk and pray. Get to know people. Most of all, be attentive to the voices of those who are not yet part of the Church. The bit that had me on the edge of my seat were the examples of how some of our everyday encounters and conversations that might appear random, turn out to be the seed that starts something new. Helen gave one example of a Messy Play that started when an older member of a local community noted that there was ‘nothing for children in the holidays.’ Think also about what is already happening, and how this could develop. If parents are reluctant to leave each other after dropping their children off at a club, and hang around chatting, you probably have the basis for something else, perhaps for the whole family. What might become of your coffee-morning, or your small group that is exploring faith?
5. Can you picture the faces of those people who you will invite to something new? If not, you may have a problem…
Charlie Nobbs (Pioneer and New Initiatives Trainer, Peterborough Diocese) spoke about knowing who we are going to invite to new events. Can we picture their faces? For me, this was a powerful question. So often we just put up a poster and expect people to arrive. Or we expect others to invite people on our behalf. If there was ever a time when we could rely on this, those days are now long-gone. I took from this that if we cannot picture the people who we are intending to invite, then we may be a step too far ahead in our mission. Much of our experience and the research evidence that I have seen to date, suggests that people come to faith through the relationships that they have with other Christians. And with relationships come trust. And with trust comes the willingness to be honest about matters of faith.
6. We might not like engaging with people through social media, but social media is here to stay, and we need to learn how to use it.
Yes, like it (no pun intended), or loath it, social media is here to stay. Despite the scepticism people might have about what friendship means on social media, platforms such as Facebook are proving incredibly useful in terms of building community. In fact, as I reflect on our own practice here in Peterborough, Facebook is becoming far more effective than local websites on advertising what is happening in the life of our churches. One other feature is that social media allows us to take pictures and show what life is like beyond those big wooden doors that people cannot see through. Whilst there are churches who have replaced wood with glass, this remains a valid point. And before I forget, another key factor is that you do not have to be a member of Facebook to view a Facebook page online. I see a link here with how John Wesley, the founder of Methodism found open-air preaching unpalatable – detestable even. He did not like doing it, but he felt compelled to do it because there was no other workable solution. Sometimes you must move outside of the church and meet people where they are. Social media looks like the digital equivalent.
7. Churches propose alterations to their buildings. A minority of local people – many of whom do not attend the church – object. Nonetheless, we need to make changes so that our churches are fit for purpose.
Richard Ormston (Archdeacon of Northampton) shared a wonderful example of how someone, deeply perturbed by the proposal to incorporate a working toilet into a rural church, asked the question, ‘What on earth are they going to use if for?’ Enough said. Seriously though, Richard’s support chimed with our own experience within the Northampton District, and the ‘Property for Mission’ approach within our own circuit. The basic message is that whilst churches need to preserve some of their historic features, the requirement to be fit for purpose in a missional sense is equally important. With some creative thinking, it will be possible to do both. Thus, beware the person who suggests that we cannot do ‘this and that’ because our building is listed. Probably, this comes from a general resistance to change rather than the reality. After all, many of our Anglican churches did not start out with pews in them. You could always, as Vyv Wainright (Anglican Reader and Surveyor based in Oakhampton) has done, train to be a conservation officer and play people at their own game. Whilst an MA in the subject might be a heavy commitment(!), it is surprising how much misinformation is out there about what people can or cannot do to our buildings. In some scenarios, all we need to do is to introduce the possibility that some changes are possible, and that those who oversee the preservation of our buildings are very much on-side when it comes to finding solutions (and I dare say funding) to enable the church to live in a missionally authentic way. After all, nothing is more damaging to the preservation of a church building than underuse.
In conclusion
Vyv’s presentation, on his Little Angels Toddler Group, served as a reminder that new does not necessarily mean having to engineer something that has never been done before. It does, however, mean taking mission and pastoral care seriously, and being attentive to the opportunities arise. (This very much echo’s Helen’s observations). What really moved me about Vyv’s presentation were the pastoral encounters that surfaced in Little Angels, and how the church was exercising a deeply significant ministry in helping people navigate through some of the most difficult periods in their lives.
The change in the demographics of who attended Little Angels (from what we might have seen twenty years ago) was no surprise, with Dads, grandparents, and single Mums bringing their children. But the story of how this community became aware of those who were struggling – a Mum who developed breast cancer, and another young boy (whose family was known to the group) who died from cancer – these stories reminded me of how we as the church have a role, an obligation, to provide space where people can meet and ministry can happen. When I think about some of the arguments I have witnessed about toddler groups and pre-schools (not within my own circuit I am pleased to say) – of how they might leave mess, or occupy the building when others could be using it, I am reminded starkly that we, the church must remember that our purpose is not to protect our personal fiefdom but to do allow God to do His thing. The church does not belong to us, it belongs to God.
Almighty God, Your Kingdom Come, Your will be Done…
Just show us more of what we need to do for starters.
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 Districtsuperintendent’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.
This report was originally compiled for the Discipleship and Ministries Learning Network East Central Region, and has been adapted/expanded.
Over the next five years, Fresh Expressions wants to avoid becoming anything more of the mission organisation that it is already. They want to release rather than control what is happening by developing deepening their local networks. Fresh Expressions want to create a movement that is ‘releasing, connecting, and enabling’. At the recent Hub conference in September, Phil Potter encouraged its leaders to be driven by two maxims; ‘Your success is my honour’, and ‘Partnership without ownership’. (In the case of the latter read, ‘Partnership without control or manipulation.’) Fresh Expressions do not want a monopoly. They are striving to promote unity whilst encouraging diversity. Fresh Expressions do not want a top down leadership. They do not want to form a community of their own. They do, however, want more to be than a list of names but less than a centralised organisation. Amidst this they are asking, ‘What do we stop, what do we start, and what do we enhance?’ I must confess that as I write this I am slightly confused as to whether I should say ‘they’ or ‘we’. That is precisely the point. Fresh Expressions are looking for more local leaders to own what is happening. Having been invited – and accepted the offer – of becoming a Fresh Expressions Associate – I should feel entitled to use the word ‘we’. This does not quite come naturally to someone like myself who is wary of misrepresenting what the movement or its leadership is saying. Nevertheless, be in no doubt that this paradigm shift is exactly what Fresh Expressions is calling for.
Nationally, a ‘network of networks’ is emerging, whereby multiple denominations and church groups are connecting with each other because they are geographically close (For example, For Starters in Peterborough), draw from similar traditions (such as new monasticism), share identical training needs (in developing pioneers), or serve particular mission fields (‘rural’ as opposed to ‘city’). Nationally this is patchy, and messy. In some cases, people from across different denominations align themselves to Fresh Expressions, whilst in others, there is a direct denominational link. Across the whole, some groups are more robust whilst others are more fragile. Unsurprisingly, Fresh Expressions has given rise to web-based forms of information sharing and support that can transcend local boundaries (for example, the Cumbria Fresh Expressions Facebook Page). Within the Church of England, there are some particularly striking examples of networked leaders; a bishop’s hub (incorporating some 30 bishops), and DDO hubs (incorporating Diocesan Director of Ordinands) who have a crucial role in assessing and forwarding people for ministerial selection.
As I reflect from a wider Methodist Church perspective, I sense that Fresh Expressions has done two things. First, it has spoken prophetically in a way that has encouraged local churches to modify and adapt their worship and mission, bearing in mind the needs of those who have little or no previous experience of ‘church’. Second, it has given Church leaders the warrant and confidence to call for change.
Some observations that might relate to us:
‘Slippage’ in the language around fresh expressions
Over the past three years, I have observed subtle changes to the language used by Fresh Expressions, or by its adherents in local settings. One example is the shift away from talking about ‘church’ to using the term ‘congregation’, or speaking of ‘new ecclesial community’. In my view, this reflects two issues. First, I suspect for free church denominations, the word ‘church’ is troublesome. For Methodists, a ‘church’ has a distinct legal definition; a church is formed only when twelve Methodist members unite. Local churches form a church council which oversees mission and ministry across the whole and are required to appoint key individuals: secretary, treasurer, stewards. Second, if the aim of a fresh expression is to create a ‘new form of church’, why would we constrain ourselves to this single model? Personally, apart from the challenge of making members, I think that the model we have is a good one; everyone is accountable to each other; decisions cannot be made in quiet corners; children and vulnerable adults are safeguarded from harm; those who hold office are properly vetted and approved; the teaching of the church is preserved; no one exists in a bubble – we want to form new churches and not cults. The problem is the language that we use switches some people off. In my experience, if I asked people to fill these positions I would receive a stare which questioned what century I thought I was living in. But if I asked a group who held the contact details of those who attended, or who looked after the money, or who liaised with visiting speakers, people saw sense. Nonetheless, talk of ‘church’ is troublesome. To talk of an ‘emerging ecclesial community’ has double appeal in that it honours the idea of creating ‘church’ without using the word. Talk of creating new congregations is helpful because a congregation (such as a new worship service) can be held by the wider church and as such, is less of a threat. It can, in theory, sit as a new church within the old, where newcomers can make it the primary local for their discipleship. The second issue – married to some of the above, and for other reasons that I will outline later, is that I suspect we are lacking confidence in ‘C(c)hurch’ as we know it.
Another concern is how the term ‘pioneer’ is being used in multiple contexts; fresh expressions are at ease in calling all fresh expressions leaders ‘pioneers’, whilst the Anglican and Methodist Churches have different pioneering pathways, and local circuits are free to appoint ‘pioneer workers’ at their own discretion. The challenge how we encourage one without disenfranchising the other. Here in Peterborough, we see ourselves as a Pioneer Hub rather than a ‘fresh expressions hub’, or a ‘mission hub’ because we recognise that the core of all things new is the apostolic dynamic of the Holy Spirit who brings openness, creativity, innovation, boldness, and even a measure of entrepreneurship. Not convinced? Remember that the apostle Paul was a tentmaker who supports himself and is, therefore, free to minister. Consider how the Holy Spirit leads him into unchartered territory.
What are we creating through fresh expressions?
In the 2014 Statistics for Mission Report, The Methodist Church stated that 2705 projects self-declared as fresh expressions. 548 churches stated that their projects were intended for those who do not attend church at all, whilst 304 stated that they were for those do not attend church regularly. The amount of independent research is limited, but to date, this suggests that very few have the intention of becoming a new church: they are fellowship groups or mission projects. Nonetheless, they are significant because they (i) retain people whose needs are not entirely met by traditional worship, (ii) provide a space and context in which personal evangelism can take place, and (iii) allow people to use their gifts and grow as disciples. Even so, given the 2017 Methodist Conference’s Notice of Motion 102 (which encouraged local circuits and churches to pray, promote acts of personal evangelism, nurture new disciples, and plant new societies), an examination of just how many fresh expressions might have the potential to become new churches would be well justified. Perhaps the broader question (if we are looking for an approach that could encourage both congregational development and church planting), is how we enable groups to become self-determining, self-financing, self-theologising, and self-propagating. (Drawing from insights in Indigenous Church Mission Theory).
One difficulty is that even if some fresh expressions do possess this ecclesial potential, comparatively few circuits will be able to draw from previous experiences of church-planting. (Most new societies are formed by merging declining churches, or by a declining church merging with a stronger ecumenical partner.) Granted, there are examples of church plants that are not a consequence of decline, but finding clear and detailed accounts of this is difficult.
Fresh Expressions are raising sharp questions about how local churches help those who attend local projects understand that they are part of the wider church, and vice-versa. My own experience of working in fresh expressions has been how some newcomers are skeptical of the Church as an institution, and therefore resist becoming members. This may be due, in part, to Fresh Expression’s argument that the inherited Church is failing in its missionary endeavours and therefore must change and adapt. Whilst this is helpful on one level – in calling people to action, it also asks people to trust a denomination that has a track record of sustained decline. Another issue is that whilst Fresh Expressions clearly defines what we mean by C(c)hurch – with reference to how ‘church’ emerges in the New Testament and the Four Marks of Church – we do not stress enough the importance of belonging to a denomination. This is key for Methodism, because connexionalism guards against insularity. And the question of how fresh expressions are incorporated into local churches is our business.
In terms of what resources we need, I would develop the following for my own context, if I had the time.
We might create an audit tool to help churches assess their fresh expressions. Is their project a separate congregation, or is it a stepping-stone to the inherited church. Much more clarity and honesty around these areas will help churches discern their vision for the future, and deploy their resources accordingly. Strictly speaking, a fresh expression is not a stepping-stone to something else, but that is not the point.
A separate issue is that for some reason, the most recent Statistics for Mission reports have focused less on fresh expressions. Is this because we lack the data, or because we consider them less important? The difficulty for those who are sceptical of fresh expressions, is that there is no clear alternative response to addressing church decline (apart from ‘keep calm and carry on’ or ReImagine Church with the challenge of encouraging re-imagination rather than cloning something and reproducing it at a different time, with less crappy biscuits – acknowledgement to Trey Hall for the ‘crappy biscuits’ reference). There may be theological objections around how we understand ‘Church’, whether we are pandering to consumer demand, the theological breadth of fresh expressions (are they top-heavy in their conservative-evangelicalism, are they too narrow in their understanding of church etc)…but in Fresh Expression’s absence there is no real alternative to what we are already doing.
We might develop a resource to help fresh expressions use Methodist membership as a means of evangelism and deepening belonging. (This could be of used by the wider church, and would outline for those who have experience of other denominations, why membership is important). This might need only to be a conversation starter, but it would need to counter a skepticism towards the Church as an institution, explain why Methodism has membership (whereas the Church of England does not), and outline the benefits and expectations of membership. Is there a resource that could be used or adapted?
One possibility might be for us to develop of highlight training for ‘Class Leaders’. This might be ideal for fresh expressions and allow us to refocus our efforts on promoting prayer, evangelism, mutual accountability, and discipleship within projects. It could also revive our pastoral system wherein the notion of a class leader – in contrast to a past
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
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.
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.
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:
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.
One of the things that I hope to be able to offer people is some simple tools for tackling practical issues as we go about our daily ministry. (My background is in Practical Theology). In my view, all theology should be practical, in the sense that it has to be of practical use in forming us as disciples. Whilst I do not wish to deny the importance of abstract intellectual reflection, I am not convinced that questioning how many angels can dance on the head of a needle is altogether helpful whilst, in our local churches, there is some of other dispute going on between the space that the toddler group is taking up, a power struggle between rival groups who want use of the kitchen, or a need for urgent conversation about how responsibilities are shared in the life of the Church and what its mission focus should be. My point is that Practical Theology responds to these kinds of challenging practical situations. There is no question that our response needs to be grounded in rigorous academic reflection. However, my experience has been that we often need to find simple ways of unpacking what are often complex issues. What is more, they need to begin as we go about our everyday ministry. We need tools that work for us as we think about how a meeting went when driving home in the car; or popping out to the supermarket for a pint of milk. This is the reality: we reflect on the go, often exploring deeper as we set aside time for supervision or go on retreat.
Richard Osmer in his Practical Theology, An Introduction (Eerdmans, 2008) offers a simple framework that I have adapted in my own ministry. Osmer writes with congregational leaders in mind, and suggests that practitioners would benefit from asking four questions:
What is going on? (The descriptive-empirical task)
Why is it going on? (The interpretative task)
What ought to be going on? (The normative task)
How might we respond? (The pragmatic task)
Whilst I find these categories helpful, I find that I naturally reflect on them in a slightly different order; I first ask, ‘What just happened?’ and cannot help myself turn immediately to, ‘What should have happened’, before asking the ‘Why?’ question:
Osmer’s method is a gift in the way that it is simple to remember and provides a framework where more and more depth can be added. Crucially, it forces us from being in a place of discontent to questioning how we are going to respond. I must confess that all-to-often I have met Individuals and groups in the life of the Church (pioneers included) who have become a talking shop for everything that is wrong in the Church, but do not seem able to find a way through this and move on. This is just as sobering for you as a pioneer, as it is for me, as a superintendent. For me, this means that if the processes of the Church are unhelpful for pioneers, or are inhibiting mission, I have a responsibility to find a way of enabling change to happen. That is my job!
Reflecting on local church closure in general
I have not been a minister for that long – about fifteen years, but in that time, I have become concerned at the ease at which Methodist Churches have closed. Two closed on my patch in my first appointment; one in my second. When I began here in Peterborough I inherited the remnant of two closed churches. I remember that when my first church closed, at Branston Booths in Lincolnshire, we worked incredibly hard to try and work with the community to find a way forward; knocking door to door; providing children’s activities on a Sunday Afternoon; focusing on Special Sunday services; but alas the Church closed. On the one hand, many people who live in local communities feel a sense of connection with their church. When the possible of closure is muted, there is, invariably, a degree of protest. However, generating the kind of interest that will sustain future presence can be difficult.
Osmer’s framework is useful here. ‘What is going on?’ is clear – and it is not ideal. To add a further layer of challenge, whilst the Methodist Church states clearly that the closure of any local church does not signal the withdrawal of the wider Methodist Church, this is how many local people take it; however illogical this may seem. There is an issue that deserves proper reflection here. When I first entered the ministry, I was of the mindset that Methodism was burdened by a high proportion of small rural churches that drew a disproportional level of resource from larger churches. An element of this thinking remains today – and I witnessed it whilst attending one of two annual superintendent’s conferences. I suspect that one concern is that planning preachers across multiple churches is difficult. Another might be that small churches could be holding comparatively large reserves, although this is counteracted by the fact that under charity law, churches must have an obvious reason for retaining excess finance. Even so, I still continue to be surprised by the ability of smaller churches to have a disproportionately high impact in their local communities.
‘What ought to be happening?’ is that even though a church might struggle to offer regular worship, it can still be a place of Christian presence. As I reflected on the location and space that was offered by some of our churches, it seemed incongruous to accept that because the worshipping congregation had dwindled, closure was the only option. Whilst the church would always need to cover its running costs and maintain its property, surely, at least in some cases, there would be a way of retaining the building as a retreat centre, or meeting venue, whilst opening the premises for community use. Could the church partner with any other agencies, who could take out a long-term lease on part of the building? So long as income from the rental of a church contributes towards fulfilling the purposes of the Methodist Church, this would seem justified.
Why is this happening? Churches find themselves in difficulty for three several reasons, and they often occur in combination. First, the roof falls in (or the church faces some or other property concern), and they lack the finance, or the resourcefulness to repair it. I do not mean this to sound detrimental. Raising large sums of money requires a confidence and boldness that often comes with experience. Grant applications require time, effort, and the conviction that what we have is worth saving, in the sense that people need to have the faith that renewal is indeed possible. Second, as the membership of the Church becomes frailer, more and more people are unable to attend unless others can transport them – and of course, when this cannot happen, attendance dwindles. Also, as the people dwindle in number the responsibility that they hold, and feel, exhausts them. I know of one instance when a superintendent insisted that a church close because they could see that all of the responsibility (and burden) was shifting on to one (younger) person. Third, the Church does not have enough members; churches can exist until they have less than six members – and which point the wider circuit is obliged to assist by sending leaders to increase church council membership. If, after a period of two years, the situation remains the same, the circuit can insist that they become a class of another church. Herein, the trusteeship for the building rests with the larger church.
This is the theory. However, my research suggests however that this intervention by the circuit to support struggling churches by importing leaders was being implemented either poorly, or not at all. Instead, the narrative was one of closing early rather than seeing the process through and handing the building over to the circuit who would invariably sell. Curiously, this is not always in the best interests of the circuit, because in doing so, a portion of the sale proceeds goes towards the wider Church. In my view, this happens because conversations about the future of the Church happen far too late in the day, at the point at which people feel exhausted, overwhelmed, and cannot see any other option. They are also forced by a narrow understanding of Church – one that has not been broadened by an understanding of Fresh Expressions or pioneer ministry. Although the concept of Fresh Expressions have been around for over a decade, in reality, many of our faithful Church attendees have only ever lived with one form of church, and so undoing this – helping people to see that ‘church’ need not meet on a Sunday, and can exist in a different form, is a serious challenge. Despite all our efforts here in Peterborough, we still encounter the question, ‘When are we going to see people [who attend fresh expressions] come to Church on a Sunday?’
‘What are you going to do about it?’
Eighteen months ago, one of our churches was facing the prospect of closure. If what happened then had happened ten years ago, I suspect that the church would have closed. Crucially, two key leaders (who lived in the village) had both served for twenty-five years. They had given their all and throughout this period had taken on just about every role in the life of the church, serving as Church secretary, treasurer, property steward….you name it, they did it. (I note here the difference between the ideal of Methodism’s rule that no-one should serve in the same capacity for six years, and how this is often unworkable for small chapels). Both signalled to Gareth, their minister that they could no longer continue. They did so with some regret, feeling that they had no other option, and mindful that in their absence the church would struggle to find people to fill key roles, and to function. The Sunday congregation had dwindled from twelve to around six people. Sadly, some had died. Others had moved into residential care. Thus, the model of worship that we were operating was not sustainable. My role was to support Gareth and bring in other leaders from across the circuit, as we discerned the way forward.
I remember that meeting well. I think that the difference instance was that although we were prepared to talk about the subject of closure, we were reluctant to allow this to happen. This would have been easy; it would have been a case of letting nature take its course, and gently giving its members the option of either filling their offices – which they could not do – or accepting the inevitable. However, in our view, the church was ideally placed in the community and offered a set of premises that were not available elsewhere. We recognised that there was potential for the church to remain a focal point in the village and that there was a need for re-engagement. In response, the local church handed trusteeship of its building back over to the circuit (who reassumed, therefore, responsibility for property and finance). The circuit supported Gareth and Helen as they sought to explore re-engaging with the local community. To allow for this change of emphasis, we reduced Sunday worship services down to twice a month, with one service being a holy communion, and the other being a cafe-style worship service (which had previously been warmly received). They are, in effect, a ‘class’ of the circuit, rather than another local Methodist Church.
We are now at the point where – from nothing – we have developed several activities. Messy Play started in July 2014 and since then has taken place during school holidays. It is Bible based, incorporates crafts around a theme, a story time (often making use of video resources), singing, prayer, and games. Numbers average twenty-five children and twelve adults plus helpers. We estimate that 80-90% of those who attend have no previous experience of Church. A Facebook page (which went live in October 2016) has been great for keeping in touch and notifying people of events. Sewing Bees began two years ago – a quilting group which meets monthly now attracts two people from the existing congregation, ten people from across our other churches and two others from the village. (The original idea was proposed by one of our local preachers). Parents and Carers coffee stop started at the end of 2016. It is held twice a month but is moving to weekly from May. The drop-in comprises six to seven adults, plus a similar number of toddlers. Two of the adults have links with the Church of England, but the remainder, again, have non-church backgrounds. In addition, the church hosts Quiet Mornings three times a year.
It would be tempting to focus on the mechanics of how Helen and Gareth went about re-engaging with the local community – and perhaps this is for another time. However, I believe that the most important move, considering Fresh Expressions, was to take seriously the question of how we could challenge the narrative of closure by allowing a dwindling congregation to remain, whilst exploring other opportunities. To suggest that we have arrived would be dishonest. Whilst we are forming Christian community, and Messy Play is a fresh expression, there remains a degree of separation between the Sunday morning congregation, and those who attend these different events. However, whilst the offering from the Sunday Worship has diminished (and might be a cause for concern), this has been offset by income through lettings. The transfer of trusteeship from the church to the circuit has been helpful, but it places responsibility on others (who may be equally pressured) to ‘hold’ the church for a period. Despite this, although the road ahead might be long, this ‘church’ is currently operating as a hub of mission, where Christian faith and Christian values are being shared. Our intention is to continue to invest in the relationships that we have developed, to expand our Christian worship to enable faith-commitment, to encourage Methodist membership as and when the time is right. Crucially, this is what would be required to form a new church, but in the meantime, we simply thank God for his blessing.
It is good to be with you today. For those of you who don’t know me my name is Langley. I am the superintendent minister here in the Peterborough Circuit of Methodist Churches. My role as a minister is to have oversight of what is happening. Oversight is everything that we do to ensure that the people of God can live out the calling that God has placed upon them. It is not something we ever do alone. God looks over us in love, we look over each other in love. I have been a minister for coming up to fifteen years now, and for most of that time, I have worked alongside people who have been hungry to do new things. For the last ten years, much of my role has been to pastor and nurture new leaders. We will dispense with the conversation about whether this might be termed, coaching, mentoring, spiritual direction, or supervision. I have been asked to comment on where, in my experience, people have struggled, and the lessons that we can learn from this about how we sustain ourselves.
One: Understand the nature of pioneering
Pioneering is understood differently by different denominations. Some people see it as a deliberate intention to reach out to those who are not yet members of any church and form a new Christian community. Others just see it as the task of creating some new form of mission. Whatever, the image that we often have in our heads is that the pioneer is the trailblazer, out on the edge, doing something new. And in one sense we are right. However, you might be surprised to see me display this image – of ploughing and sowing and link this to pioneering. (The original presentation included a modern image of ploughing and seed scattering). However, I use this image to stress that our calling has not changed. It is simply that pioneers often see potential in ploughing a different field, or spreading the seed in a different way.
I think that there is also a strong argument that we need to view pioneering or entrepreneurship (or whatever you want to call it) as an attitude of mind, where our vision is to encourage the church to reflect on how its mission is appropriate to context. I also suspect that for too long we have celebrated pioneering people who work on the edge of the church, whilst overlooking people who are pioneering and work at the centre. To illustrate, one of my observations about pioneering is how so many groups of people want a part of the ‘pioneer pie’; presbyters who feel called into ministry to initiate new work, and who, given the opportunity, would have opted to focus on pioneering from the outset; Methodist deacons, who refer to themselves as ‘a mission focused, pioneering religious community’; VentureFX pioneers who have led a small but impactful number of projects intended to grow new Christian communities; those who are now part of the Methodist Pioneering Pathway – and this is simply what comes to mind before we begin to think about how pioneering is viewed and enabled within other denominations. Thus, I think that the very notion of pioneering, much like Fresh Expressions has the potential to bring about renewal in the life of the Church. I also suspect that some pioneers are also present at the heart of the Church. They may not be entirely satisfied that God has led them to work at the heart of the institution, but they have a crucial role in highlighting where the processes and disciplines of the Church are fit for purpose.
But why do I think that this is important to looking sustaining yourself? The answer is that I think our current focus on pioneering risks disenfranchising some people who feel that they are not the genuine article and therefore feel undervalued.
Two understanding the nature of conflict
Sometimes conflict can be an uncomfortable business! Frequently, when we are pushing to do something new, the result can be hostile because what people hear (rather than what we are, in fact, saying), is that what they are doing already is not good enough. In some cases, this may well be true, and facing that reality can be painful. Also, to suggest that we should try something new is, by implication, to suggest change – and many people struggle with change. The mix of thought processes and raw emotion that govern this are deep. Some people will resist admitting that something is not working or needs improvement, and in their minds to expose themselves as a failure. Edgar Schein, author of Organisational Culture and Leadership refers to a kind of Survival Anxiety that can surface. For those who accept the need for change, there follows a Learning Anxiety. This is akin to living in a twilight zone between having accepted the need to do something new, and yet not being fully confident that it will produce better results. Often what people fear most is being exposed as a failure. Whilst I don’t think that these insights make life any easier, many of those with whom I have journeyed have found it helpful to understand why they are encountering resistance.
Perhaps part of looking after yourself is to think about how you manage the kind of conflict that comes from culture change – can culture can be defined as ‘the way we do things round here’. One significant question is how we manage conversation and conflict in such a way that they are held corporately, and that we do not end up being in the firing line, because we have been the one who has suggested a change. Herein, we would be wise to draw inspiration from de Bobo’s thinking hats. We have used this in one of our churches where we were discussing the challenging issue of whether we should move premises, or remain. (At the time the Church was facing considerable costs for the upkeep of the building and either had to invest heavily – at some risk – or downsize. DeBono allowed us to avoid the spiritual equivalent of a Wild West cowboy (and cowgirl) bar brawl, where everyone interjects with their own passionate opinion, and the fog of war descends. Debono encourages everyone to work through a series of questions; what are the facts; what are the positives; what are the cons; what does our intuition and emotion say (with and emphasis that this need not be logical); what are the possibilities? I thoroughly recommend it. Alternatively, even simple things such as paying attention to how you arrange the seating in your meetings can be helpful. Are you setting yourself up to be at the end of a shooting gallery, or is the room laid out in a more inclusive way? Sometimes I have arranged for people to sit in a circle for a meeting, granting the secretary a small table for note writing. The change in dynamics – and in particular, a sense of mutuality – can be dramatic. Granted, these pieces of wisdom might not appear scriptural but they are tried and tested ways of managing difficult conversations, drawn from professional expertise in other fields. Not everything that might be labelled ‘secular’ deserves suspicion. For example, the last time I had a headache, I was quite happy to take a painkiller.
Finally, understand that just because something is difficult does not mean that it is bad.
Three: Remember that you are part of the Church
Jesus says that he is the true vine and His father is the gardener. He says to the disciples that they are the branches, and that we are charged with bearing fruit. He commands us to remain in him. I put it to you that as we go about fulfilling our calling, we need to remember that to be connected to Jesus, is to be part of the Church, his body at work. I say this because often we can create an unhelpful divide. We look at the Church, and its failings, and we struggle to understand why no one sees things as we do. We then think that we are the only sane ones and that everyone else is a loon. At times, we can spend more energy focused on what is not right, than we do on doing something about it. We get so disheartened in fact that we are tempted to go it alone. But beware of becoming a lone-ranger!
The real problem comes when something goes wrong; when you have a pastoral crisis, what happens, who looks after you? What is someone who you are reaching out has a crisis that you don’t feel you are qualified to deal with – for example, someone dies? What if you suddenly find you have a disagreement with someone in the church – and there is no one to hear your side of the story?….If something goes wrong, and you are not properly embedded in the Church, you will find yourself in difficulty.
Perhaps one of the hardest things to accept as a pioneer or an entrepreneur is that whilst you might have an innovative idea, that idea will require a team of people, with giftings that are very different from your own, to bring you idea to life. To make matters even more challenging, some of these people may well wind you up. But you need them. And they need you. Just like the clownfish needs the anemone and vice-versa. As one of my colleages put it, ‘Love your anemone!’
Four: Think about what success might look like
It might seem odd that I am suggesting that prayerful planning is key to your well-being as a pioneer. In my experience, one key question that we do not think enough about is what success looks like. Now, on the one hand, this can be a very difficult question to answer. On the other, unless we have some idea of what we are aiming to achieve, even in the broadest terms, we will be unable to judge whether we are making any progress. And if we cannot judge this, we can become disheartened very quickly.
A recurring theme for me is that pioneering is more like turning the soil and planting seed, with the hope that the seed will germinate and grow into something great. Pioneering is a process. Success and failure are part of pioneering. Very often, some of the people that I have mentored have come unstuck because they have focused too much on the end goal, which may not have worked out. However, what they miss is the deep impact that they have made by simply being there in the first place. How their work has given rise to informal and more formal conversations in the church. How whilst they might not have seen one thing happen, other things have happened that are equally good.
An example from personal experience is that recently I have had it on my heart to offer a faith course, written my myself in at least one of my churches. The idea is that we would target issues that really concern people, such as anger management, pornography on the internet, finding a life partner, thinking about spirits and life after death, and that we would use music and video to introduce a theme, have a time of testimony, give a presentation of the gospel, have a quiet time, offer a prayer of commitment, and end with tea and cake. Sounds simple. I scattered this idea. I am seeing what germinates where. One church said, that is not for us, we feel called to set up a Foodbank. Another went, we like the idea but what about doing it across two churches. They are still talking. Another said, ‘We like the idea, but why not use Alpha? And then the room got excited. Someone said, ‘I came in through Alpha, it’s what introduced me to Jesus and how I first came to Church’, and another said, ‘So did I’. And someone else said, ‘And last time, another church did the catering for us so that we could all focus on learning together.’ And then I chipped in with, ‘And we would always invite other local preachers to help us with the small groups’. And we all said, ‘Let’s think about doing it properly. Let’s give ourselves the time we need. Let’s start by gathering people who are outside of this room first – not just us’. I don’t know where it will end. But the conversation – the bringing people together, is just as important as the end.
But then I am left with my little idea – and my three sessions that I have organised. Now I could think that because my idea had not been accepted, this was a waste. But on the other hand, it turned the soil for a whole set of questions. And my little idea was squashed. But not wasted. No doubt some elements of what I have put together will appear elsewhere – or another church may want to run with my material. But my point is that pioneering is sometimes about being that protagonist – that protagonist who knows the system and turns the ground. I am not sure that we can always be precious about our ideas.
Know what you want to do, have a plan, and don’t overlook the successes that you are having, even if you do not reach the end-goal.
Five: Prayerful planning is key
This might seem a little obvious but what I am offering you here is a much more nuanced look at the importance of prayer and planning. If we want to stay healthy in ministry, we need to pray and plan. If we do not we will end up feeling disheartened, stressed, tired, burnt-out, anxious, depressed, and lying on a sofa surrounded by chocolate wrappers – aka the Vicar of Dibley – when a binge followed a bad night.
I have mentioned the prayer word. At this point I must admit that I feel a little bit disingenuous because depending how you measure it, I am the world’s worst pray-er. I thank God that I was not called to be a monk. I have been on silent retreat. I reckon I could be silent for a day but I would burst. Some forms of prayer just aren’t for me. Instead, I need activity to occupy I suppose one side of my brain, whilst I pray with another.I say this because I think that so often we can be discouraged because we have only experienced one type of prayer and within minutes it puts us to sleep. I would suggest that this is not only to do with tiredness, but also, differences in learning styles. So, I would suggest that in order to keep yourself safe you need to develop a rule of life, a way of living that keeps you anchored to the best of Christian Tradition. Praying to God the Father. Being attentive to the leading of the Holy Spirit – this is particularly important since the Holy Spirit will direct, block, allow you to respond to opportunities as they arise, and of course give you all you need for the task ahead.
At the same time, I want to alert you to the importance of planning. There is a danger that when we read our gospels, and our epistles – especially Acts Chapter 2, that ministry just – well – happens. There is an argument to say that if we are living holy lives, preaching the gospel, meeting the needs of the poor, and offering a place of Christian community, the Church will grow. I mean Acts 2 is holy chaos! On the other hand, it is clear right from the offset, that there is also an element of planning in Christian mission. If you read the Epistles, in particular, you will see that early church has a sense of process, of understanding how we work together, and of discipline, in the sense of agreeing on expectations so that Jesus’ name is honoured, and no one is overlooked. What we cannot do is merely believe that pioneering can happen on the fly. The last time I looked, the Methodists had a plan of preachers, showing who goes where. Night Shelter has a rota. We planned this event, Helen being sure that I know what I am supposed to be doing! At the same time, we need space to allow God time to show us his plans, rather than us – with our limited fields of view – almost predicting exactly how the end product will look. In Methodist circles, I call this, ‘the Methodist bootprint’ effect, where our previous understanding of what ‘church’ is – how we measure ‘church’, and how churches ‘usually’ operate, ends up quenching the spirit and stifling what is new. There needs to be a balance. Pray. Plan. But do not be tempted to behave like Mystic Meg.
Six: Know yourself.
The second thing that I want to say, is that to look after yourself you need to know who you are – in God. You need to know something of your calling and be secure in that. You need to know how you operate – what your gifts and personality amount to. You need to know what the warning signs are when you are approaching burnout. You need to practice not just reflection on what is happening around you, but reflexivity. Reflexivity questions how our upbringing, our physical condition, our state of mind, affects how we are reading and interpreting a situation – because we can do often misread the signals of those around us. And we need to account for the fact that we are changing and hopefully maturing all the time.
There are some helpful tools out there – and there is no need to spend any money unless you are really interested. You just only need to know enough to be able to reflect on your own identity. One of the tools out there is Myers-Briggs, which is a way of measuring personality type, which is in itself a measure of how we perceive the world around us, and how we make judgements. Another one which I have found especially helpfully is Belbin’s team roles. Are you the Co-ordinator, the Resource investigator, the Specialist, the Evaluator or the Implementer? Are you the Shaper of the Completer Finisher? One of the attractive aspects of Belbin’s roles is that they can change over time – and I have certainly found this as I have reflected on my own ministry.
One of the key things that I would recommend if you do not have it, is to find a mentor – someone who can sit with you, perhaps once a month, and help you make sense of the world that is around you. Because if you don’t, you are going to feel like a contestant on Big Brother, or I am a Christian Get me Out of Here. Which brings me back to my very first point; you cannot pioneer on your own, you need to need to be accountable to someone, pastorally cared for by someone, listened to by someone. Don’t think you can go it alone.
Talk on Fresh Expressions for the Fresh Ways ConsultationHinkley Hall, Leeds; 1-2 June 2015
Factoid for today
In biological terms, horses and zebras share the same genus. However, they are different species. Horses have better balance, can run faster and have been domesticated. Zebras have much better hearing, are more energetic, leap about all over the place when they get excited, and can change direction quickly when they are fleeing from predators. The reason that these two species are different is of course because they adapted to survive in different habitats. And I think there is a link here I think between fresh expressions communities and some of the communities that exist in the wider inherited church. Fresh expressions are like Zebras.
Allow me to introduce myself for those of you who don’t know me. In my previous circuit, I had oversight of fresh expressions and mentored those in leadership. I am also doing research through Durham University on how as Methodist ministers we can best enable the development of fresh expressions. I have been doing this for about five years now.
I have been asked to set us off thinking about how fresh expressions might be integrated into circuit structures, or the circuit zoo as I would prefer to think about it. The first thing I want to say is that horses and zebras tend not to share the habitat – and they definitely do not interbreed. You can create a Zebroid’s but you have to go about things artificially, and when you do create offspring, they are stunted and infertile. My view is that whatever we do with fresh expressions it would be wrong to subject them to some kind of artificial ecclesiological insemination in the hope that we can create something that is easier to handle. At the same time, we do need to make sure that the fresh expressions we have are safe, can grow, and can reproduce. -just as we would do for any other congregation. But I would suggest that in oversight terms, the needs of newly emerging congregations are different from the needs of inherited congregations.
I want to make five observations about the nature of fresh expressions so we are clear on what we are wanting to incorporate within the structures and disciplines of the wider church.
1/ Fresh expressions are forms of ‘church’ intended to reach those who are not yet members of any church.
The Fresh Expressions website provides a much more detailed view of what this might look like. The definition has always been a work in progress. Most recently, this phrase appeared – fresh expressions encouraging congregations alongside traditional churches. I think that this is helpful because as a Methodist, the word church – as in ‘fresh expression of church’ has a significance. Legally, church means 12 members all who need to be locally resident. Churches need stewards, a treasurer, a church secretary, and class leaders – whether or not this has indeed been how we have planted church in the past – and by the way, I would really appreciate a research conversation on that. But talk of ‘congregation’ is, I think, more helpful because anyone can be a congregation – congregations are not bound in quite the same way as churches, who are legally required to conform to a quite particular ecclesiological construct. This aside, what fresh expressions do require, irrespective of how they structure themselves, is good oversight. Oversight being everything we do to enable the people of God to fulfil the calling that God has placed upon them. In our Methodist understanding this involves mutual accounablility – looking over, and looking after each other. The key thing for Methodist fresh expressions is how we balance Locality (when and where something happens), Intensivity (in that there is an intimacy within fresh expressions communities) and Connectivity (how are we linked to each other). This is one of the helpful points in Fresh Expressions in the Mission of the Church – although if you are going to read it, I would encourage you to read the Anglican report Anecdote to Evidence, and the accompanying report Strand 3b, by the Church army, which criticises some of our thinking and expectations of what makes church, Church.
2/ Fresh Expressions can come about through –
a local church redeveloping (but not rebranding) and existing act of worship which is changing mindful of the needs of newcomers
A new venture where the church sets out to nurture a new Christian community
A circuit mission project – note that the purpose of the Methodist Church is to advance the Christian faith and allows us to find us the most appropriate way to do things.
Note that our purpose as The Methodist Church is to advance the Christian Faith. This gives us a very broad remit. Our responsibility is to ensure that appropriate oversight is in place, and in that we can draw from members of the wider church at every level. And we are encouraged to exercise our disciplines with a light touch lest we suffocate this new work. I think that is something worth discussing.
3/ The other point for discussion is how the mixed economy is working. The idea of a mixed economy is that what is inherited and emerging can live alongside each other and from each other, rather than what is emerging being constricted and swallowed-up by the inherited church. In my view, one of the markers of a healthy fresh expression is that it looks to develop from within, rather than seeing itself as a stepping stone to something else. There are very limited examples of where this has happened but on the whole, horses and zebras don’t mix. However, I think that we secretly hope that we can get them together and breed zebroids? Another critical marker is where baptism and communions take place. If we are serious about fresh expressions developing their own ecclesial identity then we will put our rites of passage where the community meets, and find sensitive ways of conducting them, rather than in effect, telling them that they are not grown up enough yet to stand on their own. Linked to this, I think we need to look at the mixed economy working – what power balance exists between those who lead and are part of fresh expressions and those who are in the wider church. Are we at risk of getting a church shaped mission rather than a mission shaped church? This was one of John Hull’s concerns at the beginning of the movement but I think he was concerned about the evangelical wing of the church of England giving rise to, in his view, and unbalanced approach to mission. My view is that the opposite is true, that the inherited Methodist Church will hold back fresh expressions development. We need more Bread Churches and Zak’s places.
TOP FIVE
I want to close by spicing up the debate by giving you my top five chart of fears and realities that I think surround fresh expressions:
5 Fear: A fresh expression will lack diversity and only reach one group of people.
Reality; yes they might, but I think we will find, if we look at the present diversity in the church, that things are pretty monochrome as they stand! Besides, there is such a thing as positive discrimination in favour of those who are being overlooked.
4 Fear: Investing in fresh expressions leaves some declining congregations feeling overlooked. Reality; In my limited experience, this is just not true. Declining congregations want nothing more than to hear good news stories about what God is doing in other places. About people who are coming to faith. In fact, they can’t get enough of I and will even get involved. At the same time, they realise that their own context is different. And if declining churches do kick, I would suggest that this is part of the grief process – think anger, disbelief and lostness and also realise that such congregations are just as likely to kick out about fresh expressions are they are about anything else.
3 Fear: Fresh expressions are fellowship groups – they are not really ‘church’ are they? Reality: There is an argument that relationships rather than practices are the foundation of church development and from this, practices that embody and fortify those relationships will come. What we should question is our tendency evaluate fresh expressions in such a way that if we applied the criteria to many of our existing inherited congregations, they would not quality. Where is the Holy Spirit at work in our churches and how is our biblical literacy getting on?
2 Fear: Fresh expressions cost a lot of money. Reality – There are two answers to this. When do the parents stop paying for their children? Answer – given by Steve Lindridge, ‘In my experience never’. The other fresh expressions cost very little but they do mean putting the right resources in the right place at the right time. Besides, I think we should be looking at more volunteer lay ministry.
The number one 1 Fear:
Having a fresh expression is like having a blender without a lid on it. …Someone else has to tidy up a great mess.
Reality: Most fresh expressions are led by ministers, lay employees or, in the main, mature and experienced members of the Methodist Church who are moved by compassion and are very loyal. They also give financially to the work of the Church. Personally, I would be more worried about negotiation with other groups in the Methodist Church such as a choir, or an organist who struggles to play new material, or the folk in the kitchen who view a filter coffee machine much like a nuclear reactor that they are not trained to use.
To discuss:
What does it mean to interpret the disciplines of the church with a light touch?
What would help the ‘mixed economy’ to work better?
