Mission Shaped Introduction

For the next six weeks, beginning tomorrow (Wednesday 23rd September), Tamworth will be hosting  a Mission Shaped Introduction course. This has to be one of the most impressively effective courses I have attended or delivered as we look at what 'mission' really means for those who call themselves Christian and for those who pass by the church buildings without a clue about what really goes on in them or the message they long to tell. 

This is a course which seeks to get us to think of the ways in which we can bring the Gospel into the lives of people where they are and when they are able to receive, and hopefully, live it for themselves.  

It is about thinking of new ways of being, and doing, Church: Often referred to as a 'Fresh Expression'. Which, for those who aren't sure about what a fresh expression is, here's my definition:

Christians coming together to live the Christian message in ways that those outside of the traditional (or inherited) church can understand and embrace. 

Basically it is: Christians 'doing church' for those who are not church.

Many people, when they hear the words 'fresh expression', if they have heard the term before, jump to the conclusion that this is 'Messy Church*' but in many cases they would be wrong because there are many more forms of fresh expression than that.

What we are actually talking about is planting new communities of Christians, these are what we usually refer to as 'church' and that can cause some real difficulties in the minds of some and the realities of others.

What the Church needs today is a combination of the older and 'established' expressions of church working together with newer 'fresh' expressions to build a Christian community across our villages, towns and cities. We call this a 'mixed economy' model. What we are doing is creating new churches to work with the old: The problem is that some think that we are merely creating something to bring people into the church that the new church came out of - here's an example:

St Blogspots, residing in it's wonderful Norman building, offers Messy Church' to the people around them. The project goes well and by its first anniversary there are eighteen families coming to the services and it is beginning to develop its own identity and character. Just after the first birthday celebrations one of the PCC members asks when those who come to Messy Church will be seen in the 'proper' services and is more than a little disgruntled to be told that they quite like will never come. "What's the point of us paying for it if they're not going to come in to our (declining) services," they ask - And they ask that because what they thought the PCC had agreed to sponsor was 'Messy Evangelism', something that would bring people into their services! 

Whilst some of those who come to the fresh expression might indeed come to services in the sponsoring church (or one of the sponsoring churches if sponsored by a Churches Together group) the reality is that what you are hoping for is, like any parent; for the child to mature and become an independent adult with a good relationship with them.

There are many views regarding the venue of these fresh expressions and all of them are right and yet many of them are also perhaps just a little wrong too. Here's are some attitudes I have encountered to reflect upon:

i  If we 'do' the fresh expression in our church building that makes it ours.
Our service, our people, OUrs, do you hear me, OURS! (you can add a maniacal wahahaha if you wish!)

ii. If you 'do' the fresh expression in a different building (venue) then we just have to wait until they are led into the church that gave them the money to do it!
After all, we paid for it and so it is ours.

iii. If we do a 'fresh expression' then we might lose some of the members of our own church to it (and the subtext here is that they are already losing member) so surely it's better to keep those we have rather than send them off to start their own thing. The should be committed to ours.

iv.  if we do a fresh expression and it is successful it could become more popular than our church and they'd soon forget that we are the parent and they are the 'daughter*' church - they might take the place in the hearts of the community that is by virtue of the time we've been here, ours!

v. If we did a fresh expression and it took off and worked and attracted young people and those who have never come to church that would be great. What a privilege to have been part of birthing a new Christian community here. We long for the day when we can have like-minded partners working together for the Gospel in fellowship together.

We find thinking like this because we are all human and struggle when the places we cherish are also struggling. Our desire to see Christ proclaimed can sometimes be tempered and even chilled by our desire for stability and maintenance of the familiar - and with the right mindset and actions both of those can be achieved without being limited as Church or as a person. This course is a remedy and a spur to achieve great things for God (and be blessed as well).

This is what the Mission Shaped Introduction (and the fuller course which may follow on) is all about. So here are detail of our MSI course:

And if you can't attend ours, then ask your Vicar / Pastor / Minister about running one in your church, deanery, Churches Together group

or contact Fresh Expression by clicking HERE

* Messy Church is a fantastic coming together of people as a church in its own right. It is attractive to families, accessible for all ages and fun - and there's often a meal and a chance for real engagement and encounter: Just like the early Church. It is about creating a new structure, not a tunnel into the church that might have started it off as a means of bringing people into their building (that's Messy Evangelism).

* 'Daughter church' - a term far too often used to point to a church that is inferior or subservient and under the control of, or at least looked down upon by, the 'Mother Church'. We should have partners and flat structures in church (and that works both ways for those in churches founded by an older parish church).

One of those 'deja vu' moments: non-Christian friends

Life, it seems, is |a funny circuitous old thing and this has been brought home to me as, oddly, I have had a 'repeat conversation' with someone along the same lines as one I had some twenty-five years ago - and, being brutally honest,  it was all a bit surreal and just a little unsettling!

The conversation at the tail-end of the last century was taken up by the fact that the person on the other side of the conversation didn't have any non-Christian friends; they'd been to a conference and had been challenged as to how many 'unsaved' people they counted as friends. "Well, errr,you see, well, I don't actually have any," was the reply, "All  my friends are Christians you see!"

This response brought gasps of shock and derision  accompanied by tutting, head shaking and general acts of disapproval from those around the room. The speaker, a real 'soul winner' who is still going strong (and using the same jokes and stories they'd lifted from others then) today asked how they thought their ministry, "Could ever be valid when they lived in a Christian ghetto!"

Lunch saved the poor soul from further accusation (although not from the withering gazes of many of the obviously 'much more Christian' delegates around them) and, me being me, I decided to befriend them - something that proved a little difficult because they'd been on the wrong end of the many zealous soul-winners and were just a little wary (mind you, that might just have been because it was me) - and soon had them laughing (much to the disgust of some around us).

The bloke started telling me of the work they were engaged in and how when he started he was the only Christian in his group of friends. Then, one by one, they got saved and now, with a dozen or so in the fellowship he was helping to pastor, there were none left. The fellowship now numbered around sixty people and they were looking for inspiration as to how they might disciple those who came and spread the net further.

Seeing one of the assembled delegates looking at my new best friend with what can only charitably be called sneering contempt I decided to emulate the Mars Hill model as best I could and moved off to engage with them; and immediately it was obvious that I had picked a winner. My companion was part of the leadership team of a church plant from one of the names in 'being Church' and those standing with them were all on first name terms with many of the great and good in the Ghetto that can sometimes be called 'Church'. 

We chatted about how many new believers they'd seen during the first few months ("None, but we're hopeful!")

We chatted about how many friends they'd seen come to faith ("None, but a prophet is always without honour in their own land aren't they?)

The conversations continued and it soon became obvious that this little team were not only a team, but they were all friends too. In fact it soon became obvious that this little group were in fact the ONLY friends they really had (well them and the some of the others involved in the 'plant') every one else they referred to as friends were in fact acquaintances of the most cursory kind - but that's how friendships start so well done them (and I mean that in the best sense).

The bell rang and in true Pavlovian sense we rushed back in to be further enlightened as to how we might best build Church and then, sufficiently enabled we were asked what was the most exciting or enabling thing we'd learnt during the day. There were a few people who stood up and said nothing much about nothing much and then it sort of trailed off and one of the people on the team, knowing me, looked straight at me and said, "No one with anything more to add?"

And that's where it all went a bit downhill for some I guess as I stood up and told how I'd learnt how it was more apparently acceptable to have loads of non-Christian friends rather than loads of friends who had become Christian! I went on to point out that a bloke who'd been quite sorely treated over having no non-Christian friends needed in fact to be applauded for having introduced them to a new way of life. Not only that but the 'successful' among us were apparently not seeing the very growth that we had come to learn about (and to be honest I wondered whether the 'experts' really knew about it themselves - after all they were generally people who came, spoke, 'saw that hand', prayed and moved on!).

So the conversation I've just had with someone who has seen neighbours, friends and others come to faith through relationship (anyone else remember 'Friendship Evangelism' and Leonard Albert - a great chap?) and yet feels 'got at' because they've no non-Christian friends left!

Now that demands a pat on the back, a free meal and a reminder that it's about 'one telling another' and lives on the premise that unless we make real relationships with people and tell them then how will they know and where is authenticity in the Church.

A great conversation that left me praising God for people who bring growth and one that rekindled the passion for the lost in a more direct and dirty manner - a real wake-up call that made me hearken back to a time when I was an evangelist first and foremost and not a peddler of ersatz cobblers and shuffler of meaningless paperwork - anyone out there fancy having a new friend (or two)?

Weddings - A consumer fest?

Discussing the number of weddings that some of the clergy have, and the associated stresses, I am beginning to think that I might need to be happy that I occupy (as a colleague with a splendid church building once called it) a 'tiddly little place!' This, combined with the fact that (as another colleague put it) 'It's not pretty!' all adds up to us having very few - in fact almost none (I've done one wedding in the place since I started here`!).

It's true that the building we occupy is not large (we have but the one room) but that merely means that everything we have is used to the full. There are no rooms reserved for 'best' here - what we have is versatile and pretty well utilised (eucharist - room change - tea. coffee and lunch - room changes again and .....) all the time as we do services, social stuff, community stuff, kid's club, support groups, stuff for then older folk, crafts, courses and more besides in the one room (we have no choice).

Add to the one room aspect of the building the fact that it's not a 'proper' church building and you will understand why we don't get people asking to get married here. See for yourself:

'Home'

In fact a few years back, one of our near neighbours decided to get married and they did so in the wonderful building that houses the parish church. Another couple just up the road from us decided to get married in the pretty little village church building round the corner and this is the pattern for those who decide on a church wedding (a small number in a growing market in that we have some 30% of the wedding business these days). They want the pretty buildings for their big day and that's fair enough, after all they want a good backdrop for the photo's and stuff.

My 'problem' comes in the fact that all too often people will tell me that I should do the wedding in their church if they come from my patch because of the 'pastoral engagement' and it is here that I will find that my real struggle begins.

After all, it's a fair (empirically sound) assumption that those who marry in St Blogspots will also have their sprogs baptised in the same place, as they assume it's 'their church' - an assumption that is not supported by attendance or any semblance of relationship with the church (meaning the people) or the clergy but is based purely upon it having been the venue for a wedding. In fact they may even come to the same building when death comes a knocking on that same assumption.

And this is good - but it means that those who have the attractive, wedding rich church buildings have to realise that they also have the privilege (and duty) of engaging and building relationships with the couple, introducing them to Jesus, the Christ, and continuing that relationship (as best they may) once the wedding day has passed. They, having become 'in loco parentis' to the emerging family have a duty to pastor and pray for them. They are happy to collect the cash and do the deed, but there is much, much, much* more to it than that.

If we provide a building without discharging our duty then as much as this is wrong, that is your choice, but having provided the venue - you need to also provide the pastoral and spiritual input that goes with it in the before, during and after phases.

I have spoken to a few couples (seven of them to be accurate) with the result that 100% of the population 'enjoyed' the day but were not minded to be engaged with Church again on a regular basis. The reasons for this were that they regarded what they had was not spiritual but all about the venue and that they 'weren't religious' but wanted a nicer building than ............ (names omitted to avoid venue wars!). They didn't want 'church' and even though. 'The service was nice and the Vicar made us laugh,' it wasn't what they wanted after the event. 'But it was a nice day!'

Having been brought up with the understanding that the occasional offices (AKA: hatch, match and dispatch) were a source of engagement and potential growth. My experience is that this is not the case (we don't do many baptisms or funerals outside of those with whom we have relationships or are perhaps members) but find that we grow quite consistently through real engagement and the making of friendships.

I've written this to clarify some of the issues that came up in a conversation with a colleague who thought that, as they had a popular building, the local clergy should come and take the services for those 'from their patch'. At first I wasn't sure about it, but having given it some time (and thought) I have to say, 'Nah, crack on with it!' (or perhaps that should be, 'No thanks old bean, you carry on doing them in your building - you book them, you cook them!'). Your wanting to advertise and attract people to your buildings for weddings is a great thing to be doing - and if you are successful at it (and enjoy the wedding fayres and the conjugal/matrimonial consumer fests) - crack on and reap the blessings that are to be found within it.

As for me, I'll stick to funerals - something I find much more rewarding pastorally and more effective evangelistically!

Happy Daze

*sorry rampant Police Academy gene issues this morning

Evangelism - do they have to come to our place?

The final of the three evangelism questions and it's probably the most potentially interesting/challenging/controversial of the three. So here we go:

Have they got to come to our restaurant, or can we just keep telling how good the bread and the wine are there and how good the maitre d' is?'

Splitting it into a few parts means we have first of all to address the 'Where do we signpost them' question - a real toughie for many reasons.

When I meet people who are looking for a church I send them to the church that meets the following criteria:

i. Is a fellowship that will serve the style of church that the person will be most comfortable in.

ii. Is the nearest 'comfortable' place to where they live.

iii. Is a place where they will be loved, nurtured and blessed.

I have often had people come to me and tell me that they've just moved into the area and are looking for a church. When this happens I ask what they church was like where they came from and form an understanding of who they are. This done I will point them to the choir and 'grown-up' church if that's their bag, or invite them to ours if they like small, send them to another if they want to be somewhere 'important' and so on.

The 'nearest acceptable' church is an important criteria because I think one of the greatest sins in today's Church is the commuter Christian. Church should be a local affair building community and making relationships. I think the NT model was one of people living in community not spending ages travelling in cars!

It's pointless sending people to a place where they will not be happy and sometimes the nearest church is also the wrong place because of denomination, churchmanship and the like. This means that you have to be honest about the places around them (in love) and realistic about the chances of them staying and being sustained and growing the church. I've had people come to our church and told them to try somewhere else because we'd be a curse to them and the places they have ended up have been right because they're still there.

There is this niggle in people's heads that tells them they have to bring them to their church regardless - after all, evangelism is all about growing OUR church isn't it?

And so, having laid out some of my principles, we move onto the 'Have they got to come to our restaurant?' question.

The answer is, in my opinion a resounding 'No' and I give it safe in the knowledge that many will disagree with this. Evangelism is about bringing people into relationship with God and we are looking to build the Kingdom not our our particular church or denominational entity.

The problem here is that many people, once they get into doing evangelism, engage in it to build the Church but they fail to understand (and the leaders fail to communicate) the fact that we are looking at more than merely adding numbers to our own gatherings. It seems that all too often church members are encouraged to bring people to their church without being told that sometimes it would be better for that church and the person  concerned to be guided to another place, denomination or brand. 

It would also be good if we could be just a little honest about how we 'market' our churches too but that's a discussion for another day perhaps!

So there we are - a simple answer to the first part of the question, 'NO'!

The second part of more difficult because the reason people go to a church often comes down to one, or more, of a number of factors (but let's narrow it down as this is a ten-minute 'tea and type' posting):

a. It's local,

b. It's 'lively' or 'not lively' or 'has a choir' or 'has a band' or 'has great teaching' or 'has a name (or personality) leading it' or 'the people are great' or '.........'!

c. It's a particular brand (which should make a difference for theological reasons - not that many 'do' theology)

d. It meets my needs, expectations and wants.

Telling people that they need to come to your church rather than the church up the road because 'we're better than them' or 'we have better worship' or any other reason that puts them above the others is (sorry if you disagree) 'Just Plain Wrong!'.

You can extol the virtues, skills and benefits but you have to do it realising that evangelism is about more than bringing them to 'our church' and there's too many churches out there who talk ecumenism but in reality are seeking to undermine, belittle and diminish the other churches in the area for their own benefit - and those who do are in fact a curse to the Kingdom of God, not the blessing they assume themselves to be!!!

When you talk to people about God, introduce them to Him and them get to know where and who they are before dragging them off to your church.

I met someone a while back who was in a church in our area and they were talking about their problems with the leader and the way the place ran. Discussing it further I realised that they were from a church background and having 'come to faith' had been taken to the church the evangelism team member belonged to where, sadly they weren't finding it to be easy. I asked if they'd talked to anyone and having found out that they had and the response implied that the church of their youth wasn't 'proper' church (like the one they'd joined) and so they'd kept on regardless!

We talked a bit more and the upshot is that they went away to think about it and a couple of weeks later visited a couple of outlets representing the denomination of their youth and found one that was nearer and more comfortable than their 'new' church. So they binned the new place and changed it for somewhere else - where they are still a member - that's Kingdom thinking - And  that is what we need:

Sing the praises of your church but don't diminish the Church by doing it!

The Mâitre d' might be good and if so, there's nothing wrong with telling people but it's all about Jesus and His people not the big fat movie star up the front.

The bread and wine might be good (we use a regimental port) but there's more to it than that!

The band might be able to play all the new stuff (and the old to tunes no one recognises) but it's about more than coming to see the show (well it should be - sometimes I wonder).

We come to worship the Father alongside the Son enabled by the power of the Spirit. We are not a personality cult (well not all of us) and we're not out to have our ears tickled by views that tell us everything we do is right (or that everything everyone else does is wrong either).

As long as that's what we're working for - then crack on and build the Kingdom.

So that's another 'NO' then and hopefully that has seen all the parts of the original question adequately answered.

Pax

Church or Parachurch?

It seems to me that some of the people I have engaged with today have a real struggle before them when it comes to the issue of 'Fresh Expressions' in that so many are labelled (by those outside) as parachurch rather than church. The question is, what makes for a valid expression of church?

Church, for me has to be Sacramental - this means:

Eucharistic - this is the reason that Church has continued to continue to exist because it met weekly to break break and drink from the Chalice.

Baptising - A super comment I heard on a course was, 'You can tell when a fresh expression's arrived as 'church' because it starts to baptise new believers!'

It also needs to be Proclamatory - which means they preach from the Bible, teach from the Bible, uphold Biblical principles and tell people why they are doing in, and in whose name, and that means Jesus gets mentioned - for it is in His name we go out to do the stuff.

The 'Parachurch Clubs' label is rather harsh and perhaps a little unkind but then again I find some telling me that Fresh Expressions and new forms of worship, understanding and being church are the only hope the Church has. The old traditional church stuff is strangling whatever growth there is and the clericalism of the past is nothing more than the clergy trying to maintain their monopoly and their veto on what would otherwise live.

The problems is that as rigid as the old structure is the new isn't for it presents a flimsy house built on little more than sand! The bricks might withstand the wind and the waves but they are emptying as the inhabitants grow old and die.

'Better to have a thriving parachurch than a dying established church,' said one person as they defended their new project, pointing to the people who were content to diminish in numbers as long as church could continue to be what they wanted it to be.

'Better to be faithful in our worship than be blown by every wind of change down at a coffee shop!' came the reply.

And you know what - they are both wrong and are equally right at the same time. The tattoos, piercing and all the trendy stuff mean as little as the grey hair, BCP services and traditional services when it comes to being a stumbling block, after all didn't Paul say that we must be all things to all men (except of course accommodating and accepting everything to the point of being permissive) and so this is surely a red herring.

And speaking of red herrings I was told last week that older people can't reach the young in the way that they, of course being young, can! so taking this to its logical outworking only black people can lead black people into faith, women likewise for women, redheads for redheads and so on. Wearing a clerical collar prevents us from being engaged in effective ministry with anyone under the age of thirty and unless you have a great worship band no one can really worship (which of course displays a paucity in the understanding of what liturgy is all about)!

We need to understand what being missionally minded and sacramentally sensitive is all about - after all it wasn't that long ago that I was taken to task because I wanted to see something billed as 'renewal' offered to the high church churches. Silly me, I had apparently forgotten that renewal was the sole property and right of a certain type of Christian!

We need to preach the Gospel in and out of season, in places where it is popular and unpopular and engaging with as many as we can to make it take root - bear fruit - be sustainable.

We need people who wear 'Pioneer' badges to encourage others to learn about what being 'missionally-minded' means and to encourage them to learn - there's a Mission Shaped Ministry' course somewhere near you (and if not, then there can be) - to be that person who works with others to build the Kingdom (note: This is dangerous because it might not mean building your piddling self-obsessed expression of church that you are so fixated with) of God.

So, pass this message on to the people you know - and don't know. bang the drums. Blow the trumpets. Bang dustbin lids together. Shout in your Chapter meetings and telephone your bishop and get people enthusiastic about sharing the Good News, making friends, winning family, plundering hell and populating heaven. Ring your Archdeacon and tell them to forget about the Common Purse (Parish Share) and remind them what the Kingdom of God is like (There's loads of those 'the Kingdom of God is like a .... ' stories in the Bible).

Who gives a monkeys whether clergy are pioneers or not - stop worrying about it and get pioneering!

Am I bothered that pioneer ministers aren't leading people to  the water and offering them one of those wonderfully happy Eucharistic 'Happy Meals'? Blinking right I am - stop making friends and start thinking about how you make disciples - numbers are great but only when they're counting the people who can say they're saved - all else is froth and folly!

Now you have to remember that all the words above come from someone who is the minister of 'a church in a phonebox' - yes that's right, a small church in an interesting estate in and challenging place in even more challenging times. I'm not clever or accomplished or any of the things that others around me are or will be - but I'm a member of a church that is full of wonderfully broken, flawed, failed and redeemed people and this is what it's all about.

Loving, sharing, giving and living together as people who know they're loved, forgiven and fit for purpose.

Now stop, take a look and tell me what you can see around you and  in the mirror - and then praise God, because you're loved, valuable, valid and ready for service too should you take a pace forward and volunteer.

Working Together is Kingdom thinking

One of the key elements in anything to do with Church growth is the making real the oft proclaimed desire of working together. The problem is that whilst this is a great idea in concept the minute anyone starts to do something in, near, or around someone else's patch the barricades appear.

Now, where I am, we are rather blessed with people who are into the Kingdom stuff and are looking at ways of working together. So far this year we have closed our church and taken the congregation to other places and the message it sends is worth its weight in banana chips - we are there to serve the people around us as one Church with many expressions of church.

Of course there are some who will go to great lengths to explain how they need to do this, that or the other because they don't get 'everything' paid for like we do ('we' in this case being Anglican of course). I've had this reported to me and seen it first hand so I know this to be true. The reality is that the active encouragement of transfer growth (AKA 'sheep stealing' if they're leaving you for somewhere else) from some does happen and although this makes people appear successful on the surface the harvest it reaps is poor and the growth short-lived.

When we do something in our church we need to ask who else we could be doing it with and then, having identified others we could act in partnership with, we do it: Or at least invite them because they might not be in the right place or time to come on board at that time - and if so we leave the door open for later. Where I am I am blessed to find myself in partnership with the local Methodist church and have shared ALPHA, and continue to share a joint house group, with them.

So if you're reading this please have a think about what opportunities there are for mission and ministry in the place where you are and then step back and ask yourself the all important question. Who can I do this with?' - for when you do you're not only opening the door to Kingdom thinking but opening up you and those who travel with you to be blessed and be a blessing.

And there's little to eclipse that reality is there?

Which Gospel are we reading from?

The Gospel of Christ or the gospel according to Excel?

Last week I met with someone from another diocese who I have known for some time and whose opinion and comments I trust. Their first words were, "What's happening here with the money thing?" I began to tell them about how we have been meeting to address a reduction in stipendiary clergy posts and the many meetings we, as clergy, have had. The hallmark of these meetings was the fact that we had looked at the challenge of meeting the needs of a growing population with less minister missionally rather than financially.

The reality is that we have to lose two posts incrementally by 2017 (the first of the posts will be lost in 2014).

We are looking at a church whose management principle is seeking to work on the almost Dario Fo like principle of 'can't pay - can't have'. This appears to mean that those churches which are to be found in Urban Priority Areas and seek to preach to those in urban settings and function as 'estate churches' are up the list when it comes to 'can't pay'!

My friend and colleague told me horror stories whereby those who were comfortable and could afford their clergy were safe but those (dare I say it, where the need is) find themselves in every way becoming the poor relations.

One of the key factors promoted by our bishop is generosity and yet it appears that although this might be the desire, the reality might be somewhat different.

So where are we going? Some of the indications are that churches will be led towards clergy as sessional workers. Others will find themselves in the position whereby they exist with non-stipendiary clergy, locally ordained ministers (something I have problems with) or House for Duty (whose days I fear may also be numbered) clergy. More still will fall back on the kindness of retired clergy (who are muzzled when the grain of occasional offices appears ;-( ).

The reality is that we are looking at doing things differently and this is not a bad idea. BUT (has to be one) when we start planning our future by Excel and the balance sheet rather than the Gospel I fear for us.

My colleague told me how the plans where they were looked at contracting and not growth and this has to be wrong. If we look to downsize we look to close our doors and leave the many unsaved to the mercy of God (perhaps universalists are right in that those who failed to tell might be covered by God's grace at our failings).

Lower clergy numbers can mean a stronger and enabled and released laity and from this a flourishing Church. It provides those who have criticised clergy for inactivity with the opportunity to be, themselves, active. Sadly I feel it might also lead to yet another drop in able clergy as we lower bars and turn towards a clericalism that weakens rather than strengthens - watch this space (for we are not finished with this issue)