Want a neo-Pagan/confused funeral?

Best go for a non-Christian (not actually sure it deserves the label 'humanist') service then!

Fancy a confused committal where the dearly departed is committed to Mother Earth and their spirit is set free to oblivion in the knowledge that because the people present will treasure their memories their life has found merit and meaning and they can rest safe in the knowledge that they lived for a purpose.

How's about being commended to 'all that is' and set free to be part of the whole realm of creation, tasking their part in the overall canvas of life and having the place they rest sanctified and hallowed to their memory for eternity?

The more I listen to people doing these services - especially the geezer what reads out cards, messages and emails as if it's a wedding - the more I wonder what some of these people are doing (other than making money out of the fact the customer knows nnnn 'Wasn't religious' so they offer something that is hopeless in oh so many ways!).

I am always surprised by the people who claim to have no faith and not be religious and the ways in which they cling to a hope of heaven, eternity and all that stuff. When I pointed out to one that what they'd delivered was the hope of Christianity coupled with some folklore and neo-confused pagan (ooooh, nature is so clever) tosh - the response was. 'Oh, but it gives them comfort to think there's more!'

Which is of course true but what I had before me was a snake oil salesman - offering hopelessness masquerading as hope and a terminal experience billed as something that with some confused continuance.

What makes it sadder is that some I have spoken to have told me how when the words, 'They weren't religious' are used by the person contracting the funeral then the potential for something 'humanist/non-religious' to be sourced is great. later though it transpires that this wasn't quite what the family might have wanted - they just didn't want to appear as if the deceased was an active Christian - and ended up with something quite different from that which they might have hoped for.

How very sad - and rather frustrating too :-(

Meat-Eating Vegetarians

Seems to be just one issue in the news at the moment after the Church of Scotland (CofS) voted, as one of their spokespersons put it, 'to uphold traditional views and support diversity'.

This appears, at more than first glance, to be akin to a Vegetarian Society approving and endorsing the eating of meat, the caveat being that each of the local groups must approve of one of theirs being a meat-eater. Not for them the understanding that they might have meat in their cupboards and 'fridges but were still keeping to the Veggie code as long as they never ate the stuff - now apparently, using the CofS it is now possible to uphold the 'non-meat' mantra of the vegetarian and partake of the hitherto forbidden fruit as well - excellent news as one can't beat a bacon sandwich in the morning!!

I am troubled because the wording in so many places speaks of 'affirming the traditional teaching of the church as favouring vegetarian ministers  yet permits local groups to select meat eaters in leadership roles should they wish'.

I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with the 'favouring' because I dislike the 'having favourites' mentality, it speaks of something unfair. Still, they continue:

'This has been one way or another, a massive vote for the peace and unity of the vegetarian community,' said a spokesperson, 'For here we have 'a compromise' and now vegetarians everywhere can live at peace in a 'mixed economy' - which oddly they always have done, it's called the world; a place where meat eaters, vegetarians, vegans, burger fans and others have always mingled on an 'whatever floats your boat' basis. There are two places - the world and the club and both live, think, feel and act differently from each other.

I asked a staunch veggie friend whether they could work in such a setting and they admit that whilst happy to live in a world where others make their choices, they choose to be a vegetarian and work on the theory that you either are, or are not, a vegetarian. 'You can't be a bit vegetarian, ' they said, 'But then again we live in the world where there are many choices, preferences and tastes. It's not like it's Church because they're not the world but in it, aren't they?' 

Interestingly they also said that they were really frustrated at people who claimed to be veggies and yet, in reality, weren't - 'The two are very different and it's not just about what we eat, it's about how we view things and see ourselves. If we had veggie clubs (which I don't think we do) then we would not be permitting people to eat meat within it because that's not what we believe! is right or healthy'

All very interesting stuff isn't it? Tofu or A Big Mac - if that was the choice I'd opt for tea and toast ;-)

Point Something posts and Work Quantification

A quick splurge which might just damage your brains:

This week has been one of those where, as I sit down and drink my tea before the day outside of the Vicar's palace begins, I realise has gone before I've managed to get through Monday's work! One of those weeks where the days have vanished and I can't recall what on earth I've done. And this fits in with a conversation I have had regarding looking at a parish (or district) with regard to workload and posts; and another relating to 'how much of a vicar' a post demands.

At the heart of the discussions were two strands of thinking. The first being:

'The church doesn't merit a full minister, it should be a point five post whereas another, bigger church, warrants a whole post.'

The second was this:

'If they can't pay for a full post then they need to realise that they can only have a 'point something' post!'

Now I'm going to be contentious in that I am of the opinion that some places will never be able to pay for a whole minister and yet the area in which the congregation is placed demands such; a situation where generosity, casting bread on the water and missional thinking converge and demand a right response.

I'm going to be inflammatory and say that some places, whilst they look like full post places (and can pay for same) don't always appear to have full-time ministers; big or flourishing does not necessarily mean an engaged and active minister (or even clergy).

Now I'm not saying that some of our clergy aren't pulling their weight but what I am saying is that when it comes to House For Duty (HfD) and 0.5 posts there reality is that they never are!

When we discussed this during the week I found that whilst I can't find enough hours in the week to get everything in that I need to do. Between schools, home communions and visits, meetings, services, funerals, drop-ins, sermons and all the other stuff, life is an exciting event.

One of the clerics I was chatting to came up with the solution, 'You're doing too much!'

Now we've thus far, managed to grow from within a Pastoral Worker, Pioneer Minister and Reader plus other active members of the congregation. We find some 85% of the congregation engaged in something and we really live out an all-member ministry (and it's growing) and we are engaged in the community around us. Not a success story in terms of numbers but we are adding (slowly) to the numbers and the relationships in the community are developing and my feeling is that we're doing too little - for we live in a place with needs and problems galore.

So I asked what I should stop. The answer was that we could have a healthy church and a knackered cleric or a cleric who took time away and came before God and took care of their own spiritual and recreational life and was healthy and had a church that was 'middle of the road'; and of course 'via media' is what we Anglicans do so well.

Now I haven't got an answer to this.

Perhaps I am a workaholic but I am also keen to see people take up tasks and roles in the church so that I can do, not less, but more in different places. Whatever I do I would love to pass over but the journey from pew to pulpit is long and happens in the timing of God and the individual - I will never push people but then again I will never say 'No' to those who wish to try something. The problem is to see it from through their eyes and they from mine!

Previous ministers in one of our HfD congregations have given as much as many full-post clergy and this has led to wrong expectations from the congregations when they have gone. They ask for HfD and expect seven days a week!. Not only that but we need to realise that even a relatively small congregation takes time to care for pastorally and more time to engage with the community and develop the relationship that might bring them into membership as believers; yet cutting according to the cloth we have is also real need.

The Church used to view it's missionary effectiveness in the shape of church plants and the many 'daughter churches' out there are a testimony to the commitment of others to bring the Gospel, and the presence of God's active people, into places where He was not perhaps to be found. These need to be managed and supported and end now, thought Fresh Expressions, continued with and this will take generosity from congregations who have (prayer, vision, people and money) and from diocesan staff whose job is not just to balance the books but to support a missional and engaged church.

I'll leave you with a thought from a colleague: 'I don't want to be Jesus for my parishioners  I'll leave that to Him - my job is to be right with God and after that comes the Church and the work it calls me to do. We must each look after ourselves first - even if it leave others struggling.'

Not sure I agree - and yet others in the conversation did - perhaps I'm just getting it wrong (I know there is a balance and yet I feel it tips towards those I pastor but  . . . . :-(  )

Discuss

Church Report (1): sets low standard - fails to achieve?

This year as I prepare to engage with churches who are seeking to be more effective (a contentious concept in itself) in terms of being church I have been thinking about how people measure 'good' church and what parameters people use. I'd like to consider the top two of these here today and they are interchangeable in their occupancy of the 'worst' consideration spot. So here goes:

Let's begin with numbers, something that is, and has been, the gold standard for many; and perhaps for always. For as long as I have been in church clergy have struggled to raise their ASA (Average Sunday Attendance) and diocesan staff, when visiting, asked the question, 'And what's your congregation size?' have underpinned the importance of numbers.

Of course, when pressed the response is that, 'Numbers don't matter as much as mission,' but that's only true until we come to the next of the parameters, which if (of course) money!

Money is never important (unless you don't have any that is) but if you can't pay you will soon hear someone utter the harsh words, ' . . then you can't have' somewhere in a conversation. All of this is most understandable because, at the end of the day, bills have to be paid and bank accounts have to be balanced and the need to 'cut one's coat according to one's cloth' is essential.

Now I'm sure I will offend or upset someone, somewhere, over what I am about to say (or perhaps already have by selecting numbers and money as areas of import) but I need to let the things running around my head escape lest the cause my bonce to explode!

Comfortable church
I have been in a number of churches where the congregation size was both comfortable and consistent and this meant that church just pottered on without needing to panic, especially because it was also financially comfortable, or seek to bring people in. This is the first mistake that many church members (including the clergy) seem to make for they assume we only need to grow the church when numbers, or ability to pay, become an issue (and of course the latter is a product of the former). Successful church is one that exists for itself is the message here.

Confused church
Another church model, spurred on perhaps by church growth champions, seeks to add to their number but doesn't have a clue why? They don't mention the Gospel and don't 'push' Jesus but work hard at getting people in and swelling their average congregation sizes. Some of those I met last year were doing stuff in the community but struggled to keep the words 'church, Jesus, Christian' and many other 'off putting' words off the billing. They didn't talk about Jesus, they didn't share their reason gor serving the community (which surely is simple - He came to be 'servant to all' and likewise so do we!).

Another group had been fired up by a visit from an expert who told them that they needed to grow their church. When I asked the ministry team what their core message and means were to be, the looked at me like I was from Mars (the planet, not the confectionary maker).  They were merely seeking to grow because that was what 'church was supposed to do'. As I outlined the process of presence ministry, development of relationships, bring people into a place where faith was made real, discipling and all the other stuff, they looked downcast. 'We were just looking to bring people in through events and fairs, not do all that,' moaned one of the team. Oddly, last time I spoke to the minister, they were still waiting to get started!

Skint church
There are many churches who would (or so it appears) be happy to pootle along being church for themselves but they (and oddly, it is always 'suddenly') find themselves faced with an inability to pay their bills and meet their commitments. The result is rarely a series of sermons and teaching on giving but a rallying of the troops to get out there and bring in more people so they in turn can bring in more money. I wish I could say that this is an isolated, far between, experience but this is probably one of the greatest spurs for a church to be 'seeking the lost'. Which brings me nicely on to the next category . .

Scalp church
No, not ministry for those challenged in the follicle department but those who see the role of church being that of 'winning scalps for Jesus'.  The positive side is that these folk preach the Gospel and do some fine teaching and often have good musicians too. The down side is that they tend to engage in 'transfer growth' (which is 'sheep stealing ' when the people joining them were once with you) techniques and much like David and the tale of the man who has many sheep but nicks the only sheep another has, these people exist for themselves rather than the wider body.

Now I'm sure some think that this is harsh but I have seen a number of churches where they able and active have been drawn away bu the bright lights, big names and the thrill of the 'bigger church'. This is probably one the most difficult outworking of the 'size really matters' fraternity for as much as one wants to celebrate big churches I find myself wonder what many have left to join and how many churches that would become effective if they were members they pass on the way to the 'Godfest International Gatherings'?

So there we are - a five minute splurge and as the old joke has it, 'I do feel a little better now!'

Let's hope I still do when I read it again later tonight.

Pax