Covid-19 and 2020: Opportunities and blessings (count yours)

How odd life can be - somehow this seems to have been one of the best years ever experienced for so many reasons. Stop to count your blessings; how many are there?

Here's my quick and messy starter with ten blessings:

1.   Stopped care homes but cared in homes.

2.   Took the Word of God (living and written) into peoples homes using technology
      (am I the only one to go, "Oooh, technology!" (in a Homer Simpson voice)?

3.   Got to stream funerals and be creative with way people are encouraged and supported to mourn.

4.   Did virtual military remembrance services (one two at the same time).

5.   Recorded and streamed some services (that said, we've done the majority live)
      This means that at last I can proved I can be in two places at the same time!

6.   Got to shop for people (which we're still doing), started supplying drugs (prescription only, honest
      Occifer).

7.   Had the challenge of three funerals in four locations in one day
      (one church, one burial, two different crematoria)

8.   Was part of pastorally-engaged and effective Church which put aside fees and catered for feelings
      of bereaved and brokenness of our communities.

9.   Managed to continually stream morning and evening prayer, compline, BCP evensong
      (Communion coming) and CW Communion and returned congregations back to buildings.

10. Entered into the world of 'virtual' care home visits where the cleric is passed from one resident to
      the next as they get to spend time with ,e.

The world has become so very different over the past few months - and I thing it is an invitation to blessing and service to me and others around me.

I'm sad at the loss,
                the fear,
                the lack of consideration for others as people fail to protect those around them

Church Growth strategies: 'Bringing in the children!'

We are looking to Stanley Hauerwas' for our underlying thought (challenge) as he says that:

'Church growth strategies are the death rattle of a church that has lost its way.'

Continuing to move on we find that today the bus stops at that most challenging of church growth areas: children. It's especially challenging because I find that a number of the people I encounter these days have come to the conclusion that the way to grow the Church is to somehow or other drag the 'next generation' into the church building and then by whatever means are available somehow turn them into Christians -  and there is something true here that begets something, in my opinion, quite awful.

Children have become the Philosopher's stone by which dead and leaden church becomes something golden.

I hear a variety of challenging comments with regard to people's churches and the situation surrounding the average age in them. In fact one place I know has so high an average age that the upper age for Sunday School must now fast approaching thirty! (if only they had anyone that young in the place!) 

Recently whilst in conversation with a bunch of lovely ladies who are members of a church that is looking to recruit a new Vicar. One of them reassured me that all would be well once the new cleric had been appointed (they hadn't actually advertised but I always applaud proactivity). I asked why they held the belief that the new incumbent would lead them into the promised land where numbers grew and the average age was reduced. Another summed it up quite succinctly with these words:

'Our church numbers are falling and there's no children or young people but that will all change once we've got a new Vicar!' 

All of them nodded their agreement for they were convinced that the new cleric, once appointed would arrive (having run past speeding trains and leaping tall buildings on the way) and would 'bring children in to church:'

Seems all they needed was:

I didn't have the heart to burst their balloons and stamp on their dreams and hopes :-(

The problem is that getting children in to Church is important but the problem is that we become so fixated on the issue of children that we lose sight of the scenery that surrounds them. we become so bound up with children as the 'future church' that we forget that they are also, very much, today's Church.

Much of the problem here lies in the fact that children aren't coming because parents aren't bringing them and so the key to 'bringing children in' is to bring in the people who bring children in!

Another part of the problem is that when we do manage to bring children in to church we work hard at stopping them from being engaged and functioning members of the body for rather  than include them in our church services we remove them from them as soon as we can. I wonder how many who read this post are in a church where they lose the children after the first hymn and have them return just before or during the Communion?

We engage in that time honoured travesty of Church that is the 'All-Age' service (or as it's known here : 'All-Age torture'. That ghastly place where we talk down to the children and think we're communicating to everyone present. Worse still are the places where the service has both a 'grown up' sermon and 'something for the children' - two opportunities taken to avoid any meaningful communication with the people groups present!

We need to look at messy Church - but as this has it's own spot I'll merely flag it up here and move on.

The problem is summed up by a colleague who moaned that even though they were working hard at making Church 'relevant, authentic and entertaining' they weren't keeping and of the children and young people who came through the doors.' Of course they weren't because they had to work at being such! The problem is that we need to actually have churches that are relevant, authentic and fun to be in, after all you can try hard and stick a pig in a dress but it's never going to win a beauty prize is it?

So here's the bottom line as I see it:

Stop pretending that your church is 'down with the kids' and stop thinking that we can only minister to the young if we use young people. All this tosh about only have a window of influence and efficacy with those ten years either side of our age is something we need to bin before we even start. Those most influential in my life were tens of years older than me and they were influential because they were truly kind, caring and interested. I wasn't a scalp but a developing friend who would one day, despite our age differences, become a peer (and in some cases their leader).

Stop using children in church as the hope for the Church and realise that it's Jesus, the Christ, who has that role (and label). Stop asking how many young people others have in church (and if you do, stop saying when you hear the answer, 'Oh, aren't you lucky!') and if you feel you really have to ask the question then find out how they came in and how the church relates to them and keeps them - be intelligent, not envious!

We need to realise that the young are smart and can see when you're putting on a show in order to 'win them for Christ' or lower your average age. They value honesty and can see through the faux friendship and the overrated welcome. Integrity and structure are the key factors here I reckons.

Recently I attended a service where there were about seven children in the congregation and the parents, being as bored as their young, were looking around and sighing and the thing progressed. The children were a little less refined and so played games, played up and fidgeted as time progressed. At last we were set free and one of the Wardens turned to me and, assuming the dog collar was a sign of being on the same side I guess, said, 'I hate it when people bring their kids into church, it really spoils the service for others!'

My response was, 'Not to worry, they probably won't come again.' And they Warden smiled and nodded and said, 'I hope not!' Later, whilst chatting to the cleric who had taken the service I looked sympathetically as they told me how they get families in but they rarely came back and moaned about increasing average ages of congregations and falling numbers. 'What we need to do is concentrate on getting children in,' they said, 'They're our only hope!

But the local kids were on the playing fields around the church, I saw them playing rugby and football and being taken out by their otherwise absent parent because it was 'their day for custody'. 

If we want to bring children into church we need to bring parents because they will bring them with them and when they do we need to make a place that's full on fun and full of integrity. A place where the children drag the parents back to rather than vice versa. It's great that grandparents bring their family's young, but that's timestamped and ephemeral - win the young parent who is starting out with the struggle that parenthood presents and be their friend and grow up, and into relationship, with them and their children and realise that Sunday has other challenges and attractions and look for the days and times when Church coming together becomes the main attraction and be it (honestly and openly).

It's not rocket science - it's not even clever! 

Church is the people who meet when they can in a place where they can because they want to meet - or we can tell them it has to be Sunday and our way!

Leader or Manager?

More and more I find myself taken up with people who want to be safe in their own little pool. They don't want to see the congregations grow because that would change things and make the place uncomfortable for them!

They don't want to see new buildings; and to be honest, neither do I unless the need is real and the members have the vision and drive to make it happen, after all the biggest curse I know of us that of a dogcollar building because they wanted it.

The issues, for me at least, are bound up in people who are wanting to be leaders. What this means is that they want to be in charge! I meet few leaders but many (poor) managers and though this sounds like a put down, it isn't meant to be, it is merely a statement of what is. This is due to the fact that we are so very often caught up in the business of running a business where 'doing' and 'being efficient' are the twin gods of success. I meet so many 'cost effective' clergy who present a bank balance approach to Church and it is here that the problem lies.

We are called to be 'effective', that is to be out there making a difference because of the difference that being Christian confers upon us. We are not called to be sustainable but to be fruitful and it is here that the problems of Church are grounded.

I have had some who want to be 'up the front' because that would fulfil their needs and yet, regardless of how fulfilled they never were, the people remained unconvinced by them and the fruit they produced. Oddly though, others who had neither education or wit or experience (life, Christianity and Bible related) have proved themselves to be willing and effective conduits for the Gospel (despite the often sneering opposition).

As June arrives our tiny church is blessed as we celebrate one of ours ordained this month - our gift to the wider Church. We celebrate as others move along the line to discern their calling and vocation, seeking to bless and serve those around them and to look like Jesus, the Christ.

We are looking to touch those members of the community we serve with the Gospel made flesh - the Church that is made of living stones, not self-seeking and process-heavy but seeking to honour and worship God in all that He is and does to, for and through us.

Recently I was asked for goals, objectives and timescales for a place I had seen for minutes and whose people I did not know (but warmed to immediately I met them) and this holds up  a mirror to the problems we have time and time again in the wonderful world of Church. We are a visionary place regulated by God's call and the vision that burns in us - not managers bound by good management techniques and effective processes (and I'm not saying we don't need them - it's all a matter of perspective and balance).

Those who fail to plan might well plan to fail but those who are bound by goals, objectives and timescales are condemned to manage decline and call it sustainability. I don't want to merely exist, I want the Church to triumph and expand. Anyone else ready to storm the gates with me?

Church Growth - Just keep throwing!

'If you want to see church growth then all you need to do is keep throwing stuff at the wall and see what sticks; and when it does, keep it going!'

The wise words of one 'church growth expert' (well, they'd got a couple of books on the shelf anyway!).

Just mentioned that in passing to a colleague and received the response, 'Well you know what sticks to walls don't you?' Apparently it also covers everything around it well if you have a fan for it to hit ;-)

The 'pearls before swine' vs 'casting our bread on the waters' post has stimulated some interesting (off screen) dialogue and I wondered just how many advocated trying different things until one worked and how they supported this stance in terms of the member's energy and commitment. The reason for asking this is that in my church life I have been around (and engaged in) some really marvellously epic failures. Things which were the pet project of people who were convinced, and convinced others, that whatever it was was necessary and destined for success.

And when it wasn't, rather than learn from their mistakes they'd rush off to start something else that was destined to succeed. I know a few clergy who swing from fad to fad in their desire to find the philosopher's stone that would transmute their congregation's feet of clay into wings of gold. And not only did it never happen but it was never going to because the biggest problem was them and their close-knit circle of supporters (or as one outsider called it, 'groupies').

I know I sound like someone who is out there quenching the Spirit but unless the LORD builds the house, we labour in vain. And yet labour we do until there are none left standing to try the next round of throwing stuff.

I am spiritual really (honest) but as much as I used to struggle with those who wanted to see plans and understand what we were trying to do (it was obvious - build the kingdom) I have to say that I understand what they were on about now.

We have tried a few things here and some have been a success and some haven't. Both winners and losers have needed to be reviewed (frequently) and modified (frequently) and some obviously have a sell by date whilst others clearly haven't really reached cruising altitude or speed yet!

My Dad used to tut, shake his head and mutter, 'Never throw good money after bad,' when things went wrong - perhaps we need to realise that keeping on throwing stuff is not the best policy - true some might succeed - but many will fail and weaken the troops and reduce the reserves.

If Jesus asked those who were to about to throw a stone to think of who they (and the target) were, what they were about to do, and why - Then I guess He'd think the same about those who were about to embark on a new project, church plant, Fresh Expression and the like.

So what's that in your hand and why is it there?

What you going to do with it?

Why are you going to throw it?

Church - Bothered?

You'd better believe it!

Found myself in amongst the poo this morning and as the shovel was pulled out of the 'This Is Church' toolkit I find myself confronted with the reason for the owner of the poo being in such dire straits: 'They didn't want to bother anyone!'

God looked at the earth and the way people turned each other over, unfairly making money from others, lying, cheating, stealing, getting into wrong relationships and generally damaging one another and He said to Himself: 'Now that's a bothersome sight, I think I need to get involved - better get down and dirty!'

The result of this, as few appear to know, is that He decides that something has to be done and that someone needs to stand in the gap and get their hands dirty! Jesus never stood in a pulpit and, looking over his glasses, preached about the ways that were open to us to get us out of the poo - not at all; Jesus jumped into the poo and started swimming to the exit calling on those also inturd to 'follow Him'. 

If there's something wrong in the neighbourhood, who you gonna call?

The Church

The Holy Ghost Busters!

What causes me to feel most saddened by the number of people caught in their own, or worse still, the sin of others is that they don't realise just how near they are to finding love, support and relief from their situations.

What hurts me more is that we don't appear to be telling them - for we are great at stating positions, drawing lines and looking holy; excellent at flower shows with their clever, twee and pretty arrangements; seasonally valid with our Christmas trees and entertaining with our choral events, fetes (worse than death) and the like but we don't tell them the stark truth about Church, and that is:

WE ARE HERE TO BE BOTHERED

And of course that means we are out there doing something about it .

We are out there bringing the reality of God's love to those in need.

No mere words - only strong, firm and convicted actions.

We carry our cross - denying ourselves and being willing, like Simon of Cyrene, to help carry other's too!

Lent - more than giving up chocolate

Christian  - more than mere words alone

Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfil the law of Christ. Galatians 6:2

What Makes church valid? (post the third)

Over the past years I have continually been assailed by some whose key indicator of a church's validity has been the ability to pay. That same old same old assessment that:

Those who can pay can have - those who cannot pay cannot have!

And I have never disputed that we all need to pay our way and make ends meet but I have said, on many an occasion, that there are also charity, mission and the impact of that congregation under the microscope on the people and community it was established to serve.

All too often we (the Church) appear to be more taken up with numbers than we are the Gospel and making it known. 

Whenever clergy meet other clergy or encounter those from 'head office' it appears almost mandatory that the question, 'And what's your ASA or how many do you have in your church?' will arise.

All too often I meet with people who want to look at a Mission Action Plans (MAPs) or get their church into mission with the prime mover eventually coming down to numbers rather than a desire to be effective. Now I don't care what gets the church moving as long as it gets moving, but we have a Gospel to proclaim (a good opening for a song there I reckon) and when we focus on numbers we struggle to focus on Jesus, the cross and restoration of relationship with God - and that's what is central, not numbers (unless you're thinking of how many times we are forgiven and likewise forgive).

That said I do have to (quite hypocritically perhaps) have to admit that there are some numbers that I think do matter; one of these being the percentage of a church's congregation that is effective and engaged. My reason for placing import here is that the those who are 'doing' are also (usually) 'owning' what is happening and the only way we will make our message real and known is by a real 'all member ministry' model. I don't mean those who are directed and treated as drones but those who do what they do in partnership with others. Where the whole body is connected to the next member and the whole acts in concord with the individual. (1 Cor 12: 'Now the body is not made up of one part but of many.' springs to mind)

This is one of the elements that makes church (and Church) valid and leads to perhaps the first part of the definition I am seeking to create:

A truly active all-member ministry where the person with the ultimate responsibility is primus inter pares (first among equals) rather than the monarch (despotic or benign)  which seeks to celebrate Christ in the midst and make Him known outside of the body.

Pax

ps. Thank You for the comments and emails I have received regarding the 'valid church' posts - extremely helpful and for those whose pain I both understand and feel - be assured of my prayers)

What makes church valid? post the first

An interesting discussion on the question 'what makes a church valid' soon stretched into what makes a service valid too.

After all, if you put on an evening service and you get six or seven people turn up for it, is this an effective use of the clergy's time?

Does the fact that those who come would not have come to a church service had the evening service not been on offer suddenly make it valid?

What about the same service with only four turning up, where does the line get drawn and how long is it before we perhaps consider the example from the Old Testament (Gen 18: 16 - 33) and find ourselves pleading for our services in the same way that Abraham pleaded before the LORD for the inhabitants of Sodom:

When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?  Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”
Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know. The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord.

Then Abraham approached him and said: 
“Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing - to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”
“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”
He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”
He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”
He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”
He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

So can we take from this passage some guidance? Do we decide that 'valid' church has to have more than ten in a service?

Do we look at fifty (midi church) as the number that renders a congregation, fellowship or church as valid?

Do we take one hundred (large church) as the critical mass (sorry not knocking high church here, honest!) and the number that confers validity, efficacy and sustainability?

I know of a person for whom, in my view, the existence of a church service is made valid because they cannot do morning services and because there is an evening service provided they can remain part of Church and come alongside others to worship. The fellowship, the provision and the ability to come before the Lord in a church setting all conspire to make this a valid service.

But what of those buildings which see but a handful for their evensongs, should we decide that they are 'no longer to be tolerated' after all, if we stop these services we can stay at home and watch 'Downturn Alley' and the like. To quote a colleague, 'They don't want to come out and I'm happy to let them!"

Are numbers the deciding factor?

Are we merely becoming lazy or downhearted when we resign ourselves to the fact that once of a Sunday (and in the morning) is enough?

Church - How do you like yours (and why and what and how and who and . . . )

How many do we need in a place before we can save it and those within I wonder?

Care: Mental, Social and others - CHAMPIONS

I would just like to set the record straight regarding what I feel about those who provide care for those who suffer from various needs of the mental, social, housing, medical and benefits kind. For those who devote their lives to addressing the needs of those with problems I have nothing but respect and admiration. I chance across many who are committed to their role and see them struggle against decreasing budgets, diminishing staff numbers, increased workloads and restrictions that would make a saint swear like an East End docker and they deserve, no demand, applause and respect by the bucket load.

BUT (has to be a but) to reflect on 2013's experience to date:

I have seen first hand those people who make decisions long before they've engaged with their client and the reason for this has nothing to do with proper or effective care. The reason is merely a desire to make the problem go away. The reason for this is the fact that they are no longer doing what they joined up to do (and most of the social workers did join to make a difference) but are merely pumping out the clients in an effort to keep their own heads above water. The need to rationalise their own jobs means that many who are client-facing are no longer proving care but merely attempting to contain things.

I happened across a case where someone was presenting serious mental health issues but when one of the family called their local unit for help they were told that they'd been 're-diagnosed' and so they were no longer on the unit's list. 'But they are a danger to others and themselves,' pleaded the family member. 'In that case here's the other team's duty crisis number,' said the voice on the other end. The number duly given, they hung up. Worse than useless as the number they were given turned out to have been changed last year! By the time they found someone from the 'right' team the person with problems had been picked up by the police (who could do nothing but bring them home to be a problem to the family and not the community - not a knock at the police, they had no power to do anything else as the local team wouldn't come out!).

I found a child who had been removed and placed for adoption before conditions such as getting support and undertaking training had even been started. 'Best for the child'? I hope so because it looked like it was simpler for the caseworker and the team involved from where I stood. Another example of what might well be poor outcomes coming about because it required less effort and energy from those who are supposed to be supportive and caring.

Another case meant I found myself coming into contact with involved someone about to be made homeless with their partner and children. There were health issues and yet when they went to their local housing people they were told that they were at the very bottom of the pile because one of the couple had some income from a part-time job. The answer? They were made 'redundant' by the person they did five hours for and now at least they are moving up the list. Not so the person who left the army and was told that they 'were someone else's problem as they'd lived in married quarters in the SW and so were that council's problem!' Of course the rules regarding priority (mental and other health issues, released from prison, left the armed forces) are rarely considered because of the 'yes/no' game that many play to mitigate their workload and protect a non-existent social housing stock (yes - it's great selling houses to people but the money should have built new social housing stock!!!).

A plea to my clergy colleagues regarding the creation of 'Champions' in their congregations:

Build up a group of local 'champions'. People who can become experts (or at least be informed) regarding the various areas of need, which I suggest are, as a minimum:

1. Mental Health - one of the greatest and least addressed needs that face us.
2. Housing - Not just homelessness, because many who are housed will soon be homeless unless they find champions.
3. Debt - Debt coaching courses and support are essential parts of the pastoral care role of Church and yet, amazingly, few are equipped to come alongside and engage with it!
4. Family Issues - Yes, I know we do this as pastoral care but we need to know the law and the ways of protecting people at risk and we need to do it intelligently.
5. Old Age - one of the areas where provision is being withdrawn and where, even though people think the 'old' are always complaining, little is said as services disappear.
6. Addiction - and not just drugs and alcohol. It's amazing how sex and gambling often fall below the radar and how compulsive spending and other issues just don't feature at all.
7. Relationship and Reconciliation - can cover so many areas from providing a neutral place for engagement through to training and counselling
8. Health Issues - and this can include preparation for death, palliative and bereavement issues (including how to fund a funeral when the bereaved have no money!).

Eight areas which I reckon takes at least ten to twelve people to engage with if a church is going to offer support to the community outside (and within) its walls. It needs coordinators and someone who will keep the minister in the loop without making them the sole point  of contact.

When I have broached this with some clergy the response has been, 'Well that's what CAb and others are there for!" And indeed they are but I have to ask whether or not we have given up our pastoral birthright for a mess of 'other agencies' potage and I fear that the answer is 'Yes!'.

So feel feel to disagree (or add areas that you feel I've missed) but if you've read this then take it back to the church or team and see who and what you have to meet the needs for as money becomes even more tight the services will feel even more of the squeeze and clients less of the care and support.

Pax