Another bugbear as I begin a new term and with it a new regime of not letting people stand in my way (always the same since I was in the first year at school - new books, new start and a determination to see homework done and handed in on time - book looked like rag in weeks and homework still always last minute :-) ) and stop Church growing and doing because it is comfortable.
I am meeting more and more people who fall into one of three groups, the most frustrating of these being 'maintenance church'. (i'll tell you about the other two later - promise!).
Now these people are in a church where the congregation stays pretty static. People leave and people arrive and they are comfortable in terms of numbers and (even with the recession) giving. These are the churches that the Pharisees within the church structures love to see for they are not declining and, better still, they are paying their way. The former is a product of the place rather than the minister or pastor and the latter, in these days whereby the mantra, "Can't pay - Can't have!", make these the talisman churches.
The problem is that those who are maintaining are planning on decline as the time comes when an older critical mass reaches the time to check out. Explaining this to a minister I was met with the response that by the time that happened they'd have moved on and so it wouldn't be their problem. This, I think, is a symptom (and the cause) of many of the problems we are facing and the creation of a terrible legacy for our nation too!
A church member once told me that we needed to be doing more for the members of the church and less outside with the people who don't come. Now this YIMBY (Yes in my back yard) was concerned with their needs and the things that served them. They didn't want to go out and do and (to my knowledge) never have regardless of where they were! This is a different situation (but still needs addressing) BUT
We need churches to be engaged with their community, for this is who we are called to serve, and to engage with people outside the church building by taking the Gospel, this means going because of Christ and telling others about His love, especially if your church is stable and the parish share isn't a struggle. And if you have enough to pay your way - how's about looking at those around you who can't and help them - one day it might be the other way around (2Cor 8:13 - 15):
"Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: “He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.”
A stable church, especially those which are historically comfortable, needs to plan for the times when the famine comes a knocking. Getting out and doing is something that we must all do (in Jesus' name) and not something that is done (like evangelism) when the Parish Share needs a paying?
We need missional churches and missional leaders and enabled members who are trained, equipped and released to do the job and if your minister isn't doing that then you'd better tell them that they're planning for a new career some time soon!
As for who cares? Well I do, because a stable church is a great place to build from!
Showing posts with label maintenance church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label maintenance church. Show all posts
Tuesday, 28 August 2012
Wednesday, 8 February 2012
House for Duty
The subject of 'House for Duty' (HfD) raised it's head again during a discussion this week and I have a few, fuzzy, thoughts developing.
The first is that they should surely be something of a temporary nature rather than a long-term strategy. My reason for thinking this is that many of those so engaged in such a work are generally engaged in keeping lights on and a dogcollar in the vicarage. This isn't meant to denigrate the work of the HfD priest and in fact I am a great supporter of them, but I haven't come across many missional members of this fraternity, they are generally very much a maintenance model. Considering that the role asks for Sunday and two other days what more could be expected. That many give as much as a full-time minister is a mark of their commitment and their call(God bless them richly).
My next area of thinking is who should be doing the role? This question came to the fore after I met a really lovely vicar type who was in an HfD role and during our conversation told me of their 'own home' and how they'd rented it out until the licence ended and they 'retired properly'. You see I've always thought of HfD being something that enabled those clergy without their own home to continue in a less strenuous place and in return find themselves in a home. My thinking here is that perhaps HfD should be restricted to those who don't have their own home (mind you I know of a minister whose other half had a home and this goes to show that there's always additional considerations). I guess I'd also struggle with NSM ministers who have a home and yet see this as a ministry opportunity or an opportunity to have cake and eat it in terms of housing provision and possession of a home too. Not sure if this is a reality but it is a potential happening.
The next thought is that of wondering how many? How many HfD vacancies / posts are there and how many are offering themselves for such a role? If you can't get such a post filled what's the alternative? Where I am we have an absolutely great minister covering the HfD post and the lightness of touch and the joy that they bring, coupled with the fact that they live in their own home makes the issue of losing such a post a real possibility, especially in the light of 'sustainability' discussions and the prospect of relieving deaneries of 0.2 of a post cheaply (and then of course, how long before some smart person realises that this releases housing stock and brings in much needed cash as another silver spoon is sold from the set?
Of course the retired but in HfD post clergy are able to claim the fees for themselves (with some diocesan types thinking how nice it would be to retain some percentage for the coffers) but the Non-stipendiary clergy cannot do this, which makes an NSM appointment more attractive.
So, a number of questions and considerations and within it the problematic area whereby so many NSMs tell me that they feel unloved and might see this as adding to the lack of love. I applaud and respect the NSM role but stop short at the delineation made by one who (with a straight face and seriously) that they (NSMs), "Loved the church more than stipendiaries because they gave their time to the church for free whilst stipendiaries took money." I had to reply, "And work whether they choose to or not, which is not the case for the NSM." (this was just after the comment had been passed that, "Evening meetings were OK for the stipendiaries but NSMs had to work during the day as well!" Suicidal tendencies or what? :-) )
So please don't see this as a knock at NSM, Stipendiary, retired or whatever - it is an honest attempt to dialogue with an issue that needs to be grappled with for leaving a church as a perennial HfD post is missionally wrong and yet the HfD role is a fantastic opportunity for a time to catch breath, consider centres of residence (and rural imperatives) and imagine the church of the future facilitated and touching where it needs to be with the realisation that a church in every Parish will always be a reality, but it will be of living stones and may not have a vicar in a vicarage.
Clear challenges and obvious opportunities in something that is a high inertial load.
Please read this for what is written and do not assume that I am looking to deny or pull down any minister or type of ministry (unless you want a discussion on Locally Ordained Ministers that is!!)
Pax
The first is that they should surely be something of a temporary nature rather than a long-term strategy. My reason for thinking this is that many of those so engaged in such a work are generally engaged in keeping lights on and a dogcollar in the vicarage. This isn't meant to denigrate the work of the HfD priest and in fact I am a great supporter of them, but I haven't come across many missional members of this fraternity, they are generally very much a maintenance model. Considering that the role asks for Sunday and two other days what more could be expected. That many give as much as a full-time minister is a mark of their commitment and their call(God bless them richly).
My next area of thinking is who should be doing the role? This question came to the fore after I met a really lovely vicar type who was in an HfD role and during our conversation told me of their 'own home' and how they'd rented it out until the licence ended and they 'retired properly'. You see I've always thought of HfD being something that enabled those clergy without their own home to continue in a less strenuous place and in return find themselves in a home. My thinking here is that perhaps HfD should be restricted to those who don't have their own home (mind you I know of a minister whose other half had a home and this goes to show that there's always additional considerations). I guess I'd also struggle with NSM ministers who have a home and yet see this as a ministry opportunity or an opportunity to have cake and eat it in terms of housing provision and possession of a home too. Not sure if this is a reality but it is a potential happening.
The next thought is that of wondering how many? How many HfD vacancies / posts are there and how many are offering themselves for such a role? If you can't get such a post filled what's the alternative? Where I am we have an absolutely great minister covering the HfD post and the lightness of touch and the joy that they bring, coupled with the fact that they live in their own home makes the issue of losing such a post a real possibility, especially in the light of 'sustainability' discussions and the prospect of relieving deaneries of 0.2 of a post cheaply (and then of course, how long before some smart person realises that this releases housing stock and brings in much needed cash as another silver spoon is sold from the set?
Of course the retired but in HfD post clergy are able to claim the fees for themselves (with some diocesan types thinking how nice it would be to retain some percentage for the coffers) but the Non-stipendiary clergy cannot do this, which makes an NSM appointment more attractive.
So, a number of questions and considerations and within it the problematic area whereby so many NSMs tell me that they feel unloved and might see this as adding to the lack of love. I applaud and respect the NSM role but stop short at the delineation made by one who (with a straight face and seriously) that they (NSMs), "Loved the church more than stipendiaries because they gave their time to the church for free whilst stipendiaries took money." I had to reply, "And work whether they choose to or not, which is not the case for the NSM." (this was just after the comment had been passed that, "Evening meetings were OK for the stipendiaries but NSMs had to work during the day as well!" Suicidal tendencies or what? :-) )
So please don't see this as a knock at NSM, Stipendiary, retired or whatever - it is an honest attempt to dialogue with an issue that needs to be grappled with for leaving a church as a perennial HfD post is missionally wrong and yet the HfD role is a fantastic opportunity for a time to catch breath, consider centres of residence (and rural imperatives) and imagine the church of the future facilitated and touching where it needs to be with the realisation that a church in every Parish will always be a reality, but it will be of living stones and may not have a vicar in a vicarage.
Clear challenges and obvious opportunities in something that is a high inertial load.
Please read this for what is written and do not assume that I am looking to deny or pull down any minister or type of ministry (unless you want a discussion on Locally Ordained Ministers that is!!)
Pax
As Mrs Vicarage went to blow out the gas lamp
she thought that this wasn't quite what he thought the bishop meant
when he said that their new HfD post was intense!
Thursday, 12 January 2012
Static church
Following on from the four state diagram of church based upon the two parameters of 'Resource' (Spiritual health, People, networks, building, equipment, money, etc.) and 'Mission' (Going into all the world, making disciples, being Christ to the world - taking Christ to the world.), I thought it might be helpful to consider each of the fours states of 'being church' that exist, beginning with 'Static Church'.
In the two parameter (MR - Mission and resource) model a static church is one that has enough money to pay its way and generally exists for those within its walls rather than outside. Traditionally churches like these will continue to potter comfortably along doing as it always has and attracting new members who usually come into an area from a church which is similar. A conversation with a static church member told me that the people did church as they wanted and because they paid their share and kept well below the radar (after if there's nothing to shout about, good or bad, then people tend not to notice you) they were generally left to their own devices.
The church did everything it always did, Fairs and Fetes, Harvest Supper, Candlelit Carols, Beetle Drives (is that something to do with farming?) and all the other stuff that made church the place to be when the members were kids all still happened. There was a choir with an organ and nowhere was there a guitar to be found. It was fifties church made possible today - a sort of Beamish Museum for the Anglicans!
The members assumed that because they paid and maintained their numbers they were a successful church and you know what, I don't think they were wrong! There is something to be said for maintenance in places where mission isn't anything other than a nice concept, after all the community was pretty static and the nature of the place was such that those moving in, when homes became available, were pretty much the same people. The problem will come when those who start moving in to the area are dechurched or unchurched and fresh stocks to replenish the pews diminish. The sudden awareness that mission is needed to pay the share and fill the pews is more than just a culture shock (as some of those with whom I engage are beginning to find)!
So if you're in a static church why not start to look at how you might add a missional element into what being church is for those around you? It's what we are called to be and it's much easier to start the ball rolling in an environment that is relaxed and working to its own agenda than to trying to engage in looking outwards when you find you can't pay your bills and the share is looking unpayable.
Pax
In the two parameter (MR - Mission and resource) model a static church is one that has enough money to pay its way and generally exists for those within its walls rather than outside. Traditionally churches like these will continue to potter comfortably along doing as it always has and attracting new members who usually come into an area from a church which is similar. A conversation with a static church member told me that the people did church as they wanted and because they paid their share and kept well below the radar (after if there's nothing to shout about, good or bad, then people tend not to notice you) they were generally left to their own devices.
The church did everything it always did, Fairs and Fetes, Harvest Supper, Candlelit Carols, Beetle Drives (is that something to do with farming?) and all the other stuff that made church the place to be when the members were kids all still happened. There was a choir with an organ and nowhere was there a guitar to be found. It was fifties church made possible today - a sort of Beamish Museum for the Anglicans!
The members assumed that because they paid and maintained their numbers they were a successful church and you know what, I don't think they were wrong! There is something to be said for maintenance in places where mission isn't anything other than a nice concept, after all the community was pretty static and the nature of the place was such that those moving in, when homes became available, were pretty much the same people. The problem will come when those who start moving in to the area are dechurched or unchurched and fresh stocks to replenish the pews diminish. The sudden awareness that mission is needed to pay the share and fill the pews is more than just a culture shock (as some of those with whom I engage are beginning to find)!
So if you're in a static church why not start to look at how you might add a missional element into what being church is for those around you? It's what we are called to be and it's much easier to start the ball rolling in an environment that is relaxed and working to its own agenda than to trying to engage in looking outwards when you find you can't pay your bills and the share is looking unpayable.
Pax
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)