Hallowe'en and Pumpkins in Church?

The first response to this from any of those I know would have been, 'No Way!' and yet, I'd like to perhaps persuade you to change your mind on this for a very good reason:

A project from World Vision, looking to raise money for children in some of 'the world's hardest places' has challenged me to change my own view on the outside bits of the pumpkin (I will have already eaten the contents in one of the other half's wonderful pies!) and encourage others to do likewise. 

But I will let them speak for themselves:

  

'This Halloween – and every night – millions of children face a night of fear. It isn't fun or exciting and it isn't a choice for one night. 31 October is simply another night of facing hardship, loneliness, abuse, hunger or conflict.

World Vision is in the world’s hardest places tonight and every night. Right now, we are comforting children as they wake from nightmares of abuse, helping girls and boys forced into marriage or hard labour and protecting children fleeing bombs and disasters.

By carving a heart in your pumpkin and texting HEART to 70060 to donate £5 you will be showing you care and help us to bring hope to even more children.'

Click on the 'World Vision' link and take a look - perhaps use the stories or the video in one of the services or meetings you do?  And of course, you can always make one for your own home - eat the pie, carve the pumpkin and send the money (the important bit in this scenario) :-)

But I still don't do light parties ;-)

Sophia and the 'Pink Church' - the opening shots!

A friend has asked me about 'Sophia' as they are struggling with friends who are seeking to redress the  'male dominated theology and language' of Church and society.

I often find myself rather frustrated when certain friends talk of the male domination that is Church especially when they descend into talk or 'rights, positive discrimination and redressing the errors of the past!' One of the biggest issues I encounter is the increasingly 'Pink Church' - that place which, as one clerical colleague put it, 'Seeks to undo all the misogyny of the past two thousand years!' (something for another day)

We need to be affirming all people and to be a truly inclusive entity and yet, as the tide turns, this is not the reality and I think we might be in danger of entering into something that might be somewhat terminal.

But back to the 'Sophia' issue:

Whilst at college I had many conversations with a feminist who asked why she should be expected to be celebrating God as man. Her position (in a nutshell) was: 'I am woman, what does Jesus 'the man' have to do with me and what does he know of my experience?'

She was heavily taken up by three main themes:
i. God as 'She'  (but if pressed would retreat to 'He, She or It')

ii. Sophia as a remedy to the 'God is male 'heresy

iii. A female Apostle by the name of Junia (whose name had been diminished by other apostles to oppress women).

It is the Sophia issue that is the focus of today's perambulations - it's an opening shot in the discussion and will be followed by some Bible references and related material later (for I think we often fail to establish concepts and points of agreement before we rush into what is often mere prooftexting):

I know 'Sophia' is Greek for wisdom but rather than being an actual person have seen this to be an anthropomorphic construct. War is male, beauty and wisdom are female - trains, cars and planes are 'she' - you know what I mean I'm sure!

Thinking of the female names we have with such roots: Grace, Chastity, Patience, etc. I find many confuse this, giving it the attribute of personhood and this is what I have found with Sophia. For it appears than many are so keen to have something upon which they can hang their argument and pin their hopes that their theology, and thinking, is rather slipshod and shoddy (now that's an invitation to a fight I'm sure). What makes challenging the views dangerous is the fact that any challenge is often met with the ad hominem that is 'sexist' or 'misogynist' rather than a robust and tight response.

I am of the opinion that the Sophia route is not only fraught with danger but leads those who embrace it into a place where the Wisdom literature is corrupted, bringing into being a new deity and denying the sex of Jesus, the Christ, the incarnate man. It is not a remedy for those who who claim that a male Trinity is offensive, divisive and even cruel for those who struggle with fathers or males but a denial of something important.

I have been challenged by many who bring cases of women who were damaged by men as evidence that we need to rethink God as a women to make the God character acceptable to them. The problem is that this is a wrong position to be taking for the issue is not how to compensate or impart some divine CBT (where coping mechanism and accommodation are sought) but to seek healing and wholeness in person and Church too! One (feminist) lecturer of mine once followed an extremely misandrist comment with the coup de grâce*, 'After all, all men are potential rapists!' Me, being me, and always up for a conversation added, 'And of course, conversely, all women are potential whores!'

Now although I thought that levelled the scores, the head of department cautioned me for 'sexist language' and discounted the lecturers comments with, 'Well that's who she is!' Now tell me that that wasn't a prime example of sexual inequality :-) !!!!

And back on track.

As we look at this area, of which I know absolutely nothing, I'd love people to point me to the bits they know and observations from their own experience and theology. My premise it that God embodies both male and female and that changing the gender to accomodate issues with the male changes neither sex (for gender is not 'sex' - sex is biological, gender is sociological and not transferable, unless you have an agenda!). we need to seek unity, equality and inclusivity and this demands healing, wholeness and orthodox thinking - all else is error.

Looking forward to this (gulp)

* perhaps that should have been  coup de main :-)

Pew-Fodder, Brothers or Liabilities?

I was, once again, greatly taken up by Charles Simeon and the fact that he saw those who went out and did the stuff as brothers rather than his Curates or clergy. The problem is that as we (the Church) progress (in a temporal sense) we appear also to be diminishing in a number of areas and you know what? I think I know why ... Our problems coalesce into the sadness that is 'Sustainability' - that awful word which translates into a desperate attempt to cut our cloth according to our means and is in reality a contraction of Church as we read from the Book of spreadsheets!

If we look at what we can afford we will never have a thriving Church because we start off at square one but limiting that which we, and therefore by inference God, can do. We decide that church (here meaning 'local' body of believers) cannot afford to have ........ and therefore we see to it that they don't have it. And then we bemoan the fact that numbers dwindle and congratulate ourselves on our shrewd management skills in that we identified their weaknesses long before anyone else!

Of course we will never know whether our actions brought what might have been an otherwise stable structure tumbling or merely made the right decisions. How clever we are in that we have used sound management techniques and good fiscal management to build the Church. But then again, we're not building it are we?

One of the wonderful expressions the Bible has given the English language is that of 'casting our bread upon the waters' - stunning words from Ecclesiastes 11 that mean ... Mean what exactly? Let's have a bit of a think:

'Cast your bread upon the water, and you will find it.'

Chucking your Hovis onto the water is a sure path to having inedible bread. Of course it might be a reference to feeding ducks or have as its source the wisdom of an early Jewish Baker! So what does it mean?

It means that if you use what you have generously with those who might not, on the surface, appear to have a cat in Hell's chance of repaying you then it will reap volumes in returns! God tells us that we are to build the Kingdom of heaven, not become financially astute businessmen and women. Now this doesn't mean that we are to be profligate or foolhardy either - but we live to different rules and dance to a different tune!

Our church members are family, not independent revenue streams.

Our churches are family gatherings, not 'cashpoints'.

We are called to be courageous and missionally-minded  and this means believing in the product we market. After all, if any business behaved as we do as Church none of us would be at all surprised when they folded.

If you want to be successful then you need to have a good product - we do!

If you want to be successful then you need a great sales team - generally we don't!

If  you want to be successful then you need product placement - our sales force hide it!

If you want to be successful then you have outlets that are welcoming, attractive and you have plenty of them!

I think one of the big problems is that we are trying to build and maintain Church as if we are businessmen and we're not - we're Saints! We are risk averse where God is calling us to be risk takers. Leaders see their church members as pew-fodder whilst they, in return, see themselves as anything other than the sales team and this makes them liabilities!

We need to break the circle and see them as brothers (and sisters) and one of the easy ways of doing this is to grab them - even if it means one-at-a-time,  and take them out and teach them to witness, to share and be part of the marketing g team God calls them to be. We need to live as exemplars and drag them with us - encouraging them to 'do as we do' - and then WE ARE BROTHERS.

What's that Reverend? You do t do that?

Balancing the books is something you might be applauded for doing - winning the lost, discipling them and sharing with them in the missional calling we have - now that Prophetic and profitable ;-)

Your choice my friends - where you going to lay up your treasures?

But are there different styles of evangelism?

The question has been asked:

'But are there different styles of evangelism? Can we preach the Good News and still respect other faiths? 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?'

And I think the three questions that form the whole are rather good - and make for some potentially interesting dialogue. So with that said let's try it for size beginning with part the first:

'But are there different styles of evangelism? 
The simple answer to this is, of course, 'Yes' or perhaps 'No'.  But that would be too simple wouldn't it? After all there are styles and methods and there are reasons (theological, cultural and personal) that might support either and, or, both positions.

It's a bit like saying, 'I fancy a curry.' A curry is a curry - full stop, but then the question is what sort: Mild, sweet, spicy, coconut, creamy, chocolate (a plug for tamworth's 'Champagne' Indian restaurant) - all fit the description 'curry' but there's so many of them!!!!

So if 'Evangelism is just telling people about Jesus' we're OK - there's just evangelism: But if, like curries there are flavours, temperatures and tastes to be considered, where do we find ourselves? Some will say that all there is is proclamation and everything else is false. It's a bit like the person who asked, "when you you convert them?' The key is that we don't 'convert them' but we bring them into a place where they can hear and having heard, discover Jesus, the Christ, for themselves.

Now some would say that the only way to do evangelism (and there's only ONE way) is to do it as they did it in the Bible - but of course those who make that statement are rarely seen opening blind eyes which see the lame walk and enjoy the deaf hearing the dumb sing. No, sadly what we find is minds that are closed, ears that see nothing except that which they wish to see and ears that are deaf to all but their own errors. There is one Lord but there are many different ways to evangelise - the consistency being who it is that we preach and proclaim and live and move in!

Let's start with the milder variants and progress up the scale shall we? Here's the forms of evangelism that I can pull out from the top of my head (bet there's many others I will forget) beginning with what I know of as 'relational evangelism':

Friendship Evangelism was a real buzz some twenty of years back. I was friends at that time with Leonard Albert, a champion of 'friendship evangelism' , who made it both attractive and demonstrated it to be an effective form of spreading the word. What this form of evangelism basically did was bring people into relationship with Christian and gave them the opportunity to share Jesus by lifestyle and proclamation (but not preaching at). Now some churches, groups and bodies (like CARM) reckon this is the means to hell in that it births heretics and syncretic Christians, the reason for this being that those who engage with this sort of evangelism preach a watered down gospel for fear of rejection.

Now whilst I can sympathise with this viewpoint, I have to say that it's a flawed and negative assessment on something that can prove to be an effective form of sharing the Gospel and in bringing others into the Christian family. The problem is that this, like 'Servant Evangelism' which follows is open to people who just end up 'being nice' and becoming friends and/or well-received and thinking that this is enough. Mind you, these are probably the same people who think that it's enough to bring people to church - another great heresy to which many subscribe. The other issue is that it can all feel a little false and cynical - sort of getting into relationship with people to bring them as a scalp to church. But if you become friends with people because you've really become friends with them and you, your faith and the way you live it is an advert for it - then who can say anything but 'Hallelujah!' ?

Servant Evangelism is like Friendship Evangelism in that it involves Christians engaging with people and 'doing stuff' for them or the community, but this form of evangelism can (in my humble opinion) become a little cynical in that some end up doing stuff to get the kudos (albeit ostensibly for God) or (equally bad) doing stuff without sharing the fact that they are doing it because they are Christian. I know of one such group down on the South coast who do some great work but neither use the name of jesus or share their faith - this is not evangelism, it's social action (which is cool of course - but not evangelistic)!

With both of these forms of evangelism it only becomes effective it the people who are engaging in it are ready to share their faith and this is where the 'old style evangelism' needs to be evident. The people doing it need to be secure enough to say who and why and what they exist for and be willing to state their positions on things without fudging issues of appearing to condone or support that which they don't. Letting our 'yes' be 'yes' and our 'no' be 'no' is extremely important - and crucial when it comes to evangelism. You cannot work on the theory that you can get people to be a 'bit saved' now and get rid of the other stuff later - all or nothing, in or out (Simple really isn't it?).

So we will move on to what I can think of as being 'proclamation evangelism':

Street Evangelism - This is more often than not the real 'Get out there and make the Gospel known' stuff. There's no doubt as to why you're on the street or in the shopping malls, precincts and the like - this is where we do the real stuff of preaching, engaging and entertaining too (one of the areas that humours, magic, drama and the like come into their own). "We are here in Jesus' name - preaching the Gospel, and doing it like they did in the Bible - so where are your sick? We can deal with that too!).

Mission, Outreach and Events (the evangelism formerly known as 'crusades') - these are opportunities to share what we think Christianity is all about in ways that those who are coming will know can expect - after all, it's a controlled engagement rather than people being mugged on the street. There has to be a willingness and openness to the message that they know is going to be presented. Just needs to be done openly, honestly and well (that means proper follow-up for those who come and good control of those who meet, greet and engage).

These two join well together to mirror the NT model of public evangelism that took places in the meeting places, streets and elsewhere. This is probably the nearest we, as Church, do in terms of Biblical evangelism.

So what's left?

Leafleting - Tracts, posters, notices of events and the like are all effective means of engaging in evangelism. After all, if they don't know you're there how will they know where to come? But they are support rather than primary engagement or encounter most of the time.

Prayer Walks - often thought of as 'just prayer' but in fact when the Church gets out onto the streets and prays publicly then things happen. Not only that but whilst we're out there we ask about prayer needs, form relationships and opinions (blinking loonies) and see people come to faith as prayers are answered (and as answers to prayer).

Prayer Triplets - the artillery of evangelism whereby three people get together and pray for specific people. This is something that I have seen work in that the ground is softened up long before the spade ever comes into contact with it.

Prayer is a mode and means of evangelism, even though it is often overlooked, and must never be discounted or ignored (so why do we do that so often I ask myself?).

So there we have it - a quick and dirty treatment of the different styles of evangelism (and we've left out the evangelistic service, the occasional offices, Easter, Christmas, Harvest and the so many other evangelistic opportunities we have).

I'll deal with the second question tomorrow - but hope this is an adequate response to part the first.

Pax

Let’s get Missional!

Many words are found in church language yet not all of us fully understand them. Realising this, I thought I’d have a quick go at making sense of them here – so here goes:

Missional
An extremely popular word these days. For me, it was George Carey, as Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC) who made me aware of the word  but Priest and theologian, Leslie Newbiggin, who made it real.

Newbiggin used the word to describe the life, ministry and mission of the Church thus:

‘The Church is sent into the world to continue that which he (Jesus) came to do, in the power of the same Spirit, reconciling people to God.’

It is in the reconciling  (mending relationships) between God and the people in it that Church finds its most important role, for we are not (as someone said recently) ‘do gooders’. We are in the world to point to – and look like Jesus!


Missional Church seeks to build bridges and make Jesus, the Christ, known in the world. It looks at ways of being effective and influential and in being involved with, and in, everything around us.

Missional Church is a church with open doors, hands and hearts – welcoming and embracing all who come into contact with it as family and friends.

Fresh Expressions (FE)
I was recently invited to an ‘FE’ evening and the person next to me assumed it meant Further Education (which was a fair guess) - never good when we fail to define the terms, abbreviations and acronyms we use, is it?

A good definition of an FE is:

‘A fresh expression is a form of church for our changing culture, established primarily for the benefit of people who are not yet members of any church.’

In a nutshell – if people who are not part of church would come if there was a Wednesday, 5pm service, then that service would be a Fresh Expression.


One such service is ‘Messy Church’ which seeks to build a church for those with children.
Note – it is a church in its own right, not merely something to bring people into the other Sunday services. This would make it messy outreach!

Fresh Expressions have four marks in that they are:

·     missional – serving people outside church;
·     contextual – listening to people and entering their culture;
·     educational – making discipleship a priority;
·     ecclesial – forming church.

A healthy, effective and flourishing Church consists of the traditional church buildings and services and alongside these we have Messy Church and other services, some in the same building and others in cafés, clubs, pubs, homes and wherever the need is found to be.

These many expressions of church (traditional and fresh) work together for the Kingdom of God and do so across denominations and any other boundaries that might exist. This is exciting Church as it creates new relationships with people and churches around us too.

Hopefully this short piece has given you a feel for what missional church and the opportunities and excitement that is to be found by be part of it?

To find out more take a look at the 'Mission Shaped Ministry' site

and have a look at

Fresh Expressions   too!

Mission and Ministry go together in perfect harmony ...

Side by side on the church's keyboard ...

Mission and ministry - two words that naturallly occupy the same space and yet, like all siblings, fight and struggle for dominance.

You can't build Church without mission - but you can't sustain church without ministry.

We can't grow church without pioneers - but you can't establish church without settlers!

The problems crowd in when we start to divide up the Church into job titles and work areas, skillsets and roles, but the reality is that many are gifted and called to excel in certain areas and these are often the same areas that our passions lead us to. I guess it's the same conundrum that musical ability presents:

You play on the piano as a child and people affirm and applaud because you are 'musical'. This leads you to play more and learn because you enjoy the attention, approbation and it's becoming part of who you are and what you do. Eventually the question comes:

Are you good at music because you love it Or do love love music because you're good at it?

(After all, you might not feel the same about geography, history, music or administration)

One of the challenges in the world of calling and ministry is that although we have giftings, calling and passions - there is a church to be put, and kept, on the road and though this is a job for all-member ministry, there is a need for those who would be collared to appreciate and, when the need (which often) arises, perform and otherwise enable, support and release others I to the many areas of need in the busyness of church.

The need for Ministerial Development Reviews that inform and help in the discernment of future paths before us is obvious and the task of equipping those who come from the cathedral, newly ordained, with much, or little, in their hands is obvious.

The need for those who will stand and preach the Gospel in the streets and marketplaces; those who will gather together the ones and twos such that church us found, and having done so lead them into the twin realities of bath and bread - the twins who are ever in concord and upon who - looking to the Cross and the return of Jesus, the Christ.

This week is a week of revelation for me thus far as I avoid hearing the words from the front perhaps, putting them aside to hear the heartbeat of God, and hear the words (from the heart) of many around me. Hearing the passion of those who are on the ground reflected in the path that has been trod and the ministry of managing from those in the diocesan offices.

One going the other growing so that more may go - partners, co-workers, each fulfilling their part (and living 1Corinthians 12*)

And the good news to those whose ministry is different (and perhaps strange) from ours:

We love you and value you - Thank You for being faithful where you are

Pax


*Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.

Book-Aid: Our first book collection

It's been some time since we started being a collector for:

Book-Aid.org

So I thought I'd let you see how many books we have collected and encourage you to donate at the same time!  So here we go:

Twelve boxes of Christian books and Bibles - waiting for collection and a very big 'Thank You' to all who have contributed to the contents of them.

Missional - More than a word - seeing with different eyes

Looking at statistics and engaging with people, people of faith and no faith, I am increasing drawn to the desperation, despair, denial and dedication before me. The dedication and commitment of some, their tenacious acts of defiance for the hope that is Christ spur me and inspire.

The vision of hands used to working wood, of nostrils used to the aroma of wood as it is hewn or worked loom, once again, before me. How real was the despair of those around Him as His senses combine to assess, smell, caress that wood; the cross member which was to become for Him a vertical deathbed that led, Narnia-like, into a different world where death is vanquished and sin is rendered impotent and done for.

Every step proclaiming something awful to those whose eyes, whose reality, was grounded in the 'what is'; but surely there were some who gazed upon that scene and saw something full of awe?

Greater love has no man than to lay down his life . . .

Tear down this Temple and in three days . . .

It is written that the Son of Man must . . .

How hindsight informs the past and denies the present; how the present denies the past and fails to live in either the future or the past. How the future is a hope like the hope of those seeking six numbers on the Lottery - the place where all is well; all is at peace.
 
And so day-by-day, step-by-step, we - the Bride of Christ - sit in the garden of our lives waiting and watching for flowers to appear and bloom even though we have planted none - we wait hoping to benefit from the toil of others, perhaps gone. We look to God to dress the vines and tend His garden so we might be blessed.

God? Watches and waits wiling us to pick up the shovel, the rake and fork; to clear the leaves, remove the litter and pull up the weeds.

How hard it is to see the world with God's eyes; to engage with people with His heart and yet that is our call.

Faithfully some wait,  tenaciously, but 'what is faith without works' and yet 'what are our works without faith; without prayer and vision'?

I hear time and time again the words, 'those who plan to fail fail to plan!' The problem is that many who do plan fail to involve the author of all and merely set the scene for well-meaning dissipation.

So what do we do and how do we do it?

We seek the Lord and discern that which we, individually and corporately, are called to be [the dreaded 'mission statement'].

We imagine that which we will see if we are living out the mission [the equally dreaded (and dreadful) 'vision statement'] and discern the ways we can make it real.

We convert these into reality [goal setting] and get others to work with us too!

Why do we really make it all so difficult - it's as easy as picking up a piece of wood ;-)

Just what is being a Cleric about?

There are so many interesting conversations to be had regarding what a 'Vicar' really is and does at the moment.

We have some who consider themselves in places merely to 'keep the lights on' and this raises some good stuff regarding 'mission vs maintenance' and whether 'lights on' is enough (or valid).

There is the issue of Self Supporting Ministers (the ministers previously known as 'Non Stipendiary'*) and what they offer and how they are regarded by others and, perhaps more importantly, by self!

We have those who are 'locally ordained' and how they, their churches and the establishment see them.

As the numbers of stipendiary clergy diminish as the old adage of 'cutting one's coat according to our cloth' is applies; and looking increasingly towards living out the 'can't pay - can't have' mantra, the reality is that the locally-ordained are viewed (by many) as those who will replace the departing stipendiaries at ground level. Something that leads us to also consider the return of some form of Minister model

In broaching these discussions, people have pointed to the demise of the old 'one parson - one parish' and the fact that unless some (especially 'rural' church?) 'grow their own' then they are doomed to closure. But then again if we put clergy into a building without a strategy for growth are we being effective for the Kingdom or merely putting off the dreadful day of reckoning  and leaving it to be 'someone else's' problem?

Another part of the problem is the fact that many of the locally-ordained are perhaps a little older than the twenty-four yr old priest who made the press today and they move with retirement and get ill and, as one person put it, simply 'die' (don't we all?) and where full-time posts are replaced with others the church's find themselves bereft and without a shepherd.

And as for 'no cost' options - there is the supervision of the locally ordained (three years) and then the Training Incumbent roles and then being a 'line manager' after that (for ministry and management are indeed two different elements!). Sounds like quite a bit of emotional, spiritual, physical, practical and temporal cost to me!

The Local Ordination process is much akin to eating spaghetti, for once embarked upon, the churches need to keep sucking to ensure that there is more in the chain and to prevent the day when the can (spaghetti only comes in cans doesn't it?) yields its last!

All of the above appear to regard the minister as the person who 'staffs' the church building rather than shepherds the sheep and facilitates, trains, releases and supports. As a friend put it (accurate as ever) the clergyperson is the 'religious service provider'.

So here we are - much to discuss and reflect upon (I hope) for everyone, for Church is about all-member, collegial, Kingdom ministry - not the few.

Pax

Mission or Maintenance (1) - schools

Last week I was challenged by some thinking relating to the wonderful area of what we used to call 'Job Design and Quantification' that would, in my humble opinion, have made the Golgafrinchams* appear highly capable and adept individuals. One of the many interesting elements in this consideration of the clergy roles related to schools in the parish, district or area in which our heroic cleric was located. It went just a little like this:

If you have a church school in your patch then you add some points to the total job workload equation

BUT

If you don't happen to have a church school in your patch but have non-church schools

AND

You just happen to be involved there doing assemblies, RE coordination and perhaps even act as a member of the governing body then you award yourself:

NIL POINTS (all a bit Eurovision this isn't it?).

Yes indeedy folks, that's right - NIL POINTS!

Now one of my colleagues who was chair of governors at one school and was engaged in doing assemblies in four or five schools did all of this as part of their 'out of hours interest'. Turns out this isn't part of their job at all - it was their hobby!

Another of colleagues (who rarely went into the local church school for assemblies and was more often than not missing from governor's meeting) who had church schools in their patch had more points (and points could mean posts when reorganisation comes a knocking) with less real engagement in the school or the community that that role should have brought.

All seems a bit wrong when we start legislating for what is part of the job in such a way as we make pastoral and missional engagement something that is other than the clergy role doesn't it? But that's what we are apparently faced with (and that is a real ..... [insert you own word - I'm lost for one]!).

So here's a hint for all those who read this and find they have non church schools in your area - doing them is not, apparently, part of the pastoral or parochial ministry associated with the church, it's merely your hobby.

And, if you don't fancy schools ministry then all you need to do is avoid those with church schools in and you're sorted - all the others are merely a potential hobby and (of course) that's 'just not your calling' is it?

Simple? (Well some people obviously are!!!)

Pax

*If you don't know about the Golgafrinchams, can I suggest you read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

This week - a retrospective (and a plea)

What an amazing week this has been- we've seen people who don't care a hoot about Christ, the Gospel or Church all bundling in to have their say about how the church should operate, most especially in the area of bishops and even more specifically, women bishops.

I have been so very frustrated by the people who have engaged me and berated me for stuff that they don't even have a clue about (and don't care about either if we are honest - they just ride on the bandwagon regardless). There was the idiot MP who said that it was bizarre that, since the CofE had a woman at the very top, there should be any problem with having women bishops! Now I don't know how he copes with national politics but hopefully he fares a little better with that and should therefore keep to the job he was elected to do. Of course, as the honourable gentleman made his points he also felt it necessary to clarify the position, when asked, by saying that of course ('of course', why 'of course') wasn't a Christian and had little real interest in the whole affair!

I had to endure the witterings of some (undoubtedly lovely yet woeful) bloke who asked how he was going to tell his newly minted daughter that she couldn't be 'a fully accepted and functioning woman in the Church'! If I was him I'd have been cuddling her and singing songs because, to be quite frank, the poor mite wouldn't have had a clue what he was going on about anyway. And of course . . .  Once she reached 18 she could legally attend a BAP (the selection thing for clergy) and if accepted could go to college and then be ordained, priested and serve in the church for a few years and then, perhaps, find herself selected for 'advancement' (what being called to be a bishop is) and this would mean that she'd be in her early forties - so the bloke has a bit of time yet.

Another person told me that there were many women whose ministries would have been enhanced and made 'effective' by being made bishop and now this had been lost to them. Now, odd as it seems perhaps, I would like people whose ministries were already effective to be given the wonderfully enhancing job of bishop and if it was moving up that made them effective I doubt I'd be interested anyway (hope that makes sense).

I have had (far too many) people explain how stupid, uncaring and disobedient the laity were to have voted as they did and they have explained how we should listen only to the bishops in future and withdraw the vote from the laity (now that sounds egalitarian, doesn't it?). Other have said that the diocesan lay reps should have voted with their respective diocesan synods rather than take it on themselves to exercise conscience, stupidity or disobedience. This leads me to think that what we need is to get rid of the General Synod and merely take the votes from the diocesan bodies and then, adding the votes from each of the houses into three final sums, take the decision from there.

This is surely a much more cost-effective solution to church management in the future and makes life in the future much more simple and effective (and perhaps we'd get diocesan synod rep's who were really engaged and effective in return?

Others have told me that the decision should be overturned and that we should do 'whatever it takes to bring it back' and overturn the decision. Actually I have to disagree with that thought for we engaged in a democratic process and we got a decision. Now it wasn't what I expected and wasn't what many wanted either but the reality is that we have it. To engage in scheming and cunning plans to get what we want to happen when it hasn't (by democratic and established means) is to look shallow and somewhat tawdry I fear!

So here's my summation of what has happened (and it will be my last word on it for some time I hope):

There are three groups of people - those who want women bishops, those who don't want women bishops and those who don't care (and there are a great many of them) as long as they can be left in peace to preach the Gospel, reach the lost, pastor the broken and love the unloveable. What I would like to see is a solution that  respects the position of those who have difficulty with the consecration of women without weakening the position of the women and one that doesn't get in the way of the real ministry of the Church - which has nothing to do with making bishops (women or men) but winning souls.

If, as it should be (and probably would be if it weren't such a 'must have' issue for some), this issue does not return until a new General Synod is convened (which means five years before we get to the same place again) the I for one will not be that troubled. Now this isn't anything 'anti-women' (for I have never been 'anti-women'') but is merely a plea for some rational and balanced response. It were any other issue, or better still something unpopular, and the cry to speed things up or make things happen to make this cause happen then people would be up in arms. Let us transfer into it something that we don't agree with and see whether we'd applaud cutting corners, clever measures or whatever. (I'm guessing not!).

Wanting to have the good opinion of the world and to endlessly go on about equality and living up to the standards of the world in which we find ourself is a totally confused state of mind (and reality). The reason for these words is the fact that just the world that we are called to serve has few standards and to work (tirelessly in some places) to make ourselves look, feel and act like it is to dismiss the calling we have to be Church and to render the Church weak, ineffective and impotent!

If we want to be popular then that's great. If we think that 'being popular' means that we cease to be different and put off the Gospel message for something that merely endorses the world and its values, standards and behaviour then what we really want is a different sort of Church altogether - it's call APOSTATE Church!

I wonder if God has not been gracious in the decision this week (as painful as it is for some) as it provides time for us to work out ways in which we might all coexist as one body and also give us the time to set aside all the distraction from the Gospel calling we have (and it is a distraction) to actually preach the Gospel and serve those whom we are called to serve.

And whilst I sympathise with those who were broken by Tuesday's decision (was it really only that short a while since it happened?) I also feel for those who are opposed to the consecration (and ordination too perhaps) of women who now find themselves hiding lest they be asked which side they support. As one told me, "I'm just keeping out of the way because anything else is an invitation to being abused!" Are we really that shallow?

So - we have dissipated so much time on this subject. Time which General Synod, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Theological Student, Laity and others (are there any others) could have perhaps used to build the kingdom rather than berate, abuse and present Church as a divided, divisive and spiteful place.

I leave this subject with something Jesus would like us all to know (John 17: 21):

"I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one- as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me."

No one can take joy from this week's goings on in General Synod - especially not the God we serve, three in one; Father, Son and Holy Spirit

Pax

Charles Simeon - A man to celebrate

And a man to emulate too!

This morning the Church of England remembers, and gives thanks for, the life and ministry of   Charles Simeon. A man whose ministry centred in and around Cambridge and its university and yet his ministry brought many benefits to the Church across the globe with the ministries he brought into being and the societies and organisations that trace their roots to him and the legacy of his ministry.

He was a Evangelical at a time when being such was not popular (not like now at all then!) and a man whose expository preaching style has become perhaps the gold standard for those of us who seek to emulate him.

Simeon reached the student population of Cambridge with the Gospel and brought not just attendance (the desire of so many) but discipleship (the professed desire)  and this discipleship saw many take up holy orders and put off careers in the world to travel the globe and preach the Gospel. It is said that it was Simeon who influenced Wilberforce regarding slavery and Christian living and caused Henry Martyn to take up his missionary endeavours. I am always chastened by the account he gave of Cambridge and the fact that in some three years he had not encountered a single believer - and yet he came to faith and lived true to it until he died in 1836.

I first became aware of Simeon by sitting near the stained glass window with his likeness in the chapel at Ridley and as I became more informed about him realised that this was a man whose footsteps would surely lead me to find Christ ahead of him on the road to the cross and to making Him known.

Would that those of us in church leadership would indeed 'inspire our people in service and mission':

Eternal God,
who raised up Charles Simeon
to preach the good news of Jesus Christ
and inspire your people in service and mission:
grant that we with all your Church may worship the Saviour,
turn in sorrow from our sins and walk in the way of holiness;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Cathedrals - who needs them?

I appear to have lit the blue touch-paper with my passing comments about cathedrals yesterday if the three people I met whilst at 'Open Door' were anything to go by. Two of them left me in no doubt that these wonderful building were little more than a drain on the finances of the Church of England and that, "All those people who work in them and live around the close should be 'paying their way' rather than tasking money away from the church congregations that were in the towns and villages!" The other person told me that they love our cathedral as it's a place where they can go and find peace and great music - both of which help them with their own walk.

So there we have it, in a local poll 67*% of the people don't think we need our cathedrals! But are they right? I don't want to address the money bit at the moment as we are currently engaged in an exercise of 'sustainability' (which the diocese is calling 'plain speaking') and looking at clergy numbers and the like (more about that shortly methinks) and this might be part of the reason for the comments***.

So do we need our cathedrals? The majority of the comments made focussed on money. Money for maintenance of those wonderfully big and glorious buildings. Money for upkeep and keeping the doors opened. Money that some 'charge' (and here Westminster and Chester came in for the most flak) Christians to visit their buildings. Money for 'all those people' who work in the cathedral and the money that is paid out for the housing in the closes (with question asked about rent and 'grace and favour'). Yep, if my engagements yesterday are anything to go by, seems quite a few are uncertain about having one on the grounds of money.

Another issue that cropped us was the fact that whilst the building we have is splendid, it's not in the right place for a cathedral in a diocese which is shaped as it is (mainly because we've given bits off to form other diocesan structures elsewhere).

I have had discussions with some who considered the cathedral to be an outdated, outmoded edifice to days gone by and that they needed to be considered in the same light as other stately homes and heritage centres rather than anything that has a place in the community (but these people have never lived in a cathedral town - and I know that having one makes it a city, but that's just convention not community). A tourist feature not an ecclesiastical reality. A source of income for the place in terms of tourism and a source of self-sustaining for the cathedral itself.

BUT (has to be one)

The same responses to yesterday's closing churches conversation apply here and alongside them we have a multitude of other considerations to add into the pot.

The OLSX (Occupy London Stock Exchange) debacle did much to bring the Church, the CofE in general and St Paul's in particular into the public gaze. There was criticism for the fact that the place appeared more concerned with tourists and income than it did with standing with those who campaigned about institutional greed and the general imbalance of wealth (although of course to get wealth you have to be born rich or work and it seemed most of the protestors perhaps lived in neither of those camps!). Where doors should have been flung open and a welcome given, what many saw was a church that cared more about money that standing up for the rights of some and criticising the excesses of others.

Sadly, not one person could see the fact that the electricity, gas and other suppliers to St Paul's all wanted their payments. "Surely no one would cut off a cathedral or a church?" some asked when faced with this scenario. But of course they would, for we are but customers (and commercial, not domestic, customers too!). The cathedrals need to balance their books and the problem of charging admission rather than inviting donations is a tough one for, as we find with some of the churches in our town, many may come in but the donations are pitiful. All want the buildings to be open and available to them but this same 'all' expect the church to fund itself or be funded by some other body (just not them!). So we can ask for a donation or we can charge and I'm not sure which of the two is the right way pastorally, practically, financially and as criteria and responses on a list of other consideration.

On a value for money (which is mean and mercenary) I think that our cathedrals are worth their weight in jelly beans and centres of worship of the highest standard and as centres of excellence, facilitation and enabling. Here's a few 'for instances':

1. When it comes to the major festivals and holy days there is something special about making the journey to the cathedral and it becomes a sort of mini-pilgrimage and centre of celebration all rolled into one. Just speak to people on a Maundy Thursday and see how special it is to gather in a large, and generally splendid, building to celebrate as the many strands of Church together.

2. The ability to come into a scared space which has stood as the centre of Church in that region and in so doing understand that you stand in the company of generations of those who have worshipped before is something that cannot have a price placed on it.

3. To come into a cathedral and find oneself lost in the music and the excellence of the choirs (visiting and resident - and this is a factor, it is a venue for other choirs, organists, bell-ringers and the like) draws one into God and into a special place that all of us need from time to time. It is a safe haven in the storms of life.

4. They are churches and they have their own regular congregations. It's just that their church is a bit bigger than other peoples. They are the centre of community and engage as such with all the same things that we in our smaller places engage with and in.

5. Cathedrals are a centre for excellence and resource as the roles of those who act as missioners and facilitators clearly demonstrate. In fact I would rather that some of the diocesan sector staff worked out of the cathedral than the administrative offices as this would solidify and confirm the role and place of our cathedrals.

6. They engage with the schools and the 'Open Door' and other schools events are an extremely effective and valuable form of engagement between church and community (and not just the local community).

7. They do need to bring in the money to be self-supporting and this is an issue. I felt aggrieved when visiting Church House, Westminster to realise that popping in to the place next door would cost me (although another person later told me that had I asked there is a broom cupboard set aside for those cheapskates who tried the 'just want to pray' approach to getting in for free). I'm not that sure that the cathedrals do take way money from the parishes but as one of those yesterday argued - they cost money and that, even if it comes from a different pocket, is from the same pair of trousers! Think this highlights a need for involvement at parish and Deanery levels from the cathedral staff and some value for money input and engagement.

So there you have it - a real thinking on my feet fifteen minutes of cornflakes (Crunchy Nut), Tea (Darjeeling) and typing.

I hope it makes sense (and has some validity to).

Let's treasure our treasures and let's pray that they continue to flourish and support the wider Church in all and every respect. Pray for them, their congregations, those who work in (and out of) them and for those visitors too - might be the first chance some have to engage with God as we perceive Him to be!

Pax

* Sample of 3 in a poll conducted by strange Vicar**
** Thankfully none of those whose opinions were gained were from the church I'm in
*** There were also comments about paying for 'all those people in diocesan jobs'

ps. I've left the 'grace and favour' aspect as I know little of this and wouldn't know where to start.

pps. Interesting that those who were critical came from places that felt badly done with regard to parish share.

Mission Action Plan Season (1)

As the heady round of Annual Church Meetings draws to a close I wonder how many of us have presented our Mission Action Plans (MAP) as part of those meetings.

A MAP should contain three vital statements:

Mission statement:
Tells you what it's called, what it does, how it exists and how it relates to the church (if applicable). An example of this:
The outreach team exists to engage with the community by means of social, social and practical work. It raises it's own money to support its work and informs, trains and releases church members to be engaged and work within it.

Vision statement:
Tells exactly what you will have when the aims are met and what you expect to feel like. Keep it simple as there's a danger of ending up with the Athanasian Creed if you try to pin everything down!
"In the church plant new families will come to faith in a place with an informal worship style and obvious and practical, pastoral, concern for the community. By being involved with the practical we will encourage people to belong and develop deeper spiritual realities by nurture and discipleship teaching."

Outcome/Success criteria statement
This sets targets and allows you to see whether they were met, exceeded of missed and this helps us celebrate and refine or rethink (even if you're successful, you still need to be revisiting and managing the targets).

Evidence of outcomes (or lack of them) which might include (or focus upon) income, numbers, outings, events, services - all fit here within a set period. Here's an example from our 'Kid's Club':
Goals 2011
See the numbers stabilise and a consistent and identifiable community emerge
Upgrade the facilities to ensure that the provision remains fresh and current (games)
Develop craft and cooking elements
Increase provision for children with special needs
Be self-supporting

MAPs do not pin the church down or render it 'less spiritual' but enables it to see what is working and what needs to be revisited and perhaps revised (or even merely shot!).

I hope this is of use

Thought for the day

Which do you prefer:

Those who aren't with us are against us

OR

Those who aren't against us are with us?

This is discipleship

Saw this today and, well, look for yourself.

Pax

Be the difference!

Says it all!

What the Vicar does or doesn't do!

One of the interesting considerations that crops up in my working day is a visit to, "You do too much," city! An interesting condundrum which involves that which I addressed slightly in the blog 'If you build it' and the blog entry which considered the issue of 'Healthy dogcollar or healthy church'.

The issue is that when I engage in conversation with members of churches regarding mission, the perception of those members with regard to their Vicar falls neatly into three distinct camps:

!. The Vicar does nothing

2. The Vicar does it all, and (the good Anglican option)

3. I couldn't possibly say!

Now the first category is usually taken up by those who have a host of good ideas on how the church could be built and they take pleasure (and great pains) to tell me how, "If only the Vicar would do something," the church could grow and the ministry flourish.When this happens I ask them what they have seen that isn't being done and how they have started doing it so that it is being done. I have to say that to date I haven't had a single person who has identified all the Vicar isn't doing and decided that they would make it happen instead. Well I guess it is the Vicar's job isn't it?

The second category will tell me how much is going on (and stand happily in the team photograph and take the shared applause) but will tell me that the Vicar is doing it all and that they can't get a look in. When I ask them what it's like being in the team that works in one, any or all of the areas that have been given as the province of the 'Vicar doing everything'! The usual response is that they aren't in the team (if there is one and oddly there usually is) and as we talk further it seems that the real complaint is that they aren't in charge themselves.

The last group are the strangest because first and foremost they aren't complaining (and that is indeed very strange!). They are also the people who generally ask nothing from church other than it continuing as a place where they can come, sit in their same seat and enjoy the same service and then, ritual / habit /whatever complete, swan of home. Sadly they are also generally the people who bring nothing to church either (other than the pound coin they've always given as their admission fee!).

Whilst we know where the first two voices are to be found the last voice is actually a silence that condemns the church (and the Church) to something that is terminal and it is these very same people who, once caught alight, can set fire to the whole people of God.

Now as I understand it we cannot do Church without being collaborative and the whole message of the body being in need of the many organs that comprise it and being connected to them as a whole is one of the big hints as to how Church functions (or at least should function).

The problem is that some look at the poor of dogcollar [DC] (perhaps that should be dogsbody?) and expect them to do whatever task they are pointed to whilst the pointee stands back to admire the fulfilment of the work through the actions of others.

The problem is that some want to work in an area but the DC is doing that and won't let anyone else have the job. The reality as I see it is that there are few in ministry who would not relish giving over an area of work to someone else, even if it means having to train them to do the role. This is true for me and for the majority of those who want to do - so if you're one of the who wants to be a do'er - go tell the person leading your church now and make their day. Of course when you do you shouldn't expect to just be handed it and left to your own devices as this is wrong on so many levels and where I've seen it happen has been the formula for disaster! But when you ask, there should be a discussion and a plan set in motion to transition the area away such that the DC can go plough other fields (wow, sounds a lot like diakonos doesn't it?).

The other problem is that some just want to be in control but don't actually ever get into the area of doing. This is rarely (in my limited wit and experience) due to lack of opportunity but is due to some other factor - The 'I cannot come to the banquet with you right now' syndrome. I have seen many (can I say too many without offence? Too late - just did!) who live in this and bemoan the lack of opportunity and fail to mention their lack of getting off their behindsides and just getting on with it. They point publicly and in their own comfortable places sing their 'I cannot come' song!

Time is coming that our churches are going to have to live in the reality that we exist to praise God, bring help to the helpless, love to the unloveable and discomfort to the comfortable.

How's it looking from your end of the wire?

Resources and Mission - Where are you?

When it comes to 'being church' there are, in the final analysis, but two parameters to be taken into account:

!. Resources - Spiritual health, People, networks, building, equipment, money, etc.

2. Mission - Going into all the world, making disciples, being Christ to the world - taking Christ to the world.

Now if there are but two elements to be considered we have but four states of existence and it is these that aid us (not label or condemn) to understand the present and the task before us if we are to have a future (and Christ is to be made known where we are).

The chart below sums it up nicely:

The above graphic came from our 'Vision 2012' meeting last night and it is from this that I would like to dialogue with and consider issues that must visit all who are engaged in 'being Church', regardless of denomination, churchmanship and leadership structures.

I hope you will take this journey with me and perhaps come up with clarity where at the moment I see, but see as if there were 'trees walking'. May God fully open my, and our eyes, and my those who read this and have knowledge and understand that passes this ordinary cleric by, enlighten us.

Pax

Church - choices and consumerism!

It seems that choice, rights and all the hallmarks of the consumer world we inhabit shape what church is and how we do it (and select it too!).

We go to a church because we like the way they play music and yet in doing so ignore the quality of the teaching, the theological truths and the essential tenets. We swing from Anglican to Baptist because they have better coffee and by so doing move from paedobaptism to anabaptism. We move from Pentecostal to Anglican because of the teaching and suddenly we're into proper liturgy (should start a fight ;) )!

We make our consumer choices without realising the theological and spiritual statements we make.

We make decisions about what our churches should be - we decide that pews restrict the use and then struggle to move or do anything because of the stacked chairs (we always forget to have a room to store stuff!). We speak of open, fluid spaces, which allow us to do so much and then put the chairs out in the same way the pews were.

People outside dictate how our buildings should be (ask me about Putney some time) and others (within) fight to keep us in the nineteenth century whilst more seek to remove the (vital) organ and strangle the choir so they can have trite, naff, rainbow guitar strapped morons, "Making the church 'contemporary' and 'accessible'!"

Valid church is vital church that belongs to the universal Church. It doesn't exist to support our rights, tickle our ears, or do it the 'right' way. It doesn't look to bring people back but to take Christ out to those who are distant, often for the first time!

So - stop telling me what you want or need and start thinking about how you can use what you have where you are - and remember if you make your choice and leave for another happy home to be generous, after a it will be a blessing for some and a curse for others (and not always the way you might think!! ;) )

Pax