The 'Return of Christianity to England?'

As someone who has done church on estates since the last century the news that the Church of England (CofE) has a 'new vision' to put a church on every estate caused extremely mixed emotions and the assumption that, like the Curate's Egg, not all of it would be bad!

My cynical side came from the awareness that + Phillip North's (who is a really nice chap) former church on an estate in hartlepool was recently closed. Add to the scale pan an ongoing conversation with someone from another diocese to mine over the reality where they are of clergy not being relapsed because of the lack of money. Top it off with the track record the CofE has had in removing much of the effective church presence in the difficult places by contraction and amalgamation and you'll see that perhaps the cynical streak may have some realism behind it.

Having said that this is the Curate's egg, there must be something to commend it; something that brings joy. Which there is, for at last the poorer and tougher places - 'urban estate church' is a metaphor for 'rough' places - are being thought about. The idea of those resident in large estates getting some form of help to establish and lead these new churches is great for these will essentially be what Ray Oldenburg (R. Oldenburg, 1989, The Great Good Place, Marlow & Co, New York) called 'Third places'.

For those for whom this is a new term, Oldenburg identified three places where life is lived out:
Home (the first place),
Work (the second place) and,
Social/Community (the Third Place) where community is discovered or created and maintained.

Interestingly, the third places identified by Odenburg and by this 'New Vision' just happen to be Community centres, cafés and schools (to which we can add pubs, bookshops, games shops), and more besides. This what Pioneer Missioners and others have been doing for some time under the label 'missional'

Now it's not rocket science to observe that where community is built crime rates change, truancy and other issues are also addressed and people begin to become part of a positive, supportive and cohesive reality. Local congregations were the foundations of the Church (read the book of Acts) and I think I'd have to take Philip North to task when he says that, "Big cultural problems can't be solved," by these ecclesial communities - I am certain that they can (doesn't it say something about renewal and transformation in the Bible?).

“The vision is a thriving, loving Christian church on every single large estate. “  Hallelujah!

He continues with, "It's not a building but church as community of people."     Wasn't it always?

Well it all sounds very positive and the promise of some being trained to lead churches with the potential that some might even be ordained. Wow, it's all very first century Church - and that has to be good.

There are already people out there who are calling for us to examine the estate churches with a view to (and I quote) 'develop and new theological understanding, new models and theological language'. This is a load of complete and utter tosh for the very last thing is 'new' theology!!

The CofE is promising to train those leading these new estate churches, something which includes the possibility of ordination. The leaders will naturally emerge from their church communities - we need to facilitate and recognise these leaders -  if that is what ordination will be then it's more 1AD Church and that's good. It's not rocket science to discover that local people are the best evangelists and church planters.

Blimey have none of the pointy hats read O'Donovan's 'Christianity Rediscovered' or Freiere's 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed'? Of course the locals lead the locals better, they just need to have their own Rosetta Stone handed to them - inculturation, that's the key.

At last as desperation begins to bite, the CofE is doing what it should have been always doing: Looking too provide Church for those who are not Church in the places where Church is not but the people are. Blimey - we've been doing this with Fresh Expressions and Mission Shaped Ministry (and Introduction) courses.

Stories of people changed when the find Church because they feel safe, but surely the reality is that people are changed when the find Church because the meet Jesus and are changed by the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit. Bath and Bread - Blood of Christ - nothing we've done separating us from the love of God: This is what it's about.

Great that this 'New Vision' is potentially, "Going to every place, including places that many people don’t go to, like estates"

I applauded the damning self-indictment: “A church which abandons poor areas is not the church of Jesus Christ." Always good when the people in charge get to realise that.

But what of the years the locusts have eaten?

I know God can restore them, but we still have the same bishops and senior clergy who have closed churches, ignored the poor ("If you can't pay you can't have!"), covered up or turned a blind eye to acts of abuse and the like.

As Ric Thorpe so rightly says regarding Council estates: “Council estates are places that are sometimes cut off from the rest of a parish."

NOTE: For sometimes, read more often than not!

Remember how Jesus walked on water

Overall I am made very happy that this 'New Vision' is being paraded and have a few things I need to resolve in my head so the voices rising from my own passions and madness are quelled:

i. This a great potential initiative - its exactly what we were doing in the pentecostal church over thirty years ago and it worked well then in the communities of faith we engaged with and supported in the tough places. So we are thirty years behind them - what can we learn from them and the Fresh Expressions folk? A hint: it's not bung all your money into Pioneers and hope they will rescue us!

ii. The establishment of worshipping communities in fellowship with each other and the wider ecumenical world and the collegiality and disciplinary structures are essential if we are to bring about a holy, loving, and life-giving Church. John Wimber struggled with this, the Pentecostal church struggled with it - so how are we not going to struggle?

iii. What of the various covenants and mutual commitments we Anglicans have made? I see and hear nothing ecumenical in any of the conversations, media stories and other utterances. Are we looking to build Church or the CofE? There is a difference!

iv. There's nothing new here other than the fact That Philip North has got Justin and others excited about doing what we should always have been doing!

v. Bishop's Mission Orders have been with us for ages and yet I've not heard of homogeneous or other forms of church coming out of them.

If they do, why haven't they pushed and publicised anything?

Who is going to own the new entities that will be springing up on an estate somewhere near you?
Will it be the same person running the church that's ignored those people and their patch of earth?

How will the established churches fare when these new 'Third Place' churches thrive and not only see growth but also see transfer growth? How will the incumbent of St Willyballs on the shelf cope when they see their sheep stray in a church near them?

vi. Prayer. I haven't seen a single thing that speaks of Prayer (or Jesus come to that, or the power of God's Holy Spirit).

I have so many more thoughts and questions and yet the timer has pinged and fifteen minutes of scribble has not come to an end. I hope this proves helpful to those who might stumble across it. It's not meant to be negative - it's an honest entry to this, for the discussions will last probably as long as the 'New venture' (a colleague gives it three years before the next 'New Vision' arrives).

I'm less cynical and pray that it is the Lord building this house with us - may it truly be so.

Feel free to challenge, educate (hope you've lots of time for that one), dialogue, explain and excite me with this. I am so very up for it but need more than a sideshow and fireworks.

Pax

Church Growth strategies: 'Change (or move) the building'

Working on Stanley Hauerwas' premise that:

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

We started our journey looking at some of the church growth thinking before us with the issue of 'worship' and the bus moves on today to consider the building we meet in. As we do I have to say that I am still surprised at the number of people who confuse the living stones that are Church with the bricks and mortar that is the church building - and sadly this is more than something of a problem with descriptors or syntax!

I recently visited a location where the original rural community had dwindled and almost died away almost as quickly as the new build housing developments had risen from the fields that once supported the area. No longer was the hand being put to the plough but to the world of commerce and because of this the new inhabitants of that place were generally commuting into the nearest cities as a new dormitory community was formed.

The problem was that the community was served by lovely old, yet small, rural churches. You know the sort of place: Lychgate, lovely little graveyard and possibly no toilet! These gems of church architecture and social history were posted around the new community with the result that there was no church building in the centre (a question: When developers build, why do they forget the infrastructure like shops, doctors, church and other staples of a good community?).

The answer here would be to build or otherwise utilise something suitable in the centre of the new population; a place where the community could come together and meet their needs (spiritual, social and community). The problem was that the lovely people in the pretty churches, although all up for growth and the spreading of the Gospel, only really wanted that to happen in a way that grew their congregations - and to be frank that just wasn't going to happen, So the place continues with the dying remnants of the churches that once was now keeping the lights on and having conversations over tea which hearken back to the 'good old days' (which I think happen after a gap of ten years has passed) when they had a congregation!

Meanwhile time will continue to pass and the Christian witness in that place will cease and the Church will have had another brick fall from the wall that is ministry and engagement fall and the witness will be weakened, probably never to return.

There is a another place I know where the people don't come into the church building even though it is central to the community. Here there are voices which call upon the people to move from the old building into something fresh and new and ready to be filled with new believers. Talking to one of the zealots (the definition of such being anyone who is more passionate about Jesus than me) about their desire for a new building I was told, 'This building is old and no one comes in - we need a new building where people are attracted and the old is put aside.'

Now I'm all up for Fresh Expressions of Church, especially in what we call a 'mixed mode' or 'mixed economy' setting where we find the inherited or established churches alongside night church, café church and other engagements where the people and Church come into relationship and God is seen to be acting in the place and in the people they serve (and it's not the established church building). The problem is that as attractive as it is 'moving out' is not the general panacea for healthy and successful church. In fact when we have an old building we find ourselves take up with the 'cure of souls' (that means we care for the people in our patch) and function also as the 'curator of a place's memories' - and this is important.

To move into a place where the people ARE is important and missional (telling people about Jesus) important BUT being in a place where people identify themselves as part through their heritage and family history is something we cannot afford to pass up and brings some unique selling points and relationships.

More recently I am beginning also to hear those who want to move from an existing building because they don't want to be tied to a building and the maintenance and the money having your own place demands.

'If only we weren't tied to the building,' said one of the most lacklustre and boring people I think I may ever have met, 'Then the people would flock in I'm sure,' they continued. My question was, 'Why? What good is a change of venue without a change in the way that you think about those who aren't coming?' My question was met with a steely star and the conversation dwindled away and my colleague left offended.

There are many reasons to change what is inside the building - after all we celebrate the various architectural bits from the generation passed and yet struggle to make the buildings fit for purpose - changes that keep a building relevant are useful and necessary as much for the soul as the welfare of the people and when the time comes that the building is no longer an effective place than it needs to become a 'festival church'; a place where the building is used for set services during the year but no longer for regular Sunday (and other) services.

Add lighting, PA, TVs or projector screens to help make the services run (and projectors and TVs cut costs as there's less paper to print and trees to cut down!) as we would like it to run - and what about a place for baptism other than the font (get digging)? Building kitchen space and toilets and the stuff that make a building useful and utilise every crook and nanny* you can find in the place: We must never walk away from our buildings lightly and yet we must not let them handcuff us either!

There's a lot in this splurge and there's so much more I'd love to add and comment upon but I'm sure you get the picture by now. Our buildings should be aids to ministry not lead weights that drag us down and yet, that said, sometimes we blame the building when the real problem lies in the nearest mirror.

Pax

* Yeah I know - apparently it's a 'vicism'

Balancing the books - Mixed Economy Church

Over the weekend I found myself engaged in a number of conversations, all of which ended up on one of two issues: Leadership and money - two areas where, if what I heard was true (and I have no doubt it was an accurate portrayal), the Church is lacking!

When Rowan Williams introduced the term 'Mixed Economy' - that wonderful world where Church (established and new) stood side by side as ONE:

The vision was a bunch of believers who saw each other as family; a source of celebration and collaboration: The reality is (for many) something quite different.

The intention was that new communities of believers (AKA 'church') created by those who otherwise would not be 'doing Church' coming into relationship with Christ in new, vibrant and accessible 'Fresh Expressions of Church'.

BUT (Yep, there it is, there's always one somewhere) the reality of the whole situation is (in my humble, perhaps naive and uniformed opinion) that, reminiscent of that when Saddam Hussein was removed from power, the next step hasn't been properly thought through and this is where the problems are beginning to bite.

The problem is that many of these Fresh Expressions (FE) have come into being and when the celebrations stop and the fireworks are but distant memories we find ourselves facing a few real, and yet not show-stopping (but potentially fatal) issues unless we stop, draw breath, and work out how we might make it all work. To do this we need to deal with expectations, assumptions and what prudent management really looks like - and here's my thinking on it:

'Bringing them to church' Four little words that highlight much of the discontent that exists within the traditional churches where a Fresh Expression has been established. The problem is that the idea of a Fresh Expression is to create a new fellowship not 'bring them back' (a rather silly expression that reflects on what never was regarding a people who have never been Church) and so many in PCCs are wondering why they spend money on something that doesn't add numbers to their local expression of Church. This is perhaps best seen in the area of Messy Church - for far too many (including clergy) are really seeing this as Messy Evangelism, a means of bringing them in to our church congregation - the key is in the word 'church' for it implies that those who become part of the Messy thing will form a new congregation. Now this might be in the same building but it's not, as a colleague said, "An introduction to the building and some of the people in it so that they get comfortable and transfer across to the proper services,"  but the establishment of a new expression of Church that celebrates diversity and sees a peer, not a child (and how often do we use the term 'church plant' or 'daughter church' as a  statement of superiority and as a possessive? and the growth of the Body of Christ.

This frustration finds its voice in the minutes of a friends Church Council meeting, "We keep paying the bills for the phone box plant* and yet we see no benefits for us here at St Bogsplats* so why should we keep paying when we have our own challenges and needs?" What many see is a modified heading 'Bringing them back to our church' and this thought leads us nicely on to the next area.

Finances
Perhaps the biggest threat to the whole mixed economy model is the reality that many traditional churches are struggling (which is why Fresh Expressions came into being) in terms of attendance and finances. Now, when money gets tight PCCs seek to conserve spending and this means that some Fresh Expressions are finding their support cut or even stopped. Change the lens on the microscope to focus at the diocesan level and you'll find that the same is true again; many diocesan Treasurers are also struggling and so, in order to pay their bills, expenditure is reduced and Fresh Expressions (and other areas) are finding themselves with less (or no) financial support. This means that some are finding themselves without a 'paid for' leader, a situation which although very New Testament is also interpreted as abandonment by those within the FE and as prudent by those on the corridors of power.

The Poor old Bishop is faced with more going out than coming in and so, Micawber like, looks at the budget and opts for the path of institutional happiness rather than misery. The problem is that, as sad as it is, the cutting (or removal) of funding for an emerging church that meets in a pub is a simpler and less visible (and therefore contentious) option than that of removing the dogcollar from St Bogsplats,  merging benefices or closing churches.

Prudent (Biblical) Financial Management
I am a firm supporter of the practice of getting people to pay for whatever it is that is being launched as a Fresh Expression. I think it is right for Church (at all levels) to 'cast its bread on the water' - to be generous in funding the start up needs of a group such that capital costs are met and to fund the minister for a set period - because this is what we're called to do in the book of Ecclesiastes. It is a call to prudence and a stand against inactivity; a call to do something that will, in the end, bring rewards that other will consider 'lucky'!

Once the initial costs are met there needs to be a sliding scale of support as the new church begins to take upon itself the running costs (which includes some contribution towards the Parish Share/Common Purse payments from the start). It looks a bit like this:

It is important that we don't give birth to new communities that are parasitic in that the expectation that they can do the stuff at the expense of others and yet I have met many who complain that they have been 'dumped' by the funding agency (church, diocese or other body) because funding has stopped without any warning, something that has resulted in:

+ Disenfranchisement from the body who used to fund them

+ People leaving the plant because they felt unloved and 'done to'

+ Negative perceptions of the Church as greedy, uncaring and money-grabbing hypocrites

+ All involved being rendered bitter, broken and impotent as a result of being associated with failure

The reality is that we (local church, diocese and Archbishop's Council) need to be planting and funding things that expand the Kingdom of God in a balanced and business-like manner.

We need to have plans in place with financial and spiritual models (that's why the Mission Action Planning (MAP) is so very important) considered and firmed up.

We need to understand that every plan looks great until the enemy is engaged and then lines, goals and plans of action need to be revised and changes implemented - and that this is not failure but proper and prudent behaviour.

We need to realise that prayer is not reserved for the times when it's all going wrong - it's the action we need to have at the beginning and at every step along the way - it's the covering fire and the means by which we advance.

And so, twenty-five minutes into this splurge, I leave you with some food for thought and my brain slightly quite as I rush off to do visits, funeral stuff and engage with wonderful people on the way through today.

This is not a subject that is finished I'm sure (and we never got anywhere near the leadership issue, did we?)

Pax

PRAYING - PLANNING - PAYING - PRAISING - PROCLAIMING - PROSPERING

*Apologies to any FE that is a plant in a 'phone box and if there is a St Bogsplats :-)