Journal: Films make you mad!

In an effort to separate myself from work I have been taking some time off during the day each week to watch a film at the local cinema. It takes me out of communication with the world and hides me away in a dark place for a couple of hours. I even get to have a brew and take it in with me - how good is that?

So I might not be getting around to a day off (I've promised to 'tell all' truth next week at quarter's end) but I'm having some time off: and it's been a most annoying and madness inducing experience.

The films I have seen thus far are:

Viceroy's House: About the partition of India and the stitch-up the British government engaged in with Mountbattens. Showed something extremely uncomfortable about this nation of ours in terms of arrogance, deceit and distastefulness.

I, Daniel Blake: A most uncomfortable watch indeed. It took me back to my time working in the wonderful world of the Employment Agency with those looking for work and the poor Employment Advisors who worked in the Jobcentres. An American contracting company providing a less than able provision with the goal of minimising payments and providing less than adequate services to the jobless population - and all in MY name! I was ready to learn the 'red flag' and head for Westminster by the time this fly on the wall offering was done. GRrrrr!

United Kingdom: My father used to say that Winston Churchill was a dictator who was needed to fight another dictator and that I should be in no doubt that he was never anyone's 'real' hero. Stiff words coming from a bloke who thought Margaret Thatcher was a bit of a lefty politician!

This film added another notch to my slowly emerging dislike of the man as he promised one thing if elected and delivered something very different once he was. But that's politics, isn't it?

But the arrogance of the British government and the colonial machinery takes your breath away and makes one disgusted at the heritage that being English lays upon us.

"Oxford teaches - film educates". Those were the words I was handed in a tutorial many years ago. "We can offer you books and anecdotes and the stillness to assimilate them but the silver screen makes them flesh; but not always truthfully!" my tutor continued. Books may be written with poor scholarship and equally poor language and you will see through this, but a well crafted film will send barbs into your flesh and make you aware just as Eve became aware as she ate the apple.

Sin lies in the action, not the object. Did the apple posses any power other than attract? Surely the act of taking from the tree brought an awareness of what sin was because it caused the separation between man and God. The focus of our desires is always present and before us, but it is the action that is sin.

This is true regardless of what is placed under the glass cover and beheld with desire: Things sexual, monetary, physical and intellectual - all of them qualify. It isn't what the object is, but the way we deal with us wanting it and the lines we are willing to cross to make it ours, or should I say 'possess  us'?

Lord, help me to see the lines and never cross them such that I become sinful and damage self or others. Help me to see the best in people and to love wholeheartedly, and yet never lose sight of the ability of each of us to place on a pedestal that thing which causes us to lose our soul (as did the ring bring both physical and spiritual death in Gollum's tale of woe).

Lord have mercy upon us for our past - and as Brexit is made real today - in our future as we consign ourselves into a very different reality.

What was that!

One of those days which promised so much on the diary and delivered something completely different when the doorbell rang!

Expected travel and ended up staying at home - a day of encounter nonetheless but it was varied and yet somehow frustrating. Feeling myself to be totally at the hands of other people's folly, forgetfulness and general shortcomings and yet in the dock; the missed targets of others lying at my feet!

There are often two tensions in life. The first is caused by the words of Jesus which call us to treat others as we would have them treat us. The second come from the lips of St Thumper of Bambi in that, "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all!" I try to express myself honestly and to .make my yes be yes and my no be no' - Not always a popular move. Try the other tack and say nothing and this is taken as assent, which I don't want to give. I'm happy, at times, to say that I'm not sure but will let it go it life cannot be lived by abstentions; it requires courage, honesty and decision!

So I stand by and see things split so people get to do their own thing - it's not mine and has little to do with me and the proletariat cheer in the streets because they're doing stuff. The rulers of the kingdoms are happy because stuff is getting done. But shouldn't we all be doing it in one name and as one people?

Discipleship calls us to make our way through this world making Jesus, the Christ, known and we do it as family (that is Church). All I have ever sought in Church is unity and dialogue and working for each other to do the stuff and yet my experience has been isolated endeavour with division always a hand's breadth away. I love it when I can celebrate the triumph of others and relish the opportunity to engage with and support what others are doing. But I experience that so rarely - is this my misfortune or am I just getting what so many others are getting?

Church is about people, and I love people. It's about Jesus, and I love Jesus. But it seems we are too busy; wound up in our plans and structures and outcomes and demands to get more in the plate and more bums on the pews.
Is this strangling the Church?

Shouldn't we be a party rather than that which we are making Church?

Where are the people who are passionate and on fire?

Are they missing because we, the clergy, are not setting them alight with a zeal for the Lord?

Have we made Jesus everything He isn't and find ourselves looking for commitment where joy and zeal should be?

Have we stopped looking to see new creations in Christ and born again being something exciting and life-giving?

All these questions to be answered and the fear that the problem might be me - am I doing too much, or too little, or doing it in the the wrong place, or doing the wrong thing? Colleagues tell me to do less, thinking I work hard (am driven) because of some desire to prove myself, and yet the reality is that the tide is rising and the time to get people to the safety of the high ground is short. I think of the words that speak of those in Noah's time partying and getting married and having a good time just a few ticks away from the flood and see us not about to be in the same boat. I look at the cross and the salvation that is at hand and, seeing my life changed, want that for others.

That's the role I've taken. That's the role I was given. All I have is Jesus, in and out of season. I'm a bond slave, chosen to have my ear pierced and to be the property of my master even though I am a free man, and in this become the freest man of all.

I write this journal here so others may dialogue with me should they wish. I do it to,be as privately honest and I am publicly assumed to be. This is not about posturing or looking good, for I fear for many I rarely do - and yet isn't this the 'fool for Christ' bit?

I visit people in their homes, and in the care homes, and communicate them and communicate with them. I cry at their losses (where no one sees lest I usurp their grief) and I celebrate their joys. The richness of this wonderful ministerial life I live.

My over-zealousness, my oft misunderstood attempts at honesty and the hope for dialogue which is so often dashed to the ground, expectations unexpectedly dismissed yet again. Where I find like minds and passionate defence in unapologetic ways I rejoice for we are not out to build our piddling kingdoms but one triumphant Kingdom with the Christ on the throne.

Lord, may I have done that in some small way today. May the things in me that distract become less and the things in me that look and smell like Jesus to the world be made greater.

I am left with the words of Wynne Lewis, amazingly used and confusingly gifted - I'm sure he should shave sold used cars: "Victor, you often look like the world to the righteous people in Church and yet you look and smell like Jesus to the world outside our doors. Never let that gift slip from your hands!"

If that is mine and Christ is with (and within) me,  who or what can stand against me and the Gospel of Christ? I love my life; my Lord, my family, my friends and those who I call brothers and sisters. Help me to serve them as Christ came to serve us.

Blue Sky Thinking - Blame

Listening to the radio today it seems that some are looking at the Malaysian air disaster and asking the question, 'Who is to blame - who can we sue?'

Oddly it appears that this attitude is being supported, nay encouraged, by legal firms - now there's a surprise - and so perhaps this thought is also their mantra:

Blue Sky Thought - Family, Friends and Love

This is one of those extremely inflammatory conversation starters - separates men from boys, politically left from right, the haves from the have-nots and so on.

We all have our 'most important' things in life - but have you got your priorities right I wonder?

Getting them into Church - it's not enough!!

Had a great discussion with someone who was trying to convince me that 'getting people into the church building (especially with regard to Christmas) was enough!'

I tried, rather unsuccessfully, to convince them that whilst it was indeed good to get the people in, it counted for little other than a round of applause from those who wanted to count the number of people through the doors and perhaps those who assume that these convert into some form of income!

It doesn't matter how many people we drag through the doors if we fail to preach Christ - Baby, Bloke, Broken and how He was raised again FOR US!

If Immanuel (God with us) become merely 'carol time' and if Advent is set aside for Argostide then what on earth are we playing at?

But try as I might (and believe me, I did try) I couldn't get past the fact that what made a successful Christmas for this church (if I'm not mistaken) was that Christmas - it's all about numbers!

Oh yeah - and that Hallmark tableau moment when the kids, dressed for the part, have their photo's taken the grandparents sniff at the sight.

Education: Living as a struggling observer

I've been working with, in and around secondary education for a few years now and hear various accounts of what (apparently) occurs behind the walls of our educational institutions and manifests itself as education. I have to say 'apparently' because I struggle to believe that there really are teachers out there who encourage their pupils to call them by their first names or regale them with accounts of their social life and the like.

Mind you, I can remember being taken to task when, as a schoolboy, I invited my form master to call me 'Vic', the reason given was that since we were going to be working together there was little point in being formal about the relationship. I also remember including the teacher's name (Jim) and it was that that saw me heading off the the deputy head's office for a bit of corporal punishment!

Yes indeed folks, A.S. Neil and Summerhill School had a lot to answer for with this (as I realise now) precocious teenager. Neil's stated aims of making the school fit the child rather than vv really resonated with me and yet I now, as a wrinkly, find myself longing that education would be more like Neil's vision with a bit of oomph thrown in.

Things get worse when I hear of bright pupils who are failing because of circumstances outside of their won control and whilst I am a living example of then 'could do better' example of scholar I am also aware that some schools are apparently happy with producing low-quality products. Not only that but some are happy to manipulate their outcomes by farming out the lower end of the population to technical and vocational establishments (something I think is disgraceful as it stigmatises the more practical or mechanically-minded as second class from an earlier age than was before)!

Looking at the grades where I live today, and discussing them with one whose children travel away from our schools, I have come to realise that we are perhaps not serving our children well when it comes to education. I hear of children who are passing with Es (rather than ease) and have heard of more lower grade results this year than perhaps before (which might conveniently be blamed on Gove and the fiddling of the figures). I have found more young people packing their schoolbooks in their old kitbag and moving away from the place that appears to have failed them last year in the hope that the new place might redress the situation.

Nigel Molesworth - my hero and role model

Of course if the kids aren't digging in and doing the work then they deserve all that they don't get (so I'm told) but if they aren't chivied, nudged and challenged to do better then the finger returns to those who are paid to educate, and where is the redress then? I'm struggling as I sit and watch what is (apparently) occurring with the children on my community because they deserve more that that which they apparently get in secondary education.

So I write this as a struggling observer. Education is about maximising and achieving a child's full potential. It is about enabling them to have the widest choice of opportunities before them and to be fulfilled and content - it is not about maximising earnings or rising up the class system (we can leave this to the people who pay for the privilege of private education to perhaps do this)!

I seek to open the eyes of the children around me as to what they can do. To encourage them to dream dreams and to make them become reality and yet this is missing from their accounts of what appears to be happening in their school life. The teachers who encouraged, imparted passion and excited with their subject just don't appear to be there (please tell me this isn't true) and instead we have teachers who are unable to control their classes and who resort to ranting, raving and screaming as their normal mode of work.

I'm struggling and whilst I try to maintain a balanced view feel reason and belief in the system slowly disappearing only to be replaced by something I'd rather not be feeling. For if I, outside of the system feel like this, how on earth do the teachers and pupils feel?

Pax

Church of Wonga

Now as much as I don't agree with payday loans, they are of course better than the alternative, which is two large geezers knocking on your door to 'enquire' why Mr X hasn't had his money yet!

Just as payday loans were applauded for removing some of the the poor from the vagaries of the 'loan shark' (and we still have them and people 'helping' those around us get further into debt) the reality is that Justin is on the right track with his championing of Credit Unions and low-rate payday loans, helping to replace white goods without increasing the burden of debt and more.

One of those I spoke to on Friday said that 'the Church' ought to stick to i's own business and keep out of the financial world - after all, they said, 'You don't see banks opening churches now, do you?'

What a thought - perhaps Errol Damelin, Founder of Wonga, ought to draw up battle lines and open the Church of Wonga - Motto: 'Why not count on tomorrow to pay for today?'

I have to say that I think he looks the part - so why not? After all, money is the focus of many of those I meet and so a church that looked towards the accruing, spending and general worship of the stuff would be popular - and you could always take out a loan for the repayments (errr, I mean, offering!)

The reality is that Damelin and his organisation are meeting an obvious need - that's what business does.

What Justin is doing is trying to meet that same need, but in a better way, and this has to be good for everyone - well everyone except those who make money out of lending it that is) - and this has to be applauded and acted upon (Church is often poor at the former and invisible in the second of these).

For my money (and prayers), Justin has chosen his battlefield well - he just needs the CofE to be more circumspect in its investments now. Still, he looks good in the shirt!

He, and the CofE, will look even better when he's taken it off ;-)

Ethical Investment is not really investment

Well, not in the financial sense anyway!

I find it interesting that when engaging in conversations with people the issue of 'the Church' and money often crops up and those who bring it up often work on the same script as me dear old Dad (what's no longer with us). It goes a little like this (they're in italics):

So why does the Church need money then, I thought it was rich?
Well it does have money, that's true, but it needs what it has to provide for the future by investing some so that they can spend the rest wisely.

Yeah, but if it spent the money it has it wouldn't need to be out with the begging bowl all the time - after all it's not like you've got much to pay for!
But there's loads we need to pay for - we have to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the buildings, gas, electric and water, staffing, housing, administration ... everything down to, and including, bread, wine and toilet roll.

But the government pays for that though, doesn't it?
Nope - everything we have to pay generally comes through the giving of the church members and fees* for some of the services that we do.

This is usually the point where the other party expresses surprise as they thought 'the Church' was in some way funded or subsidised by the state - after all (as one person put it) - the Queen owns all this so surely she should be paying for it!!!

It is about now that the conversation either tails off, or moves into the more interesting topic of investment.

The problem as we hit this area is that I am usually told that we should be getting the best returns we can on our investments but when I ask whether investing in arms companies, or in organisations that scar the earth or damage the environment in pursuit of profit the answer is, more often than not, a resounding 'No'. I then have to explain that the more risk and the dirtier the deed, the better the potential for high returns on invested capital and, of course, vice versa.

In monetary terms 'truly ethical' is really lending money at no interest to altruistic and beneficial companies. Those who will make a difference (in a good sense) but not a profit.

This is why there are quotas and limits placed on the 'ethical' definition and I have to admit that I'm not comfortable with them, for they go something like this (ballpark figures - I'm a dogcollar not an investment banker or manager):

An investment is considered ethical if the total involvement of the company being invested, in those acts which might be considered to have limited or dubious moral or ethical standards, comprises no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of its business.

This means that, with regard to the CofE and it's investments, they can invest in a finance group which has, as this is an issue at the moment a payday loans division, and as long as it's less that twenty-five percent of its overall business then they can still say they have ethically invested.

When it comes to armaments, munitions and other 'weapons of war', they can still invest in a company which produces them (or components for them - often harder to pinpoint) and here the threshold is lowered to say, ten percent.

The problem we are seeing with Justin's stand against high-interest, short-term, payday loans is that the investment division of the CofE are applying the limits and are, technically, maintaining the ethical investment stance. The easy answer would be to only invest in truly ethical institutions and accept that there's not going to be any real interest (could put it in the bank and see the same interest - except of course they are more than likely not investing their money ethically either and so the money still has that taint attached, albeit second or third hand).

I'd rather that we didn't put even a penny where it will be used for a business that denies the Biblical teaching - but that would surely means that interest and that nasty word, 'usuary', would have to crop up.

As one who supported a now defunct Credit Union I long for the day when we could see them working out of every church building, acting to combat the rising tide of debt and working to maximise what people have and helping them into healthy and sustainable lifestyles.

So before we laugh at Justin's misfortune we ought to realise the complexities of trying to balance the books and the problems of realising the best interest on what capital we have financially and ethically.

So let's applaud Justin and hope that which he has started will continue and that we will see an increase in church-based credit unions for our members and, most importantly, for the people we serve and live out the Gospel with.

Pax

*Usually another interesting conversation to be had regarding setting of fees by Parliament; Ranges from disgust to amusement to indignation that the State should 'dictate' to the Church :-)

What makes church valid? (post the second)

When engaged in the discussion topic 'what makes church (and church services) valid' I often find that once we've got the numbers thing out of the way the conversation turns to location.

'Look at the Roman Catholics,' they cry, 'They've got it right because they only have a few church buildings, in fact there's only one in our town and they expect those who come to travel! That's what we should do - reduce the number of church buildings and let them travel!'

As true as this might be for the faithful in our town where there is one in the centre and another which serves the towns and communities to the North. There are indeed but two for a large number of Catholic church members. Now take another place I know of where there were once seven RC church buildings and some they will have reduced this to but two!

C Peter Wagner used to say that the ideal was a flourishing Christian community (which for the sake of this consideration we will call 'church') in every community and many street corners. This idea that we need to rationalise the number of church buildings based upon proximity might be persuasive to and for some BUT  there are further considerations - spiritual, missional, sociological, practical  and human.

LOCATION
A large conurbation near to us has many church buildings and these are obviously near to one another - some only streets away from the next. The thinking is that closing one building merely results in believers having to walk a further five or ten minutes to the next and there is a logic to this But once we move on from this as a paper exercise and bring people into the equation we also need to factor in the pain too. Other parameters like churchmanship and membership, for not all churches are community churches, increase the factors that need to be considered and satisfied.

PEOPLE & CHURCHMANSHIP
As much as I can understand the location argument and 'short additional distance' caveat the reality is that those who are high church may not find the nearest church building as a venue for their style of church. The same goes for those orthodoxy versus liberal church and the choirs and central church versus worship bands and a more charismatic style.

People will gather with those who are similar to them, this is the reality (and attraction) of homogenous church. So to decide that St Blog's can close with the members moving to St Dingbat's is great on paper but will serve to lose some members from the losing church. Some will cease churchgoing completely whilst others will travel to a similar expression of church and the others, who do go to St Dingbat's will either settle or make it feel more like their own home and this in turn will cause St Dingbat's to lose members too!

Closing churches means the end of churchgoing for many and yet, as one higher placed person told me, 'This is a price that needs to be paid for sustainability!'

SOCIOLOGICAL & MISSIONAL
Now we have a real issue before us. We talk of Church as being light in dark places and yet it is in some of the very darkest places that the presence of the Church is in greatest danger of being extinguished. The mission of the Church is to take Christ into the difficult places and if doing this is costly to the whole body, then so be it.

This does not mean that a church, plant or congregation should not seek to 'pay its way' but it does mean that the sending church needs to accept the responsibility of funding (spiritually and financially) the presence of a church in the community. That said, with some of the building, perhaps the time has come to knock the blessed thing down and replace it with a modern community facility in which the Church resides alongside others (more later).

In response to the first post on this issue, Jante responded with a question relating to a small rural community with small numbers residing and 10% of that population coming to church. This is sure to be an unsustainable church in terms of finance but is quite like to be both sociologically and missionally valid. The problem is that we appear to be placing too much emphasis on money and not enough on mission and yet, as ever, bill have to be paid and we cannot be naive enough to think that money doesn't matter.

THE BUILDING
Working in West London we wanted to do some stuff to the church building we were in. The reason for this was to make it a more inviting and useful building and to render it 'fit for purpose' for the Church of today.

The result was that the Victorian Society - a bunch of people who had no interest in Church as the Bride of Christ and saw it as merely a pretty building with links to some Victorian hero of mine - pointed their toes and conservation and preservation won the day and the building remains useless to this very day! My response was to offer them the building and let them face the costs of roof repairs, masonry renovation and preservation and the like. 'Let them have the Blessed thing,' I cried, 'It's no use to us and since they want it so much, let them pay for it!' But of course whilst they wanted to dictate about the inside, they neither wanted to come into the place nor take responsibility for it.

We need to have some courage and offer what we have to the community (for along with cure of souls comes curator of the community history) and let them pay for the much loved building they want to fight for if we speak of closure. That landmarks will vanish is a sadness but those who want them most appear to also be least willing to pay for their continued existence.

SPIRITUAL (oh yeah)
Truth is that the Church is a spiritual body and the church building is merely a meeting place for it. The number of times I hear someone say, 'We don't need buildings, they're an encumbrance - let's close them and do our services in the local school, sport's hall or whatever - bin the building!" and there is something of merit in what they say. Mind you they've never planted a church or run services from building other than a proper church building have they?

They can't have for having done the school and hall church stuff I know that arriving ninety minutes before a service and lugging stuff up six flights of stairs and setting up and doing the service and then packing up and carrying everything back down six flights of stairs and loading it back in the vehicles and taking it home and unloading and storing the stuff and everything else that goes with not having your own building -IS A PAIN!

The Church is the spiritual body and it should be in a place, in a building that is the (or one of THE) focal point of the community. The doors should be open and the reason for its presence clear because of the spiritual: The calling to be Church in that place; the desire to be Church in that place; the commitment of the membership to be Church in that place and it that isn't obvious then the people need to be grounded in the Gospel and mobilised or the doors shut.

Sound harsh?

Church is not a hobby, neither it is part-time or something for us.

Church is about populating heaven and Kingdom thinking and it we don't want to live in the reality of that then we need to live in the reality that we don't need, no we can't afford, to keep lights on and buildings open.

Church is more than bank balances - it is about transforming lives.

Church is more than two hours on a Sunday -  it's about coming and talking about what Christ has done in, and for, and through us during the other one hundred and sixty-six hours of the week.

So here we are - twelve minutes of mad splurge onto the screen in front of me. The telephone rang whilst typing and I was asked if I was looking for a move as a friend had a vacancy coming up near to them. Nice to know someone wants me but until God say otherwise here I stand, for I can do no more ;-)

Happy Saturday

ps. No one else's agendas here though - just my madness. Discuss it here or at cavedwellers.co.uk

Church Report (3): sets low standard - fails to achieve?

I'd like to consider those churches who serve the poorer, needier and more deprives communities in our land for it often here than numbers and money combine to bring forth an inherited poverty that inhabits (and perhaps controls) both spiritual and physical worlds.

Confused (then, job done, perhaps I should stop now whilst behind)? No, of course you're not - well I hope you won't be:

A church I happened across was in an Urban Priority Area (UPA); one of those places that exists somewhere in every city, town and village. The people were lovely - they were the sort of either lived to work and worked to live or were what they called 'government artists' (a local euphemism for those who 'drew' benefits). Like many from churches that are in UPA or 'Estate' settings many of those who were drawn to gave more than perhaps their income or lifestyles might have led you to expect and not only did they give pound notes but they gave of their time and themselves too. This is a reality that makes some inner-city, UPA and estate churches such a blessing - people where living is hard and living as a Christian is harder still - and yet they do admirably.

So what am I talking about, because this billing doesn't appear to have anything to do with 'inherited poverty', does it?

I'm talking about the fact that even though they gave, many assumed that they'd struggle to pay their share and so, accordingly, they did! In fact that hadn't managed to pay all or much of the share for a number of years and when the issue was raised, so too were their voices as they said (in unison), 'But we're a poor church, we can't afford to pay!'  They were so convinced that they were poor and couldn't pay that this became something they tried to ignore - for rather than bless and be a blessing it became the hallmark of poverty and defeat.

What I think was going on was that the church was under a curse they had pronounced over themselves. This course was, of course, poverty and from this poverty they found themselves unable to pay which confirmed the curse they were under and one fed the other to leave them impotent as a 'poor' church.

They looked up the road to the big successful church (whatever happened to 'Giving as Ministry' ?) and saw in their success further confirmation of their inability to pay and of their poverty in terms of numbers (and yet, oddly, both were evangelical and occupied the same beliefs and attitudes) and ability to 'be or do' church.

Then along came a new minister. Not young and flashy, not full of tricks, gimmicks, buzzwords and a 'drop dead gorgeous and talented 'worship band' (isn't it ALL worship?) but committed to breaking the cycle of poverty that had limited the congregation. They set about paying their share and amazingly, they did!

Now this will have done many things:

i. It says to the people -'you are not chained by poverty but have been set free' (and free indeed!); now live like it,

ii. It says to the diocese - 'We are committed to being part of the diocesan family',

iii. Invites renewed (visible) commitment from the diocesan as they recognise the achievement, and

iv. It beggars the question of the other churches around it - 'Were you helping or praying when they were failing or merely content because you weren't? '

It is so easy for poorer communities to believe that they are too poor to reap the benefits of God's Grace and too poor to meet their church's commitments.

It is easier still for those churches with money (and numbers) to sit back comfortably and pay from what they have whilst celebrating the many people they have who are able and active and forget about the poorer church 'up the road/across town'. Because even though this is about them - they don't stand in isolation - Do They?

Malachi's entreaty that we 'bring all of our tithe into the storehouse so that none may go without' doesn't stop at our doors but continues to the whole family.

If a man falls into a hole and has no friends, he perishes; but if he has friends he will be saved.

Who's going to help break the chains that surround so many of our vulnerable and essentially placed churches I wonder?

Church Report (2): sets low standard - fails to achieve?

Continuing with this topic with regard to church planting and pioneer ministry:

One of the worst situations I happen across is those people who are doing pioneer ministry or church planting because, almost always, what I find is a bunch of people who complain that 'the Church' should be paying for everything and that it is unfair to expect them to raise money from the new body of believers that they are raising up.

And of course they are wrong - regardless of what or how - wrong, wrong (and once more for emphasis), wrong!

My big black book tells me that where my treasure is also where my heart will be!
Experience with church (and many other groups which people join) tells me that where people put their heart, passion and belong is the place where they put their treasure to support it.

A church plant has to have a some well-defined goals which lead them into being:

a sacramental body where bread and bath are an important part of its being,

a Bible believing, orthodox faith regardless of the setting it is in,

a Christ-centred, Trinitarian body which, in company with the Son worships the Father through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit,

a place where sound, grounded and inculturated preaching, teaching and discipleship can be found,

a welcoming, inclusive* and pastorally sensitive (and able) place where all are 'family',

a body that joins with others congregations in partnership and shared mission (so many appear to want to be 'special' and remain apart from the body that planted it - it is a plant not a split!), and

a body that pays its way and supports itself (with the desire to be able to support others at some stage).

So many people tell me that they don't have enough people to pay and that asking them to cover the costs of what goes on is a deterrent when it comes to growth. Now I support this view and think that we need to accept that planting a church is indeed a costly affair. Those who send also have to fund (and some will argue that providing a paid for minister is enough evidence of that)  and this means that there has to be some casting of the sending church's bread upon the water

BUT

the goal  and (more importantly) desire has to be that the body becomes self-sustaining and mature. That the new church (that's the people) sees converts come through to maturity and become leaders and in time bring more converts - not to satisfy a desire for numbers but because they want to share the Good News and see people released into the true freedom that being a person of faith (and that faith looking to Christ and the Cross) brings.

We all have to balance our books - we all have to pay for our gas, electric, water, parish share, toilet rolls and other stuff - especially tea )which reminds me that it must be time for a final cuppa before I head out for a wonderfully full day of ministry and madness.

Happy New Year and for all those teachers out there - enjoy the new term and be of good cheer for Easter's coming!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pax

But the Church is rich! (Part III)

The Church (of England) costs around £1,000M to keep the doors of our churches (13,000 of them) and cathedrals (43) open. The pretty graph below gives an idea of how the money comes in:

From it we can see that 21% comes from investments,

16% from Fees (Baptism, Wedding and Funerals), and

The rest (excluding 'other') pretty much comes from within (and the 'tax recovered' is a component of giving too!).

So - the reality is that we do have money but we aren't rich and the money we generate from it means we need to raise around £210m less from within (i.e. the members and churchgoers). The central organisation is therefore subsidising the operation leaving church members with their Parish Share to meet the rest.

That said, Parish Share is no small amount as can be seen with our  'church in a phone box and its need to find £65 every day of the year to pay it (and that's without running expenses) but it would be £100 without the 'wealth!'.

And what the communities we serve get is extremely good value for money and those who are Church (meaning CofE for this example) should be proud of what we are in the main doing and being.

Pax

ps. If you are a church member (and denomination or group) why not GiftAid your giving and maximise the power of your giving?