Journal: Ok, where did the day go?

had it all planned but - a day off, but then there was a little website management followed by a lot of admin that needed to be done for the weekend followed by a couple of articles for people and some stuff surrounding the Tamworth Hustings on June 5th and some prep for the diocesan event tomorrow and before you knew it - the work day was finishing and it was almost 10pm and it had been something like a fourteen hour (working) day!

Finished tired and yet strangely satisfied - which is why I guess I keep on doing long hours - because if the work is there then I'll plough on!

So, a great day, albeit almost totally office based, with much to show for it and much to be grateful for.

For the conversations by telephone - glad I've abandon email for telephone, nothing better than hearing a voice and bringing about a solution in real time - I'm grateful. They were a blessing to the person at the other end of the wire and to me.

For the planning which appears to be coming together - always surprised and always blessed.

For the day gone - a big smile and gratitude for a productive day.

Yeeha!

Who is building your house today?

I was taken up by the opening words of Psalm 127 and then struck down by them as I reflected upon what they really say. How often have you heard this Psalm used as a bit of prooftexting in a sermon to speak of vision and 'working with/for God'?

But have we really ever stopped to think about the emphasis and impact of the passage as I've scribbled it below:

Unless God is behind it - we labour is in vain.
Unless the Lord defends it - we guard it in vain.
Up early and bed late - working with God or because we don't trust Him?

Unless we are in step with God, we labour in vain. The problem is that we don't seem to do a lot of listening to God when it comes to what He wants, in fact whenever I find myself in a 'vision' setting it seems that the majority of the process is about telling God what we want Him to do! The people around me know what God wants and so never bother to ask Him or listen for an answer and that all-important direction.

Last night I saw a programme where a man was setting out to restore/develop a castle yet had no drawings or plans, everything was in his head and eventually (through a number of factors), the project stalled, stumbled and failed. How many times have I seen this sad reality enacted in the world of Christian endeavour that is mission?

Who is the architect of the building we seek to create?
Who has drawn up the plans?
Who is the project manager for that which we seek to build?

Moving on the next line smacked me around the head (in a nice 'God awareness' sort of way - Thank You Lord!) as I recalled something I have recently read by a man who turns science upside down to make it look like his ideas of what God has done, and wants, are supported. But unless God defends it, any defence we create is defined to fall and, as in the case of this man, damage the reputation of the God we serve.

Isn't God big enough to defend His own Church?

Now I'm not saying walk away and leave the ramparts such that there is no defence, but conflict has always been about taking stock of the situation, gaining intelligence and listening to orders from the chain of command. Too often I find no one is listening to God (or reading the book He so kindly gave us) but instead are setting out to defend what is undefendable in a ways that look like war crimes!

So let us cease fire and gather round the Boss of an orders meeting (which we call 'prayers' in a military setting - ironic that, innit?). We should be fighting intelligently and with an obvious integrity!!!

Then comes a sour, barb, thorn and concern for me. I get up early to do my daily Office (the prayers I promised I'd do when I was ordained) and more often than not hit the sack when tomorrow has become today: what does this line do for me?

Am I trying to prove something or seeking to 'outlive God'?

Are my actions working with God or working hard because I don't think God is up to the task?

'God gives His faithful people rest,' that's what it says in the Psalm. Well I get enough rest (usually) so I can breathe a little easier here I guess. But we do need to make sure that, once again, what we do comes out of listening to God.

How do those three lines at the top work for you?

Are you listening in the same way as I, and others, obviously aren't?

Failure to do so might just render our action to be not just in vain but perhaps vanity.

All yours Lord.

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 :-)

Made me laugh: The CofE doesn't do construction ...

But if it did?

Picture the scene - there's a job to be done. The need has been identified - bollards are needed to stop people parking in an area, simple isn't it?

And here's a picture of the men finishing off after a good day's labour - seven bollards dug into, and cemented, the ground and the slabs around them grouted and made good.

How often do we wish we could do something like this in a Church setting? Understand the need, remedy that need and go home satisfied that that was a job well done?

Of course the blokes in the photo may well be experiencing all of those emotions  - but how they going to get home with the van inside the bollards?

Made me Laugh: God on my side

Dilbert is one of those cartoon characters that often leave me smiling as I recognise so many of the characters and scenarios from my own life (I know I have worked for the pointy-haired Boss and alongside Wally!). Keeping that in mind I have to say that I hadn't seen the top cartoon below before but when I did it became an immediate favourite - Always love Wally and his passing references to God and Church.

Enjoy:

The second cartoon is something I always wish I'd said to my pointy-haired Boss!

I hope you find these touch a chord (and make you smile) - if you don't know Dilbert (is there anyone who doesn't?) take a look at the daily cartoon here http://dilbert.com/strips/

Happy Sunday

Changing services and simple maths!

I had a very interesting conversation with someone who was crowing about the number of 'members' they had and especially about the fact that they had many 'new members' [and I smiled].

They went on (and on) to tell me about church and how 'concentrating' the services had proved good because they had more people in the 'main' service [and I smiled even more sweetly still].

Then came the punchline as they explained that the only disappointment was that 'usual' and 'average' numbers had fallen (year-on-year) and that this was confusing because of the 'other growth' [and I started asking a couple of questions].

Question One - 'Tell me about your new members?'
So they told me that this was due to the number of additional people who had appeared on the new electoral roll and how they had worked to get people in their patch to sign the forms and 'be part of the church'.

So I explained that, as I understand it, being on the electoral roll conferred the right to vote at the Annual Church Meeting (APCM/ADCM*) and thus makes them members of the Annual meeting but not necessarily 'church members' - who I would call 'communicants' (even if they don't communicate - that is take communion).

So what they had was a number of people who wanted, for many reasons, to be associated with the church. This was neither a statement of faith , attendance or even engagement for everyone I have canvassed this year tells me that attendance and numbers on the roll were very different form each other

Question Two - 'What does 'concentrating the services' mean'?
What this meant was that they had merged some services, an act that had the effect of raising the attendance for the remaining service. This is often the case that if we merge one or more services the observed effect is that the number of people attending the 'new' service will be more than the previous, unmodified service, attendance. It's common sense that if you have three services with a 'usual' headcount of twenty-five people, merging them will see the one winning some from the other two services. Of course, like efficiency, the overall percentage attendance will never equal one hundred per cent. Here's the purely mathematical equation for two services (A and B) which we will merge into one:

A+B = Total Population

Now, unless we have suddenly done something extremely marvellous (like offering free beer or a fiver for those who come to the service) the reality is that the people who come to the new service (cong) will never exceed the previous Total Population:

   (cong ÷ TP) x 100 ≯ 100%

Let's play and see whether this works:

Two morning services; the early communion (EC) and the, All-Age (AA), the average attendance of each is 15 and 23, giving a TP of 38. We merge the services to produce a 'family communion' and have a congregation (cong) size of 30. This means that we now have a service that has an relative attendance of:

(30 ÷ 38) x 100 = 79%

Our success in bringing two congregations into one, and seeing 'growth' in the new service,  represents a real loss of 21%.

So how do we deal with this, which of the options below do we take (assuming there was, of course, dialogue before the merging of services)?

a. Deciding that the new service is a better platform for growth we wish those who have left well and continue, looking to build on the 'success' of the new, and look forward to more coming along?

b. We dismiss the fact that some have left and celebrate the 'growth' without any real strategy to build on it?

c. We realise that some, perhaps stalwart (often pronounced 'stalewart'),  members have stopped coming and work on a strategy to cater for them in some way.

My problem is that the person I discussed this with was taking the middle option (that's 'b' by the way - and there is another I could have added which would have asked, 'What is acceptable loss?') and merely being happy because there was growth on the electoral roll and growth in the 'morning' service (so what was the other service, chopped liver?). There was no plans to consolidate or redeem the apparently lost - joy was to be found in the apparent and that was enough.

And this is why churches grow smaller.

Perhaps I should add that having lost the evening service some time back, this is now a one service on a Sunday church and should that one service fail, then it will be one of the most attractive carpet warehouses ever seen ;-)

*APCM - Annual Parochial Church Meeting
ADCM - Annual District Church Meeting

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