Bread on water or pearls before swine?

That's one of the challenges that so often faces us when it comes to being and doing church.

How do we decide where (and upon what) to spend our cash in our attempts to 'build the kingdom'?

Do we plant new churches and engage in Fresh Expressions (FE) or do we invest in people?

I engage with people who are keen to try new things and some of them are wonderful, other quite weird and other are just plain wacky; yet each idea needs to be considered not just with human eyes, business plans and the like but with spiritual eyes too.

For me, whilst I know it is important, money is neither prime mover or reason for binning something, what I would have us think about are:

i. impact on the community,

ii. impact on the church, and (most important until last)

iii. The calling (what does God want you to be doing?)

I have seen stuff tried and failed majestically, sinking like the Titanic without the benefit of deckchair or band and yet it has been a success. How can that be (I hear you mumble)? Well, from the ashes has come a bunch of people who have bonded and risen from the depths to engage with something else that will be a success because adversity brings one of three things:

Increased resolve and coherence

Despair and dispersion

Confusion and apathy

The key to knowing the where (and what) of any church plant, FE or church engagement is to ask a few questions - a social audit or walk around your patch with a missioner or someone who will bring fresh eyes will pay dividends in helping understand what is needed.

For instance I often find people who have decided to start doing Messy Church just yards from another church who are doing the same thing. What is called for here is partnership but no, each does it's own thing and this not only dilutes the audience but, in one notable case, brought animosity (they're trying to pinch our people!') and caused despair (all set up and no one comes doesn't leave you with a spring in your step, does it?).

We need to be speaking of kingdom rather than 'our church' - seek to do what we can in partnership (especially in smaller locations where the population and place is small, limiting those we can reach) where we can - doing what we do alone where this is not possible.

When a church began a parent and toddler group in the centre of our town they were advised that such a work 'never' brings new people in. Their response was, 'Perhaps not, but we provide something that is needed and build relationships,' and that was a start - the issue was that that neither clergy or church members tried to engage with the people who came. For those who came, the people who ran the group were 'church' and the rest were strangers (and strange) and remained that, even after a visit to a service.

I meet, or hear of, people who are doing great stuff; things that the community really lacks and has need of. The problem is that when we seek to meet them, whose name do we do it in and what is the desired outcome?

It's not good enough to do stuff anonymously for fear that using the name of Jesus or using the word 'church' or 'God' or 'Christian' or any other perceived weakness or threat, will scupper or limit the work.  We go out in the name of Jesus the Christ the name above all names and if we can't, then we need to ask ourselves what we meet for and why we're considering looking at engaging with the community.

I have asked this and my (perhaps cynical and wrong) assessment of some of the responses is this:

1. If we tell them we are Christians they will think we're 'scalp hunting' 
but what, and how, we do what we're doing will some scupper, or confirm, that.

2. If we don't tell them we're Christians we can influence them more
because they think we are the same as them (and when they find we've 'conned' them - what will they think!

3. We don't label ourselves because we want to be socially active rather than do gooder Christians
for me there are two questions here:
so are you Christians in a secular project? if so, excellent - we need Christians in politics, secular projects and the like. My next question is, 'This is a secular project or partnership with a secular group, isn't it?' (And if it's not then surely you're denying Christ?
OR
are you merely people who gather together and do good stuff using the church building as a base? Where does Christ, the Gospel and our call to 'go into all the world . . .teach them to obey, sit with you?

So much more buzzing in brain but after this seven minute splurge (I feel better now) I know I'm leaving you with questions, challenges and perhaps some guidance and thought-provoking stuff for me in return.

Happy Wednesday - visits, service writing, tenebrae to print and Holy Week to contemplate (and then lunch :-) )

Pax

Not in our churchyard

Yesterday morning after a couple of visits I found myself back at the church (charmingly referred to as the 'cardboard cathedral' by one of my friends) in time for lunch (bangers and mash). As things were drawing to a close we were visited by a homeless person who had been camping nearby and returned to find all their stuff had been stolen.

A couple of hours later, re-equipped, we looked for somewhere to put the person for a night so we could get some focus and plan a way forward. Apparently there was the potential for a local housing association to get involved and so the problem was that of finding a pitch for the night. Now plonking them on private land was not a goer and so, after seeking the opinion of a few people (none sadly much help) I found myself setting the tent up in a corner of a nearby churchyard (in a corner with no graves where someone's obviously camped before) out of the general public gaze. A modern day application of the Church giving sanctuary (or so I thought).

Sadly not, for some of the good burghers of that place wasted little time in ringing the police informing them that 'vagrants' had occupied the churchyard and others engaged in their own version of NIMCY (Not In My Church Yard). As today is world mental health day (apparently) and on the same day that the predictions of the greatest decline in family income and the greatest increase in child poverty since the 70's I despair for society and Church in equal measure.

The person in question will be gone today but the attitudes highlighted will undoubtedly remain :-(

Perhaps we need to play this to all those who call themselves 'Christian':

And when the Son of Man comes, and all the Holy Angels with him,
Then shall he sit on His Glorious throne,
And he will divide the nations before Him,
As a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
And she shall put the sheep on His right and the goats on His left,
And He shall say to the sheep; come ye, blessed of My Father,
inherit the Kingdom I have prepared for you from the foundation of the world,

For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat,
I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink,
I was naked, and you clothed me,
I was a stranger, and you invited me in,
I was sick, and I was in prison, and you came to me.
Thank you! Enter into your rest.

And they shall answer Him, yes, they shall answer Him,
And they'll say, Lord, when?
When were you hungry Lord, and we gave you something to eat?
Lord, when were you thirsty? I can't remember. And we gave you drink?
When were you naked Lord, and we clothed you?
And Lord, when were you a stranger and we invited you in?
I mean, we invited lots of people in Lord. I could never forget that face.
And Lord, when were you sick and we visited you?
Or in prison, and we came to you? Lord, tell us?

In as much as you did it to the least of my brethren, you've done it unto me.
Oh yes, as much as you've done it to the very least of my brethren,
You've done it, you've done it unto me. Enter into your rest.

Then He shall turn to those on His left, the goats.
Depart from me, you cursed ones, into everlasting fire,
prepared for the devil and his angels.

For I was hungry, and you gave me nothing to eat,
I was thirsty, and you gave me nothing to drink,
I was naked, out in the cold, in exposure, and you sent me away,
I was a stranger, and I knocked at your door,
But you didn't open, you told me to go away,
I was sick, racked in pain upon my bed,
And I begged, and prayed, and pleaded that you'd come, but you didn't,
I was in prison, and I rotted there,
I'd prayed that you'd come.
I heard your programs on the radio, I read your magazines, but you never came.
Depart from me!!!

Lord, there must be some mistake, when?
Lord, I mean, when were you hungry Lord and we didn't give you something to eat?
And Lord, when were you thirsty, and we didn't give you drink?
I mean, that's not fair, well, would you like something now?
Would one of the Angels like to go out and get the Lord a hamburger and a coke?
Oh, you're not hungry, yeah, I lost my appetite too.
Uh Lord uh, Lord, when were you naked,
I mean Lord, that's not fair either Lord,
We didn't know what size you wear.
Oh Lord, when were you a stranger Lord,
You weren't one of those creepy people who used to come to the door, were you?
Oh Lord, that wasn't our ministry Lord. We just didn't feel led, you know?
Lord, when were you sick? What did you have, anyway?
Well, at least it wasn't fatal; oh, it was?
I'm sorry Lord, I would have sent you a card.
Lord, just on last thing we want to know,
When were you in prison Lord? What were you in for anyway?
I had a friend in Leavenworth..

ENOUGH!

In as much as you've not done it unto the least of my brethren,
You've not done it unto me.
In as much as you've not done it unto the least of my brethren,
You've not done it unto me. Depart from Me.
And these shall go away into everlasting fire.
But the righteous into eternal life!

And my friends, the only difference between the sheep
and the goats, according to this scripture,
Is what they did, and didn't do!!

As a postscript, I have to point out that the tent was in a corner behind clumps of trees and was pretty much invisible (unless you took the trouble to seek it out) so those who took offence did so with some effort. Would be funny if it wasn't so very sad :-(

Lyrics: Keith Green - Sheep and Goats

All Sins can be forgiven . .

We just can't deal with the mental health issues!

Outside the 'unforgivable sin' and grieving the Holy Spirit, I have always been taught that regardless of the sin, there was always healing, forgiveness and renewal available to the sinner, should they repent. The problem is that in the United Kingdom, one in every six people is affected by a mental health issue, one in every four has been (or will be, mentally ill at some time - varying degrees, but identifiably mentally ill) (ONS 2007 UK Census - 23%).

Following the 2007 census, the then Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, spoke about the situation:

"At any one time, one in six people will be living with a mental health problem. One in four will experience an episode of mental illness at some point in their lifetime. If this statistic were applied to some of this country’s most venerable institutions, it would mean that at least one presenter of the Today programme, one of the Strictly Come Dancing judges and around six players in the current England football squad, have experienced or will experience a mental illness at some point in their lives"

I am concerned at a number of levels and for a number of reasons. The first being that I find Christians who are so excited by an issue like homosexuality, which affects four to five percent of the population (globally or locally, take your pick) . They rant and rave about something that affects one in twenty people tops. These same people studiously avoid an issue which affects one in four (or perhaps one in six, depends upon the definitions used).

Now I know I'm treading on dodgy ground here because some will accuse me of comparing apples and pears rather than 'like-for-like' (worse still that I am lumping both together as a 'illness' - which I am not). What I am trying to do as I open this discussion is to show the scale of the issue before us and the inordinately skewed focus regarding it (so it's not a discussion about homosexuality - O.K.!).

So hopefully I have put in some context and a datum from which to work regarding the man spoken of yesterday.

One of the more compassionate people regarded the issue as one that the man's pastor needed to address 'decisively'. Another spoke of the man needing to be 'locked up' and another was angry and upset because the bloke had (basically) 'spoilt his Good Friday religious bit!' (my words, his attitude!).

The problem with mentally ill people is that they aren't rational. They are disruptive and often controversial, noisy, aggressive, frightening, weird, and more beside. they just don't make sense and cannot see sense when it paraded before them. Rational conversation aimed at them produces fluffy bunnies, a world that is out to get them, half a dozen other personalities popping out to say 'hello' (sorry - 'sound of music' gene problem) and totally ridiculous responses (ever tried talking to me?).

The problem is, that 'they' (for it seems that the mentally ill lose identities and become that wonderful, anonymous, 'they') just don't do anything towards making church comfortable and 'they' can be disruptive and do need to be managed such that our services run with a degree of decency and decorum. BUT, there has to be latitude (not lassitude) shown, a degree of accommodation and acceptance along with the managing (AKA 'lock them up somewhere away from us')

Another issue is that having these 'nutters' (a word used to describe the mentally ill 'they'recently) going around telling people they're Christians isn't good marketing. Even if we let them come to our services, it would be good if they didn't support the idea that to be Christian, or even religious, is the province of the mentally ill, after all, we claim to hear voices and have a God fixation (two of the signs when I was training).

And then we have the 'demon' brigade. The wonderfully weird and often certifiable Christians who see mental illness as merely 'demonic' and, because "Demons are their ministry and calling!" (which is actually tosh!) look for a gunfight with the demonic causes of the illness. Now here's a bit of gained wisdom that I have built up over the years, your for free. Demons might not cause mental illness, but things demonic can use mental illness, the lowering of mental and emotional barriers caused by the illness and amazingly the medication and can sign up to make issue worse.

I have learned that what is presenting before me is more often than not (I've seen and dealt with less than twenty truly demonic mentally ill people in a quarter of a century of ministry)) a medical issue. At one stage I was the man who was called out to support a fair number of people under a section 4 admission and these were generally people who had felt better and stopped taking their pills. Some of them were 'demonised' (but the term is demon oppression, not possession) and although I have had my share of the funny voices, weird contorted faces, odd smells and even a levitation (I kid you not!) - we speak too often of demons as a cause and not enough as a parasitic entity (now I bet I sound mad myself!) and an effect.

That mentally ill people can be manipulated is often seen by the timing of their appearance. Often, just when stuff is trying and testing along comes someone presenting and I don't think this is coincidence. But it doesn't just interfere or distract, it also causes us to reject, deal with in a summary fashion or even condemned as 'knowing what they are doing and being disruptive or damaging' to the proceedings. Of course, what is often at stake is the comfort zone of the observer (cruel, but it has been true of me and I assume I'm normal).

We move on to the issue of 'WWJD'and this always raises in me the question, "Well, what would Jesus do?"

I think He'd take the person and their situation seriously. He'd afford them the chance to talk and would find the point where He could bring them to a place of awareness, stillness, realisation and peace. He would address the person rather than be drawn in by the illness and He'd bring healing. healing which would deal with the spiritual as well as the physical (after all, I was taught that mental illness is often a physical cause manifesting in the behaviour of the ill person).

Jesus would bring about a physical healing and would mop up any attached demonic followers as well. And so, the question nearly always comes, often in a statement. "Well, we don't have the power jesus did. Or perhaps we don't have the faith or it's not a gift I have, perhaps one day!"
But as we focus on Jesus, as we rejoice in the empty tomb, didn't he appear yesterday and give his Shalom? Didn't he breathe on those present and pour upon them, and us later at Pentecost, His Holy Spirit? Isn't the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead, that is Christ (homousios) within us and therefore what stops us from healing (another issue for another day) as He healed?

Is it faith? Or belief? Or our sins? I don't know - but I do know that I have prayed and seen blind eyes open (six of them) and have prayed and seen healing that defied my logic or experience and yet my faith was low, but my obedience was high.

Perhaps the first step is to start regarding the 'mentally ill' and merely regard them as being 'ill'. No different from any other physical illness, other than the fact that they enter into our comfort zones, that they are often embarrassing, difficult to deal with, obvious and apparent to all who see them. The manifestations are more obvious than a rash under clothing, for rashes don't shout out or wave their arms. the manifestations are more pressing and so therefore is the need to love and accept them as Christ would - not second class, not an embarrassment but as fellow humans with a more obvious affliction that our own, physical or spiritual.

Would would jesus do? Got an idea, then share it and do it!

Pax

ps. as an aside, please pray that as the mental health units and support centres close under the current financial cuts, that more churches would open their doors to provide support groups with spaces to continue their essential support work. That's one of the things jesus would do, I am sure.

All Member Ministry - Part the first

Following on from the 'Father knows best' model we are now residing in a period of glasnost whereby we enjoy the privilege and benefits of 'All Member Ministry' (AMM). This is the means by which the members of a fellowship, congregation or church are equipped, enabled and released to do the work of the Church.

Well, that's the theory anyway, but as is often the case, the reality is not always the same as what it says on the packet! Recently I have come across a few variations on the theme and thought I'd ponder them in this safe (ie. away from public gaze) place:

The Stage Manager

This appears to be the most common performance model in that the dog-collar has an idea about something that 'the church' could be engaged in and having investigated the needs, found a way to meet them and established a time and place to do the meeting of the needs takes it to the church council.

The church council, applaud loudly and approve the idea as sound and it is taken to the church with a communal sense of 'here we are, send them!'- a quote from Isaiah 6:8, Not Committed Version (NCV).

The church listens, rapt with concern and inspired to respond, as the needs of 'the lost' are paraded before them. They gasp with amazement at the ways the newly exposed needs might be met and praise God that the church will be making a difference where they are. Oddly, though, few come forward to volunteer their time and energies and those who do turn out to be the same people who are doing everything else. Still, the task is passed over to those who have volunteered and a few people are 'invited' to join in (this is a special dog-collar trick whereby people are given the job but the victim somehow feels they've invited!).

A first meeting is held and ideas (usually from the dog-collar or one of the over-committed) are batted around for a bit and the project is underway. A second meeting is held and ideas are batted around, people apologise for not having done the preparatory work, others apologise for the fact that they will be visiting family on the date set for the first iteration of the project and they agree to meet again. At a third meeting the dog-collar suggests a few things and tells the gathered group that the venue is set, the programme is set and all is in place for the first attempt at meeting whatever the need was when they first started planning.

On the day, the dog-collar and a few of the over-committed turn up and the first event takes place. It is a success (in the same way that there is no such thing as a bad parish weekend away) and the following Sunday the dog-collar parades 'the leader' (or even the team) and the assembled gathering applaud at what 'All Member Ministry' has achieved.

Content that the members now believe they have discovered, planned and executed a wonderful piece of work, the dog-collar applauds with the congregation, content that yet another piece of stage management has proved successful.

Those who get the applaud feel pleased and yet slightly confused that they are being recognised.

Those who were already over-committed realise that the applause signals even less time for themselves or their family (is it any wonder some kids rebel against the very same church that committed their parents energies away from them as kids?).

Those who are applauding really think that the church is 'active' and that the members are running the show.

Only the dog-collar, the gardener and the little house know the truth*

Pax

* If this sentence confuses you, it's a reference to Bill and Ben (the flowerpot Men!)

Re Re-motivating Church

Following on from my post yesterday, and answering some of the points made regarding it, I thought I'd continue with it for a bit longer.

It has been pointed out that the church was active in this land when money was forthcoming from the endowments and the (not always popular) system of tithes, and this is true. Not only that, but the parishes were generally stable entities which meant that the people within were known.

This is a fair observation, but it was also a time when the church was acting out of a legacy of pastoral care too and this was more often than not funded by the 'ordinary' people even if the initial idea, funding and motivation came from the nobs or the clergy. When there was nothing else, the Church was generally all there was and reading on this area I find that some embrace their legacy cheerfully and looked for ways to be involved and engaged, some however discharged their duties legalistically and grudging. Obviously it is the former group I would like to see being revived. Wonderfully, I can see places where this is true.

The next consideration was that the clergy were part of the Oxbridge, ruling class which rubbed shoulders with the aristocracy and the gentry.

Not only that but it was a time when, "The church acted paternalistically, assuming that everyone should be grateful for their (sometimes grudging) favours, and when it acted triumphalistically, assuming an easy right to be involved in everything."

As Revsimmy words so rightly point out, the old days of 'first son inherits title, second son joins the army, third son goes into the church' have long gone. He also points out that the old system was such that many of those ordained in the recent past would never have been under the old 'ruling class' system. Which reminds me of an encounter when I was Potty training.

Our POT group was visiting and establishment when the Chief Executive brought an old chap in to meet us. It transpired that the old gentleman was a retired bishop. After a few niceties and introduction he said something along the lines of, "Well done for getting ordained. So and so has just taken over my old diocese, the son of N you know. People think that we're letting anyone in you know, but the CofE is still one of the greatest gentlemen's clubs in the world!"

Appalled? We were!!!

I am glad we have opened the doors to those who seek ministry and am glad we have lost the 'Conservative party at prayer' label, but do fear that we are perhaps heading towards being the "Trendy, New Labour Party at prayer," instead. Still, back to the topic in hand.

RevSimmy continues, "I'm afraid I don't share the rose-tinted view of the past that some seem to have. The church squandered its opportunities because it spent too much effort cosying up to those in power at the time and has still not properly adjusted to our late/post-modern times. I for one am thankful for the welfare state .. and do we want to return to the attitudes of Father/Parson knows best?"

I also meet many who long for the good old days when we were all and everything, when the Vicar was also a member of the ruling or gentrified classes and the people knew their place. But I am not one of those, thankfully, but one who sees that the heritage we have walked away from (for it was just taken, the church volunteered it) perhaps all but gone. Yet the 'Big Society' and the chaos caused by the greed of those looking to make a quick and easy profit, the naivety of the bankers (who thought it could just keep on going upwards) and the ineptitude of the government (Labour as incumbents and Tories because they helped set the condition for the banking crisis) give us one last chance to regain some of the ground.

Where I am, I see Christians responding to need through a variety of works and we come alongside those with addictions , pregnancy issues and soon to come, a foodbank too! The Church needs to be doing the same, and the time has never been better - we just need to get people out of the church buildings and into the community!

Like UKViewer, I don't see the church can become what it once was in some places like the East End in the last century, but this is more about demographics and the people groups who now populace those parts rather than the effectiveness or opportunities. We have the opportunity, and are taking it,to be the voice of concern and care in our inner-city areas. The 'Big Society' will only increase the potential.

The welfare state, although coming from altruistic motives, has in many ways begun to mirror what happened when the Church was the welfare state and this is perhaps another benefit of the current cash crisis in that it will see itself de-institutionalised and the opportunities for Multi Agency Groups (MAGs) with Church leadership (or involvement) will be the turning point of a sound and financially effective response to this nation's needs.

When UKV says, "In these days of less stipendiary ministers and falling incomes, I don't see the church doing that much more than it is managing now. I would love to see it differently, but I sense that I would have to a wild optimist to believe that this situation will improve in the short or medium term."

Where I am, I am seeing those who have retired taking the lead and the ministers, whilst active (well, some of them!) the lead is the members. This is what gives me such hope for the future.

So, what are the needs where we are? What is being lost due to cuts and how can the Church (that means churches) respond and meet those needs?

PAx