I have been reading the Church in Wales review document and take from it much that I consider to be extremely positive and helpful as we rethink 'Church' in our particular brand label.
The mobilising the laity to fulfil their baptismal calling and become a full and effective member of the church family to which they belong has already been addressed and so we will move on.The concept of larger ministry areas is in many ways a return to the Minster model of doing church whereby there is a centralised support structure and a group of churches in relationship with each other and with the centre. The interesting thing here is a rationalisation of those churches which remain in that the situation where, if we were honest, unsustainable churches would vanish and with it the heavy workload of sustaining these spiritual 'money pits'. My take would be that where there is growth or potential for growth then we should do all we can to keep the banner flying, but we need to stop throwing good money (and time) after bad! A recipe for tears I am sure but a necessary step I fear.
So here's you starter for ten.
How do you see the potential changes running out in terms of mobilising people, rationalising parishes and reducing the buildings?
Have a go - you never know who's reading your comments (as I have found out again recently ;-) )
Pax
8 comments:
In my view you are absolutely right. There are church communities that are "money pits". And there are also church communities that swallow spiritual (and physical) energy, and even church communities, if we are honest, that are negative influences.
I do believe that we need a great cull of church institutions, but the ones we need to get rid of are not necessarily the smallest or the most apparently vulnerable ones. The ones we need to get rid of are those which produce less Christianity than they consume.
That will need a great increase in honesty about the real value of our church communities, and a preparedness to name the money- and energy-pits. It will need conversations in which we challenge each other to tell the truth about the resources our community needs versus the benefits it produces (or will be able to produce). That honesty will also need a level of trust, in which admitting vulnerability does not instantly lead to oblivion, but in which everybody from the outset is prepared for ending to be a possibility. It's time to take seriously both parts of the gardener's promise: firstly, "let me dig round it for one more year," but also, "if not, cut it down."
I'm an advocate for change and moving to a model of church which reflects the community that it serves. This means that many churches are no longer where they are needed and in fact, several in our benefice are isolated in once thriving rural areas, and may be described as money pits.
Their congregations are small and work hard with enormous sacrifice and heartache to keep them open. They are unwilling to travel to benefice service in the next parish, while there church remains open. It's actually harder for them to except change due to the sacrifices they've made to keep their churches open. Mention closure and you gentle, meek people can become outraged and rebellious.
But the Church in Wales offer a fresh look at how we could be, I just wonder if it's papering over the cracks of decline, rather than a revivial?
David Keen has a good discussion going on his blog on this, with some insightful comments:
http://davidkeen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/leading-of-5000-redesigning-cofe.html
Interestingly I have been away with a bunch of people, some of whom were putting forward ideas similar to those outlined in the report. What was interesting was that many of those who are moving in this direction were neither small and the suggestions rather aggressive (in terms of evangelisation) and no sign of cracks or paper anywhere.
Mind you, we have been looking at a barrage in terms of decline and keep regrouping rather than returning with compelling and overwhelming fire. Perhaps this is the time and the means to do so?
Let us hope and pray so.
Thanks for the comments both,
V
You are supporting a wrong strategy. We need to reduce the number of bishops and diocesan staff and pay for the people who do that which is right and necessary.
I meet so many diocesan staff who are lazy and ineffective and yet their cost is added to that of a stipend. We are paying for the unneeded by artificially raising the stipend cost, an act which masks the excesses that they are.
More stipendiaries and less diocesan would be the best route.
Anonymous - a friend of mine worked in a US Diocese which had a bishop and a couple of missioners, and that was it in terms of Diocesan staff. However the cost of central Diocesan support is quite a small fraction, and you might save 5-10% if that.
And we can only have more stipendiaries if we ordain them. The number of ordinations to stipendiary ministry is going down, and isn't keeping pace with retirements.
I wonder if we in the CofE have the will to make some of the decisions Vic outlines. Perhaps we need to invite a friendly takeover from a denomination which is less wedded to building and parish boundaries, and will find it easier to make the necessary decisions.
This is part of the work we've already done as part of the Plain Speaking process. The reduction of staff/clergy still has to be bounded by the law and by Christian compassion. In my deanery we need to reduce by 2 staff by next year. Thankfully, we have two staff who are moving/retiring by the due date. No one has ever produced "Sooty's magic wand" which would have let us move paid staff to where they're needed. So, if further reductions are needed to our Deanery staff do we rely upon NSMs and Readers? All part of the conundrum we are faced with!
I'm not the cleverest of people, but if a church is supporting not only its own members but the community outside nearly everyday, does this not count for something?
Is it not the higher you are in the Church, then you get paid a much higher wage?
Perhaps I'm just clutching at straws! Do we need all the higher paid people or the shepherd to keep care of his flock & the wider community? :)
Just looking at any church there are generally a very large number who "just come along to polish the pews". Regardless of the type of church, its government, its teaching, these folks only appear at the church door on a Sunday (plus the occasional hatch/match/dispatch event), but they still feel they have the right to criticise "the leadership" for attempting to get them to do anything other than their pew polishing duty. If "the leadership" decides to change the words/songs/whatever in an attempt to open the doors to those that never come in, then..... even worse is when "the leadership" calls upon the church to get out and do some real evangelism their words are "That's what we've got our leadership for, its not our job". Worse still is when "the leadership" points them at passages in scripture like the Great Commission, one would think they had been instructed to eat fire, with petrol and napalm as a dressing....
So how do you get the pew polishers to do something positive for the Kingdom? I've pondered this long and hard, and still haven;t found that panacea.
Post a Comment