Parochial - what we don't want it to mean!

Just had a rather splendid conversation with a colleague about the word 'parochial' which has two meanings and my colleague managed to use both when discussing those they minister too in the same sentence - boy was I impressed!

And then they explained how both definitions fitted and my goodness me, was I depressed!

The sentence was this,

"Gosh, the parochial church council was really worked up by some of the goings on around them this week but when we started to scratch the surface they were so parochial I understood why some had rung their bell and got them going!"

The first use of the word 'parochial' in which it relates to the Parish (a geographical area served by a church) and the word 'parochial' which in this sense means being in possession of a rather limited or narrow outlook or understanding.

The big problem when we are parochial (in the limited sense) is that we can become rather myopic and limited in our understanding and engagement as Church (which means universal or much bigger than the limited geographic parish entity). This manifests itself in a number of ways:

Sometimes, where a parish consists of more than one church there is an attitude that is one church is preeminent or predominant and that all, and any, others within the geographic patch are much less than them. This is sometimes found where there is one historic church from which the others in the area have come about (in this case the preeminent church is called the patron or 'Mother' church) and this  church, being the eldest or the biggest or being in possession of some attribute considered to make it of worth to those within in, decides that it is therefore also the most important. This is sometimes found where, being a team, there is one church that is home to the 'Team rector' and the attitude that says. "We must be important because we have the senior cleric in our church," applies.

Sometimes it occurs when one church in the parish is well off, pretty or in possession of some other trait which those who attend it consider to be enough to make them the star.

The bottom line is that regardless of the reason for the attitude the attitude is ALWAYS wrong! From the youngest to the oldest church building, the richest to the poorest, the nicest to the most awful patch served  these truths apply:

There is ONE Church and this is the Church of Jesus Christ!

In a parochial system there are many parishes but regardless of how many buildings, or how rich (or poor, they are - each is equal and and equally important!

'Daughter church' is not, and must never become, a negative! Neither is it a statement of rank and never is it a putdown - it just means that it was planted from another (which we call 'Mother') church. Regardless we must never regard the 'Mother' church as the preeminent or most important church in the patch either to the detriment of any of the others in the locality - they are just different and that's all there is too it.

The same applies to those churches that abut our parishes or reside within our Deaneries (a collection of parishes within a geographic area such as a town) or dioceses (a collection of parishes across an even wider geographic area) - regardless of where they are: posh, poor, urban, rural, suburban, estate church or cathedral - each has it value and its merits and is to be considered of equal merit but different!

Sadly the person I have been speaking to has had their fill of the one true church and its battle with the poorer, and of much less merit than them, other churches and has decided that they are going to throw in the towel and seek pastures new (apparently they've seen it and applied already). This is a shame because they've been doing (if what they tell me is true) some really good stuff where they have been. It is a shame because those they are leaving will probably never change their views regarding their ancient pile with its diminishing numbers and increasing financials demands and will never support the younger upstarts who are doing the stuff and being effective where they are monumentally ineffective.

Sadder still is the fact that they aren't moving sticks to somewhere near me (would have loved to have them nearer) and that they are wounded and broken by their experience thus far.

So here is a plea:

PLEASE pray for those clergy who struggle in divided parishes.

PLEASE pray for unity in parishes and between all churches in our towns and cities praying, as Jesus' prayed in John 17, that this might be seen and made real in each and every church and between each and every church:

"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 

My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 

As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 

For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.  My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 

I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one - I in them and you in me - so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

As someone who is out there trying hard to get people to do stuff together I struggle with churches (meaning the building) and those who inhabit them who seek to pull down others and exalt their pile of bricks to the detriment of the Gospel.

Can I just say:

STOP IT!

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?