Author: fewebadmin

Members or missionaries? (Pete Pillinger)

Pete PillingerPeter Pillinger asks whether we want to see members or missionaries.

When asked about success of a church, many people think of numbers. Big churches are seen as success stories, smaller churches, often rural or city centre, seen as 'struggling'. When we do this we reduce the 'members' to 'bums on seats on Sundays' and make the church no more than a religious club. I may be overstating my position a little here but I do not believe the task Jesus called us to is to create churches. Nowhere are we commanded to do this. The word 'church' only occurs three times in two verses of Matthew's gospel. We are called instead to 'make disciples', disciples of Jesus.

Churches, especially those with 'professional' employees (often clergy) have a tendency to dis-empower members. At the worst, 'members' are simply the people who must sit and listen to the professional. Members are those who are there to learn, clergy the ones who are there to teach. Members are those who need pastoral care, clergy are those who provide pastoral care. Members are those who are there to be led in worship, clergy are those who are qualified to lead worship. In some churches these things are written into canon law. This seems to me to be contrary to what Jesus taught and the way he taught.

I do not believe the task Jesus called us to is to create churches – nowhere are we commanded to do this

Jesus made disciples. Disciples are learners and disciplined. They are people of purpose who follow a teacher to learn all they can from him. They are people who are growing in their knowledge of, and ability to, live as their teacher has shown. They are people who pass on their learning to each other. They are people who learn by their experience of doing the things Jesus did. This is what those who the church refers to as 'members' really are – or should be. The primary job of the gathered body of Christians, the ecclesia, the church, is to make disciples of Jesus. Disciples who will evangelise, serve, care for each other and whose life is gathered up individually and corporately into a living act of worship of almighty God; disciples who share the mission of God.

The word 'missionary' has gone out of fashion. To many it is irrevocably damaged by connections with colonialism in the Victorian age. But it simply means 'one driven by and committed to a mission'. In a post-Christendom age we need missionaries not members.

Overcoming obstacles? (Kate Kendall)

Kate KendallKate Kendall discusses overcoming obstacles.

This blog was sparked off by the two comment sections on Share – Things that went well and Things to learn from – and I'd be interested in knowing how other fresh expressions of church overcome obstacles.

Both fresh expressions we've set up have been in response to hopes in parish profiles that the church would become more inclusive and representative of its local community, but unfortunately a profile doesn't necessarily reflect the mind of the majority of the congregation so setting up a fresh expression can be a bumpy ride.

Our fresh expressions involved setting up weekly all-age Sunday worship at a separate time to the 'main' service. Neither church had much of a history of modern worship and both fresh expressions were initially to meet the needs of younger members of the congregation who were drifting away.

I'm sure other pioneers find that a fresh expression takes time to establish; the first took about two years and our current one has been going since September and is gradually finding its feet. This is part of the natural evolution of such services and is quite a gentle process, but we have found dealing with external factors more difficult.

My questions are:

  1. Have other people experienced hostility, or indeed sabotage attempts, from established congregations when setting up a fresh expression?

  2. Do you find that most of your church cannot comprehend why people need to experience different forms of worship?

  3. Is the reduction of clergy posts going to be a problem? My other half is about to become solely responsible for two sizeable churches with seven services on a Sunday, one of which is our fresh expression. For us, and those who called us here, that is a priority, but the increase in clergy workload isn't going to help and means creating a much-needed fresh expression elsewhere in the parish is impossible at this stage.

On the street where you live (David Coleman)

David ColemanDavid Coleman explores the street where you live.

What if I was to invite every member of my street to join a group set up specifically for them on Facebook? This was the crazy idea I had after discovering that my wife was having Facebook discussions with someone living only a few doors away. I drafted a letter from me to all 60 households in our road explaining that I had set up a group on Facebook that would be restricted to members of the road only, and delivered it by hand – having as many doorstep discussions as time would allow.

The aim of the site was listed as follows: 'We believe that making the world a better place starts with our own homes and our own streets. These days we are all so busy we know less and less about each other. This site aims to foster a stronger sense of community on our street.'

As God-incidence would have it, I was able to pick up on the big lunch initiative which has been promoted via TV adverts recently and suggest a street party on July 19th. The feedback has been really good, with 11 households responding within two days. Comments received have included: 'A great initiative. I have often thought we were all a bit isolated and incommunicative. So, well.done' and 'Fantastic idea'.  I have found out which householder has been resident  in my road the longest time (50 years) and the names of five families I hadn't even met. I know it is early days but the signs are very encouraging.

On a related issue I set up a private Facebook group for a small faith enquirers' group a local church was running. This has led to some very interesting conversations. One person who didn't say anything much within the group opened up in a big way on the site and we were able to pray specifically for some very serious 'baggage issues' with which they had been struggling for years. The whole experience was liberating and mutually supportive.

Isn't it ironic that the virtual community has led to improved understanding and a stronger desire to be better neighbours in the real community?

A pattern for church life (Edward Kerr)

Edward and Marilyn KerrEdward Kerr explores a pattern for church life.

Most cannot read. Many cannot sing. Some cannot move. Some cannot speak. Some cannot see.

All have fun, are involved and respond. All worship. All watch. Some wave flags. Some wander around.

Some try to sing. Some make strange noises. Some are silent, apparently passive. Some behaviour and contributions are "inappropriate" as labels go. Our expectancy is high; our expectations low.

We run a church that predominantly focuses on the needs of people with a learning disability, their carers and friends.

I wonder what the 'normal' church could learn from our community. If a mumbled, disjointed, semi-incoherent prayer is deemed to be acceptable for our folk, why can it not be acceptable in other churches? Why do we place expectations on mainstream church attendees to conform to a set of unwritten and sometimes unattainable behavioural guidelines?

If the use of straightforward language is acceptable in our setting, why do we often move to the opposite extreme in other settings? If it is acceptable to have low expectations but high expectancy with our folk, is it not acceptable for mainstream churches? If it is acceptable to have the very low level of pressure with our folk, is it not acceptable for others? If our worship, which seems so chaotic, is acceptable, why is worship sometimes so formal and non-involved?

It is too easy to say that it is acceptable for our folk, as they are, well – you know – because they're not the same as us.  But if our approach is acceptable to God, then it has to be acceptable to God for everyone. I am not advocating a "dumbing down", but a widening of the options.

We have little expectation of the 'right' way to worship, to pray, or to behave. There is little self-consciousness; apparently little competition. Each person is able to participate at their level without fear of censure. We believe that this could be a pattern for church life, rather than an oddity.

People and barbecues (Laurence Keith)

Barbecued meatLaurence Keith suggests we attend fewer conferences and more barbecues.

I've been noticing the way language and attitudes have been changing over the last few years with regards to mission. A good deal of it seems positive, with the movement away from bullet point evangelism tactics towards journeying with people. The distinction between de-churched and non-churched backgrounds has been helpful, but I wonder whether the next step is to move past de-churched and non-churched language and begin thinking of people, simply, as human.

Your exposure to 'church' doesn't necessarily have much bearing on your openness to God, or even your ability to live out Christian/spiritual concepts. Even if it does, discipleship for each person will be different and any real engagement with an individual will require a friendship to be formed, not a shove along the Engel Scale (which, of course, is hopelessly out of date). Any one of us is able to commune meaningfully with the living and eternal Creator, from the shallowest atheist to the deepest, most profound thinking holy man. Any of us can have a life changing, long term impact on another, if only we give them the time, energy, love and respect they deserve.

This may seem a naïve concept, but I truly believe in it. And I believe that there is strong resistance against it. Treating people with the respect and attention they deserve takes time, mutual sharing and energy. But we like our networks, our conferences, our ideas. And sometimes we like our private/work life divide, and the silence of our own homes. 

Attend fewer conferences and more local barbecues

So who is wise?  So who is your example?

Loving people is often called for, but to do it requires us all to have fewer, more meaningful relationships. Attend fewer conferences and more local barbecues; have less acquaintances and more authentic friends. Allow ourselves to be changed by those we're supposed to be discipling.

Feed my sheep (Pam Smith)

Pam SmithPam Smith asks what Jesus meant when he said 'Feed my sheep'.

When our grown up sons come home, we always have a takeaway. It's shorthand for a lot of things – this is still your home, you're special, I am still part of this family, being together is worth celebrating.

Jesus told Peter to 'feed my sheep'. He fed the multitudes; he was known to the disciples he met on the road to Emmaus in the breaking of the bread. On the night before he died, he had supper with his friends and said 'do this, in remembrance of me'. And when he met with his friends on the beach after his resurrection, he fed them.

When I became a Christian, I didn't take communion because I wasn't confirmed. Week after week, I longed to receive but had to hold back.

During a very rare communion service in a young offenders institution, one of the 'lads' asked what was happening. Then he jumped up, muttered 'I want some of that!' and joined the queue. The next week he asked to be baptised.

I asked a group of three boys under the age of seven why they wanted to take communion. They heard the priest say, week in week out,  'Though we are many, we are one body, because we all share in one bread' – and then weren't given any bread. They deeply desired to be part of the body.

At the recent pioneer minister conference at Ridley Hall, it was stated that a fresh expression should be working towards regular communion services because this was a mark of 'being church'.

Many of us were left with questions.

Should the Eucharist be seen as a target? Where does lay leadership fit in? Does the Eucharist create a Christ-centred community? Or is a Christ-centred community, by definition, Eucharistic? What does a fresh expression of the Eucharist look like? And if we're not church – what are we?

Reaching Out in Mind, Body and Spirit (Colin Brice)

Colin BriceColin Brice reaches out in Mindy, Body and Spirit.

Last week, 70 practitioners involved in ministries to spiritual seekers and the New Spiritualities gathered from different streams – Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, alternative worship and charismatic – some say it was the largest gathering in the world for this type of ministry, let alone the UK. The ancient Biblical texts tell us that when God's people are unified there shall be a blessing given; here at this conference there was a unity of heart, mind and spirit and the blessing of God was tangible for all present.

Hosted by Church Army and Journey into Wholeness, delegates gathered in Sheffield to hear insights from professor John Drane, Olive Drane and Ole Skjerbaek Madsen from Denmark who are key players in supporting and equipping new forms of ministry and mission to spiritual seekers.

Various workshops were run over Saturday to support, encourage and develop delegates working in this arena. These included: use of Tarot cards / the Jesus Deck / Wicca / how as Christians we can understand things like aura reading, chakras, Reiki, etc / use of Christian meditation with spiritual seekers / angels / use of prayer for healing / personal faith sharing and communication with people in the New Spiritualities / the spirituality of Glastonbury (the place more than the festival) and how we can engage with that, and dream interpretation.

Some conclusions from this conference include:

  • YogaImportance of networking together, to encourage and inspire each other and work as 'one' for New Spiritualities and its people.

  • God is at work in and through us and out in the world where no lines of separation are drawn – it is not 'them and us', but all of us together as spiritual beings and searchers.

  • A need for this type of ministry is required as we see the spiritual landscape changing.

  • Release of people (under 30s) to explore ministry to the New Spiritualities and permission by leaders to experiment and develop 'different' expressions and forms.

  • Encourage creativity to discover new ways, methods and connection points to enable fellow travellers to connect with Christ in contexts they understand and are familiar with.

  • The future shape of church is 'unknown', but are we willing to take a chance and develop models that may or may not work.

What is ‘missional’? (Paul Roberts)

Paul RobertsPaul Roberts asks what is missional?

The word 'missional', though perhaps more redolent of North American English usage, has been a helpful one in summing up what makes many new forms and fresh expressions of church tick. It names our overriding priority and focuses on the primary challenge facing Christian community in our day. As someone who goes back to the early days of alternative worship communities, it also speaks to me of the primary motivation which gave rise to this kind of new form of church in the first place. It also makes me uncomfortable. This is because I am well-aware of the fact that most alternative worship communities tend to draw their members primarily from those who are already Christian.

The short history of alternative worship in the UK (now approaching its quarter century) has witnessed to a struggle for its own identity – either as a reforming movement, or as a evangelising movement, or as a therapy movement for 'church survivors'. There are those who may wish to argue that alternative worship suffers with too ill-defined a set of agendas to be in the running as a missional mode of church. There are others within alternative worship itself who would find themselves in full agreement, having rejected any missional calling or impulse completely.

Most alternative worship communities tend to draw their members primarily from those who are already Christian

A job move has meant that I have recently had to go through the experience of leaving one such community: Foundation in Bristol, which I had a hand in setting up. This has offered me plenty of opportunity to reflect on my five years, over which Foundation has grown from a handful of people who prayed in a cold candlelit church on a Sunday night, into the church it is today. In what sense was the whole project 'missional'?

If by 'missional' is meant a proven and primary capacity to bring unbelievers to faith and discipleship, then the answer has to be 'no' – although a new group within it has just started, aimed at the 'Alpha market' which may usher in changes here. However, if we broaden the definition to include a group which attracts people who might otherwise be on an exit trajectory from other forms of 'missional church' and which helps them to continue and to grow in the practice and articulation of their Christian faith, then the answer has to be a 'yes'. It has actively sought, often with considerable pain, not to become a therapeutic group for ex-evangelicals (or ex-charismatics). It is real church: a community of disciples committed to Jesus Christ and meeting together for worship, prayer, pastoral care and growing together in faith. But full-on intentional evangelistic work is still on the back foot.

Too often we hear 'missional' being used as if it were distinct from 'pastoral'

This has led me to question the ecclesiology underlying the 'missional'/'non-missional' division. Effective evangelisation is badly needed in the western church. But too often we hear 'missional' being used as if it were distinct from 'pastoral'. The New Testament speaks as much about caring for God's flock as it does about mission. Alan Jamieson's research indicates that where churches fail to care effectively for growing disciples, then mission stalls in a crucial way. (See Alan Jamieson, A Churchless Faith, SPCK, 2002; and Alan Jamieson, Jenny McIntosh, Adrienne Thompson, Church Leavers: faith journeys five years on, SPCK, 2006.)

Growth in Christian discipleship isn't as straightforward as some might lead us to believe. It can be a messy, disturbing experience. My experience has suggested that there is a considerable difference between 'alpha' churches (those effective in evangelising unbelievers), 'beta' churches (those that are effective in helping people negotiate faith-development which may have a disruptive effect on their relationship with their initial church communities) and 'omega' groups (groups which cater for people who are on a trajectory where they will either leave organised Christianity or exist for some very protracted time in a marginal state).

The difference between 'alpha' and 'beta' churches is a real one, though one that should make us all rather uncomfortable, irrespective of which 'kind' of church to which we may currently belong. What I am convinced of is that whilst this distinction remains true, neither church has the right to be 'more missional than thou'.

What happens when leaders move on? (Ailsa Wright)

Ailsa WrightAilsa Wright asks what happens when leaders move on.

I'm currently part of the leadership team in the Anglican Cathedral of Second Life where I go by the name Helene Milena. Running church online seems to make things move even faster than in other forms of fresh expression from what I can tell, presumably because of the sheer pace of change on the internet. Online church is also something that seems to be classed as even more unusual than many other fresh expressions, although I would dispute that. From my point of view, church via a skate-park or in a surfing community seems equally unusual and way outside my experience. I'm sure it all depends on what you are used to.

I've been asked to write a paper for the DDO of Wakefield Diocese who wants to know more about the challenges and opportunities which this ministry in Second Life presents. The matter of leadership succession was one question that came to mind and I have found no information to answer my questions. It seems sensible to ask practitioners to help me out here so that I can learn from what has actually happened.

Fresh Expressions of church seem to start from the vision and enthusiasm of one person or a group of people. It takes vision and drive and persistence to start anything new. But what happens when the original leader(s) feel called to move on? Who takes on the leadership? Each group will have developed in its own particular way. Does a new leader have to have come up through that particular fresh expression in order to understand what makes it tick and so take it forward well? Is it better to have someone one new come in to bring fresh vision?

I know Dave Male moved from The NET. How did that work out? i-church also has experienced a change of leader twice in my time of being a member. It's obvious that nothing can continue with the same leadership for ever. Change happens in both traditional and new groups and is sure to bring out insecurities in the process. What are the opportunities and challenges of leadership succession in a fresh expression?

A spirituality of contemplative activism (Colin Brown)

Colin BrownColin Brown explores a spirituality of contemplative activism.

Last month 23 'fresh expressions pioneers' were on a five-day retreat at Lee Abbey, on the north Devon coast. It was facilitated by me and three others and I'd like to share a bit about it with you.

We put on the advertising that this was:

  • a special, prayerful place to stop for a few days;

  • space to reflect, pray, worship and listen;

  • time to be recharged, refreshed, reinvigorated, encouraged … by giving space and time to God and to yourself.

As we know, Jesus modelled this as he spent time alone with God the Father in prayer, often in isolated places. He seemed to need the space to enable the activity of his ministry – 'time out' with God. Then he passed this on.

In Mark's gospel the disciples are sent out by Jesus two-by-two. On their return they gather around Jesus, eager to tell him all that they've done. His response to them is: 'Come away to a deserted place all by yourselves and rest awhile' (Mark 6.31).

The work of building fresh expressions of church can be demanding, but even Jesus needed time out! How much time out are we giving ourselves?

St Bernhard of Clairvaux – one of the great reformers of the 14th century encouraged his people with these words in a Pentecost sermon:

'If you be wise, you will make yourselves reservoirs rather than channels of God's love – the difference being the channel discharges all its water almost as soon as it is received – and a reservoir waits until it is full to the brim and only gives away what is superfluous – it gives away without loss to itself.

'…we have in the church today many channels, but few reservoirs. We want to give away before we have received, more willing to speak than to listen. Beloved, learn to minister from the overflow and do not desire to be more generous than God … behold how much has to be poured into us that we may venture to pour out, giving of our plentitude, not of our poverty.'

At Lee Abbey it took time for us to begin to change gear … to move into that place of 'being' rather than 'doing'. Many of us are activists, and rightly so because action is a vital part of life, and of ministry. We don't feel called to just sit and pray that God will magically change the world. As St Francis prayed: 'Make me a channel (or reservoir?) of your peace'.

There is a balance to be found between contemplation and action. By 'contemplation' I don't mean navel-gazing, but a rhythm of prayerful awareness of God – of his love, his abiding presence, and the challenge of his gospel. It can and does lead to action – often starting with the one person I can change – me! And then out into a needy world. Could contemplation be a crucial step along the way towards fresh expressions of church? I recommend a Grove booklet by David Runcorn on this subject, entitled The Road to Growth Less Travelled – spiritual paths in a missionary church.

In chapter 5 – 'A Contemplative Spirituality' – Runcorn says this:

'[Contemplation] is not about being quiet rather than active. Contemplative traditions … have close links to the awakening of social conscience and to resistance movements. It is a way of depth and maturing that will help lead people away from a religion of easy answers…'

We don't have to be 'introvert' to go deeper in our faith, or to enjoy the space and silence of God's embrace that is beyond words and human activity. In Myers Briggs terms I am an 'extrovert', yet I have come to value silence and contemplation greatly, especially as a means of listening – to my deeper self, and to God in the midst of my responses to life.

The retreat was a journey for all. Like a super-tanker, it takes time to stop, especially when we're very active. In time the initial struggles gave way to a deeper ease. Much was shared and learned from one another and from God, in a safe and held space. 

Here are reflections from a few of the pioneers, when asked what the retreat had been for them:

  • peace, space and affirmation;

  • an unexpected sense of healing;

  • inspiring, enlightening, relaxing, connected;

  • time to live and breathe again, and a sense of His intimacy with me.

The retreat was not a conference. It was a place with space to be with God. We don't have to go all the way to north Devon to find space and God. It's about finding a rhythm for you and God in daily life.