Reflecting on 're-grouping for Mission

This post seeks to follow on from my last which was about 'What defines us.’

The books I mentioned in the previous post, in one way or another, highlight the forces which control our world. To put it crudely a culture built on individualism, capitalism and consumerism are destroying the planet and dividing people. Yet many of us collude because we like the lifestyle they bring. The church has often reinforced them, even though they stand in stark contrast to the kingdom of God where people are to be in a supportive community. Instead individualism enables the rich to become richer while an ever growing number of people become poorer. Institutions often protect those in power and persecute the vulnerable. The ongoing post office scandal is just one example of this. The church is no different in being prone to protect itself with the price being paid by the vulnerable.

Looking back at my own experience I am saddened by the way my institution pushed for change, ‘regrouping for mission’, but then failed to see it through as reactionary forces protected how things are done. When people took the need to change seriously it seems like forces came to the surface to stop it.

‘Regrouping for mission’ became the buzz words for the Methodist Church some years back now. Many individuals and circuits across the country engaged with the process. Circuits merged, some slowly, some very quickly, and others have followed in their wake  as their only way to survive. While being part of a process that took time, I believed then, and still do that it was the right thing to undertake, while knowing it was full of risks. But then that is part of the point of the way of Jesus, to take risks and to become vulnerable.

For eights circuits to be come one in the fourth largest city of the UK appeared a big ask. A city deeply divided by wealth was also reflected in the resourcing of Methodism in the city. A disproportionate number of ministers, membership and finance were to be found in one area of the West side. In coming together there was a real attempt to hold before everyone that a just sharing of resources was a Kingdom value, and that bringing circuits together could not be the end of the process. Unless buildings were reimagined for use, others closed and the value raised reinvested in new mission work, the slow decline would continue and the work would just further erode. But you have to believe in it.

The saying 'You can lead a horse to water……’ springs to mind. It became very apparent once we became one, that while circuits had agreed to come together, churches were not agreeing to the vital next steps. Many people did not want to reimagine being church or be willing to let go of their building, even if it meant holding back any hope for growth. I think many people had seen the coming together as a way of keeping going a bit longer before the inevitable closure happened. While it was openly acknowledged there were too many buildings most were happy for others to close but not them.The result of this thinking meant many would not close their building until it was too late. So the one circuit continued to pour resources of people, time, and money into places that were inevitably  going to shut and have nothing to show for it.

The resistance to change of course is natural and happens in all areas of society which includes the church. What became apparent and frustrating was that having been challenged by Methodism ‘to regroup for mission,’ the institutional church did not welcome circuits doing things differently. The choice to have four superintendents (co-supers) not just one did not fit the pattern. Shock horror, folk, ministers, circuit stewards, church members, chair of district and others really struggled with this approach. As the years passed it felt as if some mysterious hand was actively working against a circuit doing things differently. When the opportunity arose the chance to dismantle a co-super approach was seized upon like a coup d’etat. So the numbers of ministers decline, with churches continuing to keep going for the sake of it, but then wonder why they don’t have a minister, so time, energy and finance have been wasted. 

This is not to imply creative and positive work did not happen but its wider context continued to be that of an institution struggling with itself to adapt. So work which was about serving and bringing communities together, kingdom values, struggles to find the oxygen to breath as individualism and selfishness chokes new life. Being liberated from this constant struggle is a freedom I do not wish to ever give up. 

Finding myself worshipping in an Anglican community I would want to make a positive contribution being part of that fellowship, especially now we are in a vacancy. I can however sense the danger of getting caught up in the politics of church life both local and wider. My get out of jail free card, results from an institution, that while still struggling to recognise the ministry of women, seems to struggle even more to recognise the ministry of those from another Christian denomination. I can preach yes, permission given, but to preside at Holy Communion now that’s another matter. It is of course a nonsense but why would I preach if they have to then wheel in a priest to do the ‘magic’ bit? So when I could make a contribution the system prevents it. 

So back to what defines us. 

One underlying factor for me is the belief in the Trinity. That God is One, and that One is a community of Three in a loving creative relationship, which in turn invites me and all into the relationship. So whatever I am or do, needs to reflect this loving creative relationship, not hung up on taking theological positions, but rather allowing myself to be open to the flow of God’s creative community to help make community. So whatever contribution I can make in a particular fellowship needs to be about facilitating others to enjoy discovering and becoming part of the divine community. Yes it really is about unconditional love, with forgiveness already given, and being willing to live a life of vulnerability. It is about death and resurrection. As Richard Rohr writes in his book ‘The Divine Dance’  ….change, death, and transformation are part of the deal! Resurrection and renewal are the final goal and result.’