'Regrouping for mIssion' - a personal view as to why it did not work.

Having recently attended a conference in Coventry about 'being missional today', it seemed appropriate to reflect upon my experience of how the Methodist church in the UK re grouped for mission. I do so through the prism of one circuit, or should I say the eight which became one. It will have been a very different experience for others in various parts of the country.

When Methodism undertook a programme to regroup its resources, there was for me a sense of excitement, at last we were taking seriously getting our act together. To become an outward looking church. All over the country many circuits moved quickly to amalgamate, with a number of church closures to stream line the work, though not enough!!. This was undertaken I believe in the hope it would free up precious resources of people, property and money.  Following on from this was the hope we might  reinvest in sharing the message of Christ Jesus in ways yet to be discovered. But what did really happen? 

Caught up in this process in Sheffield my hope was that in such a geographically tight area it was possible for eight circuits to draw together and be workable. Amazingly we did come together, though not rushing at the task. There was for many a sense of hope, optimism and energy. We sought to try and do things differently. Not one local preachers meeting ticking the usual boxes of business, rather three gatherings on different evenings so people didn't have to miss out if their diary clashed. The focus was on encouraging people to reflect on how we lead worship and to equip ourselves  to do so. We delegated the business to a smaller group who oversaw the training of new preachers.  Instead of the usual One superintendent minister we had four co-supers. They led in various areas while retaining some pastoral responsibility to keep them rooted in everyday ministry with other colleagues. What became clear as the years passed was that we did not fit the institutional pattern. It was a struggle to maintain our attempt at doing things differently when the district was unsupportive. It became clear certain individuals felt threatened, and the straight jacket of the institution sought to reassert itself. In fact due to a range of circumstances the circuit went back to one super, though with some amusement I now note they have moved back and are having two. 

"Regrouping for mission" As the old adage goes 'you can take a horse to water...'

The truth was most people wanted to keep their own chapel going, and reimagining being church or being circuit was too much. Thats before all the politics and the way people continued to cling onto power.

What I think was lacking in our understanding was 'Prophetic Imagination' which Walter Brueggeman wrote about in his book of the same name. Well worth a read.

The institution of the Methodist church could not imagine a new world. For all our talk about being a  movement, implying an openness to change and transformation, it was just seeking to reinvent itself. It did so with all the old power structures still in play. The church did not Lament its failures nor grieve well where it had arrived at. Some still believing it could continue as if nothing had really changed. So any call to allow the only One who can do something new fell on deaf ears. When you are caught up in the system it's difficult not to collude, yet you can still, if open enough, challenge the church to take risks. Even so it has to be said the current institution needs to die to allow what God wants to to do to take place. Of course God continues to work out new things whether or not the old system is willing to die or give up power. Jesus offered an alternative way, an alternative community, which did not go down well with the then economic, political and religious system in play. Strange how we have allowed ourselves to lose sight of being that alternative community, and once more become part of the economic, political and cultural system that governs our world.

So as aI look back I am not sorry to have been part of trying to change things as I'd rather go down having tried than wither away. I just want to acknowledge from a personal viewpoint that we failed as a church to lament the state of affairs we had arrived at. We didn't grieve our loss and as a consequence we were not, and still are not ready for what God intends to do. But hey ho God will do it anyway and it would be good to be a part of that.

One further comment. One of the failures of  regrouping for mission came about when it stalled and came to a stand still over districts. Slowly, but surely, due to decline, many circuits have and are continuing to amalgamate by default not by a real desire. In turn this changes the shape of districts. Some now cover very large regions but I do not see this as a real solution. It just disconnects folk from each other. I think we should have abolished the districts and the role of district chair. We should have accepted the fact circuits need to be larger, with a mixture of ministry teams operating within them. Superintendency would be for those who really felt it to be their calling. They should have some pastoral charge even if it's only to look after one church as it would keep them rooted in everyday ministry. Such a grouping for mission would be far more in keeping with the theological roots of methodism than the districts and their managers. The focus of oversight has always been the superintendent, good chairs have known this, poor ones have sought to undermine it. Of course the system will not admit this.

So while I acknowledge myself to be a Methodist, its in my DNA, I am content to know God will continue to do news things, and Methodism will sooner or later become a stage on the churches history, maybe a rump will remain. 

In the end its not about any denomination rather its about the Kingdom of God so we pray 'Through our lives and by our prayers your kingdom come'