Two tribes in step

At our recent church conference, we concluded our conversations together thinking about how the two big tribes in our churches - the inheritors and the emergents - can walk together for the benefit of the future. I thought I'd share my thoughts with a wider audience. Be interested to know what you think...

Frankie (who remembers FGTH?) says ‘when two tribes go to war, a point is all that you can score’ How true! But if two tribes walk in step, think of what they could achieve…

We live in a world of constant and unpredictable change. Not a world where things develop – such as the world our parents and grand-parents grew up and handed on to us – but a world that lurches and jumps, where new ways of doing things are swept away by even newer ones for no reason other than they can be. This is a disorienting place to be for pretty much everyone – whatever age we are, whichever tribe we belong to.

There are two broad tribes in our churches – including this one. They respond to this whirlwind of change in two broad ways:

Tribe 1 – we’ll call them the inheritors – consists of people who’ve inherited, taken to heart and owned a way of doing church that seems to have been around forever (in fact it’s about 100-150 years old).

They like the inherited ways of doing things for a number of reasons: first, they have stood the test of time – at least for as long as their memory stretches back; second they provide a predictable and comfortable place in a world of uncomfortable and unpredictable change; and third it’s a way of doing things we have found beneficial in our development as Christians and thus we suppose others will as well

But change is provoking all kinds of uncomfortable feelings. The world they knew and loved is passing away, a new world seems constantly on the threshold of being born but we can’t see what shape it is yet – but we know we won’t really like it.

Tribe 2 – we’ll call them the emergents – consists of people who have not inherited the classical ways of doing things. Indeed, they find them to be unsatisfactory, unhelpful, a distraction from living faithful Christian lives in a world of rapid and unpredictable change

They are looking for new ways of doing things for a number of reasons: first, they have always lived in this world of unpredictable change and the old ways don’t help then to find a place in it; second, they have increasingly found the inherited ways difficult to access because their lives do not allow them the time or space to do things previous generations did; and third they find inherited ways of doing things no longer help them in their witness to their peers and neighbours

They are impatient to see the church change as the world around them has, so that it helps them to live their Christian lives and do mission in this world, not a world that has disappeared. They are looking for new ways of being church to emerge but it hasn’t happened yet and they aren’t entirely sure how to make it happen

Two tribes caught up in a world of rapid and unpredictable change. Two tribes with the same call – to live faithful Christian lives, create communities that embody Christian values and engage in mission to bring the life-giving message of Jesus to those around them lost and floundering in this world of rapid and unpredictable change.

Here are two suggestions about how these two tribes might engage with one another:

1) dialogue: if we talk to each other – and listen carefully to what each other is saying – we will quickly see that each tribe has insights that the other needs to live faithfully in today’s world: the inheritors will see that the emergents actually have to the tools to cope with the world as it is. They also have a holy restlessness to see the church rise to the challenge of making Jesus known in this world and the gifts of creativity to make it happen

The emergents will see that the inheritors’ have a history of faithfulness over the long-haul, traditions that have been handed down over generations of teaching and theology, the skills of organization, the commitment to stick at things over long periods of time – qualities that will be needed in whatever world is emerging.

2) diffusion: if we talk to each other, we’ll hopefully offer two things: first the grace of honouring each other’s ways of doing things. There is not one right way of being and doing church. The gospel can be earthed in any culture and will look different in every culture in which it is properly and faithfully earthed. Second the space to allow each tribe to do church in a way that meets their needs and that of their peer group outside the church. This means groups of various kinds meeting in various ways and at various times to be and do church in a way that builds their faith and equips them to reach out to the world. It might mean several things happening at once targeted at different groups – even on a Sunday morning.

Constant, rapid and unpredictable change is here to stay – at least for the foreseeable future – if we retreat into our tribes and defend our turf, the church will shrink, consumed in a swirl of irrelevance and infighting. If two tribes talk to each other, share their hopes and fears, the church that emerges will be strong and faithful to the gospel.

conference report (take 2)

One of the problems keeping the momentum going following our church conference is that we have so few opportunities for extended conversations in the normal run of church life. That, of course, is the reason we had the conference!

But we've identified a clutch of issues to raise at the next church meeting which will hopefully set the agenda for the two or three church meetings after that. I guess my hope is that by the end of the year - sooner preferably - we will have made refinements to the the way we do belonging, discipleship and leadership that will enable us to be more effective in our mission.

I'm off to Brighton at the weekend for the Baptist assembly - an important gathering of our clan which I'm looking forward to. I'm co-hosting Prism, the alternative strand, for the second and final time and am expecting it to be even better than last year.

I'm reading C J Sansom's third Matthew Shardlake novel - Sovereign - which is a wonderfully intricate tale of plots against the king at the fag end of Henry VIII's reign. I've also been reading some papers on meals in the ancient world from an SBL seminar hosted by Philip Harland. In particular two papers by Dennis E Smith have reminded how central the meal table was to the formation of Christian identity - and raised a stack more questions about the size and organisation of early Christian communities. Great stuff which you'll find on Philip Harland's website if you're interested: www.philipharland.com/meals/GrecoRomanMealsSeminar.htm.

Conference report (take 1)

Our church conference went really well yesterday. Pretty well everyone who signed up to come, turned up and one or two extras showed up as well. There was a good, constructive and cooperative spirit about our conversations.

Over the morning we talked about the changing face of our town and rather the static profile of the church. We looked at who lived in our immediate neighbourhood and how they compared to the average attender of church. We also looked at what God says about us - using the opening and closing of Romans as our launch pad. Around two short presentations, we had lots of small group work and just before lunch we spent a good chunk in plenary session feeding back conclusions and questions.

After lunch, we did workshops on belonging, discipleship and leadership where the ministry team floated a key new idea about each area and groups chewed them over. We rounded the day off with an exploration of emerging church and a suggestion about how inherited church and emerging church here could constructively and creatively dialogue together.

Most people went home with a smile on their faces.

I went home to prepare a sermon for this morning which, on the back of yesterday, went really well!

who in God's name are we?

John makes a couple of astute observations (as ever) in his comment on yesterday's post.

Yes, we're all bored with church - bored with the structures, the pussy-footing around people's sensibilities, the gathering to sing dull and pretty anodyne songs and especially the apparent lack of connection between people.

The trouble is, church is the way most Christians find any sense of who they are in God. John's second comment is true up to a point. Some Christians do look to me and the rest of ministry team for their take on God. Others look at what we're doing with a mixture of horror and contempt - but that just keeps us humble!

I think one of one of my main hopes for our conference tomorrow is that it helps generate a sense of identity for us a church that isn't based on having been around for a generation or more. If we have any identity as Christians - something we're exploring tomorrow sociologically and theologically - it's derived from our relationship with God.

I'll be sharing a few thoughts from the opening and closing of Romans that look at our identity in terms of being a holy people, called by God, adopted as his children and created family in his Spirit. But we remain tribal, people who have different tastes, interests, social places and cultural and educational backgrounds.

Paul wrote Romans to a very tribal church, made up of Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free people, a few rich and a lot of poor, folk who'd been Christians a long time, others who were recent converts, some who'd been Rome forever, others who'd just arrived or returned following the lifting the expulsion order Claudius issued in the late 40s.

So the letter has a lot to say to us. and the first thing is 'let's be honest about who we are, guys, so we can make an effort to get along and get to know each other - after all, we are brothers and sisters in Jesus.'

So as we ask the question tomorrow - who in God's name are we? - I'm looking forward to a spirited discussion and the drawing of some conclusions we can take into the future.

Leading from below

I don't know if others are having this trouble or whether it's a London thing or is unique to us, but we're having real difficulty recruiting and retaining 'leaders'.

I think a major part of the problem is that people aren't sure what's required of them when they are asked to consider it. There's an assumption by an older generation that everyone knows what's involved and an assumption by younger people that it's going to be dull and anyway they haven't got the time even to consider it.

The time thing is an issue - people have less of it because they work longer hours, commute further and have other things they need to attend to (cooking, eating, spending time with family, friends, work colleagues, keeping fit, getting entertained - all of which are important).

So, what to do? Answers on a postcard, please...

The idea I'm mulling over at the moment is turning the way we do leadership on its head (and perhaps bringing it more into line with the New Testament). Instead of looking for people who are not too busy in church and getting them to stand for general leadership roles (the diaconate) and then find them a specialism once they've got used to meeting every month with a bunch of strangers, let's look around the church and see where people are already exercising leadership.

There are lots of them in various areas of the church's life - home groups, kids work of all kinds, building maintenance, technical support on Sundays. There's a small army of people doing jobs and taking initiative in order to do those efficiently. Some of them are even organising small groups to get those jobs done. Now, if that's not leadership, then I'm not sure what is.

I know we want something terribly spiritual - to do with praying and discerning the voice of God and spending hours talking about deep and exalted things. Well, that can be somewhat over-rated. I assume that people doing any role in the church are praying, seeking to discover how God wants them to do it and learning with others about God and how to serve better in this particular role.

Sometimes I wonder if wanting to do something 'spiritual' is actually a cover for not wanting to do anything difficult that might involve relationships and hard work in partnership with others. I don't want to sound unduly cynical (why change the habit of a lifetime I hear you say...?!) but I wonder if we've made leadership harder than it needs to be just so we look desperately important. I wonder if it doesn't just make us look desperate.

So, I'm suggesting to the good folk of our church on Saturday that we do leadership from below. We look at where people are already exercising leadership, recognize what they're doing, get along side them to see if we can resource them in any way to do what they're doing better and then help them recruit others to work with them in a team - a group of experienced people and folk being discipled into a particular role.

I look forward to people's response.

Getting to grips with leadership

John asks in what way Kate was prophetic on Sunday evening. Quite simply she spoke directly into people's lives and addressed a couple of issues we're facing as a church with God's Word. That's as good a definition of prophetic as I know.

Meanwhile, getting ready for the conference, I've been lining up sandwiches for 180 - a great task to have!

I've also been reflecting on leadership - especially in the light of 1 Corinthians 3. More thoughts later but for now I'm pondering what leadership is about in the light of the three pictures of the church Paul uses in the chapter.

As God's field or garden or (better) agricultural enterprise, leaders are about creating the environment in which things can grow; as God's building project, leaders are about arranging materials for people to build with; and as God's temple, leaders are about keeping the community focused and holy.

I've just read a very good paper by Tom wright on the atonement. It's signposted from his web page (www.ntwrightpage.com). Called 'The Cross and the Caricatures', it engages with some recent discussion on the issue of penal substitution and draws some very sensible conclusions. The best of them is that many evangelicals fail to read the very Bible on which they claim to base their doctrines. As ever with Wright it's trenchantly written, tightly argued and by and large pretty convincing.

It hasn't helped me get ready for the conference, however.

Speaking to our hearts

We had a fantastic day yesterday rounded off by a visit of Kate Coleman, the current BUGB president, who was electrifying and prophetic.

This coming Saturday is our church conference at which we're aiming to conclude our conversations about belonging, discipleship and leadership and set the broad parameters of the course the church will be taking over the next couple of years.

Kate's visit was the perfect opener to our gathering. Boldly calling us to step up to another level, she showed us our lives through the life of Moses and spoke prophetically into our individual situations and our life together as God's people.

The day had kicked off with Gareth Wilde from BMS World Mission focusing on the need for courage to cross barriers in mission. Talking about his recent experiences in Lebanon, he showed how Christians of courage are engaged in reconstruction following the war, offering the love of God to people of all faiths and none.

It promises to be a busy week. I'll keep you posted...