Over the past few days there has been a flurry of discussion and debate about one of the proposals in a Vision and Strategy document to be discussed at General Synod next week-end. One of the ideas to come forward is the idea that the Church should release the local leadership of the Church into the hands of lay people and thus bring into being some 10,000 new churches. These would meet in homes, halls, schools or wherever it was locally convenient. The implication is that trained clergy and expensive buildings are no longer fit for purpose in the task of presenting the gospel to the people of this country. We are reminded of the expanding church in Africa, which less and less looks to clergy and buildings for its life and vitality. As one of the expensively trained clergy, I am expected to feel great indignation about this proposal. Is it meant to undermine the value of five years study and training? This particular debate has been aired on other blogs, so I will hold back my feelings on this aspect of the discussion.
My primary concern at the possible arrival of 10,000 informal lay led congregations is not apparently the one felt by most of my fellow clergy. Rather I am appalled at the implications in quite a different area, the area of safeguarding. How is the Church of England ever to guarantee the safety of people gathering to worship and to learn under the direction and guidance of untrained individuals? These will be people who may have nothing more than a cursory examination of their suitability by someone outside. I have, in this blog, often expressed concern at the problem of keeping people safe. When I speak about that, I am thinking of the dangers of potentially toxic power structures that can develop in small groups over a period of time. If these groups or congregations are not supervised, the dangers to the individuals within them is considerable.
Many congregations envisaged in the Vision and Strategy document will be between 30 and 50 in number. Such a group would engender in the members, no doubt, a strong sense of belonging. I can imagine that to be a member of such a group at its beginning would be an exhilarating experience, and there will be a sense of being pioneers, re-envisioning and remaking the Church for the future. Problems arise when such groups have been in existence for some time. New dynamics then come into play after the honeymoon period. It is these that I want to hint at in my personal critique of the 10,000 new churches idea.
A few months ago, I presented some of the ideas of Wilfred Bion regarding the dynamics of groups. He was basing his observations on work that was done with groups of shellshocked soldiers in the Second World War. His way of helping them was to get them to cooperate with one another to accomplish tasks in groups, normally between 12 and 20. He noticed, over a period of time, that there were certain patterns of behaviour in the group process. These occurred in every case. Within the group there was always a tendency to cast around to find a leader so that everybody else could sit back and let things happen. Bion called this dynamic a dependency basic assumption. A second basic assumption that constantly appeared, was seen in the way that the group was always on the lookout to identify some other group to oppose, attack or be against. When we describe these inevitable basic assumptions operating in groups of all sizes, we are not describing some kind of moral failing at work. What we are describing are unconscious but very powerful group dynamics which erupt into the open and interfere with the possibility of doing constructive group work. These destructive processes can only be neutralised when they are interpreted – i.e. identified and named by a wise leader.
Alongside these unconscious processes, which seem to occur in almost every group setting, are the dynamics of narcissistic behaviour. Because every group of any size demands to be led, it is likely that in some cases there will be some leaders who emerge who use their position for the gratification of narcissistic needs. This is already true of some clergy. Putting it another way, leadership roles will always attract individuals who enjoy a position of power and self-inflation. Power will then be exercised regardless of whether it serves the benefit of the group or not. I have had cause to draw the attention of my readers many times to this unhealthy dynamic. It is a constant danger in church settings at many levels. It is not just the clergy who are guilty of such behaviour; any official who takes some kind of control in a church structure may use it to feed a deep need for self-importance.
When we look at the many skills required of a professionally trained clergy, we might hope to find an ability to identify and challenge examples of Bion’s basic assumptions at work in their congregations. It will be the task of a professional leader, constantly to remind people that maturity can only be found in taking responsibilities for learning, growing and questioning. It will also be a clergy role to challenge the flock over their tendency to have an inherent dislike of outsiders or those who are different. Far too many churches or groups seem to get much of their energy, not from what they do or believe, but from what they do not do. These negative power dynamics of hating enemies, when not checked, can cause havoc in communities and congregations. The professionalism of the clergy can, we hope, keep these dangerous power dynamics in check.
Professional leadership is so much more than expertise in biblical exegesis and some understanding of church history. My fear is that small groups without access to experience and training in their leaders, may breed various forms of irrationality. In some cases, this situation will be downright dangerous. Can we really afford to set up thousands of new congregations with no ability to check whether the dynamics are actually safe for those who are part of them?
I want to finish my piece by reminding the reader of a particular case study that preoccupied this blog in 2015. In that year a detailed report appeared describing the testimony of dozens of former members of the church known as Peniel in Brentwood Essex. I refer any who are interested in this story to go back to the blog posts for the end of 2015. Like many independent charismatic churches, Peniel began as a house group with around eight people. Over a period of around three years, the group grew into a full-size congregation. Two things happened in that time, making the place thoroughly toxic both for leader and led. What seems to have happened is that those who were part of the original founding group became inextricably bound up with the unhealthy narcissistic needs of its leader, Michael Reid. On his part he was able to give them a sense of self-worth by convincing them that they were pioneers in a special work of God. Meanwhile his own sense of self-esteem was being ramped up by adulation, the huge salary that he paid himself and the real estate empire that was gradually emerging. His behaviour, as recounted to the investigator, John Langlois, was appalling. It did not happen overnight, but by the time that church had become a full-blown cult, everyone had forgotten what a church was for. All they knew was the present reality of Peniel. This was to be bound to a tyrannical terrifying individual in the person of Reid. This was the price of their ‘salvation’. His ultimate interest was in feeding his insatiable need for power, wealth and even sexual gratification.
Few of the 10,000 new churches proposed will become mini Peniels. Some, sadly, will. There is at present just too little understanding of the dynamics of narcissistic process in the churches at present to give one confidence that untrained leaders will rise to that task of discernment and ensuring safety for all. If the leadership of local churches ceases to be a professional responsibility, the dangers of relapsing into crude primitive power games is considerable. Who will be able to provide the safeguarding protection that is needed to allow these groups to work safely? It simply does not exist at present. The Church might easily become a place where people come to see themselves in considerable danger. The Church of England cannot afford, after all its earlier safeguarding catastrophes, to take such an enormous risk with its members and its reputation.
Indeed. No this proposal will not save the Church of England: it will break it. This seems to me to be about the most idiotic single initiative to have emanated from the centre, even allowing for all their other numerous misbegotten fiascos. It has frankly made me shake my head about the intelligence of its progenitors.
What it really reveals is that the authorities have concluded that Renewal and Reform has been an abject failure, like all the preceding initiatives (Coggan’s Call to the Nation, Carey’s Decade of Evangelism, etc., etc.). So, the party which is currently in charge feels that it must double down, and throw the dice yet again, in the hope that – this time – it will at last make a difference. Instead they merely prove Einstein’s definition of madness.
It almost certainly won’t make much of a difference to aggregate adherence or offset the remorseless run-off currently in progress, but unlike preceding proposals it will serve to undermine what remains of the parochial system, perhaps fatally. It will create parallel structures and flows of funds, diverting revenue from the innumerable parishes that desperately need money to survive. Few new Christians will be created, but enough will be diverted from parishes to wreck the latter.
But then that doesn’t much matter to this crew: most of them are paid out of Commissioners’ funds, not by parish share, and many of them see the parish as being an obsolete unit, which drags the Church down. If this is their view, then their ambition is merely to create another church *in* England, than to restore one that is *of* it.
And, of course, many of the people advancing this desperate proposal are not lifetime Anglicans. A number of them have entered the Church for their own reasons, often financial. Yet, if they entered the Church only to subvert it in this way, and to turn it into something akin to the denominations from whence they came, what does it say about their bona fides as ‘converts’ and their integrity as individuals? Not a lot, I fear.
What is curious is how they have managed to persuade seemingly sensible people in authority that these proposals are not the unalloyed tosh that they are. I suspect the more sensible bishops have been played by the party who dominate mission teams; either that or they are much more gullible than I had supposed.
Good points Stephen. These people will have to have some connection to the church for supervisory purposes. What will happen is that the Bishops’ favourites, or indeed, the Vicar’s, or the rural Dean’s or whoever, will be leapfrogged over, well, mostly Readers. Which will break hearts.
There’s a gambling element to this, I agree. It’s a bit like putting all your money on “red” only to discover there’s no jackpot anyway.
Underlying the 10k idea is probably a recognition that there are already many, many small congregations out there, but well outside the auspices of the Anglican Church. We’ve got a fair few in this diocese and they contribute nothing to the Parish system of course. Why not set up new ones in competition and get some sort of financial contribution from them? Mostly their setup is predicated on low overheads of course, and an additional charge (parish share) would reduce their financial viability.
Quality control is another key issue of course, and not just in safeguarding and theological training.
Darrell Guder, in his series of essays ‘Called to Witness: Doing Mission Theology, has many thought-provoking things to say. And perhaps only as a result of events at Winchester have I now begun put two and two together! I now look down the Mission Fund’s listed parishes, the parish role numbers, and think about the institutional structure those lives are asked support. It has dawned on me how ‘out-of-touch’ I am with the cultural change around me. And I do see why ‘mission’ seems be elbowing its way to the front of church concerns.
And yet I continue to see mission as implicit in all I do in Jesus’ name. So I find myself deeply troubled. We seem to be divided by all we have in common.
Peniel – I echo what you say about MR (latterly) but the church had good fruit in education, choir, table tennis, local influence. It took a lot to set up the school, teach it day by day and get the rankings they got – bless the dedicated workers for it.
Froghole sums it up: parallel structures will provide a very difficult over-complication and will work against the real priceless strengths of this denomination – the parish structure and buildings.
Shell I suggest you read the Langlois report before you refer to ‘good fruit’. Those who played table tennis to bring glory to the church were were left shattered by the experience and are still in therapy years later. The welfare of the young people was atrocious. It was with the 9 oclock service one of the most abusive churches in the UK. I am sure others know worse.
In fact, I would compare Peniel to the Worldwide Church of God. Once the autocratic leader is gone, one sees how many estimable people with good hearts are there within the movement. It must be draining to be a chief leader, of course.
My first thought was – where are they going to find 10,000 lay people. I live in an area where churches have been without churchwardens for years, no-one wants to be treasurer or on the PCC. Average Sunday attendance even in urban churches is embarrassingly low.
I don’t imagine the Archbishop of York was expecting such a negative backlash but when clergy and church buildings are regarded as a hindrance?! The idea is hopefully dead on arrival and we will never hear it mentioned again. Otherwise safeguarding should be a loud ringing alarm bell.
I’m guessing this idea came from some enthusiastic young management consultant who saw that the supermarket chains were benefiting from setting up small local shops near to where people actually live, rather than making them drive out to the big stores.
I don’t know how long it takes to train someone to run a convenience store, it may be comparable to the time it takes to train someone to run a house church – but: you’re paying them to run the store, and they don’t need to be Christians……
When I was in retail management I used to say, any well trained 18 year old can manage the shop. It’s managing the people that’s the trick.
With apologies to Stephen for diverting slightly off subject, but I was amused that for this innovative (?) C of E proposal he chose a picture of a cathedral of the Church in Wales – Llandaff! But maybe that’s a subtle reference to the Welsh being exempt from this latest idea.
Sorry about that. Not serious enough to change!
I share Stephen’s concerns about safeguarding. I am not convinced that the CofE as it stands is safe, and stretching out the Church in myriad directions isn’t going to make it any safer.
I fear for those who might end up as lay leaders in these new churches. Under what HR processes will they sit under? One doesn’t need to look far in the pages and comments in this blog how difficult it is to pursue a case of clergy misconduct unless one has the time, energy, contacts, and knowledge to pursue such a case. I do worry that if so many new lay leaders are appointed, and as complaints inevitably emerge, the easiest way for a diocese to handle such complaints against non-ordained leaders may well be to dismiss those individuals fairly summarily, particularly if they are leading churches which are struggling to get going. I dare say that the process for pursuing a complaint against a lay leader will be simpler than pursuing a CDM complaint.
Equally, if concerns emerge about the lay leader of what outwardly seems to be a successful church, will that allow them a degree of protection? History has sadly shown that leaders of successful churches have been protected even as concerns have emerged about their leadership.
This proposal certainly leaves more questions than answers.
Fascinating. When I trained at Trinity College Bristol in the 1980s, there was no mention of safety or narcissism in leadership. Now it seems to be the first thing we think of. The pendulum has swing indeed.
Personally, I want to be part of a church which obeys Jesus – actively searches out what he wanted from his followers, and ignores everything else. See Matthew 28:20. If that is right, these other issues should take care of themselves.
Have you noticed that running gathered services of worship, teaching the Bible, holding prayer meetings, celebrating what we call Holy Communion with the meal missing, asking God to heal the sick have no support from Jesus in the Gospels? Why are we so obsessed with religion?
It sounds like this 10,000 proposal is for more of the same. What is needed is root and branch reform.
The Gospels record Jesus and his disciples going to the Temple and to synagogues to worship and pray; Jesus reading the Scriptures, teaching, and preaching in various locations (including homes and synagogues); and Jesus and the disciples going around healing people. Those are examples set for us to follow.
Acts and the Epistles tell us that the early Church continued to meet to pray, to read the Scriptures together, to worship and sing praise; and to administer prayer for healing.
Jesus told his disciples (and, by extension, us) to share bread and wine in remembrance of him. The Church (at least, most denominations) have continued doing this ever since.
So I don’t think we can say that these things are ‘religion’ as opposed to some other, purer form of ‘following Jesus’.
Janet, thanks. Well argued.
This would be fine if Jesus asked us to copy him and the apostles, but he didn’t. We don’t copy him by walking on water, or commanding storms to cease, or fasting forty days at a stretch.
Jesus asked us to obey him (Matt 28:20). I have found 180 commands in the gospels that he gave, virtually all of which our churches today ignore.
I have heard four zoom talks from our church during the last year urging us to gather for worship and how important worship is. I can’t recall the last time I heard a preacher encouraging us to obey Jesus’ instructions, and I reckon I have heard three thousand sermons by now. Why are we so blind and willful about this?
Have a look at http://www.diychurch.co.uk where I have attempted to explain this more fully. Thanks.
“Follow me”, he said. I have to say, I’ve heard plenty of sermons on that.
Don’t you consider ‘As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, do this in remembrance of me’ to be a command of Jesus? Or ‘go into all the world and preach the gospel’? I’ve heard plenty of sermons on those.
Of course the greatest command is ‘love one another’. I’ve heard plenty of sermons on that too.
I’m pleased to hear that, English Athena and Janet. Let’s hope there are churches around which base their programme and activity on following Jesus and spreading the gospel rather than just speaking about it. What I observe is churches making gathered worship their central activity instead. An unhelpful distraction.
On copying Jesus and the apostles, see http://www.turntojesus.co.uk feedback 078.
Janet, regarding the bread and wine, what happened to the rest of the meal? Turning breaking bread together into a liturgical event without the hospitality is hardly following what Jesus intended it seems to me.
It was a Passover meal. “Do this” is assumed to mean something other than that. We can’t be sure what’s best.
Thanks English Athena. To me, the natural reading of the text is, when you are having a meal together, take a moment to remember my death for you with bread and wine. The important part is the hospitality and fellowship. Such an event is a great thing to invite unbelievers to in someone’s home, and then when the meal is paused for a moment with the bread and wine, they will naturally be intrigued.
To have done away with the meal and introduced an hour of liturgy in a special building seems to me nonsense. Jesus showed no interest in liturgy whatever. The special building in his day, the temple, was to be thrown down. Indeed, the new temple is his body, the body of Christ, which we claim to be, and are if we take his instructions seriously. “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me…” is pulling rank to put it mildly. If we want to think of ourselves as his followers, shouldn’t we pay close attention to what follows that phrase? Matthew 28:20.
Another 10,000 more societies dedicated to a weekly gathering for worship would be an act of disobedience to my mind rather than an act of obedience. Bring back Henry the eighth. He dissolved the monasteries – what we need in our day is a government that will close all places of worship and drive Christians underground, i.e. into homes. Then perhaps we will reassess what Jesus actually wanted from his followers and do it.
I don’t expect you to agree!
I have spent thirty years seeking God on these matters. Read my Kindle available from Amazon called Earthquake Tremors : what is God saying now? 21 articles I have written during lockdown. Thanks.
Thank you for your interesting and thought provoking contribution David. We can begin to see with the word “priest”, harking back to the Old Testament, the start of an incipient religious institution following the apostolic era.
So, David, what are the commands of Jesus you think we should be obeying, and are not?
Thanks Janet.
The role of the church is to be a battering ram breaking down the gates of hell (Matthew 16:18). So the agenda for every local church is to ask how this can be done in their community. There should be nothing else on the agenda.
Mightn’t it involve teaching, preaching, healing, caring for one another and the community around, and praising God together? Caring in practice that is, and not just warm fuzzies.
That’s part of what Christians have understood it to be about, from the first disciples until now.
It’s good to have a different perspective, David. I’m afraid that way of looking at it isn’t obvious to me, but it’s important to keep thinking about these things. I suspect the discipline of the regular commemorations is a positive.
Thanks English Athena. We keep on keeping on!
Janet, I hear your enthusiasm for gathered worship. It is hardly surprising. Our country has fifty thousand buildings that were created for the purpose, backed by centuries of tradition. My point is that our practice does not spring from Jesus’ instructions. In my opinion we need to try to put down past practices and start again.
Church ought to be what he wanted, not what we have made it. Trying to fine tune what we do now is insufficient.
It’s not that I personally am enthusiastic for gathered worship – after all, it’s at least 4 years since I was well enough to attend a church in person (though I have gained an enormous amount from live-streamed interactive worship). It’s merely that I think we’d need to have very compelling reasons to overturn 2000 years of what Christians (including the original apostles) have understood Jesus to want about our gathering together.
Is this in effect one way of abnegating responsibility for safeguarding? It’s certainly not going to be possible to get a sense of what is happening in all 10,000 groups, and as we know the emergence of abusive power dynamics in some of the set-ups is pretty inevitable. It will be much easier to cover up what might be happening and the so-called closed ‘family’ feel will contribute to that. We all look to belong somewhere and once you’re in it – how hard it is to get out and say what’s really going on. As in a family or a school – who do you tell? Established churches at least have a named safeguarding person which can sometimes help.
Agreed, Janet. It has taken me thirty years of pondering and wrestling to get to where I am now. I am sad to hear of your health challenge. Did you know I nearly died from pancreatitis five times in 2018? My total recovery amazed the medics. Fun.
So glad you recovered.
I remember how poorly you were. Touch and go for a while, wasn’t it? We were all praying for you.
more go than touch. Totally fit now. Unless you think my opinions prove insanity…
Boom, boom! 😀
Feedback from experience. I went in person on Sunday morning for the first time since lockdown began having previously zoomed, because the service was mostly outdoors in the church grounds. We sang seven songs, prayed together for things we thought were important but which don’t figure in the gospels, heard a reading from the Bible, listened to a half hour talk on the importance of caring for the environment, and then spoke a pledge committing ourselves to do that. The last two took place in the building – I sat in the porch where I could hear, half in the church and half out of it. (That itself is a reasonable picture of where I am these days). The first person out said “Excellent!” as he passed me. My response was to feel that once again, Jesus had not had a look-in that morning. I did not say anything to him. Do you think I should have done?
What made you feel that ‘Jesus hadn’t had a look-in’? Was he not mentioned in any of the 7 songs, or in the Bible reading?
As for the talk on caring for the environment: according to the creation accounts in Genesis humankind was given responsibility for doing just that; and Jesus told his followers that God cares for every single sparrow.
I understand David Pennant’s experience. When local churches provide nothing more than a 30 minute hymn sandwich, that is indigestible. Communion not available. When lockdown began I swallowed the prospect of 12 weeks at home. That is now 70 weeks and counting. Perhaps I expected too much when I needed comfort and it was denied.
I can see the rationale behind lay led at home churches. If the church building is locked and a decision made to stop public worship, including communion, lay people can in effect go UDI and do their own thing without clergy or sacraments. Maybe even lay presidency and thus fill the gap. I am not in favour but can see the attraction in worship terms if nothing else is available.
The church has to abide by the law, Petra. You wouldn’t be allowed to have people round for prayers during a lockdown, either.
Petra, that is tough. I ‘attend’ an online interactive church where communion is celebrated most Sundays, and we are invited to supply our own bread and wine to consume if we wish. I find this works very well for me, though I know some who don’t feel it’s a real communion and don’t feel able to take part. That church has also been doing some outdoor communion services for those who live locally.
The irony is that during the pandemic many regular churchgoers feel they haven’t been catered for by their own church, while many like me who have been unable to get to church for years are now able to worship regularly. It’s quite a reversal.
One of
Janet, the Christian church is not about doing good things or worthy things or mentioning Jesus’ name, but is a gathering of people that observe Jesus’ commands. None of the Sunday morning event was directed towards that.
Janet, I bumped into Matthew 15:8 yesterday – “These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain, their teachings are but rules taught by men.” Jesus quoting Isaiah. Notice that the problem is not the content of the services but the human heart.
Agreed. But you said that ‘Jesus didn’t get a look in’ at the service you attended, which suggests that Jesus wasn’t mentioned?
Janet, I don’t remember Jesus being mentioned that morning, although normally his name does come up. My main memory is of the extensive enthusing about the European Football final that was coming that evening, and the flag waving.
When I said that Jesus did not get a look in, I meant that the things he cared about, and his desire that his followers pursue them did not figure, as they seldom figure in any church on any Sunday morning. John 4:34 & 20:21.
It is said that barnacles can sink a ship. The churches in our country are so covered in barnacles to my mind that it is almost impossible to see the metal hull underneath any more. Perhaps the whole thing will descend beneath the waves some day soon, with a last despairing gurgle.
Whatever happened to the Nazirite shock troops?
Replying to your comment below (where the ‘reply’ button is missing)
That does sound unsatisfactory. I’d have been fed up too.
Last night I dreamt I had been appointed chaplain of a boys boarding school. The lofty imposing chapel seated all six hundred boys, and there was a black leather bound Bible for every one. This had been mentioned more than once by the headmaster at my interview. For some reason, the boy who was due to read the lesson in the service was not there, so I decided to throw it open. “First boy to find Psalm 139 in the Bible can read it to us,” I announced. But there was a problem – none of them could find it. This seemed crazy. I reached for a Bible myself, and discovered that although Genesis and Exodus were present, the other sixty-six books were unrecognisable. One was called Twitch, I noticed. No wonder the boys could not find the psalms. “Never mind,” I called out, “I will do it from memory.” Well I managed about six verses, feeling quite pleased with myself, before coming to a halt. Then I woke up.
Suggested interpretation. To the casual observer, the black books were Bibles, because they looked like Bibles and were in a chapel. This is like our discussion of churches – if they meet on a Sunday morning in a special building and God or Jesus is mentioned, then we think it must be a church. I love Genesis and Exodus: notice that the first ends with bones in a box in Egypt, but the second ends with the Spirit of God filling the building where the box containing God’s life-giving law is housed. A message of wonderful grace even if the Bible did stop there. But what about Twitch? If the Body of Chrsit is twitching, that’s good, surely, because it’s a sign of life? Or is it bad, becasue a body twitching suggests that death might be imminent? You decide, gentle reader! Note my smugness at having a half memory of the text. We think we are doing so well!
I hope the application to our subject is obvious. Our churches are like those books. The question for me is, how can our churches become more like the real thing?
For any who may want to pick up on the Peniel Church issue. Nigel Davies has a Flashback Friday about the history here https://victimsofbishopmichaelreid.blogspot.com/2021/07/flashback-friday.html
and a link with it’s assosciation with a denomination here
https://victimsofbishopmichaelreid.blogspot.com/2021/07/where-was-elim.html
It looks like the questionable period was precisely the period when there was no link with Elim. A second point is that the ‘falling out of some kind’ may indeed have been to Elim’s credit or else have reflected the lack of accountability of MR’s period of leadership, which again would not reflect on Elim. So if the question is ‘Where was Elim?’, given the above considerations, the answer could be, ‘How do we know that they were obliged to be anywhere?’. This seems to be simply being assumed, and if it is I am not surprised that Elim does not answer the correspondence.
I was surprised by this as this seems to be copying exactly what has happened in England already with the house church movement. Many schools / community centers will already have a church congregation meeting on a Sunday.
I left the c of e in my twenties for this (newfrontiers)- attracted by its energy and belonging and rejoined the c of e in my late 30s broken and hurt – craving the safety of trained leadership and oversight not appointed through nepotism and patronage. I nearly became a church leader in that movement but had never any formal training – no courses at all were required – outside checks were a quick interview of an hour with the leader of a neighbouring church.
I was reassured that Benjamin Field (Stowe murderer) raised big concerns when going forward for ordination with the Oxford diocese – but he had the full support of his parish. Would this have been noticed under this proposal?
Perhaps the 10k challenge is a tacit acknowledgement that the Church hasn’t been very good at what it does?
Even with an actual ordained priest in charge notionally, many congregations are lead by laity. I’m thinking here of sub group initiatives like food banks or marriage courses. And I’m inferring that spiritual worship includes and perhaps even consists of these activities.
One thing that bugged me about Wilfred Bion was that he only facilitated his groups, and deliberately avoided taking the lead and telling his charges what to do. And in acting thus he observed the various “defensive” behaviours Stephen describes.
However, the soldiers had to learn to help themselves. Answers would not be provided for them. Together they learned how to tackle the tasks they faced. This is a true positive outcome of therapy, but not just therapy but for whole life tasks for all of us, even those not clinically unwell.
How often have we sat back in a Service and critiqued the sermon or the quality of the music perhaps, but stepped away from the work God gave us to serve his people? Only 20% of the people are doing 80% of the work.
In bigger congregations it’s very easy to be sidelined, but in smaller groups basically everyone is needed even if some of the tasks aren’t very glamorous.
In seeking to plant or seed new congregations, perhaps they’re formalising what’s already turning out to work rather well in some quarters: small plants grow more quickly than straggly old shrubs choking the space they occupy?
My questions about this plan for 10,000 new churches are –
how will the detailed safeguarding recommendations in the IICSA report be implemented in this setting?
why is the C of E training so many new priests if its simultaneously deciding it doesn’t need them? i thought one or two of the last five years or so had quite high numbers training?
the C of E already has an abominable record on racism, misogyny and homophobic abuse. Surely there would be even less accountability around diversity and equality in this kind of setting? Alongside the obvious opportunity for the misuse of power this would be horrendous
I read in Martyn Percy’s article that this is (a now slightly higher) rate of planting at least 3 new churches a day, 21 a week. Is that task even possible? Surely there would be nowhere near enough people to do the vital and time consuming task of creating disciples, pastoral care, and supporting and nurturing spirituality – isn’t this a primary task of the church?
The C of E seems to be concerned to a gross extent with PR and image management (at the expense of victims of abuse) – yet why is it so unable to manage PR in these kinds of statements? This has landed spectacularly badly across a broad spectrum of the church – is it that there is no real listening going on, or no ability to accept challenge that’s at fault?