
Those of us who were ordained some years ago will sometimes express puzzlement at the terminology used to describe the work of the parish church today. We may have a special problem with the word ‘mission’ as it is sprinkled throughout many church documents. I expressed bafflement at the use of the word by the diocese of Winchester. The diocesan slogan, ‘Living the Mission of Jesus’ has no obvious meaning, even though we could hazard a guess at what the author had in mind. I wonder what the next Bishop of Winchester will do with this catchphrase and whether it will be quietly shelved along with other initiatives designed to make the diocese more mission aware. For clergy of my vintage, mission in a parish was what we were trying to do all the time. The work of prayer and worship, good pastoral care, learning and spiritual growth gave to each congregation a spiritual dynamic which, we hoped, would overflow into the wider community. People did not necessarily come to the church, but the faithful living out of the reality of God by those who did, could act like yeast working on the dough. There was mission and growth, though such growth was seldom spectacular. The Church, in short, was an institution which, in many places, dovetailed into the wider society. This was in spite of the fact that only a small minority supported it by their presence and their financial giving. As William Temple put it, the Church is the only organisation set up for the benefit of those who are not its members.
The mission imperative being loudly proposed for congregations everywhere has now become so ubiquitous in church documents that many are wondering if this involves a fundamental change in the old understanding of the role of the parish church in society. Mission seems to mean making new disciples as the number one priority. The implications of this understanding of the word are profound, practically and theologically. The old model saw the presence of God everywhere, even among those who did not attend church or want anything to do with the Church’s teaching. The new use of the word mission seems to regard society beyond the congregation being a mission-field, full of the unsaved. Everyone who does not come to church is deemed to be in need of saving or rescuing. The imperative is for us to go out to rescue these unsaved people and pull them out of the fire as though they were burning sticks which are potentially lost for ever. The older gentle agnosticism about the fate of non-churchgoers that the yeast dough model implied, seems to be out of fashion. The old vision of the parish church being a spiritual hub at the heart of every community also seems to be less in vogue. We believed that when the prayerful and dedicated work of Christian people in a community is being accomplished, there will always be trickle of new people coming in. They will arrive wanting to find what it is that inspires these acts of service and generosity on the part of Christians.
In each of the parishes where I have served, I have always had the privilege and responsibility for setting the priorities for the church’s efforts in service and outreach. I would not have found it easy to do this alongside people who do not share my ‘fuzzy edge’ approach to ministry. By this term I am describing a reluctance to say that one person is a Christian while another is not. When we get into making a decision about who is ‘saved’ and who is damned, we are in dangerous territory. Fuzzy edge theology allows one to reach out to respond to need without speculating over the state of the individual’s immortal soul. That is the task of God alone. Visiting right across the community and the care of the sick, the elderly and the dying were always at the top of my priorities. Any narrow focus on mission would have been difficult to sustain alongside my role and that of my parish as having the task of service and care. Working solo for most of my ministry did have some advantages. I did not have to justify every decision as to how my time was allocated. One practical outcome of my prioritising visiting was that in a population of two and half thousand, I seldom had to bury anyone that I did not know. In those days, the 90s, when we were burying most of those who died in the parish, I never found myself without some prior knowledge of the departed. Good neighbour schemes and my own pattern of visiting ensured that I was able to maintain links with the entire elderly population.
When the Archbishops of Canterbury and York both speak about the retention of the parish church as an important ingredient in future church life, I imagine that each has been influenced by their memories which are similar to my own. As former incumbents, they will each remember the importance and value of the autonomy given to them by the parish system. And yet at the moment, we are being presented from different directions with something quite different from that way of doing things. This surely must make both them and the many clergy trained before the turn of the millennium quite uncomfortable.
The Diocese of Leicester is holding a Synod this coming Saturday the 9th. Members attending are voting on a proposal that Synod will approve the diocesan framework of Minster Communities (MCs). The proposal is that the 340 churches and 220 parishes in the diocese be brought into clusters within 20 to 25 of these MCs. Serving the MCs will be 80 to 90 stipendiary staff. The main focus word for these MCs is the word mission. Each one will consist of a group of parishes combined with Fresh Expressions churches and schools, all brought together to conduct the task of mission. Overseeing each MC will be a diverse ministry team. This will consist of clergy, licensed lay ministers and Head Teachers.
The Minster model of ministry, as it is called, has a history going back over a thousand years to Saxon times. One central hub church oversees various smaller worship centres in a fixed area. In one modern manifestation of this principle, church planting by a central well-supported church, has successfully introduced new disciples into the congregation. The church planting schemes sponsored by charismatic churches as HTB in London and Hillsong in Sydney have achieved some success. I am not aware of this model being tried in a non-charismatic/HTB context. The way the scheme in this setting operates is a bit like a MacDonald’s franchise. A pre-packaged style of church outreach, complete with message, music and leadership is taken by a small group into an empty building or a redundant church. This small founding group tend to be young, enthusiastic and able to respond to the modern styles of music on offer. The seed congregation then reach out to other young people like themselves and the congregation quite often, in terms of numbers, takes off. Whatever we think about Holy Trinity Brompton and its impressive mission outreach, it is clear that it does not operate in traditional Anglican ways. At its heart is a single model of teaching and truth which most clergy would find oppressive or even claustrophobic. Most clergy value the inclusive range of styles offered by traditional Anglicanism, and they enjoy the opportunity to be flexible in their ministry. Many of the older parish priests among us will also wonder how far the HTB style of ministry serves the over 60s. Their expectation of the local parish is more towards to discovering those aspects of faith which offer reassurance during their final years. Making new disciples may be one of the priorities of a parish. However, if mission is ever made the sole or main focus of the parish, as seems to be the case in the Leicester proposal, then other things will get crowded out and ignored. These are precisely the things that are traditional parish priest, such as me, would miss dreadfully.
The Leicester paper is perhaps typical of new thinking within the Church of England about the future of parish life. On close inspection it fails to embrace the traditional Anglican respect for diversity. This can only be preserved in a large number of semi-autonomous units. Currently we tolerate an enormous diversity in the way clergy are trained. We cannot then immediately remove this respect and practice of a wide variety of cultures soon after the candidate has left theological college to become part of one of these monolithic MCs. They will, of course, not necessarily be following the HTB model in every case, but it is still hard to see how each MC will establish a working theological/cultural model of the Anglican style which all in leadership can agree to follow. A corporate shudder has gone through the entire Church of England recently when we discovered how many of our current generation of theological leaders have been nurtured through the quasi-cultic mentoring system practised at the Iwerne camps. The MC idea will never be able to accommodate the sheer variety of important (and valuable) theological differences in the Church. If some Anglican traditions have, for the sake of agreement, to be suppressed within a MC, then there will be a build-up of tension. It will give rise to the same kind of unhappiness that we have seen in the Winchester diocese. In Winchester the church authorities seemed to have believed that a slogan heavy version of conservative theology could unite the diocese. That was a dangerous damaging fantasy. I fear also that pretending that MCs can each embody the cultural and theological breadth of Anglicanism will also prove to be a fantasy. This will have far reaching consequences for the happiness of clergy and people in the Leicester diocese.
Both Archbishops have protested that the parish system is safe under their watch. The debate to take place in Leicester on Saturday would seem to weaken that promise. The only way that the Leicester diocese can be theologically and structurally united under a scheme of this kind, is if every clergyman were to be a fully paid-up member of something similar to the HTB methods of church planting and mission. That seems to be the only successful current example of the MC idea actually in operation. As the HTB way of doing things does not enjoy widespread support, are the authorities expecting to expel from the diocese anyone who does not wish to become part of this great untried experiment to bring about their desire for mission and discipling? How can such a scenario come to pass? The only way would be to simply sack those clergy who cannot work in such a structure. Are we to see a Winchester type culling of posts/clergy who do not fit into a conservative vision for the future of the whole diocese? That would appear to be a terrible cost, one the church cannot afford.