Daniel Robinson and I went along to a meeting of the 'Red Wedge' cluster of churches yesterday afternoon.
These are churches in areas of serious social deprivation in the city. They do a grand job but are looking at loosing two of their six priests because money is thin on the ground.
Anyhow, Daniel and I said something about feig, which led to an interesting discussion about the place of pioneer ministers, and communities like feig in the parish system as a whole.
It struck me again that without decent communication there is a whole lot of scope for misunderstanding and suspicion.
Questions were asked about what happens for baptisms, weddings and funerals of community members, about how people might be enabled to 'move on' if and when the time came, and also about funding and leadership.
These are all things that I've given lots of thought to, and to be fair, every missionary endeavour in history has had to ask the same questions.
I went away resolving to be as good at communicating what we are about as possible, and having been reminded (once again) that we are in a time of massive change in the way the Church of England operates.
The guys who decide strategy and design training know this (hence pioneers and fresh expressions etc etc), but the vast majority of ordinands are still being trained for traditional parish ministry.
When they arrive in parishes to find that they are faced with a crisis (no money, shrinking numbers of people) they can't ask the really tough questions (the ones that look at the entire structure with a view to demolition and rebuilding) because they had been led into the whole thing believing there was hope for the way things were.
This is founded on some idea that if only we pray and work hard enough, and make things nice in our buildings and put on events that seem attractive, people will come back to church and fill the pews and collection plates.
But this isn't true (although it can look as if it is in some places - because the shrinking numbers of people abandon local churches and gather at a more happening place). It is to mis-understand our culture and it demonstrates a lack of imagination in the way the gospel might be lived out in communities.
This is stating the obvious, and is saying badly what every book on the future of the church has been saying for ages, but I'll say it anyway: a whole new way of looking at the way the church is organised is required. But, more importantly, anyone training for ministry in the church needs to understand this, and right now I'm not sure that all that many do.
On another note,
Church last night was good, as ever - thanks to G for great food and proper welcome to Mark, who joins us on placement from Redcliffe college, where I am both amused and disturbed to discover we are viewed as a cult (not the official line you understand, just a student perception).
Ha.
I find this disturbing because students are supposed to be thinking creatively about cross-cultural mission, which is what I thought we were doing...
If anything that doesn't look like a 'church-on-Sunday' model is potentially considered a cult, I'm not sure how much hope of effective mission activity these guys have got.
I find it amusing because far from being some whacko out on my own, I am a priest in the institutional church, the curate at the cathedral, and the proud owner of more layers of accountability than anyone could possibly desire.