Hope - Pray - Act

I have been thinking much about the traits of those in church I have encountered during my travels and find that there appears to be three specific categories; and whilst some will engage with all three, other might have but one or two of them in combination and this explains a great deal (if true) about what I find.

Here's a simple chart outlining the three traits according to some I meet:

'Nice' Christians

These are the really lovely folk who populate many of the congregations and really do 'hope' that those outside the Church are evangelised. They also hope that the Church will grow and hope that new buildings will be built and Common Purse payments made. These are the lovely, well-meaning people who wish those in the church, and beyond, well.

You probably know the people I'm talking about: Been in the church for years and never taken up a role in the fellowship but faithfully been coming. What they used to call a 'pew warmer' when I was a teenager. The road to hell, and decline, is paved with churches that are full of 'nice' Christians.

'Good' Christians

The people who have realised that prayer is an extremely valuable thing indeed, for when challenged they can say, 'Oh yes, of course, ler me pray about it!'

At one church I visited the minister pointed to someone and said, 'There's someone who will always pray when asked to get involved,' and then pointed at another person and said, 'And there's someone who will always get involved and prays!' They went on to explain that the 'more spiritual' answer to being asked to get involved was not, 'I'll have a think (or) perhaps,' but was, "I'll have to pray about it!'

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying, for those who are true prayers are worth their weight in gold - for prayer is the key to successful engagement with the community and spiritually sound worship (which means word, music and prayer). But so many learn the Christianspeak that converts hope into pray and unless they are real - they are destined to produce little and destroy and impede more.

'Doing' Christians

Are the people who make things happen!

Well, that's what I was told (proudly) by one minister recently as they pointed out the people who were 'doing it'. The problem is that whilst this might make for busy and even successful church the people who work on the 'doing' model find themselves driven and their churches, and its life, hectic and full of busyness - there's no time to stop and pray - church becomes a treadmill on which many are driven until they burnout or drop.

I visited a quite successful place recently and there was a real buzz as people were engaged in doing stuff. 'If you give them a job as soon as you can they feel wanted and engaged,' said the person accompanying me, 'It gives them a purpose and makes them valued!'

I know I may be playing the pedant here but we are already valued and we have a purpose - 'The cross and our baptismal calling make this all too clear, so why artificially load the dice,' thought I, smiling and carrying on. This thought led me to a place where I came to the realisation (once again - for it's not rocket science) that the real key is to hold all three strands in tension. If we can do this then we become 'Real' Christians:

The reason for this is that we have a hope and this hope is focussed in engaged prayer and from this (because we do listen when we pray, don't we) comes the 'making it happen' bit.

I would like to think that the three traits inform and support each other for hope is desire and desire should lead us to to a place of action and there are times when this action is prayer and doing; the action being prayer alone is as valid a response as being action alone - just means your potentially doing it wrong!

Now there's a thought - hope, pray and do - three traits we should all hold in tension (and perhaps I should add 'Read' too?

watch this space

All-Member (Collaborative) ministry - whose perspective?

An intriguing conversation with a lay minister brought about the complaint that the structure of 'the church' (by which they mean the local congregation) looked like this:

Their complaint, when the smoke cleared, was that they were not far enough up the telegraph post. They wanted to be 'a leader' rather than 'just a lay minister'. They were supposed to sit at the very top of the pole and be equal (or as the conversation continued, perhaps more than equal) with the Vicar. 'I want my views to make a difference and for people to do what I tell them,' they complained.

So I spoke to some of the members of the same church and their complaint was that there were 'too many chiefs and not enough indians'. 'The church,' they complained, 'Looks like this':

'Everyone makes the decisions and sets goals, goes on about mission and vision and targets and the like and we are left to get on with it. Everyone is in charge of something and we do the real work!' The members were forever (or so they thought) being set new goals and presented with vision statements and 'clever little sayings' (like 'for town, for church, for Christ') and the reality was that nothing ever really changed. 'It just looks good for those who pick up our bits of paper or read the noticeboard but it isn't,' was the mantra of the disgruntled members.

So I asked the person in church (and I have to say that whilst their title was 'Rector' one of the member's modifications to 'Rectum' did make me smile) what their take on the whole affair was. What was their church structure like and how much was it like that because of design or inheritance.

The church, they proudly proclaimed, 'Looks like this':

"They decide what they want to do and set the goals, vision and targets and I merely seek to support, enable and equip them.'

Now each and every person I spoke to felt theirs was the true vision of the church as it was. The person who was, at the end of the day, accountable felt that they were running a happy ship and that all were engaged and actively playing their part in the success story that those outside of the church could see.

I wonder what those in our churches and fellowships see when it comes to their church family and its ministry. Think I'll ask those in the one I belong to very soon and hope that I'm not (sadly) surprised. More on this soon . . . .

AAA - Rating our churches

Following on from considering a 'credit rating' type system for those who come to church, I thought it might be helpful to use a similar system to advise where a church was and perhaps assist people in knowing what to expect:
So here goes:

‘GGG’—Extremely strong church that teaches, preaches and pastors; a worshipping and caring body that supports those within it, those on the periphery and those in the (non-churchgoing) community - does the stuff.
‘GG’—Very strong capacity with a few weaknesses and some major strengths - what we'd consider to be an 'excellent church'.
‘G’—Strong capacity to meet spiritual commitments, but concentrates on generally one area from a list that includes worship, mission or self; attracts members from other churches because of it's strength and keeps them for a season because of what is lacking beneath the surface - a 'good church'.

‘ggg’—A generally capable church that is engaged in the community, teaches and pastors its members and has a good social life - an emerging (and desiring to be) missional) church.
‘gg‘— One dimensional church - attractive because it has a band, or brings in 'names' or perhaps has a new building - talks about Christ and lives very much for self.
‘g‘— It's church, but generally only in name. Not a lot of fire and content to continue with its door closed (until the parish share raises its ugly head)  - all the worst things that can be found in a self-serving maintenance church.

‘pp+’—Problems (real or perceived) mean they struggle to be effective and welcoming.
‘pp’— Problems (real or perceived) mean that the church has given up and looks to that person who will come and make a difference as they are convinced they can't.
 ‘pp-’—Problems (real or perceived) have created an Alzheimer's church where spiritual death is a reality even though the body continues to appear to still be alive.

These three groups have started to give me a baseline to consider what measures need to be taken to change it and make it effective and fun; for let's be honest here - if a church is doing all the stuff but isn't a place where fun and fellowship is a reality, then regardless of what it does, it isn't Church (is it?)

The reason for this line of thinking is not to put people or churches down but to enable me to start looking at what might be done to help the person or people to engage and enjoy mission and membership. To this end I will post a modified Engels scale tomorrow.

Again, comments, modifications and help regarding any of the posts is aways welcome.

AAA - How does God rate us?

Of of the indicators of financial virility that George Osborne has clung to, and crowed about, is our nation's 'triple A' credit rating.

When I worked in the City of London's financial sector, one of the proudest boasts that the company I worked for had (aside for its integrity when it came to paying out - not something all can admit to) was the fact that it was a 'triple A' institution. What this meant was that regardless of circumstance, the company would always be able to meet its financial commitment. It was a safe bet and, if it ever needed money, a sound risk (in fact it means that it is effective 'no risk).

Listening to a rather good discussion on the financial probity of some nations and the state of European (and other) nations I was challenged by the assessments that some nation states received; something that got me thinking about how God (and Church itself) might adopt a credit rating system to assess, and advice, of the God ratings of both.

So here goes:

‘GGG’—Extremely strong capacity to meet spiritual commitments - does the stuff.
‘GG’—Very strong capacity to meet spiritual commitments.
‘G’—Strong capacity to meet spiritual commitments, but susceptible to distractions and changes in attitude which make them liable to just walk off when most needed.

‘ggg’—Adequate capacity to meet spiritual commitments, but subject to distractions and wavering.

‘gg‘—The lowest 'engaged with church' group - attend fairly regularly and make right noises (but never actually 'do' anything .

‘pp+’—Problems mean they struggle to be regular or engaged.
‘pp’— Problems mean that they tend to come when in need and then vanish until the next time.
 ‘pp-’—Problems mean that God is to blame for everything but they still like Church thanks to hatch, match and despatch roles.

‘AAA’—Will engage with Church, but with reluctance (and some distrust).
‘AA’—Will not engage with Church, taking every opportunity to attack and misrepresent what it is, does and believes but will still dialogue if pushed.
‘A’—Will not engage with Church and takes every opportunity to attack and misrepresent what it is, does and believes whilst not being willing to dialogue regardless.

‘D’—Dorkin

So, have a think about this embryonic model of classification and after having resolved any confusion over yourself, have a think about those around you and then have a go at working out which approach best meets their needs and brings about dialogue. You can add a minus or plus to assist the positioning of a person (churches come next) and aid your methods of engagement.

And if you can offer modifcations - please do.