|
general assembly
THE UNITED REFORMED CHURCH
Minutes of the General Assembly of the United Reformed Church 2004
Appendix 2
Catch the vision
The report of the
‘Catch the vision’ Steering Group to the General Assembly 2004
[We apologise
to Assembly that our report was not available for printing with the Book
of Reports and has had to be circulated separately. The research that we
have been undertaking has only been completed within the last few days,
and is critical to the report, and therefore to Assembly’s understanding
of the true circumstances of the church. We hope that it will arrive in
time for members to consider it prior to the planned debate.]
1. Our remit
1.1 The remit given us by Mission Council, ‘…urgently and radically to
re-think the Church’s priorities, programmes and processes..’ (Minutes
02/97) is daunting in its magnitude, and we are deeply aware of both the
privilege and responsibility given to us. We are also profoundly
grateful to all those who responded to us with such openness and
creativity. We received over 900 responses to the questionnaire as well
as many letters and e-mails, and the correspondence was so vast that we
were unable to enter into individual conversations. However, we wish
formally to record our thanks to the church in this report.
2. Vision and
the vision statement
2.1
Consultation has been at the heart of the way we have worked. After the
October 2002 Mission Council which set us up, we performed our version
of a strengths, weaknesses and opportunities analysis on people in key
roles - Moderators, Synod Clerks, Committee Conveners, Church House
Secretaries, District Secretaries, M & M Conveners, Mission Enablers and
FURY Council. We crunched the returns and produced a list of significant
issues that had been identified as needing attention. That formed the
basis of a pastoral letter sent to churches and ministers in December
2002, opening up a broader conversation. We then asked the October 2003
Mission Council to dream dreams of the church they’d like to see, and we
added that to our database. It was that accumulation of insights, dreams
and hopes which formed the quarry for the vision statement which we
produced later that month at Windermere. A vision statement responds to
the moment. It is therefore necessarily provisional. It allows us to
glimpse the future, but does not preclude the creation of new visions.
2.2 The vision statement is not a statement of faith; we have a perfectly
good one. It was not a mission statement; we adopted the Five Marks of
Mission as part of the ‘Growing Up’ report at our 1999 Assembly. Nor was
it a statement of ecumenical principle; we had, after all, accepted the
Three Ecumenical Principles at the 2001 Assembly. It was rather, an
attempt to articulate what we had heard the church saying to us, and to
provide a common vision to which we could assent. The responses to the
questionnaire show that it has served that purpose.
2.2.1 The responses were overwhelmingly positive, as the graphs below
indicate:
Summary of
questions:
1. In
practical terms, to remain where we are is not an option.
2. It is
our goal to become a vibrant and sustainable faith community in the next
10 years.
3a. We are
called by God to be a church which is centred upon the gospel and the
proclamation of its message of freedom and justice.
3b. We are
called to be diverse and lively, inclusive and flexible.
3c. We
will seek, visibly and recognisably, to make a difference to our
communities and our society, in the name of Jesus Christ.
4.
Achieving our goal will require sacrifices and pruning.
5a. We
will become less bureaucratic.
5b. We
will become more ecumenically focused.
5c. We
will become more reliant on lay leadership.
1
Northern 7. Eastern
2 North
Western 8. South Western
3.
Mersey 9. Wessex
4.
Yorkshire 10. Thames
North
5. East
Midlands 11. Southern
6. West
Midlands 12. Wales
13.
Scotland
2.2.2 We
were grateful to those who acted as Synod listeners for spending a day
with us and helping us see the nuances of those responses, and to the
many correspondents who wrote in some detail to us about individual
words and phrases. The statement was written as a catalyst. Our report
and analysis is based on those responses. We rejoice that the statement
has helped reveal a broad consensus that allows us to see a way ahead
together. However, the range of theological responses we received
suggested to us that altering the odd word would be unlikely to result
in a universally acceptable statement. So, we have taken note of the
comments made, rejoiced in some of the alternatives proposed, and offer
the following version, cast in the form of prayer:
May the Spirit of
the Lord rest upon us
may the call of God
Sustain us
as we seek to be
Christ's people,
transformed by the
gospel
announcing good news
to the poor
proclaiming those in
prisons of wealth, poverty, disease and disorder
committed to making
a difference
to the world's
kingdoms
as we live in
Christ's kingdom.
3. Growth and
Decline
3.1 We
are people with a vision because we are Jesus people; wonderfully,
inextricably, mystically caught up in the life of the living Christ,
dealing daily with the possibilities opened up by his resurrection. We
are ‘in Christ’ people and communities, and it is that which makes us
different, and it is that which allows us to ‘make a difference’. The
difference we make is not us but Jesus. The question is whether we are
bold enough, courageous enough, sacrificial enough live on the
resurrection edge. When we do, remarkable things can happen. Asylum
seekers can be welcomed as friends. Racism can be cast away. Drug
dependency can be stopped. The unemployed can find work. Violence can
be met with gentleness, darkness with light. Lives can be changed and
saints made. We know that can happen because we have seen it. It is the
freedom Christ brings, the justice for which God craves.
3.2.
The call of the vision statement is not new. It has been made over and
over again in the history of the church – not least within our own
traditions. It is the call for the church to be the church, to discover
its true self, to be reformed more fully in its Christlikeness. In a
post-Christian age that means being distinctively and uncomfortably
different, living ‘otherness’ or what we might call ‘dissent’. It might
also mean being church in a radically different way. To speak of the
church being ‘diverse and lively, inclusive and flexible’ is description
rather than prescription. Britain, especially in its great
metropolises, is multi-cultural. In London now the majority of
churchgoers are black. We are challenged by diversity – of cultures,
ethnicities, talent and theology, and we need to celebrate that and
delight in what it teaches us of God’s richness. We are, in some
places, blessed with liveliness, a joyful, dynamic engagement with the
gospel and the communities in which we live. The Presbyterian Church of
New Zealand recently published some commissioned research on
non-churchgoers’ attitudes to church, and discovered that church is seen
‘…as a place for needy people – not people like our participants who
feel their lives are full and do not wish to be seen as needy.’ (the
report can be accessed at www. presbyterian.org.nz.2032.0.html).
Inclusivity is about people of every ethnicity and culture, gifting and
ability - the needy - finding themselves ‘in Christ’.
3.2.1 The
churches of these islands have been in gradual decline for the best part
of a century. Our experience is little different to our ecumenical
partners. English Presbyterianism’s membership peaked in 1914, English
Congregationalism’s in 1915, the Churches of Christ in 1932. If the
measure is not absolute membership but the percentage of the population
who are Christian, the decline in English and Welsh Christianity began
in the mid 19th century. That trend has continued in the United
Reformed Church; the gentle attrition of losing 2.5 - 3.5% of your
membership each year. This is a difficult land in which to be faithful,
and we should encourage and nurture those who are still there, not
castigate them for failure. In ancient Israel it was not the faithful
who were called to repent but the faithless nation.
3.2.2
The Churches Information for Mission Church Life profile showed us that
we have roughly a third more members in the 63+ age bracket than the
aggregate of churches surveyed. That statistic needs to be interpreted
carefully because the aggregate included new and black-led churches
which have very different age profiles to the historic denominations,
and it reflects national demographics – there simply are more older
people in society. Our profile is not markedly different to that of the
other historic denominations. We do not wish to be understood as
‘ageist’. We are aware of the remarkable leadership that ‘grey power’
exercises in the church. However, if our age pattern is projected on 20
years it soon becomes clear that we will then be half the size we are
now. Some of our correspondents have taken us to task for managing
decline rather than encouraging growth. We remain unrepentant. Decline
must be managed for the sake of growth. If ignored, it will overwhelm.
3.2.3
Growth and decline are strange creatures. We have received plenty of
advice and been pointed to countless programmes which we are assured
will result in church growth – a sort of infallible John Innes compost
for churches. Whilst we do not doubt the value of these programmes, we
doubt if one programme will fit all churches. Our own research shows
that between 1999 and 2004 there has been no decline in the URC
membership in 328 churches, no decline in the number of regular
attenders in 570 churches, and that the average attendance at worship
has remained constant at the main service in 440 churches (25.9%). Our
analysis of growing churches shows that 9% of our churches grew
1997-2002, most by ones and twos rather than tens and twenties, although
there are exceptions. We need to be careful about this research too.
That kind of growth pattern may have been present throughout the long
arc of decline, we simply do not know. We asked the Moderators to tell
us the stories of these churches, and each one was different. We could
see no pattern of ministry, demography, theological style or leadership
grouping that was common to them all. We (lamely?) conclude that the
Holy Spirit defied academic analysis, and we rejoice that there is good
news to be heard. Reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated.
4. Being church
differently
4.1
What does it mean to be ‘in Christ’ in this new, strange landscape?
How can we go on being God’s faithful ones, telling the story of Jesus
Christ, living resurrection life? This is a time of transition, a
movement of cultures. Modernism is dead, but it is as yet unclear what
will replace it. In some places traditional, institutional church as we
know it will continue to thrive, but elsewhere new forms of being church
are coming into being, defined by people and networks rather than
buildings, occasionally sharing in large worship events, but for the
most part meeting in cells. Not many are in the United Reformed Church,
and if there was one sadness about the responses to catch the vision, it
was that little imagination is abroad about different ways of being
church and different ways of using ministry. One question which must be
faced is whether our structures inhibit such experiment. The age of
‘Christendom’ has passed. We can no longer assume knowledge of the
Christian story, still less that people have any understanding of
church. Like the early church, we are in an environment of mission, and
mission is about finding connections with cultures and societies. In
some places and cases that will mean fostering new, imaginative,
‘alternative’ ways of being church. That can sound threatening and
difficult, but we should rejoice that at least in one part of our life
we have succeeding remarkably in doing that.
4.2.
In May there was a gathering of 6,000 Pilots and their leaders at
Legoland – probably the biggest Christian youth event in Britain this
year. Pilots is a new way of being church for children and young people
mid-week. It has caught the mood, found a way of being church
differently. 91% of Pilots attend Pilots every week. It has brought
many children, young people and families into the Christian family who
would not otherwise be there. It also reveals a trend which is seen
elsewhere in the Christian communion in Britain – a move away from a
Sunday to a mid-week focus of Christian commitment. When we come to
think about how to be church differently, we need to remember that by
the grace of God, we can do it, and we’ve done it. We can live and
thrive in God’s to-morrow.
5. Where your treasure
is…
5.1
If we are to do so, we must deploy our resources well. The underlying
equation that surrounds our finances is well known. An ageing and
reducing membership is expected to meet ever-increasing costs. If we
are to deploy our resources to serve God’s to-morrow, we need to manage
those resources well. We therefore decided that it was important that
we conducted serious research into the financial position of the
church. To our surprise no complete picture of the church’s finances
had every been drawn. We are deeply indebted to our colleague Eric
Chilton, the Church’s Treasurer, and his colleagues for rectifying
that. We are conscious that more work needs to be done, but for the
first time we can catch a glimpse of the whole. The results surprised
us, and were available so late in our process that we have had little
time to assimilate them and analyse their meaning. We therefore simply
lay them on the table.
5.2 Local
churches
5.2.1 From
a representative sample of churches in each Synod a picture of the
overall income and expenditure of local churches for 2002 has been
obtained. It is estimated that the total income of churches is in the
region of £61.5 million per annum. This comprises the following
principal items:
Giving including gift
aid £ 30.6 million (49.8%)
Interest and
dividends £ 2.8 million ( 4.5%)
Rentals and
lettings £ 13.5 million (22.0%)
Other (includes charity giving)
* £ 14.6 million (23.7%)
* this includes special fund raising,
Commitment for Life, legacies etc.
The total expenditure of churches is
estimated to be in the region of £57.2 million and the individual items
are:
M & M (including
District/Synod fees) £ 21.7 million (38.0%)
Payments to other
denominations (LEP’s ) £ 1.4 million ( 2.5%)
Ministerial
expenses £ 4.3
million ( 7.5%)
Church
costs £ 9.5
million (16.5%)
Maintenance of
buildings £ 8.0 million (14.0%)
Other
** £ 12.3 million
(21.5%)
** includes contras to income
like Commitment for Life
5.2.2
Several conclusions can be drawn from the sample.
a)
The giving per member of smaller churches is generally greater than in
larger churches.
b)
M & M contributions vary considerably as a percentage of the total
income of churches, but in more than 70% of churches it is covered by
giving.
c) Under
half of local churches income is spent on ministry.
d)
Rentals and lettings generally go a long way to meeting overheads and in
some churches do so.
5.2.3
Churches were also asked for the capital value of property and
investments. Although it is difficult to estimate the market value of
property, insurance cover valuations were used as indicative of the
replacement cost of church buildings. In the case of manses, either
insurance cover or known market values was used. The total capital value
given by the 113 churches in the sample was £94 .1 million comprising
Churches including halls,
schoolrooms £ 75.7 million
Manses
£ 9.8 million
Reserve funds in banks, building
societies £ 5.5 million
Gilts and
equities £ 1.3 million
Other
property £ 1.8
million
If this is fully representative of all
local churches their total capital is in the region of £1425 million of
which manses are worth at least £148 million and reserve funds and
investments amount to £103 million.
5.3
Districts and Areas
District/Area revenue income and
expenditure is much less and varies very considerably. Some Districts
have considerable investments from which a strong income stream is
derived but most rely on fees from local churches or grants from
Synods. Districts with a turnover of more than £5000 were asked to make
a return and some under that figure did so as well. The 17 District
returns showed that a total income of £281k. per annum made up of
Fees from
churches £ 70699
(25.2%)
Interest and dividends on
investments £ 57002 (20.2%)
Rentals £ 10745
( 3.8%)
Other (including grants from
Synods) £ 143029 (50.8%)
The total expenditure of £300k. comprised
Training
£ 10827 ( 3.6%)
Development
£ 45867 (15.3%)
Administration inc. Trust & Property
work £ 48783 (16.2%)
Grants to
churches £ 93867 (31.3%)
Other inc. Synod fees,
£ 101030 (33.6%)
Pulpit supply,
travel
Very little capital is held by most
Districts apart from modest reserves. Exceptionally some Districts have
a manse and substantial reserve funds and investments. These amounted
to £2.5 million.
5.4 Synods
Synod income is mostly from investments
with some levying contributions from local churches.
Expenditure in 2002 was £9.87 million of
which £4.298 million was on revenue expenditure
Grants to local churches -
for people £349k.
Grants to local churches -
projects £572k.
Training
£534k.
Other Mission Activities e.g.
Development £1104k.
Support Activities
£1739k.
and the remainder, largely grants to
local churches for buildings and manses, could be regarded as capital
expenditure.
5.5 Overall
revenue income and expenditure of the Church
Using the figures obtained together with
those in the central accounts for 2002, a general picture of the annual
income and expenditure of the Church can be estimated. Internal
transfers like M & M contributions, fees and Commitment for Life have
been eliminated as far as possible.
Income £’000
Local
churches 61.500
Districts - interest and rentals
70
Synods -
say 4.300
Central - investments, grants, legacies
etc. 2.604
Total
£68.474 million
Expenditure
Ministry Training Other Mission Support Total
£’000 £’000 £’000
£’000 £’000
Local churches 4.300
562* 30.638 35.500
Districts 11 46
150 207
Synods 534
2.025 1.739 4.298
Central 16.354 1.840
1.706 2.066 21.966
Total
20.654 2.385
4.339 34.593 61.971
(33.3%) (3.8%
)(7.0%) (55.8%)
*Commitment for Life
The positive position is largely the
result of local churches apparent surplus of £4.2 million.
5.6 Summary of our
financial resources
5.6.1 The
income of local churches is estimated at £61.5 million per annum , of
which half comes from giving. The largest call on that income is M & M
and ministerial expenses (45.5%), well under 50%. The costs of running
and maintaining local church buildings is a heavy drain on resources and
is close to the M & M commitment.
5.6.2 Ministry
and Training rightly emerge as the major focus of all Church costs
although they only represent 37% of our expenditure. Most Synods and
some Districts have investments which produce considerable additional
income. This facilitates their work and reduces the call on local
churches. However it is worth noting that Synod and District
expenditure on Other Mission and Support matches central expenditure.
5.6.3It
is impossible to be precise about capital and in fact little might be
served by knowing more in the short term. Church buildings and manses
are part of our stock in trade and investments are often restricted
funds which have been raised for specific objects. Thus time is needed
to arrange the redeployment of capital to meet changing mission
goals. However what is clear is the considerable capital value in the
Church and thus the opportunity to meet new challenges identified by our
vision.
6. The church we long to
be
6.1 The
responses to the questionnaire reveal to us the kind of church that we
would like to be, and therefore the broad areas that need attention if
we are to enter God’s tomorrow as confident servants.
6.2. The
overwhelming support given to the goal that we become a vibrant and
sustainable faith community within ten years was accompanied by two main
caveats. The first was that the time scale was too generous. We agree
that the questions before us are urgent, but we feel that too few of our
respondents actually understood the legal processes that Assembly has to
adopt to encompass wide-ranging change. Should any change require the
alteration of the Basis and Structure, the matter must be referred to
Synods under paragraph 3(1) of the structure. So, should a resolution
which necessitates such a change be presented to Assembly in 2005, it
would need to be sent to Synods for discussion, and come back to the
2006 Assembly for ratification. Only then could the change be
implemented. Given those realities, and the fact that reports to
Assembly about changes in our life will be presented to consecutive
Assemblies, a time-scale of ten years seems realistic rather than
generous.
6.2.1. The
second caveat was strongly articulated at the Synod listeners’ day, and
is far more significant. We were very pleasantly surprised by the
strength of the opinion that far from seeking to be a sustainable
community, the United Reformed Church should do all that it can to
pursue the vision of its Basis of Union, paragraph 8, and ‘…take,
wherever possible and with all speed, further steps towards the unity of
all God’s people.’ The strength of that opinion was in our view such
that we could not ignore it. We see the goals of sustainability and
ecumenism as complementary rather than contradictory, for our ecumenical
experience since 1972 has taught us the virtues of patience and
serendipity. However, in the light of the views expressed to us we bring
the following resolution:
Resolution 41
‘General Assembly affirms its commitment
to paragraph 8 of its Basis of Union, and instructs the Ecumenical
Committee to form a small working party to assess what possibilities
exist for the United Reformed Church to ‘..take further steps towards
the unity of all God’s people’ and to report back to Mission Council and
the 2005 Assembly.’
6.3.
There is widespread agreement that our
conciliar structure is too complex and in some places is impeding rather
than enabling mission. In some parts of the church structures have
fallen into abeyance because there simply are not the people to service
them. Several Synods have begun to re-consider their structures. The
question of the size and frequency of Assembly has also been raised, not
least by the Assembly Arrangements Committee. So too has the size and
style of Mission Council. These questions revolve around a central
question. Do we wish to be a federation of 13 synods (which have grown
in power and influence in our history) or a connexional church? The
perennial question of the nature of ecumenical boundaries, particularly
in relation to regionalisation, is also ‘live’. We have therefore
commissioned a working group under the convenership of the Revd John
Oldershaw, and including all the Synod Clerks, to consider the conciliar
structure of the church and bring a report and recommendations to the
2005 Assembly. It is our hope that these proposals may result in both a
more mission-focused organisation, and in considerable cost savings. We
believe that this will be a critical and significant report.
6.3.1. We
are not persuaded that all that hinders the mission of the church is to
be found in the wider structures of the church. A host of questions
cluster around the life of the local church. We are aware, for example,
of a dramatic range of practice in both the frequency and style of
Church Meeting across the denomination, and questions are also being
raised about the role of membership in an age which shuns ‘belonging’.
We believe that we should consider anew what structures we need within
the local church, and bring the following resolution:
Resolution 42
‘General Assembly requests the Life and
Witness Committee to consider the ways in which the local church should
be structured in the United Reformed Church, and to bring a report to
the 2006 Assembly.’
6.4. The
work of the Assembly is presently carried out through the central
committees of the Church and the Assembly Offices at Church House. We
believe that the Catch the Vision process should evaluate that work and
its costings, and explore what possibilities there might be for the
organisation of Assembly’s work. However, we are persuaded that this
should follow rather than precede the work that has begun on the
conciliar structures of the church. The reasons for that are two-fold.
First, the relationship between the councils of the church needs to be
defined before it can be decided what work is done where. Second, once
that relationship has been defined, consideration needs to be given to
what is done where and by whom. Third, we need to consider whether
committees are the most appropriate way to deliver that work, or whether
some alternative mode of activity would produce better results (eg.
Programme Directors working with networks of the committed).
6.4.1.
The work of Church House will happen in
response to those decisions. Many of our correspondents suffer from two
misconceptions about Church House. They think that it is either a black
hole or a goldmine. It is a black hole down which ministers disappear
who ought to be serving the church in other ways. Assembly should
therefore note that there are presently eight ministers employed on
Assembly posts in Church House, c.1% of our total stipendiary workforce.
The rest of our Assembly staff are lay people. That is a significant
shift in employment patterns over the past 5-10 years, and its
implications are considerable. Nor, sadly, is the office a goldmine.
The options that would be before the church would be relocation,
development on the existing site, or the possibility of working towards
combining offices with another denomination or ecumenical agency. These
are being investigated and a report will be made to Mission Council and
Assembly in due season. Assembly should note, however, that our
preliminary investigations suggest that the costs of relocation would
outweigh the benefits, and that we have also begun active consideration
of the two other options.
6.4.2.
We feel it right that we should pay
tribute to those who work in Church House, in both Assembly-appointed
and support roles. These are unsettling and difficult times, and
Assembly needs to know that the staff there are entirely focused on the
flourishing of the United Reformed Church through their own fields of
expertise. We trust that the church in its turn will respect the staff’s
integrity and treat them with proper consideration.
7. Ministry and the
numbers’ game
7.1.
Two areas of work that are interconnected
and require further work are ministry and spirituality/discipleship.
They are critical to ‘Catch the Vision’, for they can help us become
what we are called to be, Christ’s people in God’s tomorrow. The
responses to the Vision Statement indicate that we want to be a church
‘centred on the gospel’, a church that ‘makes a difference’ in Christ’s
name in the communities we serve. To achieve that we are willing to make
sacrifices, so that we can ‘release power to places where mission is
done’.
7.2.
Careful consideration needs to be given to the number of churches in the
United Reformed Church, and the number of ministers who serve those
churches.
Members
Churches Ministers
1972
200,000 2,080 1,841
2004 84,963 1,698
1,112*
Reduction
57% 26% 39.59%
(*these are notoriously complex figures:
this figure includes stipendiary ministers, non- stipendiary ministers,
ministers of other denominations serving the URC and active CRCWs)
This table shows that whilst the
reduction of the number of ministers roughly tracks that of our
membership (it is even more obvious if just the number of stipendiary
ministers, (997 is used for the 2004 figure) the number of churches has
declined at about half that rate. Many of our respondents perceive this
to be the root of our problems. There are those who argue that we have
too many church buildings. There are those who argue that we ought to
sell a good number of our buildings to finance new ways of being
church. There are those who argue that we have too few ministers.
There are those who argue that we have too many ministers.
7.2.1.
We are clear that this is a complex area
which deserves dispassionate analysis and careful thought. We note that
the argument for selling buildings which have outlasted their mission
potential is compelling. God’s people are, after all, on pilgrimage to
‘no abiding city’. However, discerning the mission potential of a
church is a far more difficult exercise. There is good anecdotal
evidence that even the most unlikely dead bones can experience
resurrection, and solid statistical evidence that closing churches
results in a loss of membership rather than its transfer. We are
conscious that the assessment of the missionary viability of buildings
is a matter for districts and synods, and that no ‘national’ strategy
will be able to replicate local knowledge.
7.3. We
are conscious that the Ministries Committee have undertaken and will
continue to undertake a great deal of work on the nature of ministry.
In this complex matter of the relationship between churches and
ministers and the nature of deployment, we would wish to start with two
theological principles -
ministers exist to enable the church to
be the church, and the church exists to participate in God’s mission in
the world. It is that agenda that should determine the way in which
ministers are deployed. We respect the many voices telling us that
spreading ministry thinly like jam hinders mission and harms ministers.
We also hear the cry of ministers who want to be ministers of Word and
Sacraments, not middle managers, team leaders or fellowship trainers.
We have a profound sympathy with the theological principle behind that
cry because it speaks of the importance of rootedness and taking
community seriously. Historically most of our congregations have
parochial instincts, even if those instincts were formed by rejection
from the parochial system in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
A residue of that theology informed the brave decision in 1972 that
every church should contribute to the cost of ministry and every church
receive ministry. Communities are important ad churches ‘belong’ within
their communities. That is where their participation in God’s mission
is focused.
7.3.1.
The ‘golden age’ of the single pastorate is actually an historical myth
(at least in England and Wales). If Presbyterian churches were not
viable, presbyteries shut them down. Within Congregationalism there
were large churches who were never without a minister, except during
interregnums (what a telling word!), yet also plenty of smaller churches
who never knew full-time ministry. The Churches of Christ, of course,
had a completely different pattern of ministry. We still have the most
generous minister-member ratio of any mainstream British denomination,
although it does not feel like that to most ministers and most
congregations. However, we should listen acutely to what this feeling
tells us about our present understanding of ministry and practice of
deployment.
7.3.2.
In reality, the number of options before us is limited, and dependent on
the will of the church. If the church decides it needs more ministers,
we could increase the number of stipendiary ministers/CRCWs. Giving to
the Ministry and Mission Fund would have to increase proportionately. We
could propose a strategy of altering the balance between the number of
stipendiary and non-stipendiary ministers/CRCWs. That would depend on an
increase in vocations to non-stipendiary ministry. Those are the only
ways in which our ministerial work force can be increased.
7.3.3.
The remaining options are to reduce the number of congregations in the
denomination (see above 6.5.3), revisit the principle agreed in 1972
that every church should contribute to the cost of ministry and every
church receive ministry, or develop a different pattern of ministry
which relies on integrating the ministries of ministers, CRCWs, elders
and others. We do not believe that the solutions to this conundrum will
be easily achieved. The underlying question of what pattern of ministry
is appropriate for the United Reformed Church in the next decades
remains. We have worked closely with the Ministries Committee this year
as they have developed ‘Equipping the Saints’. We welcome their detailed
work, and recommend to Assembly that they take responsibility from the
Catch the Vision Steering Group for future work on ministry, whilst
maintaining their close working and consultative relationship with the
Group.
7.3.4.
However, we ask Assembly and the Ministries Committee to note that the
response to our proposition 5(c) that we become more dependent on lay
leadership was the least well-received part of the vision statement. We
understand the anxieties raised in the minds of our respondents by that
proposition. We had deliberately used the words loosely, to encompass
the many kinds of lay leadership already being exercised in the church.
That was not clearly understood, and that is our fault. We have
considerable sympathy with those respondents who told us that lay
leaders (of all kinds) are already giving all that they can. We know
from our own experience of that remarkable commitment. Other respondents
told us that reliance on lay leadership should not be at the expense of
ministry (both stipendiary and non-stipendiary), or that the work of
volunteers should not be at the expense of paid professionals. We
readily concur. Any future work needs to attend thoughtfully to those
voices. We do not believe that we have heard any unwillingness to
develop lay leadership, but we do believe that we have heard a
significant affirmation of the ministry of Word and Sacraments and CRCWs
within the life of the church. Whilst it might be fashionable in some
circles to dismiss such a feeling as ‘conservative’ or ‘old model’, we
demur from that judgement. Any future pattern of ministry needs to
appreciate both the depth of emotional attachment, and the instinctive
theological perception of the importance of the ministry of the Word and
the Sacraments to the well-being of God’s people.
8. The heart of the
matter - spirituality and discipleship
8.1 God’s
people are disciples, called to participate in God’s mission in their
own particular space and time. We detect a yearning for a renewal of
spirituality and discipleship at the heart of the church. Clare Short
concluded her prophetic speech at the 2003 Assembly by saying, ‘This is
a time for all good people, and people of faith, and people who are
inspired by the teachings of Jesus Christ to mean it, to take it into
the mainstream, to move our societies and to move our world forward.’
The responses to our process echo that. We believe that this is at the
heart of ‘Catch the vision’. Within our traditions that sense of
discipleship was traditionally expressed through the concept of church
membership. We note with interest that according to the Year Book, a
third of regular worshippers are not church members, and we hear
anecdotal evidence of the Church Meeting being but a pale shadow of its
former self. Sociologists point to a crisis of ‘belonging’ in Western
Europe, and our experience may well be a manifestation of that reality.
8.2.
We are a people varied in theology and
style, but as we have responded to the questionnaire and struggled to
put into words what is most important to us, we have shown that there is
a passion for Christ abroad in this church, and a deep desire to ‘make a
difference’ for his sake. That needs to be translated into the realities
of discipleship, spirituality and mission. We know that much more work
is needed here, and we have o idea what the outcome will be, but we have
a vision. It is of the United Reformed Church focused around making that
difference, alive to God in worship, creative in discipleship,
risk-taking in its use of resources. We do not believe that ‘one size
will fit all’, but we dare to believe that evangelists and community
regenerators, radical liberals and charismatic conservatives,
alternative church proponents and traditional church champions,
contemplatives and activists can together discover what it might mean
for this church to take mission seriously in our strange yet hopeful
context. We ask Assembly to allow us to work further on this during the
course of this year, and to bring a report to the 2005 Assembly.
9. Celebrate
– for God’s sake!
9.1.
We know that this report has been eagerly awaited, and that the church
has been generous in the way it has given of itself in responding to our
questionnaires, statements and conversations. We hope that Assembly will
be encouraged and stimulated by the discovering we have made in the
course of this year, and that we will set out on the next stages of this
pilgrimage with expectation. There are indeed realities with which we
must cope, and we have attempted to be honest about them, but there is
also much to encourage us. There are areas where there is growth. There
are even greater areas where there is no decline. We are more successful
than we think at alternative ways of being church if we take our work
with Pilots as seriously as we should. Our ecumenical commitment is
still passionate, and may yet bear fruit. Most significantly of all,
however, we are a church blessed with considerable resources. That means
that if we have the will, we can follow the Way.
Resolution 43
Assembly notes the actions taken by the
Catch the Vision Steering Group and endorses its report.
Resolution 44
Assembly instructs the Steering Group to
prepare appropriate worship material for local churches considering the
‘Catch the Vision’ report, and to include the prayer of commitment in
paragraph 2.2.2
Back to Assembly Records 2003
|
