|
|
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 2 North Western 3. Mersey 4. Yorkshire 5. East Midlands 6. West Midlands 7. Eastern 8. South Western 9. Wessex 10. Thames North 11. Southern 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 freedom for those in prisons of wealth, poverty, disease and disorder committed to making a difference to the world’s kingdoms as we live Christ’s kingdom.
To that end we will deploy our resources as the Spirit guides, not shirk difficult decisions about the priorities of mission, pledge ourselves anew to work with all our fellow Christians and use the gifts of all God’s people so that all may be filled with the Spirit of healing, justice and peace.
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 ** £12.3million (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, Pulpit supply, travel £101030 (33.6%) 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
*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.
5.6.3 It 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:
‘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:
‘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.
Assembly notes the actions taken by the Catch the Vision Steering Group and endorses its report.
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
|
|
