I may be married to a Methodist but have stayed firmly in the URC with its understanding of the local church being the locus of God's work, supported and enabled by the wider councils of the church. So when David Bedford asked at a meeting this week whether Mission Partnerships are morphing into circuits, without clear discussion and debate about whether this was desirable, I was brought up short. It has left me wondering if this is the case - are Mission Partnerships (Northern synod clusters) becoming circuits? Will they end up with a staff team and partnership leadership meeting managing the churches in a more top down way than we are comfortable with in the URC and will they end up with, woe betide it, a superintendent minister?
There are some good things that I would want for our Mission Partnerships that I think Methodist circuits, when they function well, provide. These are the capacity to draw together individuals over a number of churches with a passion for a particular ministry or form of outreach, for example the healing ministry or cafe church, holiday clubs and retreats and be able to develop those things in an area. The ability to be involved in discussions and decisions about ministry and other resources at a much more local level than synod or even districts. I would also want our churches to have the support of other churches to share good stories, practice and expertise with and who they have good relationships with and so can pray for one another in informed ways.
It might also be good for our Mission Partnerships now that we do not have a Training and Education Officer to handle some finances (an annual grant) and be responsible for agreeing training needs and arranging for its provision in the churches in a more direct way. This maybe more empowering of the people of God in their localities than the synod deciding, even with consultation, what training is needed for everything. The Ministries and Training committee are currently considering this and views would be welcome before a paper is brought to March 2010 synod.
It may be that we do need 'mini circuits' to enable churches to have the expertise of treasurers, and people able to manage lay staff or work up their roles, where they are absent in some smaller churches or those in more difficult mission areas. Then one treasurer may do the accounts for several churches. Or there may be a management group drawn from several churches for a CRCW, as in Grindon, or an administrator deals with newsletters and communications for a group of churches.
But I have yet to be convinced that we are inventing circuits in an insidious way. I think we, as in Ashton under Lyme and as we are moving towards in Sunderland, are creating a local church that might meet in several locations. But how that evolves needs attending too so that it is the church meeting whether in one or more locations, and not a ministry team or group council doing its own thing, that agrees the policy and discerns what God is asking of the church.
In Mission Partnerships as loose formations each church meeting has to make the decision or delegate the authority to do so to the leadership meeting. When a joint pastorate or group is constituted then it is the joint church meeting that calls a minister and decides what God is asking of the churches. When several churches decide to come together as one church meeting in several locations their church meeting is the council of the church.
This direction is very different to a Methodist understanding of being a connexional church where ministers are ordained into the connexion and stationed to circuits, with only a nod of consultation to the local church. A view of church in which the local church council with circuit stewards on it make the decisions about local matters but the circuit meeting makes decisions about wider ones and where the superintendent minister can in theory move ministers in the circuit where s/he will.
Therefore I would argue Mission Partnerships are not becoming circuits as the role of the church meeting is enshrined in our understanding of what it means to be church and the basis of union. However there are gifts from the Methodist understanding of circuit that we might want to receive as good, providing that the essence of the URC identity in the people of God in church meeting together discerning God's will, is not lost.
So in answer to David Bedford's question I would say that Northern Synod's Mission Partnerships are not becoming circuits by default becasue of the significant role of church meeting.
However the issue of ministers serving across multiple churches and communities is one that needs wrestling with. How that changing role of ministry to groups and joint pastorates rather than single churches is shaped from a URC understanding of church is a prioir question that we need to be wrestling with as a priority? Answers on a post card please.
Rowena
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It makes me sad that in so many conversations that I have with URC ministers, there is a very unhealthy and often poor understanding of Methodism. In reality, the local churches have much more of a say in issues than is often imagined. Circuits are not the distant body that some imagine. Having been part of both the URC and the Methodist Church since I came to faith 21 years ago, I have seen how well our traditions can fit together, when there is a will.
ReplyDeleteThe South East Northumberland Ecumenical Area, of which I have just become President, (a sort of semi-Superintendent), has its critics, but few of those critics are part of the Area. It works well. In the first 5 years of its existence, the teething problems have been remarkably few. The sense of mutual support and encouragement that is generated between staff and even churches is immensely helpful. The fact is that local churches are consulted and allowed to develop along their own lines, as far as is possible.
It is fair to say that being part of two denominations brings frustrations at times, but rarely because of things going on at Area or local level.
I find it hard to imagine that the URC or the Methodist Church will exist in anything like their current forms for much longer, and ecumenical areas like SENEA seem to me an obvious way forward.
Our denominations continue to waste time, money and energy by having people doing virtually identical roles that could surely be combined for evereyone's benefit. The number of LEP's will inevitably grow and more ecumenical "areas" will be formed. I find it inconceivable that the Methodist Church and the URC will fail to move much closer and eventually find a way of becoming one. Personally, I wish that day were today.
Were I part of a URC Mission Partnership, I'd be glad to see it developing the good aspects of the "circuit", especially that sense of togetherness and support. The role of Church Meeting which is so important, need not be undermined at all. In reality, most LEP's seem to adopt a URC-style Church Meeting and even circuits respect that. In ecumenical Areas, we are very conscious of protecting what is really important to the denominations.
So my advice to everyone in the URC and the Methodist Church is "start working even closer with each other and build an ecumenical area".
No doubt, each Mission Partnership will find its own way of working and their will be variety. As long as the authority of Church Meeting is not undermined, I'd be glad to see strong similarities to Circuits.
I agree, there is something distinctive about the URC ecclesiology, whether it has a /Churches of Christ, Congregational or Presbyterian emphasis in any particular situation.
ReplyDeleteAnd for the avoidance of doubt I believe the Presbyterian /Congregational Union in the North East has something to learn from the underrepresented Churches of Christ tradition, the more recent to have joined and become integrated into our newly constituted ‘tradition’.
Of course, I am not against learning from other traditions too so, we can find ways of becoming a ‘fit for purpose’ church in the coming days.
I see however that we should as local churches accept the challenge to identify what our mission is in the context of our local churches and how it can be truly in partnership with the mission of other churches in our mission partnerships.
This is not, in my view, about how Ministers are allocated or used but about the mission of each church effectively with or without allocated ministry.
Something here to do with carts and horses!
Not until mission can be articulated in local context and seen to be appropriate in the wider context of a mission partnership is it be possible to define what is (or is not) the required resource which the whole church should provide into any particular situation. Not until then can we see if we have the right resources in the right places. Nor can we judge if we are being prudent stewards of the resources entrusted to us. Only then we can see if we are being called to be doing something much more pressing in a completely different way.
Certainly, this is for each church meeting to decide, and then make plans, and arrangements for the delivery of whatever it does decide. It may well be that such arrangements could include the delegation of authority to Mission Partnership teams to ‘do’ all kinds of things and report back to multiple church meetings, but this is not abdication of the responsibility to arrange, it is just potentially a more efficient method of arranging.
This is very much a work in progress…. But something here may spark thought that is more useful. Who knows?