Are Mission Partnerships becoming mini circuits?

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