A. Perceived Needs of the Local Church

1.   Changed Attitudes
2.   Mission
3.   Other Issues


A.1.a        Changed Attitudes

The aspect of local need most talked about by the groups at the regional workshops concerned the attitudes of people

In a few cases this was expressed negatively: e.g. to stop seeing one another competitively, to let God heal memories of past hurts, to overcome fears for the future.  One group more specifically identified the fear that arises when it is assumed that ecumenism only becomes relevant in the context of decline. For many this focuses into a fear of seeing their church closed. However, another group was clear that 'problems can be catalysts for opportunities'. One group declared that ‘the rifts of history are unimportant’.

Mostly, however, the groups were highlighting what they saw as a lack of something positive.

Often this was as basic as a lack of energy, but this was frequently linked to a lack of vision, an inability to see new possibilities or to be ready for a long-term commitment. Three groups spoke in similar ways of the need for 'confidence to let go'. Another emphasised the need for patience. A third spoke of a need to see beyond 'the box' (which they labelled 'contentment').

Against this, one group identified the need for 'security in a fast changing culture'

Many groups highlighted the need for better relationships, for openness, for practical hospitality, for deepened knowledge and understanding of each other at all levels – clergy and laity were frequently targeted! Maybe our need includes not just reconciliation of ministries but, as two groups suggested, 'reconciliation of the clergy'.

An important ingredient identified a few times is our honesty with each other, being truthful about good and bad experiences.

Many people are simply unaware of the covenant commitment between our two Churches; never mind what it might signify. For them the need is to increase their consciousness and to bring them to a point of 'ownership'.

For others, including those who are suspicious of the covenant or of the policies of the other Church, the need is for a building of trust. Only two groups, however, dared to admit that what really matters is how we behave, how we live the covenant. One group picked up the word ‘mutuality’ from the slideshow presentation but did not expound it.

Several groups spoke of the need to be 'world-facing', to accept culture change and to 'pay the price'. However, one group was keen to affirm the need to retain the cultures of both Churches. At least no one appears to envisage the covenant leading to a situation where one Church's culture is retained at the expense of the other's. Two groups spoke forcefully about appreciating that 'our differences are a gift' and that they should be allowed to inspire us. And a third group highlighted the need for us to learn to receive gratefully.

Two groups tied their quest for better relationships firmly into the love of God and gave it a spiritual focus. Mission was mentioned several times as the driver for the whole enterprise. As one group put it, we need to 'keep uppermost in our mind "what is the church for?"'

A.1.b The multi-lateral dimension

Ten groups emphasised the multi-lateral dimension to our covenant commitment. Nothing must be done to cause new divisions or exclusion.

Thus it is important to continue to invest in 'Churches Together' as an instrument for working together. Shared worship and projects will help members of different churches to build relationships. Combined youth work was highlighted as an example, and relationships with black churches was named by one group as a priority.

Somehow people need to be enabled to experience and appreciate 'what the church on their patch is' - i.e. the whole family of Christian disciples across all traditions. Could Christians be assembled as THE Church from time to time?

Groups speak of the need for better consultation and communication between all the churches at all levels. Ecumenical partners need to be involved in ministerial appointments/stationing.

Openness and consideration emerge as key features of a covenant relationship - applicable throughout our journey together.

A.1.c The multi-faith dimension

One group hinted that ecumenism can be overtaken by multi-faith issues in some areas. Another group, however, suggested that the two ought not to be in competition. Churches Together in Lancashire has its full-time Inter-Faith officer. A covenant relationship rooted in God clearly extends to how Christ's disciples relate to those of other faiths, and does not apply solely within the Christian family.

back to top

A.2.a        Mission

The groups at the regional workshops had much to say about the need to see all their activity - and particularly their covenant relationship - in terms of mission.

For many this was a general statement which was glossed in various ways - it is a world-facing approach; it is strategic; it comes 'before worship'; it includes service to the community, promoting Gospel values, enabling people to experience 'belonging,' and hospitality not just for each other.

Mission is described as 'the key' and as linked to a perceived need to 'break out of our structures'. Several groups mention Mission Initiatives as a joint way forward, and the possibility of 'fresh expressions' as a way of moving out of our comfort zones.

Youth, families, partnership, involvement, presence, purpose and Kingdom are all buzz-words which are mentioned at least once by different groups.

One group highlighted healing - healing of relationships between the church and the community and in the locality itself. Part of this, as one group expressed it, will be 'listening to those who haven't the money or the clout'. But there is also a need, as another group put it, for evangelising the church.

Another group drew attention to the need for specific goals 'to do things (mission) leading to the building of relationships and dealing with barriers'. The sequence may be significant.

The tone of most of the comments was positive. It's God's mission, one group insisted. God has given the resources, and we use the resources to show the mission.

A.2.b          Resources

Pooling resources was widely seen by the groups as vital for mission. 'Resources' was variously defined as finance, buildings, training, people and time.

On finance, the sharp question was (and is) "How can we trust each other with money? We're all short of it!"

On buildings, the identified needs relate primarily to buildings not fit for purpose, and on how to agree different use or abandonment and re-development. One case was cited where another denomination had a suitable building, but it was proving difficult to find the right contacts to enable it to be shared. One group expressed its opinion very succinctly: "Less buildings - more woodworm!"

On personnel, one group asked, "Why can't Anglicans look after Methodist congregations - and the reverse?" The question was asked especially in relation to rural ministry. The answer, of course, is that they can. Local Ecumenical Partnerships can be set up quite simply to provide this.

A number of groups identified training needs. Here was a resource insufficiently shared at the most local level (i.e. not just Local Preachers and Readers but also the congregations themselves). One group asked: "How can ecumenical training in institutions help promote new ways of 'being church'?"

One group suggested a resources audit of the local churches - 'to ensure best use and direction of energies'. This was one of relatively few comments which recognised that resources lie primarily within local Christian communities and are not simply supplied from elsewhere. A key for one group was 'empowerment of lay people'. Another spoke of 'identifying gifts and allowing them to inspire.' One group set out its vision quite simply: "We want to use our resources - human/plant etc - to work towards the growth of the Kingdom."

A.2.c          Social Needs

Several groups highlighted the importance of a shared understanding of the context of mission.

Local, regional and national government all need to know who to contact in the Churches. A single point of contact is vital. The Churches must engage.

Groups explored the different settings, urban and rural - the poverty and isolation in rural areas, the lack of transport and affordable housing - and the complexity and diversity of civil society in urban areas especially London. In both urban and rural contexts, migrant workers had special needs.

A world-facing church, it was argued would be able to tackle new challenges - such as the new housing areas - together. It would have something to offer, bringing sustainability into a post industrial society, listening to those who haven't the money or the clout, constructing a Christian presence, offering grassroots Gospel values through service and healing in the community. Above all it would be purposeful.

A.2.d          Vision

Vision, in the words of one group, is 'to discern God's will'.

In practice this means identifying a purpose beyond ourselves, what would be 'good news' for our communities. It involves moving beyond survival mode towards paying attention to where we want to be or expect to be in the future. It means recognising the task of 'building the church', not managing decline.

Several groups stressed the outward and purposeful nature of our calling - and they also recognised the challenge of communicating it inside and outside the churches!

Several also made the point that the Covenant between our two Churches must never become an end in itself. The distinctive character of a covenant relationship opens up possibilities and can help embed this vision-based purposefulness in the life and everyday operations of the local church.

A.2.e Local Freedom

A clear message from a number of groups was a plea for more freedom for local people to 'just get on with it'. The local is affirmed as the place where mission is happening. The call was for 'much less controlling' from 'the top', for more space to be creative and for more empowerment of lay people. 

More reflection was called for on the question, 'To whom are church leaders accountable?'

A.2.f          Projects

Eight groups saw the need for projects to focus mission and to bring people together in joint activity.

Various examples were quoted - a healing group, Fair Trade, youth work, and a project associated with the Neasden Temple.

Projects were seen to offer a practical approach - and 'Churches Together' was recommended as the umbrella under which they can happen.

back to top

A.3           Other issues

While discussion of local needs at the regional workshops focused mainly on attitudes and mission, other issues were raised:

A.3.a            Communication

21 groups recognised a need for effective communication - ranging from simple information and awareness (telling people the covenant exists) through to honesty and 'opportunities for real encounter'.

The language of our communication was seen to be important, both so as to be understood and – perhaps more important - to avoid sensitivities.

"Conversations are needed to develop trust", said one group - and another group supplied the topic: "what it means to be God's people". But a third group asked, "Where do conversations happen? How can we get the right structures to consult?" Channels are needed for communication within organisations and one group clearly wondered whether they were all they might be.

"Communication relies on relationships and time", asserted one group - and several groups highlighted the importance of members of local churches finding opportunities simply to 'get together and get to know one another and share ministry'. This was perhaps the only recognition that one of the best ways of getting to know one another is by working at tasks together.

The focus of all the discussion was on meeting rather than ‘meetings’ and a number of hints were given as to how this meeting could be richer and more effective. One group drew attention to prayer, allowing us to discern Christ in one another. Another stressed equality in hospitality. Another drew attention to the need to tell good stories ('which extend beyond worship'). Yet another recognised that communication is at its best when we are able to share both good and bad experiences.

Effective communication also goes beyond our two Churches. "If thinking of doing something new, then we discuss it across the denominations," reported one group. 'Networking' was identified as a local need by another group - and, as elsewhere, the need for a more active 'Churches Together' was highlighted.

Reflection

In a mission environment, how do we grasp the need to address the communications challenge outside our Churches - a communication which is not limited to information or promotion?

A.3.b           Leadership

The 16 groups who addressed the issue of leadership seem to have one consistent message: The need is for more enthusiasm and less control! Nowhere was there any call for those 'at the top' to 'give a lead' in a directive way.

One group argued that enthusiastic leadership - as much about mission as about covenant relationships - will motivate changed behaviour which in turn will change attitudes.

This enthusiasm, several groups insisted, needs to be experienced as a consistent support for creative work locally. Groups revealed a significant level of fear that their ecumenical initiatives will either be undermined by a change of staff or that resources will be withdrawn before the work is sufficiently established. In the context of the covenant relationship, joint initiatives should be normative, it was argued - but this will only be possible when the covenant becomes a built-in assumption in all strategic decision-making by denominational leaders. 

Groups expressed the widespread longing for a shift towards 'guidance' rather than 'statutes fixed in stone'.

Only one group referred to 'teams' and only in relation to specialist ministries.

One group pressed the need for transparency between Churches on vacancies and the downgrading or upgrading of posts, and on change of use or abandonment of buildings. It also raised questions about the ecumenical dimension in making ministerial appointments.

The biggest challenge probably came from the group which asked "What sort of bishops do we want?" and then asserted "We need to rethink leadership".

A.3.c           Boundaries

15 groups identified structural issues. These include both mismatched territorial boundaries and apparently inflexible disciplines.

The region was identified as a level where some rationalisation of boundaries might be possible. More imagination was called for to achieve greater consistency between Deanery and Circuit boundaries and/or the many new and more flexible sub-units within them - parish groupings, 'mission and ministry areas' etc. One group pointed to the need to mesh with secular boundaries (county and district councils etc).

Several groups recognised a rate of change in society as a whole which required that church structures should be both messy and complex. One group asked how the parochial system related to this. If boundaries cannot be changed, new strategies are needed to enable them to be crossed effectively.

Two groups identified that existing structures and the polity of our two Churches frequently conspire to ensure that in any situation either Church may find it has no equivalent partners to talk to. Se where do the necessary conversations happen? How can the covenant be lived?

Two groups pressed the case for church disciplines on ecumenical partnership to be more in the form of guidelines than 'statutes fixed in stone'. Better use, it was argued, should be made of what is permitted by our Churches' disciplines.

The Declaration of Ecumenical Welcome and Commitment was highlighted by one group as a way of dealing flexibly with mismatched boundaries.

As a way of achieving greater mutual responsibility across boundaries, one group suggested having observers on our church councils who 'should have advisory powers'.

A.3.d           Ministries

11 Groups saw the need for a more integrated approach to the deployment of ordained ministers. Two linked this strongly to lay ministries. One group recognised that the context for this might well be the overall reduction in ministerial provision.

Several groups were keen to promote the need for a team approach to ministry, lay and ordained, but also between Anglican and Methodist ministers in a locality. Anglican and Methodist ministers should have joint staff meetings, said one group. Another group recommended that they should routinely exchange the leading of worship, including presiding at the Eucharist. (NB: This is perfectly possible in the context of the covenant where local relationships are growing)

Integration of ministries, however, may be less about something called 'inter-changeability' and more about relationships between ministers and their attitude towards a ‘joined vision’. Integration for one group clearly meant 'reconciliation of the clergy'.

A.3.e            Theology

The theological issues identified by nine of the groups bear no direct relationship to theological differences identified as ‘unresolved’ in the Common Statement that lead to the Covenant.

The needs identified include focusing on the Church's task ('i.e. mission and its Christological basis’) and the love of God 'shown in practical relationships and help'.

What matters, according to several groups, is Christ's vision for the one Body of Christ, a deeper sense of our baptismal unity and a better understanding of what the church is.

Above all, it was argued, our focus should be on God's mission and what would be 'good news' for our communities. Our proclamation of the Gospel cannot be denominationally based.

back to top