Martyn asked the question whether the Methodist Church is currently 'fit for purpose' and he believes that we are. One of our main purposes is the purpose for which the Methodist Church was born: mission and evangelism.
During his Presidential year, Martyn asked Methodists all over the country what they think characterises the Methodist Church. They answered:
* Warm-hearted
* Inclusive and inviting
* Connected and committed
* Engaged and involved
* Often with the marginalized
Martyn asked the question: 'Do any of these things suggest a group of people who cannot cope with today's culture?' He thinks that all of the above values are ones that are in tune with society today.
But one of the things that Martyn wants to change is Methodism's 'narrative'. We've been telling ourselves for the last 30 years that we are a dying denomination and Martyn would like this to stop and he would like to change our narrative to a more visionary one. However, he also believes that we will need some radical change.
For me, there was one interesting point that came out in our question-and-answer session. Martyn asked the question 'Why do I meet in my travels many people ministering in movements like New Frontiers, in 'fresh expressions of church' and even in the Baptist Union who came to faith in the Methodist Church but who didn't want to remain in Methodism?'
His answer was an interesting one: that most of our services are 'lead from the front' but that, generally speaking, people under 40 don't have a sense of belonging unless they are active participants in worship. He reckons that movements like New Frontiers, etc., are structured so as to use the talents of the people who join. Martyn also observed that many people over 50 will normally expect to be passive participants in church and that many of them will not want to participate in worship, unlike the under 40s.
He reckons that we can't try to force people who want non-participative worship into a participative model and that we need to have a 'multiplex' mode of operation if we are going to attract young people. He suggested that the circuit system could be used to accommodate different communities with divergent narratives. Lots of food for thought and a thoroughly exciting ministerial synod!
===
Edited on 14 November: I feel that I may not have communicated very well about 'participative worship'. I don't think Martyn meant 'OK, everyone, now at this point in the service, we are all going to....'. I got the impression that he meant that, as new people join the church, they offer their own gifts for the use of the church and that these are gladly taken up and used. Rather than, 'Well, we really don't need someone who plays the diggery-do' we say 'Thank you for offering to play the diggery-do to the glory of God, let's find a way to use it in our service.'
6 comments:
That is a very interesting post and the comments regarding newfrontiers are quite profound.
The five point description of Methodism would equate very strongly with what I have experienced from Methodists locally.
I do also agree that the "dying denomination" identity does need to change. I have heard methodist ministers locally say that in sermons at inter-Church meetings. It is almost like they were ministering under a shadow of impending future doom, which is not attractive.
I felt it was quite ungracious towards all those faithfully serving in methodist churches both locally and wider afield - to have your leaders speak darkness over your future is not exactly honouring the faithful witness of the congregations.
He reckons that movements like New Frontiers, etc., are structured so as to use the talents of the people who join.
That is a useful observation. Things like cell groups have greatly broadened the ministry of our Church. Almost anyone can take a worship time or a bible study as part of the cell group programme. There are only 52 sundays a year for people to be involved in ministry, but we have currently 24 cell groups, meeting about 40 times a year if you take out holidays. That means there are over 1000 ministry opportunities (960+52) in the Church programme, rather than just 52.
I also think that stuff like musical style is really quite important to "younger" people. Churches need to set themselves up for the people they want to reach witht he gospel, not just to serve the people they already have. That is a difficult task and requires people being willing to move away from what they are comfortable with for the sake of those who are yet to become part of the Church.
The issue with the inclusivity of a movement like Methodism is that in order to reach a level of concensus it can be, in the situations I have seen, be quite difficult to do stuff that is a break away from the mould or set a new direction. That is where different services/congregations within a circuit could be the way forward, as it won't hit that hurdle. I also think it is important to have a critical mass of any age group/demographic to start with in order to attract others. So it becomes a chicken and egg situation for how to actually start it.
BWAHA:
The issue with the inclusivity of a movement like Methodism is that in order to reach a level of concensus it can be, in the situations I have seen, be quite difficult to do stuff that is a break away from the mould or set a new direction. That is where different services/congregations within a circuit could be the way forward, as it won't hit that hurdle.
Yes, I think that this is precisely correct on both counts.
The 'institutional mould' needs changing and I actually don't think that there is an easy way of doing this. I've tried quite hard to 'empower' people who resolutely don't want to be empowered and there is always a small number of people who want a house or a cell group but the majority don't want these things and they vote with their feet.
What I found positive about Martyn's talk was that he actually affirmed that I'm not nuts and that there ARE many people who don't want these things in Methodism. To me, it showed a constructive if difficult way forward.
Before, what I'd heard sounded like 'Change your music style and people will come'. Well, I've seen churches do that and people didn't come. And I've heard 'Methodists are all chomping at the bit to serve the church and are being prevented from doing so by the system and us contro-freaky ministers' when that wasn't my experience either and that (after years of managing 20 and 30 somethings in a secular context) rather than people chomping at the bit to participate they were all chanting 'Never knowingly volunteer for anything'.
I've become a lot more convinced about 'multiplexing' because I don't see how a group of thirty 70 and 80 year olds is going to attract 20, 30 and 40 somethings. And Martyn made it clear, I think, that many of the established Methodists and the groups we might attract want completely different things. (I do realise that many established Methodists want new things, but I'm assuming that they will be more amenable to changes and not hurt if their traditional services don't continue.)
On a personal note, I'm just about to go off in a few hours to a week-long silent retreat and I'm not taking my computer, so don't expect a quick reply! (For any lurking burglers, the manse is not going to be vacant!)
Before, what I'd heard sounded like 'Change your music style and people will come'. Well, I've seen churches do that and people didn't come.
Certainly. I often hear people talking about becoming a "charismatic" church but when you press them they are talking about playing Matt redman songs and not a lot to do with the Holy Spirit. I agree it is not just about style - but style does also matter, but only as part of a much bigger process.
there is always a small number of people who want a house or a cell group but the majority don't want these things and they vote with their feet.
Is it then possible to have smaller groups for only those who want to go to them? It seems a shame to prevent something because some don't want it, when the ones who don't want it wouldn't go anyway, if that makes sense.
I don't see how a group of thirty 70 and 80 year olds is going to attract 20, 30 and 40 somethings.
I think it can happen in some way. You don't have to be the age of the mother to care for someone's children. They need grandparents too! I do take the point though.
The challenge is then having enough people of a certain age group or demographic to have a crowd which can then attract people. Unless Methodism is taking the approach that their target is people in the 60+ bracket, which I don't think deep down many want.
And Martyn made it clear, I think, that many of the established Methodists and the groups we might attract want completely different things.
I think this is a really crucial question. At what point does wanting what those outside the church become more important than wanting what we withint he church want? I don't say that flippantly either - because we have to teach our younger adults that the music can't go much louder, or much faster, and we will still sing hymns, because there are people in the congregation in their 70s and 80s who we are also wanting to serve and reach their friends and neighbours.
That said - our senior citizen's cells on a monday have very traditional worship together, while the youth ones on a friday have very contemporary style. That is our way of multiplexing even within the same church family, in your case it would be within the same circuit.
Have a good retreat!
Just about to depart, but finding the conversation good so one more post...
I take the point about music style. But I think I'm getting the message for us that it's really more about first getting a group of younger people in and then taking the cue from them as to what they want rather than laying it on. For one thing, how would we even get a worship band?
Question: Do your young people want to sing or do they just want to listen to the music?
Is it then possible to have smaller groups for only those who want to go to them? It seems a shame to prevent something because some don't want it, when the ones who don't want it wouldn't go anyway, if that makes sense.
Yes, we do this. But the reality is that when you have a church of 25 active members, this means that you have one group. Rather than looking like 'cell church', this just looks like a small congregation that has a house group.
What's interesting is that in one of my churches, the existence of such a group is really firing up the congregation; in another, it's doing nothing. And if you'd asked me, I would have predicted that the church that is finding the group successful would have been the one that wouldn't have done, and vice versa. Proving, I think, that there are no 'one size fits all' answers.
The challenge is then having enough people of a certain age group or demographic to have a crowd which can then attract people.
Well, we have zero. I'm not exaggerating. I do often feel that a lot of this advice assumes that a church has at least 100 to 150 people with at least some younger people and the resources that 100 to 150 bring. When I talk about sticky-back paper and Fairy liquid bottles and Twenty people in their 70s to 80s, this isn't an exaggeration.
My biggest challenge is that I have no idea how we attract, say, a group of 10 people in their twenties and thirties - even saying 'Come have your own worship and do your own thing and we won't bother you.' We have no connections to do this. I think we probably need to get the people first, but what do we have to offer them? This was obvious to me from day one and what I would like is some imagination as to how to go about finding these people, not to be told what an awful incompetent minister I am for not pulling off a miracle.
I think this is a really crucial question. At what point does wanting what those outside the church become more important than wanting what we withint he church want?
I think it IS the really crucial question and I think that many congregations have proven that they would rather let their congregation die than actually change. Oh, we want the 'change' of having younger people, but not if it means weird practices and ideas that we don't understand. And, I think, for many people in traditional congregations also not if it means that a church supports multiple congregations rather than everyone being 'one family' - i.e. enmeshed in a single form of group behaviour.
What's interesting is that in one of my churches, the existence of such a group is really firing up the congregation; in another, it's doing nothing. And if you'd asked me, I would have predicted that the church that is finding the group successful would have been the one that wouldn't have done, and vice versa. Proving, I think, that there are no 'one size fits all' answers.
Of course. That si why these "10 ways to make your Church grow" books wind me up so much.
Event he cell church model - the american stuff is so far away from my experience here in the UK culture.
This was obvious to me from day one and what I would like is some imagination as to how to go about finding these people, not to be told what an awful incompetent minister I am for not pulling off a miracle.
I trust you don't feel I have implied that! I can see the chicken and egg frustration of wanting to an not knowing where to start. Are there any year team programmes within Methodism such as http://www.year4god.com where you could get some younger people to come for a year, to help set up and facilitate a new congregation within the circuit? Or something like that? Or with Easterpeople or http://www.sharejesusinternational.com/ or something like that?
I think it IS the really crucial question and I think that many congregations have proven that they would rather let their congregation die than actually change. Oh, we want the 'change' of having younger people, but not if it means weird practices and ideas that we don't understand.
I can see the frustration. None of these things have some quick fix out of the box solution. I guess sharing ideas with methodist churches who have made a similar transition is much more helpful.
BWAHA, thank you for your constructive comments and thoughts. No, I don't think you're implying I'm an incompetent minister; there was another conversation on another blog linking to this post and I forgot where I was for a moment. Suffice it to say that some people are endowed with the 'gift of discouragement'!
Post a Comment