Playing Churches

I've spent most of the day thinking about ministry. On the one hand, there is a need to re-invent the concept of "the minister" so that we stop focussing all our attention on "professionals" - but on the other hand we have the reality that we do have ministers to deploy... This is a thorny issue...
I noticed a while ago that some of our denominations have key posts that they simply couldn't exist without. This is why the directory of churches in Milton Keynes lists Church Secretaries and Treasurers for each congregation - because those who produce the directory assume that the Church Secretary is the most important person in the Church - which doesn't always follow. There must be a secretary in each Church, otherwise no-one would know who to talk to - apparently. The same goes for Team Leaders, who, I was once told, only exist so that the Mission Partnership knows who to send communications to...
We have Vicars, Rectors and Pastors because people need to have some way of relating to a church. I am often rung up by people who ask, "Is that St Mary's Church?" I'm never quite sure how to answer. I'd like to respond in a deep stone-like voice...
It's a convenience, but it also plays into the image of a church as a "community gathered around a minister". Having a single, individualised, minister in each church (when financially possible) makes everyone feel safe, but also disempowers the people of God, isolates the clerical professionals and denies the leadership of Christ - amongst other things...
So, what's the alternative?
Well, there are probably thousands of different ways of remodelling a parish. Take Watling Valley for instance. At the moment we have a vacancy for a URC minister. There will probably be a rush to fill this vacancy with another multi-functional URC minister. If I were to leave we would also look for another multi-functional Anglican minister. Why? Because that's what everyone expects... but hang on a minute, if we were to assume that Watling Valley can afford three full-time ministers (which is just about possible) wouldn't it be more sensible to think through what we actually need and then employ/call the appropriate people?
Here's an alternative mad plan:
Let's have a couple of non-stipendiary priests or LLMs in each congregation working within a local ministry team. We'd need a couple more, but we've probably got a few likely candidates. These local ministry teams would sustain and grow the churches.
In order to sustain the local ministry teams, volunteer ministers, etc... we'll appoint one minister as "Ministry Enabler" for the whole partnership. He or she would be responsible for supporting ministers and churches.
Alongside the "Ministry Enabler" we'll appoint a "Youth Minister" and a "Pioneer Minister" who will each support teams who work in those areas. Sorted!...
Or, we could make one church a Minster and make one minister the "Leader" of a ministry team (lay and ordained) who serve the whole area...
Or, we could...
The list of possibilities are, of course, endless... (and I'm not going to push any one idea.)
We need some more radical approaches to ministerial deployment if we're going to tackle the challenges of church development and mission in postmodern Britain. It's time for a few more dreams...
A few years ago I suggested to Deanery Chapter that it would be a good idea to cut back on our parochial ministry (to what we could justify financially) and use the "spare" clergy for primary mission. I received a few blank looks - why would you want to? A few years further on and we're slowly reducing our clergy numbers to a sustainable level. In the meantime we've lost the opportunities that our relatively high numbers would have provided! We need to stop holding on to inherited expectations and start investing our "human resources" in growth.
It's time to "play churches" with a bit more courage and creativity - and hope.