To Network or to Node?

There's a lot of talk about networking these days. In fresh expressions and emerging church circles it's pretty much an assumption that it's what we do. Networking can be contrasted to hierarchies or old fashioned parochialism and clearly reflects a postmodern, information age way of doing things, but...

Like many phrases it can be used but not really understood - or people mean different things when they say it. "Collaborative Ministry" is the one I often find myself worrying about. It's become such a common phrase and no minister would dream of saying that they didn't believe in it - particularly when applying for a job. On the other hand, they may actually mean, "I use other people to get jobs done" or "I sometimes ask people what they think". I suspect we have a long way to go before "working together" is truly embedded in the working practices of the UK church...

The same goes for networking. Most people use the term but in their heads they see their node (or immediate group of nodes) as being the centre of the network. Without realising it they create a form of flattened hierarchy - a pre-Copernican map of the universe in which they are back at the centre. They end up with a form of parochialism which focusses on a network within a network with boundaries between those who are in and those who are out...

I do it myself - we all do to some extent. In many ways it's the only way to cope with the complexities of our life as part of an ever shifting network of relationships. We all need our "privacy settings" or our approved group of "friends".

While this is all true, the call of Christ is to keep making links - to be open to what we can discover in the other. It's risky but ultimately life enriching...

We also need the humility to admit that we are not the centre of the universe - hard though it may be to admit it. There may be some form of divine centre (if you want to think of it that way) but if we assume that we live in a network - there is no centre - each node is equally valid and important.

We often say that we are networking when what we are really doing is "noding" - making links around us to build up the significance, status or power of ourself or our group. It's a form of hierarchical parochialism hidden in some trendy language. The real challenge in "networking" is to allow and encourage the life and links of the network to develop without our control, influence or even knowledge... but still give this value.

The skills required for modern networking are therefore passive as well as active and require restraint as well as extroversion. In practical terms I find myself pondering the question, how do we create and encourage networks of which we are not at the centre? This is a real question to consider in the MK church as we move from a structural to a relational model of ecumenism - and as we contemplate projects in areas like fresh expressions and local shared ministry... A new skill set and tool kit may be required...

Relevant?

I've been thinking quite a lot recently about the "relevance" of what we do and say in Christian communities. Having read Tim Leeson's "Angry Rant" I feel the need to blog... or have my own rant...

At Greenbelt I was struck by the comment that we need to deal with the questions that people are actually asking - and these questions often appear through mass media. Hence, some of the more interesting Greenbelt seminars (at least for me) dealt with film and television: Lost, Doctor Who, etc... I came away with a new sense that my interest in popular culture should find a place in my "professional" communications...

During my sabbatical I was struck a number of times by the discord between church life and daily life. Churches should support their members in ordinary life, rather than draw them out from reality. After the welcome for some new ministers in Milton Keynes, a colleague and I reflected on the way our public focus on clergy effectively devalues the ministry of all members. I am feeling the need to find ways of reversing this process...

As I continue to reflect on the global economic situation I am concerned that a sensible and realistic but visionary voice needs to be heard. The social order we have constructed since the industrial revolution is slowly destroying the planet and we are facing a major change of direction. Big businesses and politicians find it easier to talk about "business as usual" but it would be more sensible to take a long cold look at reality and put in place policies for significant but steady change...

...and that's before we take account of some of the other issues of justice, peace and the integrity of creation...

Oddly enough, the Local Shared Ministry Project and the difficulties posed by deanery finance and deployment give me huge reasons for hope. The unsustainable models of church and ministry which were set up when Milton Keynes was founded have been on the rocks for a while now and a number of us have set out to develop more collaborative and sustainable approaches. This may sound like moving deckchairs on the Titanic or a desperate attempt to find ways to survive, but I think our attempts to build sustainable Christian community will help us develop ways to encourage sustainable human community. A genuine local shared ministry community could be a sign of hope for the whole world...

When I said I had a vision for a sustainable, growing church, I was criticised by a good friend for using the word "sustainable" - but I increasingly believe that this word "sustainable" is central to what the Church could offer to a commercially dependent, consumerist society - such as we find in MK.

This has not been an "angry rant". I recognised long ago that the Gospel is not just about the "spiritual" world, but is for all creation. Hence, we are called to proclaim freedom to prisoners and good news to the poor, to be good stewards in creation and to continually expand the circle of hope.

But how do we do this? Can Sunday Church, such as we have it in MK, create space for deep reflection and engagement on these issues? If we have "seeker" sensitive services, can we also debate homosexuality, economic theory or community development? And if we can't what do we actualy have to contribute to this world?

I don't think I've got an answer here. As a pneumatological democrat and a believer in collective decision-making, I'm extremely warry of standing up in church and expressing a personal opinion, since I'm not sure I actually have the right - particulalry if there is no room for debate. Traditional forms of church encourage a didactic approach, but challenging issues are better dealt with by communities. Which brings me back to Rolland Allen's "tell it to the church" and the reflection that leaders can only impose short term "truth".

In order to deal with some of these tricky issues we need forms of church that create space for debate, and enable us to engage with real life. For many of us, traditional church just can't do this. On Thursday night I met with some of our worship leaders for a time of reflection. On these occasions, we often find ourselves saying that we don't give ourselves time for deep reflection, but get bogged down in commities and activities which often drain our energies. Oh for a church where this is not the case!

I agree with Tim Leeson's rant and would happily have written it myself, but I think the answer is closely related to the issue of how we do church. Can the "emerging church" do better?

What kind of Church is emerging?

I went to a panel session about emerging church. The panel consisted of "leaders" from a range of communities and collectives from London to Seattle. They all said a little bit about themselves and what characteristics they thought emerging churches might have. So we had reference to collective leadership, acceptance, cultural relevance, need orientated mission, and so on... At one point they asked who would consider themselves to be members of emerging churches. I didn't put my hand up since I always feel I don't quite fit in with the "cool" people who usually run these things, but I'm not sure this was particularly honest. I am part of a range of communities which could be considered "emergent". The signs of an emerging church can be found in a wide range of places including some of the apparently more traditional communities...

Emerging Church - is the collective name for a family of new communities
Emerging Church - is the continual process of renewal and reformation which enables the Church to engage with each new era
Emerging Church - is what we are all becoming as Christ leads us on...

Some Definitions

There is a tendency to speak about a number of different movements as if they were really the same thing. I think we need to tease them apart in order to understand what we're trying to do:

Fresh Expressions: A fresh expression is a form of church for our changing culture, established primarily for the benefit of people who are not yet members of any church. (See the Fresh Expressions web site.)

Emerging Churches: Emerging churches seek to explore and create new forms of church that both understand and challenge our emerging postmodern culture. According to Gibbs and Bolger, "Emerging Churches (1) identify with the life of Jesus, (2) transform the secular realm, and (3) live highly communal lives. Because of these three activities, they (4) welcome the stranger, (5) serve with generosity, (6) participate as producers, (7) create as created beings, (8) lead as a body, and (9) take part in spiritual activities." (See Emerging Churches, SPCK, 2006.)

Mission Project: The work of any group or community focused on (1) proclaiming the good news of the Kingdom, (2) teaching, baptising and nurturing new believers, (3) responding to human need by loving service, (3) seeking to transform unjust structures of society, and/or (5) striving to safeguard the integrity of creation and to sustain the life of the earth. (See the Five Marks of Mission.)

While there is clearly an overlap between each of these, I think it would also be helpful to hold them apart in our thinking. While an emerging church may fulfil the criteria to be a fresh expression, a fresh expression may not necessarily be an emerging church, etc, etc...

I'm not arguing that we should focus on any one of these, or require all of our groups, communities or projects to fit each definition, but I think it may be helpful to recognise the distinctions between them so we understand what each of our activities are trying to achieve...

Taste and See - Advent Labyrinth

Taste and See is one of our "Fresh Expressions". It's a Cafe/Alt.Worship style gathering at Christ the Sower School, largely run by a group of staff members - and a few parents. There are two or three church members involved, but a significant number of non-church children and families turn up each time. The children have made this their event and have a real sense of ownership, but it was interesting this time to hear a number of parents say that they would have liked to have come back and done the session again - without the children...

This month we did an Advent Labyrinth - largely using borrowed material. I have to say I was quite amazed by the way the children engaged with this session. Some of them only just completed the walk within the hour! - without parents accompanying them. Previous sessions have involved more supervised "stations", this one was largely unsupervised, but they took to it like ducks to water. It's not that children don't like worship - they like worship that they can get stuck into!

As always there was a lot going on - most of it happening in the coffee area or in the corners of the labyrinth. Lots of positive feedback, but how do we develop this so that it grows as liquid emerging sustainable church?