Share

Good conversation. Hi Pam - nice to meet you last week in London.

My gut feeling on this is to lean towards less institutionalism and shorter training cycles for pioneers. Research in Germany (Christian Schwartz) has shown than too much training stifles ministry. Out of the two examples, I see more success coming from the simple, organic, non-stipend approach to starting a new ministry (which reminds me of Luke 10) than I do of trying to raise a lot of capital to start something that is not very reproducible from the beginning.

More risk of going belly-up, perhaps, but far more chance of succeeding and inspiring others to pioneer in their own contexts.

I also wonder if NOS went wrong, in part, because a foreign accountability system was imposed on a fresh expression that needed something more emergent and self-correcting rather than a hierarchical, one-person approach.

The church is in danger of a lot of things, but this isn't one of them. It's impossible to domesticate or institutionalise a pioneer!

Thanks everyone for all the comments. I have found them really helpful.
Here are 3 further reflections
1. I deliberately didn't use the word Ordained in the blog(although I used stipend).As I have said elsewhere I think lay people are the key to the future of this movement. This leads to important questions about training, using their gifts and giving them freedom.
2. I think there will be challenges in seeing social entrepreneurs developed ( both lay & ordained) who are not paid by the institution but still work within it. I hope Dioceses/Districts etc will honour such people and be willing to learn from them.
3. Finally I do think it's hard being on the edge which is why I have organised this first national Pioneers conference with Church Army & Fresh Expressions.I hope this will become an annual gathering where we can come together to support and encourage each other.More details at the end of my blog or the Ridley Hall website

I'd also just like to add how refreshing Dave Male and Mark Russell's approaches are.

"I agree that all ministers should be trained to minister in a post-modern world in a missional way."

I couldn't agree more with Mark's comment here but I would go a stage further in that all ministers should be trained, not only in how to minister themselves, but even more importantly, in their primary function of how to equip others to live and minister in a post modern world in a missional way. If they can't do it themselves, how on earth can they be expected to equip others to do so?

I'm thrilled to hear about the work Dave is doing in training future ordinands, but there is a tremendous challenge ahead for all of our theological colleges to seriously rethink and reshape how they train furture ministers to engage with a post modern world in missional ways, and a need to quickly move away from the outdated and ineffective "same old, same old" approach.

The church, our communities and the world at large deserve ministers who are far better trained, and much more practically equipped than has sadly, too often been the case in recent years.

As Mark says we need more edgy, radical, disturbing, bold and uncomfortable people coming through the ranks.

My concern is that the emphasis is so strongly on ordained pioneer ministry. I have been a Reader for the past 14 years and for the last couple of years have sensed God's calling and leading into areas of more pioneer-type work. I am based in a pretty progressive Diocese (ie Liverpool Diocese), but don't feel called to ordination, but very little thought appears to have been given to providing pathways/avenues for people in existing ministries to re-direct the focus of their ministries, and move away from the more core/institutionalised Reader ministry towards more edgier, risk-taking stuff.

How about focussing time and attention developing a role of Pioneer Reader? There won't be that many of us but there are some. What bugs me most is that it is not rocket science and is pretty easy to sort out surely. What excites me is that there are a few Readers in training who will be licensed to Pioneer networks rather than parishes upon licensing, but there does need to be an avenue by which existing lay ministries can become more directed towards Pioneer work to complement the work being done by ordained Pioneer ministers

There are Lay Pioneer Guidleines laid down (sort of!), but it appears to me that there is very little willingness to grasp the nettle and rtake them seriously in thinking about redeploying existing resources. There is little encouragement being given, it would appear, to get Dioceses/Circuits to take the Lay Pioneer role seriously or to provide as much training ansd support for lay pioneers as there is for ordained pioneers. I agree that we need specialist ordained people at the edges but there are specialist lay people who feel the same calling and the answer is NOT, I repeat not, to ordain them (please don't get me started on that one!) unless of course that is the direction where they feel God may be leading them towards.

I feel that Pioneer ministry, as much as any other, needs to be both shared and collaborative with resources shared equitably to equip and prepare for the demands, challenges and opportunities such ministry presents.

When I first read this Blog I wanted to jump up and down and say here I am - a pioneer in training, having been a church army officer and pioneered 2 nightclub ministries, have an MA in mission and ecclesiology, and training for ordination as an OPM whilst studying for another MA in bible and ministry.

Yes I am Pioneer Minister (in training) as it was insisted that it would say on my business card. My course is 1/2 through St Mellitus which involves a commute into London on a monday afternoon and a Kings College London Ministry Masters Degree (over 2 years) This is what is called Mixed Mode.
The other half of my time is spent "establishing a fresh expression" or in my language meeting a couple of people who love jesus and enabling them to tell those around them how it works.

Having already trained as a Church Army Officer in an institutional training college (Sorry Mark but it was even if it isn't anymore) The hardest thing about training was to stay true to myself and not start speaking jargon because I knew it or applying for jobs that were available rather than sticking to my guns and following God's call on my life. I meet many people who think that to become a vicar is about security, good job, good pension, nice life. But for me, they are perks, that I don't count on. Although I am training as a stipendary minister I have no qualms about passing on the stipend for the sake of the gospel.
I share the concerns about institutionalising Pioneers in education but it is also about institutionalising them into a system of security.

I agree that domestication and institutionalisation are issues but there's an underlying matter of whether it is the pioneer or the church that is most at risk. I'm concerned how quickly legitimate discussion vis a vis the sustainability and authenticity of emerging churches morphs into a narrow debate about sacraments and the status of so-called 'ordained' pioneer ministry. Speaking from an Anabaptist viewpoint (for more see http://radref.blogspot.com/) I have serious worries that emerging churches themselves are falling prey to a domesticating, even colonising agenda which has the effect of rehabiliting Christendom and perpetuating clericalism. A church without clergy, where sacraments are embedded in economic sharing, where peacemaking is taken seriously. Now that's 'dangerous and radical'.

On the narrower issue of sustainability there's a balance to be kept. Whilst there will always be issues along the lines of 'Pipers and Tunes' I believe it will be possible to discover means of financial support appropriate to emerging churches. I am currently working on an initiative to develop a network of ecclesial entrepreneurs which may be one way of addressing sustainability issues without going down the route of dependency. However, where pioneers are concerned I'm wary of the individualistic overtones of the phrase 'self-supporting'. It's three cheers for interdependence - perhaps pioneers and pioneer teams working in tandem with emerging, ecclesially appropriate entrepreneurship.

At the risk of Dave Male and I forming some sort of mutual appreciation society, I want to say I agree with every word he says here.

I have been worried for some time about the domestication of pioneers. I agree that all ministers should be trained to minister in a post modern world, in a missional way. However I believe, like Dave, we need a stream of pioneers who specialise in going to the edges.

Church Army has developed a Mission Based Training programme, based on an action reflection model, where trainees learn in an apprenticeship style, learning as they work. For more info see http://www.churcharmy.org.uk/pub/action/training/Mission-based_Training.asp

We need to help our pioneers be more edge, more radical, more bold, and quite frankly people who make the rest of the church feel uncomfortable !

I agree with Pam's comments that everyone training for Ordained Ministry should receive some pioneer training.It's vital for a mission shaped church. But I would want to argue that there are those who are particularly called to and equipped for a particular pioneer ministry which needs to be recognised by the wider church. It's the same argument that says we should all be involved in evangelism but not everyone is called to be an evangelist or we all need some theological education but we are not all called to be theological educators.

Several things occur to me here.

1 - it seems to me that the more Christian someone becomes, the less likely they are to be able to connect with people outside the orbit of the church

2 - "way outside the orbit of the church" ?! Does this not suggest perhaps that the orbit of the church is in the wrong place?

3 - Why should it be seen as dangerous and radical to engage with ordinary people? Something is seriously wrong here. It is not gifts and abilities that are required but a total rethink in what being a Christian is all about.

4 - People outside the orbit of the church are interested in job prospects, career opportunities, education, pay, housing and pensions. Do we want our ministers to connect with these people or "target" them? As Pam says, ordained ministry is meant to be one that represents a way of being and ministring that ordinary believers (and not-as-yet believers) can relate to and seek to emulate.

5 - A big danger therefore is that "Pioneer Ministry" with its training and its specialism will alienate ordinary believers into thinking that "connecting with people outside the church" is something you have to be appointed and titled to do. Whereas the very opposite is meant to be the case.

6 - I speak as someone who has been interacting with a DDO for 12 months regarding potential ordination and pioneer ministry; my one big concern is that the "ordination" part and the "role" will give the absoloute opposite message to that which I am trying to pass on: which is that church can happen anywhere, between any two or three people; that God is already at work in those we mix with every day; that people completely outside the orbit of the church can be disciples, can be disciple-makers; that we don't need to be "appointed" or "specially trained" - or even particularly gifted or dangerous!

6 - At least the question of money has been raised, and the realisation that you can plant church without any money at all (except that required to live quietly and work with your hands).

Bring on the domesticated pioneers!

I was quite irritated when I first heard about the Ordained Pioneer Minister strand being created, maybe because it was too late for me to join in as I was already in training, but also because it did seem to be 'packaging' something and by labelling some people as 'pioneers' labelling everyone else - like me - as 'not pioneers' which seems wrong and also to limit God's ability to work in surprising ways through surprising people.

I've met people who are identified as pioneers since then so I understand a bit more about that particular calling, but I do think it needs to be explained and that the representational nature of ordained ministry needs to be spelt out - we are not ordaining people to do our pioneering for us but to be 'signposts'.

I do think the deployment issue creates tensions - as you need to start with a curacy, being able to do that as a pioneer minister seems to rely very much on the understanding and patronage of the establishment. Does this mean being domesticated and watered down? Not necessarily but there is that danger of being given targets and outcomes which turn what you are doing into a 'product' and not a process.

Personally I think everyone who is trained for ordained ministry should be engaging with the concept of pioneer ministry, so we recognise the opportunities when we see them. As you say this can be done in a few weeks i.e. one module on a training course.

Maybe the process of selection and training for ordination domesticates and institutionalises everyone's calling, it's just more noticeable when the calling is to be missional - ie work outside your natural habitat and outside the sending institution - and it's the whole concept we should be looking at!