The Guide contains how-to-do-it advice on starting, developing and sustaining fresh expressions of church based on shared experiences.
More about The Guide
Share
- Guide |
- Blog
| - Networks |
- Perspectives |
- Community |
The Guide contains how-to-do-it advice on starting, developing and sustaining fresh expressions of church based on shared experiences.
More about The Guide
Posted by Andrew Wooding on 11 May 2009
When our grown up sons come home, we always have a takeaway. It's shorthand for a lot of things – this is still your home, you're special, I am still part of this family, being together is worth celebrating.
Jesus told Peter to 'feed my sheep'. He fed the multitudes; he was known to the disciples he met on the road to Emmaus in the breaking of the bread. On the night before he died, he had supper with his friends and said 'do this, in remembrance of me'. And when he met with his friends on the beach after his resurrection, he fed them.
When I became a Christian, I didn't take communion because I wasn't confirmed. Week after week, I longed to receive but had to hold back.
During a very rare communion service in a young offenders institution, one of the 'lads' asked what was happening. Then he jumped up, muttered 'I want some of that!' and joined the queue. The next week he asked to be baptised.
I asked a group of three boys under the age of seven why they wanted to take communion. They heard the priest say, week in week out, 'Though we are many, we are one body, because we all share in one bread' – and then weren't given any bread. They deeply desired to be part of the body.
At the recent pioneer minister conference at Ridley Hall, it was stated that a fresh expression should be working towards regular communion services because this was a mark of 'being church'.
Many of us were left with questions.
Should the Eucharist be seen as a target? Where does lay leadership fit in? Does the Eucharist create a Christ-centred community? Or is a Christ-centred community, by definition, Eucharistic? What does a fresh expression of the Eucharist look like? And if we're not church – what are we?
Pam Smith is currently priest in charge of i-church, an online community founded by the Diocese of Oxford. Previously she was a Reader (Licensed Lay Minister) in the Coventry Diocese and worked as a lay prison chaplain. Pam has just completed the one year Mission Shaped Ministry course.
Comments
Eucharistic Centrality
Posted by Carys Underdown on 4 June 2009 - 20:22
Interesting post Pam.
I've just started the Fresh Expressions of Ministry course here in South Wales and on the whole I'm enjoying it, but I'm already noticing interesting questions about the Eucharist. On the first Saturday, there was a big divide in the group about the place of the Eucharist. Some of us agreed strongly with the statement 'The terms "mission" and "mass" are drawn from the same root. The service of Holy Communion is central to mission.' others disagreed strongly. Then at the first evening session on values, I noted that in their summary of Acts 2:42-47, the Eucharist was not mentioned despite the fact that the passage mentions the 'breaking of the bread' twice.
I come from the Catholic wing of the church and very much see the Eucharist as 'a converting ordinance'. It makes us who we are and nourishes us and is entirely central to my understanding of church.
As to the value of lay-led Fresh Expressions or other forms of church, I'm not sure that this isn't still in a clericalist mindset as it sees a big divide between clergy and laity. But to me, ordination is how we set people apart for 'leadership' in the church. Though I'm not sure 'leadership' is the heart of the priestly vocation. If someone has the gifts for leading in the church, why not acknowledge this by ordaining them? Maybe we need to rethink discernment processes and training which may have been too focussed on academic achievement.
Posted by Pam Smith on 8 June 2009 - 09:37
Interestingly, my own experience of Communion could be said to reflect the view that it was a 'converting ordinance.' I started going to a church whose main service was always Eucharistic, and the longing to participate was very strong.
However I think in the end Mass and mission are both God's, not ours. In my case he was using the Eucharist to communicate my need to be part of the church. I think that's why I find the word 'communion' the most helpful. but it's not the same for everyone.
My post really questions whether every fresh expression everywhere needs to be providing communion services in order to be part of the wider church, and the answer from practitioners seems to be 'no'.
I don't question the centrality of communion, I think perhaps I'm more questioning the mindset that says every church with a small 'c' has to be a complete microcosm of the Church in all its aspects to be a valid expression of Church.
It's great that people have just set off and done things, but it does leave us with a lot of thinking to do on the hoof.
I would say if your understanding is that the Eucharist is a converting ordinance, then you are called to do something overtly Eucharistic, and there will be people for whom that will be exactly what I need.
Where I part company with a lot of thinking about Fresh Expressions is where we stray into being prescriptive from the centre about what God is doing on the ground.
So in my view it would be just as wrong to say FX should NEVER be Eucharistic as it would be to say they should ALWAYS be Eucharistic.
I'm excited about FX because it enables us to meet God where he's already doing things 'outside the box', so I'm quite quite wary about anything which tries to put him into a new box!
Communion: how to square the circle
Posted by David Muir on 27 May 2009 - 08:22
I don't think this problem is going to go away any time soon in the CofE. If anything it is going to get worse, if the CofE goes down the route of re-establishing the permanent diaconate, because that will create a tier of ORDAINED ministry that does NOT have authority to celebrate the eucharist, so that will distance lay people from the eucharist even more. I rather fear that that is part of the agenda...
Wisdom is often about what problems can realistically be solved, and which ones need to be 'got around', at least meantime. Before women were ordained to the priesthood, some of us as male priests used to 'serve' our women deacons by supporting them to lead services of communion and only stepping in to do the absolutely essential things to keep it 'legal' and even then in as low key a way as possible. I used to do the same for an Alternative Worship community in the Midlands some years ago. Of course, some of the establishment won't like it, but realistically what ARE they going to do about it? Defrock me, because I was supportive of new signs of life in the church? In today's climate I think that is not likely.
There is a power game going on here, as some CofE leaders try to control a movement in the church that they sense they cannot stop. They criticise FXs for not making the eucharist more central, and then insist that only people they choose and train and ordain can lead them. Perhaps what we need is an acceptance of a parallel model of church: lay-led church. A good model might be a religious order: Mother Teresa was always a lay person, but no-one was in any doubt about who was leading her religious community. If something has to give in squaring this circle, perhaps we just have to accept the dividing of leadership from eucharistic presidency. It is not ideal but I think it may be the least worst option. And it allows a FX to get on with its mission undistracted by this issue.
The communion that divides...
Posted by Rob Cowper on 16 May 2009 - 18:56
It seems that we are circling an awkward juncture, where someone makes comment to suspend all commentary about the emperor's clothes, or lack of them...
When the last Adam, given as He is to all the royal priesthood to feed upon as 'a life giving spirit' is confined to a mediated event, then it is that we have controversy, questioned barriers and issues of ownership.
Christ is not to be so much defended as experienced - "Come, Taste the Lord" - so that by doing so we can recognise Him and re-experience His grace again and again Him, behind whatever locked door he may appear in our fellowship
Let us license the koinonia, the 'fresh expressions' and BMOs if we must, but for His sake and ours, let us not fast from the Bread of the Presence.
lay ministers and communion
Posted by Andrew Wooding on 13 May 2009 - 11:16
As a lay minister/pioneer in the Church of England (working in Church Army) this blog, obviously, has hit a nerve.
One the one hand, I am told that lay ministers/pioneers are a good thing and get patted on the back by the relevant authorities for doing a good job.
But then we get this all too frequent message from the same authorities that anything I do isn't authentic unless communion is involved, which (in the Church of England at least) only ordained people can do. Therefore, the contradictory message I hear is that my work as a lay minister/pioneer is only authentic if an ordained person is brought in. I imagine that for many people like me, this can often feel (at least) devaluing, and (at worst) patronising.
I also worry that many pioneering types are giving in to pressure to get ordained, not because they feel God's call to get ordained, but because it's the only way they can work round the system. Surely that's not good for anyone.
I don't believe that lay presidency is going to happen any time soon, so in the meantime I see that Share has offered some practical tips. Maybe these will help?
http://www.sharetheguide.org/section1/4/up/
Go to the brown heading, halfway down the page, called 'What about the sacraments?'
Andrew
Posted by Pam Smith on 14 May 2009 - 12:03
I think it raises the very fundamental question of what church is.
Do we believe we are we part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, as it says in the Nicene creed? If so then do we need to be looking for all the 'marks of church' in one expression of church?
And do we need to revisit some things we consider central that are in fact fairly recent in historical terms? Eg the article you cite says that a mark of being church would be that the church was baptising new believers - but the idea that baptisms are local events done by people standing in place of the Bishop (the literal meaning of 'vicar') instead of by the Bishop was as I understand it a logistical one because the Bishops couldn't get around fast enough.
And isn't weekly communion in the C of E a fairly recent innovation, more recent than the tradition of lay people being able to 'read' the service (the origin of the title 'Reader') in the vicar's absence?
I wouldn't want to go down the path of lay communion because in a way that makes communion even more central. I think a good relationship with a local (ish) priest or presbyter, with the blessing of the hierarchy, would be the way forward that is most likely to promote good relationships and understanding between FXs and the more established expressions of church around them, but this could only work if the sacraments were not celebrated within the FX too frequently - otherwise it just perpetuates what I call 'Melchidezek ministry' among the clergy (I once made notes on Genesis 14 and said he 'appears, celebrates, disappears - which is sadly the pattern for lots of clergy nowadays.)
I knew that I was called to be a priest and that celebrating communion is part of 'what I do', I would be delighted to assist a lay led FX by forming a relationship with the lay leadership and partnering them to provide sacramental worship when necessary. Perhaps though there is a fear/belief that clergy automatically 'take over' if they are working with lay leaders, and that the only way to affirm and support someone's leadership is to ordain them. Maybe that's realistic but if so it's very sad, because it underlines the idea that the defining feature of a lay leader is that s/he is not ordained.
I get the impression that God seems to be calling a lot of people to lay ministry at the moment, maybe he knows something we don't know!
Posted by John Manning on 18 May 2009 - 20:22
I hope this comment, my first but possibly not my last, is on the right track; or at least, it may add a new dimension to the discussion.
I am an "ordinary" lay person in the Anglican Church of Aotearoa/New Zealand and currently on holiday in the U K. I have been an Anglican all of my life.
In New Zealand at the Eucharist in a parish church or cathedral, the only "qualification" for receiving the sacrament is that the receiver must be a person baptised into the "family of Christ's Flock" i.e.the church. This is taken literally, therefore even a baby is able to receive communion.
In baptism, a person becomes a member of the Body of Christ, the Church, and in that context is able to receive. In practical terms, the onus is on the parents of the child to teach the child the meaning of the sacrament. Obviously the parents of the baby or child must be members of the congregation.
I am fast approaching 70 years of age (quite young, really) and I have no problem at all with any person receiving the sacrament. It is their responsibility to make sure that they are eligible to receive, not mine. If a person comes to the Lord's table in my church and receives the sacrament then my duty and privilege is to accept them as a member of the "Body of Christ", the church.
As I said earlier, I may possibly comment further on this matter; I could most certainly reflect on aspects of the eucharist which have impacted on my life, but I shall stop here and look forward to any responses.
And, to finish in my usual manner;
With His Love to each and every one of you.
John.
fresh expression of eucharist
Posted by Beth Keith on 13 May 2009 - 09:14
Hi Pam
Thanks for raising this. I'm hearing more and more about the importance of lay ministry in fresh expressions of church. But these comments aren't often backed up by real thinking about communion. I've sometimes found these comments really patronising and at times it seems more financially driven than recognising the leadership gifts of the unordained founders of these new communities of faith.
Posted by Sue Butler on 19 May 2009 - 08:48
Yes I agree, think the church needs to give serious and speedy thought about what it will do if Fresh Expressions grow and flourish faster than the Church of England is! who will feed them, who will administer communion, who will baptise them..whilst I appreciate and love the Church and the security it can bring I think that our prayers are needed that maybe we should start working to God's timing and agenda rather than an establishment as wonderful as it can be