What’s the difference between a vision, wish-fulfilment, blind optimism, hallucination and derangement? I ask because I’ve run “vision days” for churches in which I know what they’ll come up with: a church full of children, with people dropping in and wanting to join, full rotas, full bible study and prayer meetings … in other words, “Bring back the glory days!” And why is that wrong - if it’s wrong? I think it is. I think that is a case of nostaligia and wish-fulfilment. It’s driven by an inability to cope with the radical changes in society that have seen the Christian Church plummet not only in public affection but in the sense that the Church matters or is valuable. What most church people can’t cope with is that the Church has simply become irrelevant. Oh - and the other thing that makes me doubt it’s a vision is that I know exactly what they’ll come up with beforehand! There’s nothing new, surprising or difficult about it.
So what makes a vision a vision? It seems to me that it is about new possibilities under God. Now of course, that opens up the sense that anything is possible - cos it’s God we’re dealing with! But vision is not the same as “blue sky thinking”. We don’t start with a blank sheet of paper. We start with a particular group of people within a particular context. A vision, then, has to do with possibilities for us - for the people we are. If we’re all over 70, it’s no good having a vision of us starting an enormously successful “camp for Jesus” campaign by having a week’s retreat on a snow-capped mountain! A vision takes account of our limitations. The possiblities that we discover under God may be deeply surprising - but they won’t be outlandish.
For instance, we can’t have a vision of the URC suddenly becoming an Emerging Church. It ain’t gonna happen! People who have been Christians and church members most of their lives aren’t going to be turned on by new, very different forms of worship and spirituality. But the URC might become a place that facilitates emerging forms of church - that funds, resources, encourages and nurtures them. That’s one thing I hope and pray for, anyway.
So what are the possibilities for the URC - or indeed, any mainline churches?
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Stewart 11.25.06 at 1:56 pm
Lawrence
I think you are right to highlight the differece between vision and ‘wishful thinking’. One of the problems of visioning is that it is often very difficult for people to imagine beyond their experience so they simply remember what their best experience was and hope for that to happen again.
The other thing people do is hang their hope on the latest ‘trend’ or ‘movement’ without knowing what drives that initiative.
I’d love the URC to take on some of the characteristics of the Emerging Church, but only because the things that drives emerging church communities are ‘community’, ‘relevence’ and ‘creativity’. My vision would include lots of those things, no matter what age people are.
I sense that the last few days might not have been all that you had hoped for. I read something on another blog (I think Jonny Baker’s or maybe a link from there) about all ideas start as a seed. The seed needs to be nurtured and encouraged, and even piles of crap help things grow.
I hope that seeds have been planted and that they will flurish.
Stewart
Janey 11.26.06 at 2:59 pm
Lawrence! Great stuff!
I agree and I think this is what I was trying to say in my last ‘rant’! You say things much more concisely!!
I agree that we can’t become an emerging church but how do we encourage congregations to become churches without walls?
We’re trying something new after Christmas at South Norwood - we’re creating space for new things to happen. I don’t expect the whole congregation to be there - in fact it probably wouldn’t work if they did come, but the fact that they are creating space and giving support is a huge step forward!
I was at the URC London Summit yesterday - in fact I was working with the children about how they view church, what they like and what is not helpful to them, and what we as adults can help change!
They came up with some great thoughts - They found churches generally to be welcoming places, happy places, fun places, joyful places but they also came up with some interesting and powerful criticism - we can’t understand the words in the songs, there is not enough space for us, we have nothing to do when adults are in long boring meetings after church, there are not enough children in churches, there are no drinks for kids….
Not only did these come up with what adults can do to help change they thought of how they could change things - like joining with other churches to form bigger childrens’ groups…
They gave their presentation to the whole gathering - including the bit about not understanding the words in the hymns… and the gatherinng then sang their next hymn - Guide me O Thou great Jehova…. I think we made our point!!
I tell you this as if we can’t make space for the people we have (whether they be children, young people, families etc) then how can we make space for new forms of worship and different ways of being church?
This has turned into an essay again! Sorry!
Keep up the great work!
Janey
Kate 11.28.06 at 11:01 pm
I was at the windermere gathering. This is the seed of a vision that we’re trying to discern if its from the Spirit or not. It is a taster of what was offered to the Visions gathering last week. Do do anything with it - include chuck it out & birth something else!
I have a vision of lots of small, grassroots-ecumenical, networked communities of Jesus worshipping, witnessing & working together based in homes, offices, leisure centres, pubs & other public & private spaces. They would be freed up from expending time, money & energy in maintaining & keeping different church buildings but would be enlivened, energised & culturally shaped by being immersed in their context with the bible.
I dream of a time when we in the urc get seriously playful with kin(g)dom communities! I call these missional communities rather than church. I think the language has a different vibe which prioritises mission over maintenance and spiritual formation over pastoral care. I wonder if different generations need different values and practices to be prioritised within the church and am advocating some ways of embodying these through small missional communities, which I think may be more helpful for naming where the presence of God is with-out the church.
The New Testament communities of Jesus were really diverse – they argued lots, were quite experimental & provisional about structures, leadership and styles. We need more inspiration from them! Therefore I have a vision which is born out of connecting together ways of being missional in the New Testament and the people & land I am part of in Wythenshawe, Manchester. Perhaps it may also be a vision for the wider URC?
The emerging vision has 2 parts - one: of small missional communities: geographic & lifestyle-based, two: of the identification, gestation, birthing & nurture of missional communities. Who are their birthing partners, midwives and missioners and what tools, skills & resources are needed?
Some of the hallmarks of church in the emerging cultures will be very familiar to us: organic; growing up out of seedbeds, compost, spaces of oddity and belonging, flexible & experimental in nature, depending on how they morph, these fragile communities would be prophetic, radical and liberating. (How?) They would share each others life, shape and be shaped within and without their cultures by the Jesus story & the power of the Spirit, supporting each other from a common purse and exploring life consequences of the Gospel together with the Bible. They would be visible as salt and yeast with effects beyond their size. They arise out of local cultures & subcultures and would be people of hospitality and hope, living as if the kingdom of God were now. In these missional communities God is present as gardener, midwife, potter, artist. We discern resources from interpreting the bible, prayer and our context.
In the vision people will be able to see, hear, sense, interpret God within their own cultures and not be required to interpret the church cultures.
12. There are dangers:
a. of riding the waves of popular, faddish theology,
b. of being rejected institutionally by ecumenical partners, lack of credibility,
c. of being accused of being fashionable, syncretistic or spiritually self-seeking
but at best lots of small, publicly known disciples of Jesus, expressing faith in our own language, music, places, times and ways. As a minister of Word & Sacraments I feel as if I am expected to deny my cultural and subcultural roots within my generation when I minister to and with a congregation 3 generations older than myself!
This vision is of an incarnational rather than attractional morphology of Gods people. It is more of a movement or network of companions (bread) and co-conspirators (breath). It’s of its context & not a one size fits all so-called ‘solution’ focussing on or motivated by diminishing numbers of people. Part of something but not a whole.
So, the vision I have is of birthing missional communities in different places as part of a URC new missional community’s project – a creative & experimental network of the URC which will identify, nurture and resource emerging communities of Jesus.
So, it is a long, long, offering. Links with what Graham has said about reclaiming movement rather than institution - which was also shared as a vision too @ windermere.
Stewart 12.04.06 at 1:27 pm
So what’s your vision Lawrence? And the visions of the others?
James Church 12.05.06 at 11:50 am
So, this follows your consultation on the future shape of the URC? Well, of course you are right, the URC isn’t going to die to itself and be resurrected as an emerging church, ethnic church, or mega church, instead numbers will continue to dwindle, fresh expressions, and ethnic churches will continue, as will strong evangelical/charismatic churches which can offer a vast number of programmes and activities etc.
I suspect we could be tempted to despair of our dreams and visions or bail out and join churches that are doing ‘the business’ as we see it. However, it is not necessary to take such extreme decisions the URC has never done ‘church’ one way, it has always been a mixed bag (even since its beginning), there are URCs who are emerging, or ethnic, there are even a few larger churches with the potential to grow and develop a range of activities (some already exist though there is room for further development). If the URC can learn to fund and support such new initiatives both locally, regionally, and nationally then the church (and Kingdom of God) twenty years from now whether it is URC or something else will be much better for it.
Lawrence 12.08.06 at 5:40 pm
Thanks for all the responses, folks. If I gave the impression that the Infectious Visions gathering was less than thrilling, I’ve miscommunicated. Kate’s post gives a flavour of some of the stuff that was being talked about and proposed. My reticence on detail is because we were bound by Chatham House rules. But what I can say is that it was recognised that we need to give space to trial and error, to allowing new things to emerge and, more importantly, to encourage and resource these.
The thing that encouraged me most was actually two-fold: (1) that we’re consciously moving towards embracing a “mixed economy” way of being Church, rather than a “one-size-fits-all”, and (2) that there are already some incredibly interesting, exciting and faithful things happening all over the place. Janey, what you’re doing fits into that category.
I guess that I saw clear signs of what you put so eloquently and clearly in your final sentence, James! It made me excited about being part of the URC. And in response to your first post, Stewart, I did feel as though we were in some sense sowing seeds - but that those seeds were welcome. To change the metaphor: they felt a little like the first drops of rain on thirsty ground …
Stewart 12.19.06 at 7:01 pm
Are there any plans to share? It would seem a little oxymoronic to have confidential infectious visions…LOL.
Dick Wolff 02.22.08 at 11:54 am
We had a ‘vision’ about a year ago (Feb 2007) - at least, it felt like that. It came out of the blue, wasn’t directly connected with anything we were doing or thinking of at the time, but just made total sense in the context. We want to adapt our church building in Oxford into residential accommodation for a community with four marks :
1) commitment to living in community
2) Christian spiritual focus (whether residents are ’signed-up Christians’ or still ’seekers’
3) commitment (individually and/or/jointly) to engagement in social action/activism, through institutional church locally if possible, but if not . .
4) commitment to ‘ministry of hospitality’
We’re getting a lot of what feels like scepticism from ‘higher’ URC circles (who haven’t yet seen the detailed proposal) and we are being challenged to prove there’s a ‘market’ for such a thing. “What guarantee of recruiting residents?”
If anyone can help by suggesting how we might do some market research it would be appreciated. I’m thinking of circulating all student chaplains in UK and exploring CWM.
Would also be glad to know of similar communities in UK.