Applying the circuit principle
I don’t want to be perceived as knocking the structures of Methodism. They are its very genius! This applies to the foundational concept of circuit. Circuits were created to support mission using the principle of shared resources. This was acted out in planting new congregations – the strong (resourceful) helping the weak. This has always been a symbiotic relationship and not a one directional flow. The problem is most churches; even the large ones are in survival mode with little spare capacity to look beyond their own needs. So the challenge of leadership is not to become parochial. I am glad to read in the Statistics for Mission report that the rate of church closures has slowed to just 100 a year as opposed to 150!
I am not advocating propping up dying causes, but the loss of a rural/small town chapels should be a cause for heart-break. I suggest as an organisation we have become too reliant on the minister for leadership. Yes the minister brings a wider perspective and specific training and expertise, but when a church community gives up responsibility for itself and its self-identity and purpose then it has lost the fire that brought it into being. Were we right as a church council in Overton to task the superintendent minister and circuit property steward with the responsibility for looking at the premises and what options there are for it? Yes both of those individuals have responsibilities and expertise which make them key players, but I can’t help thinking that we as a congregation have abdicated our responsibility for managing the process. As it turns out nothing has been done since the meeting in February where this course of action was decided upon as both the individuals concerned have had other priorities. I suggest that very fact illustrates my argument above.
I am not advocating propping up dying causes, but the loss of a rural/small town chapels should be a cause for heart-break. I suggest as an organisation we have become too reliant on the minister for leadership. Yes the minister brings a wider perspective and specific training and expertise, but when a church community gives up responsibility for itself and its self-identity and purpose then it has lost the fire that brought it into being. Were we right as a church council in Overton to task the superintendent minister and circuit property steward with the responsibility for looking at the premises and what options there are for it? Yes both of those individuals have responsibilities and expertise which make them key players, but I can’t help thinking that we as a congregation have abdicated our responsibility for managing the process. As it turns out nothing has been done since the meeting in February where this course of action was decided upon as both the individuals concerned have had other priorities. I suggest that very fact illustrates my argument above.
Comments