History is
written by the military conquerors. In a similar way the Snapshots article
‘Exploring Holy Ground’ reflects only the voices of Cathedral clergy as it
charts the transition from Nightchurch (NC) to Holy Ground (HG). It feels like
some well crafted Anglican institutional propaganda. I am therefore offering an
alternative perspective. After all there were 4 Gospel accounts to help us
consider a fully informed picture of events. I was part of NC for over three
years. I therefore write as a witness to what took place after Mark Rylands
left and Anna Norman Walker replaced him. In reality what then occurred was the
displacement of an egalitarian ecumenical emerging church by a group of
hierarchical Anglican Cathedral clergy. An information gathering exercise re:
the nature and ethos of NC was conducted with a selected minority. However,
there was no open and honest discussion about the way we should move forward
together in which everyone was involved. It was a transparent divide and rule
tactic. The final solution was brought to pass through a deceptive sleight of
hand that no casual or uninformed observer would be aware of. The way the
transition was handled also raises some fundamental questions regarding the use
and abuse of ecclesiastical authority in fresh expressions within hierarchical
institutional church structures.
NC was far
from perfect and there were tensions and difficulties.
Changes
were needed. However these were not any more serious than those experienced by
most fresh expressions and churches-if they have reached any degree of honesty
and integrity in their life together. Should those churches be closed down? Yet
in the article these commonplace tensions are presented as the reasons that NC
needed to be brought to an end. It also must be stated clearly that this was
done without seeking the permission of NC. The Community had no say in its
future. This is because it was entirely unaware of what was being planned for
it. In a deceptive and very misleading way HG was presented by the clergy as a
continuation of NC after a summer break. People were not informed of the move
from weekly to monthly until a few weeks before things were due to begin again.
NC had not agreed this way forward. There simply was no communication or group
discussion about it.
What was
then presented at HG’s first event was something entirely different in ethos
and style. The greatest change was that the role of priests had become central
and they directed the event from the
front. People sat in rows instead of interacting in circles of informal
activity. There were outside ‘professional’ speakers with a nod towards Q &
A instead of open source community conversations. Only one person from NC (who
was Cathedral staff) was involved in the main service and its planning and
preparation. What had been an egalitarian ecumenical community had been
replaced with an Anglican event. The relational, communitarian and Gospel ethos
of NC had been usurped by an imposed Anglican hierarchy.
The article makes the presumption
that the Cathedral held the rights to decide the future of NC. Yet one of its outstanding achievements was inclusiveness. It was not
primarily staffed, resourced or made up of Cathedral attendees or Anglicans.
There were a wide range of people involved that included Catholics, Anglicans,
Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, Buddhists, Pagans and Atheists. The paid p/t
co-ordinator was originally a lapsed Methodist who was later replaced by a
lapsed Baptist. The Cathedral provided the time/support of the Canon Missioner, the use of its sacred space and sought funding for the project on the basis of providing training and community development. NC celebrated a Gospel difference and inclusiveness in a unique
way. It was therefore perhaps open to being misunderstood and misrepresented by a church
hierarchy with a myopic understanding of Christian leadership as dominance.
NC was a
work of all the people of God not just Anglican professionals and priests. It
had a genuine sense of partnership. There was a strong sense of inclusiveness
and diversity in the way authority and leadership were expressed.
Denominational leaders perhaps find this difficult to tolerate. Their solution is often
just to resolve this tension by removing it. The article also seeks to
undermine the diversity of NC as an attempt to be too broad. This is presented
as the reason for falling numbers. Yet whilst it made decision making slower
and more complex, it also provided a creative tension and stimulated and allowed
experimentation. This engendered a sense of ownership and belonging. People
were not being directed by a set of religious professionals. They were involved
in the creation and expression of their own faith. They were not co-opted into
an Anglican and therefore Christendom identity. Nor was their faith outsourced
to institutional religious professionals.
Why were
less people attending NC?
The biggest
tension for NC was balancing its ministry to homeless people and its own needs
as a community. A sizeable group of homeless people had begun to overwhelm NC.
This drained time, energy and resources. It was the primary reason that less
people were attending. The decision to make the ongoing work with homeless
people separate from the gathering was entirely justified. There were also
other groups already involved in meeting the needs of homeless people locally
who were better equipped and more professional. However, this decision was not
made by NC itself. It was not allowed autonomy or self determination regarding
this issue or its future.
In the
Snapshots article the reason given re: the closure of NC is implied as; ‘Consumerist
Christians can both exhaust parish clergy and wreck exploratory and creative
work with non-Christians’. This
is a gross distortion and misrepresentation of the facts. It’s also an insult
to the group of volunteers who tirelessly gave of their time, energy and
resources. Their lives were in fact challenging the consumerism perpetuated by Anglican
institutional attitudes to worship, authority and service. Surely it is the consumerist
nature of HG itself and its re-imposition of Anglican authority and identity
that has ‘wrecked a truly genuine and exploratory creative work with
non-Christians?’ The fact that relationships are even described in this way
reveals an inherently dualistic attitude. It is one rooted in a
misunderstanding of church and mission that emerges from an obtuse Christendom
mindset.
The massive irony here is that the whole ethos of HG is built around
religious consumerism. It relies on attracting people by using entertaining
outside speakers with professional or celebrity status. Its liturgy is highly
stage managed and priest-centred. This increases nominal attendance to a
monthly event. Yet in terms of creating a community of people learning to
follow Christ in a pluralist society the impact is negligible. Attendees just
turn up and feed off the menu provided by clergy. Whatever may be said of NC at
least it provided holistic spiritual formation. It was a highly committed group
of people who were working out the meaning and practice of their faith
together. NC formed followers of Christ with practical commitment, integrity
and authenticity who were learning to hold a wide range of diversity in
tension. NC modelled love of neighbour and discipleship in an open and
pluralist society. It successfully subverted a middle class, hierarchical,
Anglican monoculture. It modelled an
alternative and egalitarian way of life and truth.
Lies and
numbers?
The article
states that there were only 15 people still involved in NC at its closure. This
is untrue. At the final gathering there were approximately 30 people. This is
an attempt by clergy to undermine and misrepresent what was occurring in NC in
order to justify its shutdown. Most Fresh Expressions are fairly small in size
I would guess. In a video on the FX Pioneer website Anna Norman Walker admits
that one of her motivations for setting up HG was that the Bishop of Exeter
wanted a ‘success’ story. Of course the Anglican idea of ‘success’ is dictated
by a very different set of assumptions than the ones that informs most fresh
expressions. This motivation is also a deplorable reason for dismantling an
active and fully functioning contemplative community with a firmly established
identity. Perhaps all fresh expressions should be dismantled for not being
‘successful’? This attitude expresses the hubris inherent in so much of
Anglican culture that undermines the communitarian ethos of new expressions of
church.
Who is
disconnected?
3 of the
leaders of HG are Cathedral Canons. All of the team are on the Anglican payroll
or married to staff. In a very clever move the team meets on Friday mornings
when others who are not Cathedral clergy or church employees are unable to
attend. This allows centralised and hierarchical control but significantly
undermines grassroots participation and wider involvement and democracy. In
this way the Cathedral staff perpetuate disconnection. Disconnection is also
hard wired into the role of ‘priest’ in a highly bureaucratised church culture.
Its passively accepted and justified as
an occupational hazard.
The article
states that NC had ‘been disconnected from the rest of Cathedral life than was
healthy.’ Once again this is not true. If there was disconnection then
regrettably it was on the part of the Exeter Cathedral staff. There was little sympathy with NC after Mark
Rylands left. Staff were routinely invited to NC Leadership Community meetings
and Friday gatherings. Eucharist at NC also required a priest to preside. There
was a functional relationship while NC awaited Mark’s replacement. NC was also
beginning to foster stronger links with the Anglican Franciscans at Hilfield
Friary. Groups were beginning to attend retreats there on a regular basis. This
connection with the tradition goes unacknowledged. True to their Christendom
ethos and modus operandi the solution of the Cathedral Canons was to usurp NC
entirely. They replaced its lay leadership with clergy and paid staff. There
would no longer be a ‘disconnection’- just complete domination. The voices of
NC were silenced.
I write
this response to raise awareness of the issues of institutional clergy using
deception and misusing authority in new expressions of church. In any such
endeavour clergy inevitably have rights and organizational authority in a way
that no other unpaid community members do. Clergy always exercise greater
authority in groups purely on the basis that they are paid by the institution.
This is important because the sociologist Linda Woodhead has evidenced that the
majority of people in UK
I suspect
that what happened with NC is not an isolated incident in Anglican new
church initiatives. The very structure of Anglican ordination and training
perpetuate a confusing message regarding authority and leadership. Anglican
institutionalised culture only reinforces this. The poor example of the priests
at Exeter Cathedral in relation to NC also casts a shadow over the ability of
clergy to honour the notion of a mixed economy of fresh expression and
inherited church. Surely in order for new expressions of church to thrive
clergy need to let go of hierarchical leadership models and learn the arts of
participative community and voluntary mutual submission. They also need to
learn to be transparently honest with new communities as an essential starting
point in re-establishing trust. The difficulty is that Anglican ordination
training is based on a set of very different values. It demands allegiance to a system of leadership
that is rooted in hierarchy and administered through bureaucracy. In such a
system the leadership rights and responsibilities of the ordained are
reinforced and taken for granted.
In closing
its worth considering the words of Tony Benn. As Occupy were camped in protest
outside the steps of St.Paul’s Cathedral, he said ‘There is more Christianity
on the steps of St Paul
Francis
Rothery
TSSF.
