I’m back

I haven’t posted for a while but I’m back.

I’ve had some interesting conversations and learning experiences over the last month or so. I want to reflect on some here.

My friend and business colleague, Patrick Mayfield, presented some very interesting findings about change from the world of science, particularly medicine. “The central issue is never strategy, culture, or systems,” says John Kotter. “The core of the matter is always about changing the behaviour of people.”

Most behavioural change programmes fail for patients with preventable disease fail. But Dr Dean Ornish’s programme for turning round people with clogged arteries has bucked the trend.
Without going into details, it was holistic and the marks of its success were:
framing the change with the incentive of the joy of living rather than the fear of death - and telling a different story about life than the one that has become ingrained.
introducing radical changes rather than incremental ones. They are often easier for people!
supporting the change with the help of peers, trainers and motivators.

How might that apply in your life and setting? I’m working it through in mine.

 

Thought police?

I was really disappointed by the process by which the SORS legislation was propelled through Parliament. Whatever you think of the legislation itself, the process, both here and in Nortern Ireland, certainly seemed lightweight on consultation.

This is legislation that starts to erode the rights of people to exercise their conscience in matters of belief and moralilty. The inclusion agenda, now driven apparently by a secular worldview, has become what it originally sort to undermine: the exercise of raw power of one group over another.

Inclusion is, to some extent, a concept that is in the “eye of the beholder”. It is now obvious what was previously implicit: that the most inclusive agendas can become plainly exclusive. It can feel like a tool of the kind of fundamentalism that we are all working to undermine.

Of course, I am aware that there have been seasons of history when the Church exercised raw power over the powerless - and I certainly would not want a return to those days! However, there is abundant evidence that the faith groups’ concern for the poor and powerless in our world is without question. You might think therefore that our right to stand against issues that are not in line with our conscience and teaching might be carefully considered, before being ridden over roughshod in such a non-consultative way.

I hope we are a long way from “thought police” government. Suddenly it seems a little closer.

 

Trident - Don’t do it!

Today is the trident debate in Parliament.  I have been one of those people, together with a number of Church leaders nationally and locally who has been lobbying against the replacement of the Trident Missile system.  There are various reasons for my thoughts on this.

Firstly, as a Christian, I find the use of weapons of mass destruction to be inconsistent with the life and witness of Jesus Christ.  The kind of destruction that today’s nuclear weapons would wreak is surely unnacceptable to anyone who has an ethical bone in their body.  The deterrent argument assumes a level of rational and responsible thinking, which in the current global political climate, can no longer be assumed, not least in the Middle East.  What right do we have to be telling Iran what to do when we are about to re-arm ourselves?

Secondly, the costs involved, although they would constitute only 1% of our GDP are still colossal.  Such resources could be better used to build a safer world by doing more to aid the world’s poor and marginalised.  From what I read, some of that money could be better used in making sure that the our current armed forces have the right equipment for the job and housing of a good standard.

Thirdly, you can’t help but feel that somehow, ‘being a nuclear power’ is exactly that.  It is about raw power and carries with it the pathetic inference if you want to be a ‘big boy’ in the arena of global politics you have to have a nuclear arsenal.  This is surely adolescent.  How much more mature to take a stand on what is right and to do all we can to rid the world of these appalling weapons.

Who said Bishops never speak up?

 

Whither childhood?

I was struck by the story of the eleven year old Mexican boy who is going to university. Clearly this lad is a paleontology prodigy but how does this decision honour his childhood? I was relieved to learn that his mother had decided that he continue at school with children of his own age to help with his social development. However, this story does seem to accord with a broader trend you can observe in British culture of children growing up too fast.

On the illicit and clearly shocking side of this trend is the prevalence of guns and knives amongst teenage gangs and the use by schoolkids of mobile phones for amateur teenage porn. On the more subtle side is the way advertising and marketing is increasingly targeting children to groom the next generation of consumers.

At the centre of this is the sexualisation of childhood, particularly girls. A report by Compass entitled The Commercialisation of Childhood outlines this phenomenon with alarming clarity: lacy lingerie, for example, is marketed to under 10 year olds. I can think of an advert promoting a doll for girls which was highly sexualised. This is just one of the impacts of this trend. Others are equally worrying. What’s more, I fear we are yet to reap the full consequences of the commercialisation of kids.

One final thing I’d like to highlight is the huge pressure that is put on parents to spend by their children as a result. Given that so many parents are in debt anyway, encouraged by consumerism themselves, this can only lead to more stress. It’s a vicious and downward spiral.

 

Congested thinking

I haven’t signed the Downing Street petition on congestion charges for a couple of reasons.

1. Something has got to be done, not just because of traffic congestion, but also because of climate change. It’s just not responsible for car usage to remain at present levels, let alone the projected ones.
2. The “chicken and egg” nature of public transport and private transport. In other words, do we have a poor record on public transport because people have opted for cars regardless or have people switched to cars out of frustration with public transport.

Finally, why are car manufacturers still making 4X4 vehicles costing £55,000 and doing, at best, 15mpg? Answer, because people are buying them. It has to stop.

 

Become a shopkeeper - or something

It’s always struck me that new church projects involving “seed money” are always sold a bit short by the Church’s overall culture.  Having spent time “in business” before I was ordained, I am struck by two things:
(a) Those who leave the world of business for church leadership are either so glad to be out of it that they ditch their previous expertise.
(b) The Church is at best ambivalent about entrepreneurial leaders and at worst positively hostile to them.

What does all this mean? It means that we have very little evidence that we can translate “seeded” projects into stand-alone funded projects.

All my life I have seen promising projects which began with seed money fold through lack of cash. Let me tell you briefly about one that has prevailed.

I’ve just come back from Spain where the local Anglican church has to fund itself. Some years ago, it purchased a charity shop that brings in £30,000 per annum.

Given most charities do the charity shop thing, why don’t local churches do this? Is it the culture?

 

Holiday

Just a quick post to say that Mike and Anthea went on holiday for a week at the weekend. It’s great that Anthea feels in a position to go abroad at this stage in her recovery.

Mike will be back blogging next week.

 

It fell off a lorry - well, a white van actually

Thought the stuff that came back on the white van post was excellent.  Obviously, St Paul argued for the principle of paid ministry in general but he also suggested it was not always appropriate in every context. I too was questioning whether the principle be applied in every case, particularly in the pioneering context.

Clearly the point was challenging, even heretical to some, but it was not original in this sense.  We are in touch with pioneers who are asking this question themselves.  The point is simple.  Does payment pull you into a system whose cultural vortex is strong enough to stem creativity?  The white van question is simply a way of asking how much a potential pioneer is prepared to invest (in every way) into the project they are excited by.

But here’s another thought which is a by-product of the same thinking.  In many denominations payment brings you into accountability and accountability is important in all aspects of Christian ministry.  One of the unanswered questions is how do you keep pioneers in the right kind of lines of accountability if you don’t pay them.  I find it challenging to reflect on the kind of accountability which protects people from heresy or abusive behaviour, but at the same time allows creativity and innovation to flourish.  Anyone got any answers?

 

The change clinic - 3

At a recent meeting, Lee Rayfield, my fellow bishop in this diocese, shared two metaphors of transition from the natural world that had struck him from a book he was reading by Howard Friend. The transitions were from tadpole to frog and from caterpillar to butterfly.

Howard Friend compares the marks of the tadpole’s development - which is visible, organised, orderly and uses the basic structure - with the marks of the caterpillar’s transformation - which is hidden, disorganised, chaotic and abandons the basic structure. Change management gurus call the former incremental change and the latter step change.

 

Drive a white van

I’ve said I want to challenge the assumptions the C of E has about how to do church, particularly with reference to releasing the emerging church.

First on my hit list is paying people.

When we think about beginning a new project, we set out from the foundational belief - almost credal - that you have to have paid staff from day one. I’ve been told by a leading C of E thinker on fresh expressions that, to pioneer a new project successfully, you need two full-time paid staff. I frequently meet with people who tell me about their vision for a fresh expression of church, only for it to transpire that the reason they are sharing their passion is because they want me to pay for it!

But does this need to be the case?