Dave

My story goes back to the 1990s. Over the years I’ve been involved in many church meetings and other communal decision-making meetings, but this occasion was in a large suburban Manchester church. And the topic was the role of women. 

Just to give you some background, the church was part of the FIEC: the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, and was also signed up with the Evangelical Alliance. But a new minister arrived and brought a more charismatic emphasis into the church. So it was a church that was undergoing quite a lot of change in its attitudes and its worship. The church then got some links with Roger Forster and the Ichthus movement. And inevitably, in a growing church with lots of students, the issue of what women can do in a church arose. It was a hot topic back in the early ’90s. 

There were four ministers at the church at the time and, together with the eldership, we were pretty much split down the middle between a more traditionalist view and a more inclusive view of the role of women in church. So, first of all, we made the decision that the process would take several months. It was much too important an issue to rush at it and do it badly. There was lots of teaching from all perspectives in all sorts of different settings within the church. We had discussion opportunities and written materials for personal study. We wanted to give people as much information as possible on which to base their ultimate vote. 

In the end we decided that we needed to focus on the limits of leadership. And it was largely the leadership issue that was at stake, because women taught from the front and were involved in just about every area of church life. That’s how far the church had already moved. So eventually there was a consensus that women were able to lead in every role bar that of elder or minister. And the reason there was that limit drawn was because it was clear that it would be damaging to the church as a whole to push it any further at that time. Even so a handful of people left, but they left without any rancour which I thought was brilliant. The topic was revisited a few years later, and at that point women were recognised as completely equal partners in the life and ministry of the church.

Julie

As you were speaking, Dave, I was reminded of a great book that I commend people to read by Ashley Hardingham called Discerning Inclusion, where he describes the process of a church going through a different issue – the inclusion of LGBTQ people. But yeah, that whole idea of it being a process, it taking time, intentionally taking time over a decision or a discernment process was familiar and wise. And of course, Ruth Moriarty’s work on Slow Wisdom is also worth highlighting here.

My story is also a lengthy one that took quite a long time. It’s the journey to the amalgamation of the churches that I am now minister of. Three small churches on the Lancashire-Yorkshire border, where they all found themselves without a minister at the same time. But it wasn’t out of necessity, there was something more happening than that. We’d been working together in partnership for a while. It was the idea of working more closely together as a fellowship of churches that was at the heart of the process. There were deep relationships between some of the people in the churches, so there was some level of trust already.  There is something important about trusted relationships and being able to be honest about what you think and feel. 

We took a long journey towards being one worshipping community. We met together for services on a Sunday a few times a year. That eventually became once a month and I can remember at that point where they suggested to try it every week for six months and then decide how they felt. We knew we could build in a review step if we weren’t happy, and it meant we could try something and see. 

I know with some decisions you can’t do that. But sometimes decision making can begin with living with a temporary decision and reviewing how it feels. For us, as well as worshiping together, real efforts were made to work together in our pastoral care, in mission, and in socialising together as well. So there’s an intentional building of relationships. So eventually, cutting a really long story short, we moved to worshiping together every Sunday which took some time, but we did get there. Another step in the journey involved moving around every building so we were never in the same place on any consecutive Sunday. The advantage of that, of course, is that we were helping every church feel that they’re part of this new worshipping community, but it also made it really hard for anyone who wanted to try and join us to know where were the next week! It wasn’t until COVID that this changed. As we came back we decided that one building was more suitable and we realised that if we were going to grow we needed to be in the same place every week. 

I think the reason the journey was successful was we took time, which was quite frustrating for some of us who were at the head of the curve. But actually, looking back, it was good that we took the time we did.

Roy

I’m part of a church that has made some profound shifts, not just in how we address discernment but in what it means to be a community rather than a congregation.

There’s a real sense of mutuality, with every member of the church being valued and respected. A genuine appreciation that we are learning from each other and discovering together what it means to be a community. For nearly a year as a church we looked at our shared values which addressed the nature of who we are, the way we act and the things that we do. This better understanding of who we are and how we discern together has led to some altering of the structures and activities that we previously did by default – things that were inherited or were done because they seemed to be the way things should be done as decreed by the wider church or social conventions.

There are still church meetings, (actually more than in previous years) but they are less agenda driven. Various means are used to listen to the whole body of the church: conversations, small groups, intentional times and periods of listening, both alone and together, as well as the coming together of everyone. We use the spiritual practices of Lectio and Examen, not only in church meetings but also in Sunday services, and in the various groups and meetings where members of the church come together. These contemplative practices have come very much to the fore in the process of discernment. If more time is required to discern something, then more time is given. The fruit of such communal discerning has deepened a sense of belonging and ownership among the membership. Those who have been called to lead, and there is a plurality of leadership, see their roles as very much one of facilitating, enabling and empowering others.

An example of communal discernment is seen in the formation of a discerning group that meet to shape the Sunday gatherings and the themes and content of our gatherings. There is a hesitancy to use the word ‘service’, and the word ‘gathering’ conveys much more about what it means to be the church coming together to worship, listen, learn, pray and share in community. There is a group of ten people who discern what is to be explored during any season in the church calendar. This has been a significant development from the two ministers meeting and making plans together. The team of ten gather together for a meal and spend the evening discerning together. One of the consequences of this is that the minister rarely leads the Sunday gatherings more than once a month. Another result of such changes, with discerning not being in the hands of the few but the many, has seen an intentional relinquishing of control, a move from prescribed outcomes to greater freedom, spontaneity, unpredictability as we pursue the adventure of listening to the Spirit and discerning the mind of Christ together. All of this encourages a deepening of relationships and the formation of a mature community.

In the next post, Craig and Simon add their stories.