Although NBLC has made valiant attempts to be creative and light-footed in the way learning and training are facilitated the gravitational pull remains towards traditional patterns of ministry in familiar church structures. I recognise that this is in large part because of the necessary requirements of accreditation.
However, while the Biblical values that shape ministry remain the same, the way such ministry is expressed must flex and reform to face the demands of 21stC society. In any case, traditional patterns of church are less and less able to provide a context for trained leadership, especially in relation to stipendiary ministry.
Increasingly we need to be prepared to minister in teams, in multi-congregational settings, without pay, and outside of traditional structures, developing fresh expressions of church and establishing movements of believers rather than institutions.
There is also a growing challenge of serving among internationals - working with, pastoring and partnering in mission with people from the world church, especially in our metropolitan areas and where there are universities. This is not the same as the old categories of comparative religion and inter-faith dialogue but is about learning to be a Christian alongside other Christians whose culture and experience is different.
In response to the two questions posed, I feel inadequate to answer the second part due to my limited knowledge of the life and work of NBLC. However, what I feel able to contribute would be with regards to current challenges in mission and ministry.
I would echo Brian's words in relation to the changing nature of what is required of trained ministry in leading churches in the current environment. Whilst the emerging church movement has worked hard at determining new shapes of church, the 'traditional church' has not been left untouched by this. The themes of the emerging church, based around relationship, organic growth and a stripping away of heirarchical structures has led many within traditional streams to play catch up by working out how this might look for them. The missional community model and culture, which is reflected in many different churches (e.g. Anglican - St Andrews, Chorleywood etc, Baptist - St Thomas' Sheffield etc, Lead Academy, Leadership Network...) recognises these qualities of emerging church and seeks to apply them in what are often, larger settings.
I am attracted to this for a number of reasons: 1. It strikes me that missional communities are less a model, than an understanding and a culture. The foundational principles by which they operate are similar in nature to the emrging church and free us from the pavlovian response of following the latest model. 2. They help to deliver the church from the major internal flaw upon which small groups are based, in that the small groups disconnect learning from practice. The consequence for the church has been a dire lack of growth amongst our people who might be fully committed as believers. With missional communities there is an understanding that as Jesus' disciples grew in faith 'on the job', and that anything less than this fails to provide much opportunity to grow in faith. 3. Because of the variety of missional communities, they are able to provide opportunity for people to live as witnesses in a way which honours their own gifting and personality.
Having said this, it would be naive to think that larger/traditional churches did not have challenges in this respect. There still exists the pull to 'feed the institution' and 'the game' of maintaining the status quo can be a powerful magnet which draws us away from kingdom goals and saps energy and resource for mission.
(What the established church might be most useful for, however, is that in many cases we have learnt how to last and in relationship our permenance might provide stability for others.)
I think it would be helpful if new students didn't enter full training as early in the process. It seems to me that it would serve our small churches better if a potential candidate for ministry spent a few years as an unpaid leader of a local church, working alongside a mentor, with minimal training in college until they have had their ministry affirmed by a small fellowship. They could begin by leading services, small amounts of pastoral work, then beginning to chair meetings and then consider leaving their regular paid employment and moving into a more demanding training. This would
I don't have enough experience of NLBC to comment in detail but...... 1. I'm far from convinced that current patterns equip people for the variety of ministries that exist and will emerge in the next few years; there seems to be a 'default' model of church in much ministerial training. 2. I fear we sometimes worry too much about competence and not enough about character. Contextual and reflective patterns of training are fine providing students are equipped with sufficient knowledge and skills to make use of them.
Although NBLC has made valiant attempts to be creative and light-footed in the way learning and training are facilitated the gravitational pull remains towards traditional patterns of ministry in familiar church structures. I recognise that this is in large part because of the necessary requirements of accreditation.
ReplyDeleteHowever, while the Biblical values that shape ministry remain the same, the way such ministry is expressed must flex and reform to face the demands of 21stC society. In any case, traditional patterns of church are less and less able to provide a context for trained leadership, especially in relation to stipendiary ministry.
Increasingly we need to be prepared to minister in teams, in multi-congregational settings, without pay, and outside of traditional structures, developing fresh expressions of church and establishing movements of believers rather than institutions.
There is also a growing challenge of serving among internationals - working with, pastoring and partnering in mission with people from the world church, especially in our metropolitan areas and where there are universities. This is not the same as the old categories of comparative religion and inter-faith dialogue but is about learning to be a Christian alongside other Christians whose culture and experience is different.
In response to the two questions posed, I feel inadequate to answer the second part due to my limited knowledge of the life and work of NBLC.
ReplyDeleteHowever, what I feel able to contribute would be with regards to current challenges in mission and ministry.
I would echo Brian's words in relation to the changing nature of what is required of trained ministry in leading churches in the current environment. Whilst the emerging church movement has worked hard at determining new shapes of church, the 'traditional church' has not been left untouched by this. The themes of the emerging church, based around relationship, organic growth and a stripping away of heirarchical structures has led many within traditional streams to play catch up by working out how this might look for them.
The missional community model and culture, which is reflected in many different churches (e.g. Anglican - St Andrews, Chorleywood etc, Baptist - St Thomas' Sheffield etc, Lead Academy, Leadership Network...) recognises these qualities of emerging church and seeks to apply them in what are often, larger settings.
I am attracted to this for a number of reasons:
1. It strikes me that missional communities are less a model, than an understanding and a culture. The foundational principles by which they operate are similar in nature to the emrging church and free us from the pavlovian response of following the latest model.
2. They help to deliver the church from the major internal flaw upon which small groups are based, in that the small groups disconnect learning from practice. The consequence for the church has been a dire lack of growth amongst our people who might be fully committed as believers. With missional communities there is an understanding that as Jesus' disciples grew in faith 'on the job', and that anything less than this fails to provide much opportunity to grow in faith.
3. Because of the variety of missional communities, they are able to provide opportunity for people to live as witnesses in a way which honours their own gifting and personality.
Having said this, it would be naive to think that larger/traditional churches did not have challenges in this respect. There still exists the pull to 'feed the institution' and 'the game' of maintaining the status quo can be a powerful magnet which draws us away from kingdom goals and saps energy and resource for mission.
(What the established church might be most useful for, however, is that in many cases we have learnt how to last and in relationship our permenance might provide stability for others.)
I think it would be helpful if new students didn't enter full training as early in the process.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that it would serve our small churches better if a potential candidate for ministry spent a few years as an unpaid leader of a local church, working alongside a mentor, with minimal training in college until they have had their ministry affirmed by a small fellowship. They could begin by leading services, small amounts of pastoral work, then beginning to chair meetings and then consider leaving their regular paid employment and moving into a more demanding training. This would
I don't have enough experience of NLBC to comment in detail but......
ReplyDelete1. I'm far from convinced that current patterns equip people for the variety of ministries that exist and will emerge in the next few years; there seems to be a 'default' model of church in much ministerial training.
2. I fear we sometimes worry too much about competence and not enough about character.
Contextual and reflective patterns of training are fine providing students are equipped with sufficient knowledge and skills to make use of them.