The Three "Selfs" #2 - Self-governing

Part of what it means for Connections to belong to The Imagine Project is to articulate and communicate some of the things we have learned and are learning in pioneering fresh expression ministry.

Almost twelve months ago I began a series of blog posts about the consideration of "the long-held principle for guiding the planting of new congregations and churches that the ultimate aim is that the new body be characterised by the the 'three self's' - self-governing, self-financing, self-reproducing [or self-extending]." In that first post I looked at our learnings and experience in the area of finances.

In this post I want to look at the second principle of "self-governing." To introduce the concept let me quote from the definitive Mission-Shaped Church report that laid a solid foundation for fresh expressions in the Church of England and was of great influence here when Connections was being conceived.

"All church plants and fresh expressions of church benefit from the process of learning to run their own affairs, as far as they are able. Learning to make decisions and taking responsibility (including permission to fail) are part of growth and maturity. Protective 'sending' churches need to discover how to give away control and power, and celebrate the independence and interdependence of the new church." (Page 122)

This is certainly something we have experienced in the five years of the Connections project. At the moment Connections has no legal existence in itself and exists as a cost centre within the wider Parish of Burnie.

At the beginning of the project it was emphasised, as recounted in the introduction to our current Mission Action Plan (MAP):

"From the outset the 'Somerset Project' has been much more than simply 'starting a new service.' The focus is on forming and operating a genuine community of believers that care for one another, worship together, and help one another grow into the persons they are called by God to be."

The implications of this have not always been well understood from both sides - that of the congregation, and that of the wider Parish. Early on I remember the many situations in which there was tension between eager, energised church planters wanting to move ahead but being held up by months-long decision-making, and diligent and concerned stewards of the Parish resources unsure of how much and to whom they should be invested.

At the beginning of 2007 we drew up our MAP. It did (and does) what all Mission Action Plans should do - articulate our vision, outline our values and objectives. It also, however, gave the broad brush-strokes on how the "Connections Leadership Team" could be formed and take on certain responsibilities by delegation from the Parish Council. The MAP itself, when adopted by the Parish Council, therefore became an instrument of delegation. The conversations and debates in the process that led to the MAP's adoption were energetic and substantial and touched on fundamental matters of ecclesiology and identity.

Both our "sending" Parish and Connections have changed in the last couple of years and the MAP is now somewhat out of date and leaves questions unanswered. For instance, how will our planned Youth Minister relate to the governance of the congregation - who will that person be answerable to and how? What about our plans for an Ordained Pioneer Ministry training position - can that go ahead "in faith" or only if approved and financed by the larger organisation? What is the strategic planning of the wider body, and how does this relate to the priorities that Connections has? etc.

And so we are about to begin again the process of considering the way in which Connections is governed and stewarded and the place of that governance within our wider context. And yet again, we will touch on fundamental matters of ecclesiology and identity.

Some parties are keen to for Connections to cut the apron strings and to become independent of the Parish - existing alone, perhaps not as a separate Parish, but as a Special Ministry District or some other identity within the Diocese. There is merit in this position. Although it would take some re-arranging, this path appears to be financially viable. Connections has its own momentum that is not always in the same direction as that of parochial context and this could be a way of "growing up and leaving home" with blessing and rejoicing from all.

Others are keen for Connections to remain a part of the Parish and to bless and to be blessed from "within the family" so to speak. There is also merit in this position. It would enable economies of scale, provide an environment for inter-congregational initiatives and provide some long-term financial security. It would allow Connections to take it's place within the Parish and to be an influence on the "bigger machine" at local, regional and wider levels.

In the end the reality that the "self-governing" principle points to will bring us to a place of asking the question of "to stay or to go." Either option will require a willingness from both the congregation and the Parish to invest in relationship and to detail priorities and negotiate arrangements with good grace, the love of Christ, and Kingdom priorities.

The Connections Project will be reviewed in the next 12-18 months and I'm sure governance will be a key part of the considerations. Whatever the eventual direction, the status quo will be untenable, and everyone will come out the other end changed. Let us pray it is for the better!

There are many ways to implement the principles of balancing autonomy with accountability and interdependence. All I know is that I am aware of the truth of this statement from Mission-Shaped Church:

"Lack of legal existence can make a plant collapse at a time of stress and, if present, can help support it through crisis."