Marching into the Unknown

By close of play this evening, my Little Church will have undergone not one, not even two, but three significant changes. Each is distinct from the other, each bold, each apt to cause a few problems - but each being the right changes to make.

In my opinion.

The first is the (re) introduction of Evensong

Second is the church being open during daylight hours

Third is the first meeting of a newly formed Communications Group

I am the sort of Christian who has eyes to the future, with a heart rooted in the historic and tested, and with a desire to share what and who we are with the wider world. This seems to be covered well by the changes of this day. 

During my relatively short ministry (which is to say, short enough not to have found the need to write a column for Rupert Murdoch) I have lamented the ever increasing numbers of closed churches, and church communities that exist (with their life-saving good news) behind a shroud of mystifying unknowing. Who really knows what goes on in a church except those who have managed to find the doors open? The answer is simple - very few. 

We live in an age that is fearful of crime, hungry for sustenance and spiritual nourishment, and amply blessed with cheap devices that communicate. Why, then, do we ignore two at the peril of one? My church doors are open at this very moment, and the chances are even that it is empty of regulars. Will the lecturn get snaffled? Maybe. That said, if they wish to steal our brass budgie, it is the PCC who are in greatest peril - from a personal injury claim from the Muppet who tried to lift the thing. Seriously - I weigh the probabilities of theft in one hand with the possibility of a stranger finding God by coming into doors that are open - and there is no real contest. I can buy a new lecturn. 

But why all the secrecy? The funky-monkey churches are all genned up with their Comms - and they grow by virtue of it. Us of a more vested and sacramental bent conceal our life and triumphs under a doily of decency or the antimacassar of polite self-deference. 

Not no longer. 

This church in West London is open for business. We are going to shout about it. We have something that everyone needs and it is our absolute duty to ensure that as many as possible are given the chance to access it. We are going to take a mature, informed, market approach to what we are and what we do and we will not apologise for it. 

And yes, a good Evensong is a fine way to close off a spring Sunday. 

Appendix:

Our Insurers, Ecclesiastical, when asked how we may open our church and remain insured said:

Ecclesiastical does not object to the Church building being left open during daylight hours provided:-

 1.         All valuables are locked away.

2.         The altar is furnished with wooden replica's in place of your silver communion items.

3.         The Church must be locked during the hours of darkness.

4.         Ideally, a person responsible to the Church would check in at intervals during the day to ensure there are no problems. 

If the Church being left open appears to increase the likelihood of claims being made, we may need to review the situation.

 It is not recommended that the building be left open during the night, any Church wishing to be unlocked during the night will be subject to a loaded premium.

Social Media and Fainting by Numbers

Once upon a time, before even the Baby Jesus was a twinkle in the Father's eye, people first grunted and then spun out loquacious and erudite conversation with one another. Then, as the human capacity for invention increased, we started faxing papyri to one another and making use of the telephone. In the mano-a-monkey interaction, we learned how to pucker and wave our arms about to convey greater meaning to our grunts and tics. And so, dear readers, communication was born. 

Evening and morning. The first social-media. 

The measure of 'success' in that world was a reciprocal response, a reaction, a new friendship. That said, the moment was had and it vanished for ever. A word was whispered then never to be heard again. A smile stopped a heart-beat but was forgotten. The communication was transient, the effect lasting. 

And so it came to pass that there came the Wise Men (and Ladies) who, by their efforts, gave rise to the Dawn of the Gadget. God saw and knew that it was good. Evening and morning - the second social-media. During the geeky revelry, there came a serpent - its name was Wikio, and it was hell-bent on wreaking unholy havoc in the Eden of the Gadget world of Parlay. The doe-eyes gadgeteers installed the widget unto their bloggies and partook of the Forbidden Fruit - the age of innocence collapsed and so it happened that those caught in the new world of social media could quantify their activity. 

In other words, social media in the present age can give you numbers and reports. I get emails telling me who I have 'spoken' to, with what effect, under what level of reach and to which extent of influence. The serpent Wikio was quickly joined by the demons Klout and Feedjit, then the arch Leviathan Empire Avenue. All these things are, in one form or another, measuring devices. They chastise you when you have said too little, and reward you when you have been busy. For competitive men like me, it is like having an aggressive Mistress (not that I have the first idea how that would feel, you understand). I sometimes find myself making inane comments on Twitter because my Klout number fell, or posting some drivel on here because my Wikio number was lower than a snake's belly.

This is dangerous. I know I am not alone, but it is very compelling to those of us who care how we are perceived and received. Being social, in all its facets, is vulnerable under the auspices of self-measure. The much lamented Church Mouse used to post monthly the Wikio blog rankings, and the comments confirm that we bloggers and Tweeters really do care if we are successful in what we do. Gain is great; slump or decline is mortal tragedy. I regard this is a problem, and one I am trying to resolve. My rankings buttons will start to go as I try to be sure in my mind (and allow you the same) that I am doing what I do online for right reason, not simply for numerical success!

So Your Church Wants Social Media ...

My firm belief is that every church needs to engage with social media and start to use it. To not engage with social media is about the same as not making use of email, telephones or the combustion-engine motor-car simply because they seem to be modern irrelevances. The simple fact is that more and more people in the West are engaging in dialogue moderated and delivered through social media. 

I also acknowledge that it isn't as simple as just wanting to engage with and harness the benefits of social media, because our congregations and parish councils are often populated by those unaccustomed to the electronic, regard their advent as suspect at best and who may in turn become isolated by its introduction. This said, if we took the same view over history, people wouldn't have Bibles in their personal possession and the art of reading would remain the province of the landed gentry. Progress is necessary and indeed vital, so long as it is tailored to bring with it those who are vulnerable to its effects (usually by immediate isolation).

With this in mind, and following on from conversations already had on the subject, I though I would jot down my thoughts as to the process that parishes could use to bring this development to life. I am mindful that parishes already have varying degrees of involvement with social media, though they may not use that label!

What Is It? Social Media is the overarching title for direct communication by way of the internet. Any parish with a website of any capacity or capability is already engaged with social media, albeit passively. The current understanding of social media is more specifically concerned with actions of communication, often in real-time and often solely over the internet - be those actions in the form of 'chat', instant message, blogging or micro-blogging. A parish community unfamiliar with this mode of communicating would need to appreciate the subtleties and drawbacks (as well as the great opportunities) of this form of faceless communication. 

Who? This may seem an odd consideration for a parish, but this is a decision not to be taken lightly. The one doing the communicating is placed in a position of considerable power, often speaking on behalf of the entire community to a very wide and unpredictable audience. Someone with some experience of social media (and its nuances and its vernacular), supported and moderated by at least one other person would be advisable. This ensures that the 'output' is broad and balanced, and not rooted in the aspirations and 'hobby-horses' of the operator. Needless to day, the person concerned should always hold in their mind that they always speak for their community, and anything that emerges in the social media is hard to remove. 

Planning - If a parish is to engage in social media, it would make all sorts of sense to have the agreement of the parish council (or its equivalent). To do something positive and new can be a risk-laden proposition and it is easy for the operator to be left high-and-dry if any problems arise later. The organisation as a whole should take ownership of the initiative, even if at the hands of one or two specific individuals (operators). They should also be familiar with the output as a matter of course. 

Planning 2 - Boundary setting is very important. What is off-limits to the wider world? What is the core message? How does the community preserve the operator? What happens if things go wrong? Do you discuss services or acts of worship? Do you comment on sermons or talks? What about images? Recordings and audio capture? How is orthodoxy maintained?These are all clear decisions that need to be made and probably a myriad more. 

Accountability - who is accountable - The operator? The council or leadership team? Someone needs to be, after all. If accountability is given, can it be taken back later? Who hold passwords and where? With accountability comes responsibility and the same questions need to be settled.

Document - to my mind, a document stating who does what and under what terms, on what media forum and to what purpose - all need to be documented. I would go so far as to state that they need to be filed with official papers like Minutes and votes taken. They are all layers of protection either for the operator or the organisation. 

Review - the leadership team/council should review the output in conjunction with the appointed operator, and on a regular basis. When someone speaks on their behalf in front of possibly millions of people (in the case of Twitter and blogs), the community needs to be aware of the essence of that commentary and respond accordingly. 

If there are substantial doubts - then don't do it until those doubts are assuaged or gone. Engines such as Facebook has caused concerns for many people, regarding secrecy and the dissemination of information to third parties. Because things cannot be unsaid or easily un-published, it is better to be positive about such a venture before launching forth on it, rather than stepping tentatively into a perceived minefield. One is a pleasure, the other a constant source of stress. 

These are my own thoughts. There is nothing to stop anyone doing anything, but 'in whose name' makes a considerable difference. In simple terms, the greater number of people who are involved in the evolution of such a development the better - given that in the early days, its outworking is in the hands of a small minority. 

Lastly, let social media not become the first word and the last. There are always people in our communities for whom this activity is exclusive and into which they could ever venture. Make social media but one means of communicating with the wider world, and certainly never at the expense of inter-personal or tangible means which grant access to all. 

A Signed Holy Communion

This is one of the British Sign Language signs for "communion" (there are others, but with any language, there are dialects and variances - even in a language that has no spoken word).

Yesterday saw a 'first' for me, and that was presiding at a simple Holy Communion for the deaf Christian community of my town. They are a distinct and faithful congregation, normally served by a excellent chaplain who is currently on sabbatical. I said I would help out. 

Now, I may have Stage 2 BSL, but as the saying goes, if you don't use it, you lose it - and I haven't so I almost completely have. In fact, it struck me yesterday that for the people gathered in that church, my signing must have seemed like the Norman Collier microphone sketch to us who are blessed with hearing. Fortunately, the chaplaincy provided a communication worker to sign for me. 

I have wanted to do this for years now - and that notwithstanding, I was scared half to death about doing it. Even with my relative comfort with the needs of the deaf community and my feeble inability to meet them, I was a nervous priest as I robed. I needn't have been. 

For a bombastic man like me, who fills a 'large space', this was the most beautiful, pure and emotional Eucharist I have ever witnessed, let alone lead - and yet with a very small gathering of witnesses. Every word needed speaking deliberately and slowly, and the Manual Acts became a very special liturgical sign-language all of its own. In a hearing service, the actions form part of the great dance of the Eucharist, but in this very specific context, they were the most alive I have ever experienced. I was reminded how specialist the language of our communion services is, as I had to prepare the service by explaining what certain terms meant to the interpreter. There were a couple of times when I lost my place because I became entranced by the signing of Jesus' words at the Last Supper. Then there was the sermon - which by necessity had to be an overwhelming visual affair in terms of its language and conceptualisation. There were several valuable lessons in that alone.

I think that the most amazing thing was the grace with which this gathered community tolerated and even appreciated this lump-hammer liturgist. I know I was clumsy, but they were glad. It is probably unusual for them to see the priest's Manual Acts because normally their chaplain signs for himself. They certainly watched me and not the interpreter at those points.

Never in my life have I felt more like I was in the Upper Room. Worshipping God and praising Christ are the best of things - but pale into insignificance next to the opportunity to reach out and touch them, with my own clumsy hands. 

Fashionable Sneers

Every once in a while, when I fail to show the requisite courage to express my feelings here, my spiritual leader does it for me. In an article in The Independent, I read about ++Rowan's perspective on the English Anglican Church, and it resonated with me.

I often wonder what an alien would make of the Church of England, were that alien to land tomorrow. That alien, in their preparation for human culture, may have acquired its best selling book of all time, and may even have read the bit where the followers of Christ are called to "Love your neighbour as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than this". That alien may have been impressed with the moral basis of a Christian life, even to the point of discipleship.

Then their ship lands and they look out of the door and see what it really looks like ...

 - Some Christians in the Church of England are so choosy about how to apply Christ's own words that rather than embrace half the population as equal, both in calling and ability, they would sooner walk away and form quasi-denominations. I am not sure that I read "Love you neighbour as yourself, until they don't agree with you or are slightly different biologically, then you may leave and almost join another denomination". The alien may be concerned then why an Ordinariat exists or the birth of baby AMiE. Love with conditions. 

 - For some Christians, being born homosexual makes you some kind of grotesque mutant, and quite unworthy of the neighbour-love. I can only shudder when I ponder how that same section of loving folk would regard those unable to grow to six feet in height, unable to paint with oils, unable to curl their tongue or those whose hair curls rather frustratingly. You're fine mate, so long as you are like me, mate. 

 - That Christians seem to want to fight over bits of paper rather than the needs of the poor. Only mention Section 2 and some Christians will lock you into a war of semantics soon as look at them. They may even start a group and ask retired clerics to help out at the coffee-mornings. Is this proper work of a Christian? The alien wonders. The alien thinks perhaps Christians like to get wound up about such stuff yet seems oddly quiet on some really important things.  

The alien would surely regard much of the energy of the Church of England as engaged in self-appraisal and self-protection when its Head is the man who self-emptied himself and died self-sacrificially that others may be saved. At best, it might regard many Anglicans as just a little pre-occupied with things that divide. 

We are a people with a mandate to love, and ++Rowan very properly drew attention to that lack in our present day. What are we fighting for? What are we defending? Orthodoxy? Our own 'safe place'? Did any of us embrace this faith that we may be safe? Once we place our heads elsewhere, we must surely take comfort that for many invisible and anonymous people, the faith of the Church is worth dying for (notionally and in actual fact), that it lives and breathes with people with real issues of life and death - and it makes a difference. He spoke of a "church in love", a beautiful yet simple phrase. We seem so far from it, and the transformative power that comes with it. 

Tomorrow is, in Lectionary Churches in the C of E, the day when we listen to the Parable of the Sower. The alien is likely to wonder when we will stop fussing over the soil that is already very good and have a crack at the margins. 

AMiE, AMiE, Give Me Your Answer, Do!

"All who believed were together and had all things in common" (Acts 2: 44)

"God is love, and those who live in love live God, and God lives in them" (1 John 4:16)

Togetherness and love are what the Church of God has in common with every normal family in all their shades. The Church family has Christ as its head, we have our Mother in the perfectly sublime Mary, and we are children, together, of the same Heavenly Father. 

The problem is that Christians in many circles have given up being together. They have stopped negotiating their differences, listening, talking, or even trying to understand. The enemy, in the minds of many Christians is not without, it is within. In so many ways, grace has become so thin that where someone is different or hold a different view, that they are considered opponents. 

The Church of England is still reeling from the wanderings of some Anglo-Catholics, who have taken entire parish communities with them, leaving behind some of the most appalling messes. Far better to conveniently overlook the whole transubstantiation thing because it is but a trifling next to the weightier issue of grubby women. People speak of integrity - I just see people refusing to play by rules that they don't subscribe to, and taking the ball with them in many cases. 

Now we have the crew at the other end of the ecclesial spectrum. Not only have they found a friendly archbishop (the nearest was in Kenya, apparently), but they have presumed to call themselves 'Anglican Mission in England' [AMiE]. Forgive me, but how dare they? Their intention is, by all accounts, to teach the rest of us flawed CofE types what we should be doing. This is, of course, wrapped around the whole 'women thing' is another family member to go it alone. Mine, too, is an Anglican Mission in England - and like FinF, have taken a statement that applies to all Christians and made it their own in the context of their choosing (and not mine).  

I am peeved by all of this. I am saddened that we have got to a stage, in a multi-communicative age, when communication is all but gone. This feels exactly how it would if one of my children, whom I lovingly raise and feed, love and nurture - came up to me and told me that because we are having salad for tea that they are going to find another Dad (but won't be moving out, because it is their room, and would I mind still paying for the heat and light). In a normal domestic family, this would be regarded as appalling behaviour, a grotesque dis-respect.

So why is it appropriate behaviour in a church setting? 

If it is, then I ought to let you all know that I have an emotional and theological issue with the music of Patrick Appleford. I am going to find me an archbishop (Archbishop Frosty Inuit, he'll do), and give myself a cracking good name: Society To Undermine Patrick's Irritating Dirges (or alternatively the Association for the Restoration of Sung Expressions of Spirituality)  - an organisation that will presume to tell the rest of you lot what to do and how you should jolly well do it. Sorted. 

I don't really have an issue with Patrick Appleford's music, not completely.

The Pope Embraces The Digital Age

Believe in Santa; believe also in me

The Bishop of Rome wrote, yesterday, on the 45th World Communications Day, and in it attended to the issues surrounding "Truth, Proclamation and Authenticity of Life in the Digital Age" 

I must confess to being mildly surprised that Pope Benedict XVI has a view on a world that seems now to be characterised by Facebook, MySpace - and in Christian circles, to blogging and Tweeting. I am pleasantly surprised too - not least of all because I clearly talked about this first a couple of days ago and it is always nice to pip a leading Christian to the post!

By way of summary, the Pope likens the advent of the digital age to the Industrial Revolution in terms of its scope and impact on the life of a large number of people. He points to the new possibilities for this new mode of communication and its implications not just for faith, but life as a whole. In summary:

• The digital age brings a new appreciation of communication as a whole.
• 'This means of spreading information and knowledge is giving birth to a new way of learning and thinking, with unprecedented opportunities for establishing relationships and building fellowship'
• Communication in a digital age can be at risk from being 'one-sided' and selective - that the communicator discloses only what they wish to disclose and on their terms.
• Social networking, the main outworking of this new digital age for young people, brings with it a new way of relating to others, and allows 'new forms of interpersonal relations'.
• While the dangers (of forming parallel personalities in cyber-space) have to be heeded, people enter cyber-space in a search for authenticity - of themselves and others. 
• This raises the question of 'who is my neighbour' in a new world beyond the physical and geographic?
• Will this have implications for the quality of our presence in the 'real' world in which we exist physically?
• The risks of being distracted from our 'real' world (relationships, encounters) are to be heeded
• 'When people exchange information, they are already sharing themselves, their view of the world, their hopes, their ideals. It follows that there exists a Christian way of being present in the digital world: this takes the form of a communication which is honest and open, responsible and respectful of others. To proclaim the Gospel through the new media means not only to insert expressly religious content into different media platforms, but also to witness consistently, in one’s own digital profile and in the way one communicates choices, preferences and judgements that are fully consistent with the Gospel, even when it is not spoken of specifically'
• Christians should now be ready to account for the hope that exists within them when engaged in the digital world. 
• Care must be taken in the integrity of the message proclaimed
• Avoid popularity or a 'popular' view, or that which is intended to gain most attention
• Avoid dilution and maintain the integrity of the message
• The Gospel must be 'daily nourishment', not a 'fleeting attraction'
• The Gospel should still be rooted in the real, and not left hanging in virtual space
• 'Direct human relations always remain fundamental for the transmission of the faith!'
• Christians are invited, 'with an informed and responsible creativity', to engage with the digital age
• Ephesians 1: 10 - we are called to embrace this new field of existence
• We should emulate the Emmaus Road dialogue in how we draw people to new understandings
• Genuine testimony from those in discipleship to Christ are the main means by which the digital age will retain integrity and not a means of de-personalisation and deception. The human search for truth will mean that many will follow authentic testimony

Writing as a blogger, the needs for authenticity, integrity and responsibility are what ring out of this. So many blogs are hobby-horses, psychiatrist's couch or soap-boxes, partly written to play to a crowd like little mini Christian sects in an online church. That is where blogging fails. Where it seems to thrive is in its unique opportunity to allow everyone with a computer and a signal to communicate their faith authentically, simply and as it is experienced. The world doesn't need ranks of the perfect Christians telling them how it is or how it must be, but they desire real people writing about real struggles with real faith in real life. I have stated this elsewhere here many times. 

Catholic, Anglican or Free - all Christians who have a sense that the digital age represents more than a counter-Church fad will be edified by the Pope's sentiments. I commend them you you in those terms. 

Maggi Dawn or My Wife?

Every once in a while, circumstances collide in order to illustrate a very useful point, and yesterday was one such occasion. 

I was sitting in a soft-play centre while the kids burned off some of their superfluous energy, all the while nursing my Blackcurrant, my new gadget of choice. I can now text my wife, speak to her and others, read and send emails, order pizza, Tweet, update Facebook, and a whole manner of other things - all from one delightful little handheld gadget. While the kids played, I busied myself with said forest fruit of the gadget generation!

Then an two interesting things happened - simultaneously, I recieved a text from the Mrs Acular and a Tweet (direct to me) from none other that one Maggi Dawn, of blogging and other fames. Wow, she tweeted me! The thing is, Maggi Dawn or Mrs Acular - which message do I read first (what would Tommy Zoom do?). The wife lost - sorry wife! This quandary hadn't escaped me, but rather reminded me of something that I saw once that is now something of the frequent flyer - gadget world versus real world. 

Once, a couple I know were sitting next to one another on a settee in a room where I too was sitting. Both were texting ... each other. It turned out that while the bonhomie of the moment flowed like good Rioja, they were entwined in a grotesque marital bicker which they continued electronically underneath the good conversation we were all having. 

At said Soft-Play area, I looked around. Easily a third of the adults in the warehouse in which we sat were engaged in an electronic encounter. I could see Facebooks, Twitters, texts, games, pictures of the kids, and so on. It is seeming to me that the most prolific relationships are those that involve none of that filthy personal contact stuff - Heaven forefend. On my Facebook I have two-hundred-million friends (well, a few fewer than that), on Twitter I can engage in dialogue with both Maggi Dawn and Banksy (of graffiti fame) at the same time - and I could easily burn away hours doing it. 

These were once hours I used to grant my wife, do chores and the little jobs that 'keeping home' demand. I am guilty as charged m'lud! I am now starting to spend more quality time with my gadget friends than I do with the centre of my universe, the fragrant and wonderful Mrs Acular. I am in good company, because it seems that we are all 'at it' - even the aforementioned Uberhomefuhrer is Facebooking like a woman possessed - to friends who themselves are married. 

This extrapolates easily into the world of our faith. No wonder some eejit is proposing to celebrate the Holy Mysteries on Twitter - the eejit might have a point. I am willing to bet that many Christians spend more time 'logged on' that at church ... so I am secretly hoping that God has a Twitter account too.