Reflections on the UE Strategic Review

“Paul Ede has been much more successful in this in Scotland” my reflection on this is that it has been the product of an intentional strategy right from the word go, and that I have deliberately targeted churches who have a culture of mission and a vision to see new things happen. Only certain churches in Glasgow have the theology, culture and level of growth and potential pool of people to recruit from to make them viable partners. It seems that these mostly come from within the evangelical/Pentecostal free church spectrum. This is not a historical accident, nor necessarily surprising. Its also not sectarian in intent. Its just that these churches seem to be places where the vision of UE can take root and where God’s vision for church planting has already been fostered. They also happen to be places where passionate young Christians have come to faith and feel at home who might be prepared to jump into this type of mission with little or no financial support. So if you want to build partner churches, do it relationally and target churches where folk are actually going to be receptive to the vision of UE.

None of what has developed in Glasgow could have happened without the relationships of the Steering group and a significant amount of leg-work. There also seems to be have been a kairos moment of opportunity that only god could have fostered

A final word – be up front about UE’s values and its status. We want strong local partnerships but we have a distinct set of values and support structures. We are a distinct mission agency, but we want to build teams to foster churches who will later affiliate back into the denominations from which they have been drawn. This requires a Kingdom perspective and approach.

NB, UE is always going to be less likely to find partner churches amongst state-sponsored, parish based denominations because their world-view (shaped by ecclesiology) is in tension with the general free-church/missional approach of UE. There may be exceptions to this rule, but we have found that partner churches from these denominations have not come forth as yet.

"Explore ways to increase the base of individual supporters" – I think team leaders should take responsibility for helping to finance UE personally and also calling friends etc to help contribute by setting up standing orders. We need to keep emphasising that we want people first (as God does himself) but we should not be shy in asking God for finances in prayer and then outworking those prayers ourselves by being courageous in helping UE build up its financial base. In this we can be confident that we are offering value for money!

“Urban Expression has responsibility for overseeing the work of the teams but not for overseeing the development of the churches these teams plant.” This is a critical point – and one which places a strong burden of responsibility on individual team leaders. This is certainly a high-risk option for church planters to take, if they alone are responsible for the churches they plant. It strikes me that it may be wise for leaders to develop relationships with a denomination from the word go so that as their church grows, they may become gradually more integrated with a denominational set-up, and gradually less dependent on UE. The links I have most strongly formed are with The Scottish Network Churches, but I know that most other teams have connections either with Baptists or Sally Army. If you are a team leader reading this, which denomination are you most connected with outside UE?

There is also a question here as to what point people disengage from UE and affiliate with another support structure. If UE isn’t a mini-denomination, then perhaps there does need to be a certain time limit (negotiable, obviously) by which teams and churches be encouraged to move into a different support network?

This raises the issue of whether or not there is still a certain type of “structural-fundamentalism” (that we are NOT a mini-denomination) within UE, just being different from the type more usually found in denominations where such fundamentalism is more fiscally oriented…

“Issues within the Glasgow steering group also indicate that shared values do not automatically resolve theological differences.” I’m really glad that this has been officially recognised and named, and should provide the basis for genuinely engaging with diversity of viewpoints within UE. My conviction is that a values-based organisation is shaped as much as any other organisation by theological conviction, its just that those convictions become more opaque and it becomes less easy to trace (and reflect on). With a values based organisation based on relationship it is a reality that the people who embody the values and the relationships that wield influence become even more crucial, and it is therefore all the more crucial to build in times where everyone can really get to know one another. One interesting reflection is that I know some Steering group members from other Steering Groups better than I know some of the folk on my own Steering Group! How do we foster and encourage good relationships within UE between team leaders and Steering Group members who are often very time starved? And if those relationships don’t exist, to what extent can Steering Groups wield influence in an organisation that strongly values relationships?

I think that Steering group members need to be proactive in building relationships with team leaders and team members in their care, and embrace the value of mutual accountability as much as anyone else…!

Pastoral support for team leaders

I think pastoral support for team leaders in team leader meetings in London has been impressive largely because those involved have come from generally the same part of the theological spectrum (open evangelical/Pentecostal, with some more evangelical and some more pentecostal). I don’t think this factor can be overlooked when appraising the quality of support groups and the depth of intimacy that has been fostered. I think that the risks/benefits of taking on team leaders who come from significantly different backgrounds and streams needs to be carefully analysed. Its not the case that we can expect these very relational support structures (invaluable in church planting) to survive the hiring of team leaders with quite different theological backgrounds. In my experience, there is a tension between UE’s value of mutual accountability and an interpretation of its value of diversity as meaning broad assent across the theological spectrum.

Expecting structures of support designed to work in situations where the diversity of theological and experience has been relatively tight to also work where they are more broad is perhaps a little idealistic. If team leaders are brought on board by Steering Groups who affirm their commitment to the values, but without any reference to existing relationships with team leaders, then that is a big risk, because its not necessarily the case that depth of intimacy will emerge in such cases. In fact, in general, intimacy and mutual accountability tend to occur best in small groups of people who are able to openly discuss their perspectives and bless one another according to established and shared approaches in their value systems.

For example, my expectations of deep mutual accountability is to have an openness to the prophetic and to be challenged by biblical standards of behaviour and conduct in the personal sphere of ethics (sexuality, doctrine etc.) these emphases are not the priority of folk from more liberal streams. So how can I receive the type of accountability that I yearn for if other team leaders in the area don’t necessarily consider these issues a priority or have no experience, e.g. of moving the prophetic?

So there can be a tension between a value of mutual accountability and a value of theological and practical diversity. The solution in Glasgow has been to set up a Support Group for Esther and I which will be able to give the level of accountability we require, no matter whether the Steering group next appoint a team leader with more liberal theology. Here is an example of support structures adapting to meet core needs in a particular city.

Personally, I think that more work needs to be done on analysing the practical outcomes of that UE’s commitment to hold in tension the values of (specifically theological) diversity and mutual accountability.

Induction process

“Develop an induction process that spans the period from joining UE to the end of the first year of team membership.” This is an excellent safeguard for newly formed church-planting teams because pastoral issues in a small team setting, especially if that team is in a Storming phase or is facing significant challenges in their context is one of the key ways that teams can come unstuck. Having a process of review in the first year for individual team members and the chance to refer issues outside of the team is excellent in combating this eventuality. In general, it seems that the 18-month mark is the period where deep issues can surface on small teams…the point where enough confidence is gained by individuals to begin to strike out but there isn’t yet the maturity of experience to decrease anxiety levels in newer recruits.

I love the idea of downloadable induction materials, and tailored training packages…easy access and mass-customisation will facilitate sustainable and creative church planting.

Allocate a mentor to new team members – this will only work if its relational and if the initiative is with the team member and sealed by the calling of the mentor. Otherwise it may become sterile…

National Teams and Team leader days are an excellent idea. They could form include retreats and time for teams themselves to set their own agenda for discussing issues and strategy, thus being integrated with a regular pattern of retreats for teams. A strong agenda of storytelling as the basis for theological reflection and continued growth would be great.

I’m very keen to move towards being a mission order, having read John Hayes’ book Submerge and Ash Barkers book outlining the communal and personal disciplines that are laid out in UNOH. I hope that UE has the ability and courage to transition closer towards these models (which involves exploring the value of mutual accountability more strongly), even if that means asking some tough questions about the level of theological diversity that can be sustained if we emphasise the former value more…

Locating new areas to deploy – I think this is crucial, so I was pleased to see that there was an emphasis on encouraging team leaders to be proactive in this (as well as often very busy steering groups). Ultimately, it is in the team leaders best interests to also be looking to serve potential team leaders because that will also bolster the support and connectivity for existing teams in a city.

Continue to deploy teams in proximity to others, wherever possible – this was great to see, as well. There has been some debate in Glasgow as to the appropriateness of geographical proximity in cities with lower population densities than London. But Esther and I chose Possilpark deliberately because of the existence of a similar (non UE) team in the community next door. This has already opened up missional opportunities and overlap in schools work in the area, and also the opportunity for personal accountability between members of the two teams. I am convinced that the level of intimacy and practical support that teams can offer one another increases with geographical proximity…and walking distance is actually key here. We need to think locally in terms of team proximity as well. I think that teams deployed in the North East, East or South of Glasgow will not really be able to provide real support for Esther and I in the North.

Ask hard questions of any “potential team leaders with existing commitments to particular locations before endorsing their sense of calling.” This is absolutely essential, and only something that a Steering Group can do. Questions need to include:

· What level of statistical research have you done?

· Why this area? What specific aspects have drawn you there?

· What do you know of future development and demographic trends for your area?

· What relationships have you already established in the area?

· Have you spoken to key existing gatekeepers (church and otherwise) in your area?

· Have any existing church leaders actually given you a “Macedonian call?”

· What types of ministry do you feel it is likely will open up for you in this area, given the demographic and fabric of the community? Are these areas of ministry that you feel called to personally?

· What have potential team members indicated to you about their calling to the area?

· Is this area under-churched? Can you provide evidence for this?

Draft a list of questions to be considered when selecting a suitable locality

- here’s the list Esther and I made.

1. Need - Statistics of Church Attendance and SIMD
2. Location of local pastors who are willing to have a team
3. Cluster of UE plants in same area
4. Existing relationships
5. Future demographics and population trends
6. Team idiosyncracies – e.g calling to multi-cultural areas
7. Prayerful guidance from team prayer walk
8. Passion for the area

If you love to sail, maybe you should be living near the ocean. If you love urban culture, maybe you should be living in a large city. If you love cows and fields, maybe yours should be a rural Church plant. Don’t go somewhere because the demographics look good. Go somewhere because your heart is there.

Deploy at least one team in any city before setting up a steering group

I think this is an excellent recommendation, because it will ensure that the basis of any work in a new city will be grassroots, and set the correct tone for local UE culture. Team leaders should have a strong influence in who appoints Steering Group members. There should be a strong aspect of relationality built into both the choice of team leaders and Steering Group members, and everyone should have the opportunity to explore the meaning of the values and how they are understood in the organisation. Ideally, new teams in new cities could be formed by team members from other cities, as happened in Manchester, ensuring continuity of values (in my opinion).

Recruitment issues – It should be made clear that one of the key tasks of team leaders is to be active in recruiting their own teams. The most powerful tool we have in recruitment is the conviction of a team leader actively calling people to be part of their team. Because they have the integrity and commitment to inspire and challenge people to actually come and join them. So I agree with the following recommendation; “Encourage team leaders to play an active role in recruiting team members for their own teams.” In fact, I think it should be the bedrock of our recruitment strategy, alongside developing strong local links with partner churches. Team leaders shouldn't rely on UE to recruit teams for them, but be able to demonstrate a commitment (and possibly also evidence of a existing gift) to be able to call team members to them before they are accepted. Calling people to a vision is such a crucial aspect of leadership that I question any criteria of leadership which doesn't include this! If they feel a lack of confidence here, then perhaps some internal training and even role-playing practice might be appropriate at a national team leader's day.

I also think that developing some formal means of providing short-term mission exposure with teams would be an excellent approach because it would strengthen the work of teams and give people a chance to experience what a UE team is like…so I also really agree with the recommendation that says “Arrange taster weeks or weekends."

Finally, I think the idea of a person specification for team members and team leaders is also an excellent idea…it enables an exploration at interview of everyone's expectations and hopes.

Open Days – we need to create open days which scratch in multiple places for the variety of people who come along to think things through. A specialism of the Anabaptist stream – multi-voiced worship. Or perhaps we can create dedicated Open Days which focus on those who are interested in UE as a concept and distinguish these from Open Days which are focussed on recruitment.

Website – its actually really hard for team leaders to use the website. It would be great if website training were part of the induction process for team leaders.

As a grassroots organisation, I think that, in general, the emphasis that team leaders be more proactive in deployment research and recruitment is absolutely correct. I feel that the key people in the organisation are the team leaders, because they make the deepest and most personal commitment to Urban Expression. I do feel that the folk with most commitment in an organisation should be the ones who have the most influence. Team leaders are on the ‘front line’, are the linch-pins between the Steering groups and the team members, and the ones who are most responsible for the churches that are being planted. It was a blessing to be so well listened to in the formation of this document (and were the first to be consulted, even before the Steering groups) and I hope that the balance of influence in the organisation will continue to be from the grass-roots up. This will be in keeping with our value of mutual accountability – with Trustees and Steering Groups as accountable to team leaders as the team leaders must be to the Steering Groups and Trustees. One of the greatest organisational temptations of all will be to lose this emphasis and for Steering groups/Trustees to distance themselves from connection with the grassroots. So I think Phil’s role as facilitator of communication between team leaders and the Trustees will be absolutely crucial!