Where next for Communities?

At my church, St Barnabas in Woodside Park, we’ve embarked on a programme to remodel the organisation of the church, away from small Barnabas Groups to larger Communities (as discussed in this previous blog). This post is an effort to outline three possible ways to achieve this aspiration – from the conservative to the unreservedly ambitious.

The community rhythm model
One way to transition to the Communities structure would be the adoption of a community rhythm. This is perhaps the most accessible model for more conservative BGs to transition gently towards a different model.

If a number of groups implemented a common or pattern to their gatherings, individuals BGs could continue to meet in their traditional format for several weeks a month but join with another group on a regular basis to engage in an activity that perhaps one group along could not. As the rhythm played out across the month and relationships developed across the groups involved, the comings together would cease to be an imposition (or ‘week off’) and become instead a valued element in the diary. Once in full flow, the rhythm might look something like this: Meeting as individual groups for prayer breakfasts in week one, pairing up with another group to undertake charitable or voluntary action in week two, engaging in a more traditional bible studies in week three and gather several pairs of groups together to hold a worship celebration in week four. Rinse and repeat. With any luck, employing this model should help transform even the most conservative groups into a more active, outward-looking network.

The Christians with a common passion model
Another model for Communities would be one based on 20-40 people who are already Christians joining together around a common passion or theme (such as the homeless or the public sector). Being centred on a passion would make such a Community more tightly focused than traditional BGs or the community rhythm model described above. In this model, the Community either exists to support members in bespoke expressions of mission (eg. holding dinner parties where non-Christian work colleagues come into contact with a selection of Christians from the Community) or to deliver event-based mission / action (eg. running a soup kitchen).

This model is excellent for delivering ministries and building community amongst those Christians involved in that ministry, but not so effective at drawing non-Christians into the fold. The leadership might meet regularly to pray for those coming into contact with the Community and there may be some opportunities to welcome new or non-Christians into the Community as ‘core’ members (as exemplified by attending the monthly ‘micro-Church’ gathering). However, in reality the Community’s membership and those at the receiving end of its good works are likely to remain largely distinct in this model.

The Community with soft edges model
The third model is one characterised by a core leadership and/or scaffolding team and a radically inclusive approach to not-yet-Christian members. Like the common passion model above, this group may well find a common cause to champion, but would explicitly include non-believers in the shaping and pursuit of that passion. In other words, rather than having ‘go’ weeks (which are public events and deliberately accessible to non-Christians) and ‘churchy’ weeks (which are essentially traditional celebrations, and are less so), Communities pursuing this model would seek to develop gatherings and spaces which are accessible and welcoming to non-Christians whilst at the same time unashamedly reflective of the Community’s Christian inspiration. Clearly this is a challenge but it should not be beyond our collective power of imagination.

Examples of this model might include a Community designed to enable networking and relationship building among new arrivals to the area, or one that seeks to attract individuals (Christian and otherwise) around the issue of social justice. To encourage genuine relationships and ownership, all members would be encouraged to play an active role in the Community. It is even conceivable that non-Christian members might eventually be invited to join the core leadership, although only with the express understanding that the Community’s Christian foundation must be respected in any decisions.

Reflection
Personally, it is this final model which is most exciting. Clearly there are several issues that remain to be ironed out. If you have any ideas, do get in touch. I hope that the discussion of each of the three models is useful to other leaders grappling with this transition. If you’d like to discuss anything I raised here, drop me a note…