Analysis
In several instances, there was a very large mismatch between the church and the community, in many socio-economic aspects.
In terms of the healthy church review, whilst there was significant difference in some areas, over all churches judged themselves to be outward looking and inclusive, but weakest on the two most spiritual marks, with significant unwillingness to change.
Although in a few places the review unearthed considerable energy to make changes and to refocus, in the majority of churches the review unearthed no energy or commitment to do anything other than to stay as they were. However, in a small number of churches very significant change did occur.
The healthy Circuit review seemed to be largely misunderstood by members of the circuit meeting, and it was clear that many members of the circuit meeting simply did not have the information to be able to express a view about the way in which the circuit was being led. However, the circuit staff was able to engage fully with it and it generated some very energised conversations and a real ambition to work differently in the circuit. There was a real desire to focus staff time and energy on those places where the review had unearthed energy for mission rather than to spread the resource more evenly across the circuit, but the circuit stewards did not feel able fully to facilitate this.
Reflections
There was clearly resistance from some in the circuit to an approach to review that was conversational rather than evidence based and target setting. The question was frequently asked ‘How do we know that 4 in one church is the same as a 4 in another?’ and an inability to grasp that the process was not about comparison or competition but about discernment in an individual context.
The circuit meeting is clearly not the right group to engage in a healthy Circuit review, but the staff was well able to engage with it and probably the circuit leadership team would have been. There was, at the time of the review, unwillingness by the circuit leadership team to focus the work of the staff on those areas where the review had unearthed a sense of vitality and missional purpose. Perhaps that would have been better if the circuit leadership team had engaged in the healthy circuit review rather than the circuit meeting and staff team. However, this seems to have been partially addressed subsequently.
There is no doubt that the conversation around the circuit changed for a short time, there was much more conversation around mission in the local community than had been the case in the recent past but, whilst that has persisted in some areas, in most it has returned to ‘business as usual’.