Vicar's Letter - December/January 2004 - Big Church - Small Church?

Few of us, I suspect, were surprised by the rejection of the Government’s proposal for a regional assembly in the Northeast; though, perhaps the scale of the trouncing was a little startling.  The reasons underlying the result were, doubtless, legion, and the scheme may well not have provided a felicitous solution to the problems that the region faces; but the fact remains that there are challenges that must be addressed if this area is to fulfil its potential.

Underlying the debate, in part, is the choice between big and small.  It is a discussion that touches on much of society today.  In favour of big organisation, people aver that we can achieve together what eludes us when we operate separately.  This is evidenced by one of the first rules of political and martial campaigning – divide and rule and its counterpart – we should all hang together or we shall all hang separately.  Success often resides in coordination of action under a single strategy.

On the other hand, big can be impersonal, trampling over the individual and failing to take into account the infinite variety of human commerce.  Identities are suppressed under the heel of corporate culture.  Small, conversely, can give everyone a voice that is heard and a valued part in the whole.

This is no mere idle reflexion, nor is it an issue that touches solely on the governance of the UK, a nation that has very distinct regional communities.  It underlies, for example, much of the discussion about the European Union and how it should function (if at all for some).  With expansion, the smaller countries felt the chill wind of subordination to the large economic powers and populous members.

It also touches on the life of the Church.  There is now pretty well overwhelming evidence that expansion of congregations sew the seeds of their own decline as many people begin to feel marginalized and left behind as the management necessary for organising large numbers of people is developed and implemented.

In this, the Church needs to get a grip, since we actually have within our infrastructure a pattern, which was designed to address such a situation.  The Church is one and made up of millions and millions of people worldwide: people who, by and large, are conscious that they are united in their allegiance.  None-the-less, we are also arranged in such a way that it is, or should be, possible to absorb regional variations and individual character.

Of course, it is never going to work perfectly: there are times when the few feel steamrollered by the many and others when the majority sense that a small number of people are unreasonably hindering the progress desired by most.  In principle, however, it is a pattern that should serve us very well and one which could provide a model for other branches of human endeavour as they seek to engage with the conundrum of big or small.

One of the obstacles is an overly heavy emphasis on the individual and her or his prerogatives.  This can lead to a refusal to surrender a part of one’s autonomy, which is essential to the compromises that are necessary to create a greater whole.

This, however, can be caused by the legitimate fear that in yielding to such a discipline, one steps onto a path that leads to complete assimilation into an anonymous machine operated by forces over which one has no control.

Proposals for federation, which is the concept that balances the power of association with the interests of its constituent parts, need to be carefully drawn at the outset; and its scope must be precisely laid down to ensure that it cannot slowly creep into areas, to which the participants have not given their explicit consent.  The checks and balances that limit the power at the centre to ride roughshod over the individual components of such an alliance need to be clear and meticulously observed, even when that is inconvenient or frustrating to some.

The vibrancy of a federation rests on the enthusiastic support of all those involved.  This can only be achieved when the benefits are seen to outweigh the concomitant loss of liberty and independence of action.  If this is not the case from the beginning or ceases to characterize the arrangement, disaffection will quickly arise and the organization will become both a source of resentment and an onerous tier of community management.

In our global world where very big and powerful entities stalk the planet, we need to organize ourselves if we are not to be picked off one by one; but we need to do it in a way that does not simply surrender to the corporate culture with which we are trying to engage and resist.

Home page: http://stmatthewsnewcastle.org.uk/