I will begin by
putting my hand up to the fact that there is something about “Messy
Church” that grates for me. I seem to have a similar reaction to
mention of Messy Church as Miranda Hart has to her on-screen Mother
declaring “Such fun!”...
However Messy Church
is clearly a valuable vehicle for organising the energy of churches
towards engaging with new people and therefore it should be
commended, but that does not excluded the possibility to question and
to probe this book, and perhaps the wider concepts.
This book, one of a
number published to deepen the understanding of those providing Messy
Church, looks particularly at the “intergenerational” element of
Messy Church, that they are not events for “Children” but for
“All-Ages”. I guess there are those out there that don't
understand this point and will benefit from having it explained at
length – but if you get the point that successful communities bring
people together rather than segregating them you will probably feel
like a grandmother being taught to suck eggs.
While Messy Church
is big on intergenerational engagement, that parents/grandparents
should be doing the craft/eating/worhsiping along with their
children, the model is firmly based around families. Payne states at
one point that Messy Church “is definitely not just a church for
children and their carers” and will include unaccompanied adults
(children must be accompanied as it is not child care). However,
other than those that are helping run the event I find it hard to
imagine an adult feeling engaged in the activities if they are not
with a child. I had this sense a throughout the book, but when I got
to the session outlines at the end it was really confirmed, even as
someone that likes “craft” I would feel monumentally conspicuous
participating in any of the sessions described without co-opting a
child as cover. This does not invalidate Messy Church, but I think
perhaps it would be better for them to temper their claims to have a
universal model.
There were also some
points where Payne's tone seemed to be paternalistic, even
patronising. For example, he reflects that the families that will be
coming will increasingly be “messy”, by which he means differing
from the “standard” Mum and Dad, who married before having
children, and haven't got divorced. They might be single parents,
they might be step-children, and so on. He is telling the reader that
for Messy Church to be a success they need to be ready to welcome and
embrace this range of family set-ups, which is all to the good, but
there is something about the way he expresses this that suggests
someone living in a middle-class bubble about 30 years behind the
times. While the message is that you do Messy Church with those that
come, not to or at them, I do wonder how often that ideal is missed.
At the end of the
book is a “health check for a Messy Church”, which is 4 pages of
mostly inane questions, but within that list there were 4 which
caught my eye and I think should perhaps be printed at the end of
every order of service...
- What made you go
“wow”?
- What made you
wince?
- What made you
wonder?
- What made you
worry?
… I think these
would have a provocative power, as all to often most people's
response to all of these would be “nothing”, are we brave enough
to risk finding out that the our worship leaves even those that come
indifferent?
No comments:
Post a Comment