Here is the thing.  Today is Ascension Day.  The day in the Church year when we remember that Jesus returned to the Father.  What also seems to have now been increasingly emphasised is that the disciples were left ALONE . . . and, as with some of the theological gymnastics employed on Thought 4 The Day . . . therefore, so are we.  We need to make our peace (according to the contributor today) that we are ALONE.

Thing is – we are not ALONE (I want to say – or rather sing – YOU are not alone . . . but I think I will start “getting my Buble” on, so I won’t).

We are not alone.  Luke gives us two accounts of the Ascension In Luke 24 and Acts Chapter 1 – in both Jesus is promising the Holy Spirit, in Luke he talks about the disciples being clothed with power from on high and in Acts,  Luke adds that they will be witnesses to the ends of the earth and that they will be baptised in the Spirit.

In the Church calendar, I GET that there is a gap, chronologically, between the ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit.  However, that is NOT our present reality!  We live in the age after which the Holy Spirit has come, the word continues to go forth, witnesses continue to travel to the ends of the earth bearing God’s story and His very life withing them . . . WE ARE NOT ALONE.

We remember that Christ has come at Christmas, we remember that Christ has died and risen at Easter, we remember that ascension happened and the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost . . . but, historically, this stuff HAS already happened.  We state these things as a PRESENT reality such as today (ascension = we are along because Jesus has gone) I think we are missing the point!  Jesus is still to return, but Jesus is also reported as saying in John’s gospel (John 14 lays the ground work), in John 16, “it is for your good that I go . . . because then the counsellor can come” – Jesus, in his physical body, despite the ressurection . . . cannot BE everywhere, with all of His people . . . but God, the Holy Spirit can . . . and, more importantly IS.

I have said that I get it . . . but there are lots of people who are listening to Thought 4 the Day who would have heard someone from the Church saying to them this morning . . . you are alone (not as a moment to reflect about it between now and Pentecost, because that wasn’t mentioned . . . just simply, make peace with it.  you are by yourself)  Well, whether you read this or not . . . I am going to say it again YOU ARE NOT ALONE.

What is extraordinary, and shows the challenge the church has in marrying the “church calendar” with the reality of the Christian life . . . is that – according to the lectionary, the day after Pentecost, we move into . . . not “Power from on High Time”; not “You are never alone again time.”, not “I will never leave you nor forsake you time.” and not “Inredible time” . . . no, we enter “ordinary time”.

Right now, you are not alone (whether we are talking between ascension and pentecost or any other time) . . . and do not believe for a moment that there is a time of “ordinariness” in the Christian life.  The “same power that raised Christ from the dead is in you” (Romans 8), when will any day ever by ordinary again . . . or – for that matter, be spent alone?

At General Synod in February, following a shed load of questions and the petition etc etc.  A couple of things happened:

1.  The process was slowed down, with the Bishop of Oxford planning to convene a “reflection group” to assess the state of play in light of the disquiet, questions and challenges to the proposal from Jan Ainsworth (National Education Officer) to reduce the full time team – and to have a “Going for Growth” adviser instead of the two, distinct, national posts.

2.  Change of Name.  I think, it was agreed that “Children” and “Youth” would somehow be retained in the title of the new post.

Well, all that was a couple of months ago.  Where are we now?  

This week, both networks of CWA (Children’s Work Advisers) and DYO (Diocesan Youth Officers) were sent the following two documents:

A letter from Jan Ainsworth (Chief Education Officer)

An Appendix - attached to the letter with comments about some of the objections that had been raised.

DO, please read the letter and the appendix . . . what follows are my thoughts / comments:

1.  The first thing you will notice is that the Education Division is pressing ahead AS PLANNED with reducing our national officers from 2 to 1.  This is very disappointing, but an illustration of nature of employment law once a particular course of action has been embarked upon.  YES, the Church must apply (and also be held accountable by) employment law . . . HOWEVER, the Church – when it employs people (this is not quite the same as having “post holders” under “common tenure” . . . which is the new lot for Vicars etc) is not simply acting as “employer” with an “employee”, whether that is a national institution or a local PCC.  The Bible describes the Church as a body, if one bit of the body hurts or is damaged, then it impacts the rest of the body.  The pain is not isolated to the finger, toe, limb . . . . in the case of the Board of Education I think they were taken by suprise at our interest – in what they believed to be an “internal reorganisation” of their Department.  BUT, that is just it . . . a breathtaking degree of misunderstanding the significance, the value etc – not just of these two roles – but the individuals that hold these posts.  To the national network of Children’s and Youth Work Advisers they are not removed mandarins at our equivalent of Whitehall – but, individuals who we have been partnering with in seeking to champion (sometimes against all odds it seems) the vital importance of work with children and young people.

2.  The amendments mentioned in the letter, in response to comments received, and - I assume – the reflection group discussion  (see the above link) do not amount to much . . .

• yes, the name has been changed (Children and Youth) appearing in brackets in the title of the new post. 
• business speak then follows as another amendment “to manage consultants and projects to deliver agreed outcomes.”
• and – an explicit commitment to “reflect the area not represented in depth in the national post as a first call on the funds released, both in focus and time.” (Well, we had this already . .. it was called TWO national officers, with distinct specialisms).

Turning to the Appendix, we find the objections have been put into two categories and then comments made about those:

: Lack of Consultation.  In point 1 the point is made (as it has been throughout the process) that NCIs have been followed . . . this is the challenging part of on the one hand being the “Body of Christ” and, on the other, being an employer.  Still, part of MY attempt to engage in the process (although not invivted to!), has continued to leave me with unanswered questions – these are as follows:

• Who else in the Board of Education has had a work plan specifically tied to the “Going for Growth” document?  It was presented to Synod, when “Going for Growth” began, as a whole department endeavour encompassing everything . . . including Schools.
• If the above IS true, why aren’t other areas of the department under similar scrutiny? 

: Reduction of resource to children and youth work

• Proportionally, for the MISSION of the Church – and, I continue to hear from the Chief Education Officer that our Schools are “at the forefront” of the mission of the Church – only 9% of children and young people are IN our schools (1 million out of 11 million) . . . and, NOWHERE near that number attend our Churches . . . so we have at LEAST 91% of the children and young people in this nation to REACH with the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Nationally, we need more resources (and more money) to enable this.  Regionally, we need more resources (and more money) to enable this.  Locally, at Parish level, we need more resources (and more money) to enable this.  Why isn’t the Chief Education Officer and her team a SMALL part of a national “Children’s, Youth and Families” Team?  YES we have a satutory duty at Diocesan Level (at National Level?) to have DDEs – but equally important is the Gospel imperative to reach the next generation . . .
• In relation to specialism – reference is not made in the appendix to theology or what the church is for, or the differences in faith development, engagement with family etc that discussing spiritual life requires . . . never MIND a word BARELY mentioend by this National Department – evangelism.  No, what is referred to here is what the Government do, how the Government distinguish work – we are, apparently, a Church that look to what the Government does to inform our MINISTRY with children and young people – the name of the department for “Children, Young People and Families” was changed back to the “Department for Education” – this might form some kind of synergy for the Chief Education Officer . . . but – whilst being involved in the education of the next generation is a great thing that we are part of . . it is not our primary activity in relation to the next generation. 
• Consultants are mentioned . . . I could say a lot about this.  The first question though might be “Who?” would be invited to “consult”?  Academics?  Institutes that specialise in consultants?  Young People do not need (and the church does not need / require) MORE consultants.  Effective ministry with children and young people is not something that can be “consulted on”, and a “short term” programme will not fix the situation we are in.  Bishop Gavin Read, who I mentioned in a previous post, was the Chair and main Editor of the group (and I guess consultants may well have been part of that process), wrote “Children’s Evangelism in Crisis”, this was on the cusp of the decade in which 250,000 children and young people walked away from the Church . . . consultants might “re-arrange” some of the furniture – we might even have more “events” like the “Re-Generation Summit”, March 2012.  It was a nice event, the young people who came were encouraged and inspired . . . BUT, what did it achieve for the wider church?  A bunch of predominantly white, middle class, degree studying young people came together with Bishops.  Great conversations were had with young people we ALREADY have.  Consultants might have been useful for the “event” based activity of re-juvinating the churches engagement with Baptism and the Wedding Project – but, children and young people are not a project.  We cannot tick them off in the same way as “more baptisms” or “more church weddings”, we need to walk the Emmaus Road with them . . it takes time that the Church is fast running out of, because of the wrong headed desire for change NOW (by tinkering), rather than root and branch reform of HOW and WHY we work with children and young people.

Finally, although not mentioned in the letter above (or the appendix) the biggest issue I had with the proposal (not the process) were the suggestions for what “phase 2″ activity might look like – and here, I quote from a document that was sent to DDEs on 16th January (if the type of work to be carried out now differs from the stuff mentioned below – I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW):

“There are a number of ways in which this funding may be used, including :

- support for data collecting in Diocese to enable is to speak with clarity about what impact the Church is having (I thought we had a national statistical division?  I also KNOW what many of our churches are – and are not – doing for and with children and young people – NOT, from looking at returns or analysing data – but by knowing people who are working with children and young people, meeting with them and encouraging, supporting and training them – data does not adequately illustrate “impact”.)

- additi0nal support for the Church of England Youth Council to bring it more firmly into central decision making (I don’t think this needs a consultant – it just needs a conversati0n, which – even if it happens via phone – won’t cost a member of staff their JOB.  Talk to the ABC and ask, “Can the Chair of the CEYC be a member of AB Council?  Thanks.  Done.)

- bringing professional expertise to bear on building regional conferences for children and young people to explore their responses to faith and the Church, and build pilot programmes from their responses (This is part of my JOB.  I am a professional, I run a camp for young people and their youth leaders, I help parishes – along with my team – explore what they need to do that engages with children and young people in their communities.  It is NOT a programme that is going to make the difference – Jan Ainsworth, please read, “Contemplative Youth Ministry”, “Youth Work After Christendom”, “Sticky Faith” and “Almost Christian” . . for staters, as recommended by me).

Seriously, if this awful plan is going ahead.  So be it.  Can you please have a fresh look at the actual activity of “Phase 2″, the above examples of activity are not worth getting in consultants – they are certainly not worth a full time national post.

Well, that got me thinking . . . how do we sift the good stuff from the dross, the intelligent, quality comment from the inane cliche . . . or christian soundbite?

A few years ago I read a great book, called “Authenticity” by David Boyle (check it out here)

It is a great, great book . . . and I am thinking about it again now in relation to Youthwork The Conference, and our theme for this year “Lumen” . . . bringing the light . . .

The Green, Green grass of home . . . this is the title of a country and western song from the 60s, reprised only a few years ago by the likes of Tom Jones and Katherine Jenkins . . . in the song, a man returns home after being away for a long time . . . welcomed with open arms by friends and family, a place of peace and tranquillity. But, being a country and western song – it isn’t quite that simple – the man awakes abruptly to discover it was all a dream – he is in a prison cell and it is execution day . . . he will only be near the green, green grass of home when he is buried 6 feet under it.
What DOES this have to do with the Church? Well, there is something incredibly parochial about the grass of home – it implies “My” home, “My” grass. I had not started thinking about grass and the church at all . . . until I saw a tweet from a fairly famous church leader in the UK – the tweet was this quote:

“The Grass isn’t greener on the other side of the fence; the grass is greener where you water it”

This is a well known saying, cliché even – but, rather than relationships per se, I want to apply it to the church – because I think we have some serious problems with how we understand the Kingdom, unity and generosity!

1. Church Envy. “The grass is greener over there” because we cannot help but compare our church to the one up the road, the one in the neighbouring town, the one on the other side of the planet – global communication has not helped us in this – it has only made it worse. James Dobson once said (I don’t quote him often, but this is SO true), “Comparison is the root of all inferiority.” He is bang on with that one. We need to ask ourselves, what on earth we are doing comparing ourselves to another part of the body of Christ in the first place?

2. Church Fences. “The other side of the fence” we LOVE our fences, whether they are theology, practice, gender, geography, our “special” network of people who agree with us . . . maybe it stems from our English thing – our home is our “castle” – we shut the door and shut the world out, our little haven . . . I blame the old chorus . . . “Jesus bids us shine . . . you in your small corner and I in mine.” We like our small corners (is a small corner the best place to shine? I thought we were supposed to be a city on a hill where everyone can see . . . )

3. Church Resources. “Where you water it” this is a sneaky one . . . when we go “out” from our own churches do we take a watering can? Do we seek to water the ground wherever we are? I see this a lot – incredibly resourced churches – can I say almost obscenely resourced? They can sometimes be next to a church that is struggling, would love to work together with churches in the same town, community . . . but the “big” church has all the resources and – whilst it generously gives to those in need on the other side of the world – there is a struggle to work together in the town. This is two edged some big churches are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. On the one hand, if big churches focus their efforts on their own stuff (including things they support far, far, away) they get criticised for being “elitist” “aloof” and too “into themselves” – if they want to get involved in local ministry with other churches they can also get criticised for wanting to “own it” and thinking they are the “answer”. It can be a “no win” situation, because of everybody’s attitude – not just the big church. We also need to remember that the Church that Jesus sees is not the one that we have “partitioned” into little plots of land to be independently of each other tilled, sown and reaped. Yet, that is often what we do . . . whilst our neighbour has no water, so their grass is brown . . . or they have no grass, just baked dirt.

Lumen – Generosity! One of the aspects we will explore at the Conference in November is how we can be a generous church . . . this for me is the killer questions – if we cannot be good news for each other within the body of Christ – HOW do we hope to be a “light to the nations” . . . this little phrase, did not get nullified with the New Covenant – it does not just relate to the people of Israel – it SO relates to us! To the Church! To the Body of Christ, in preparation . . . I don’t know if there is going to be a glorious hen party in heaven before the day we finally get wed to Christ – but what I am pretty sure of is that there won’t be a whole bunch of different parties . . .

What should be the implications for our Youth work? Well, this is where I think that youth work often is (and can be GOOD NEWS) . . . our young people often are not fussed about the little strips of grass that we call “our church”, they are not massively bothered (unless we have indoctrinated them) with whether they grow up Anglican, Catholic, Evangelical . . . young people I meet who are passionate about Christ simply want to follow HIM!

Good things then:

• Youth Work done together in community, across churches, often tackles the “envy” stuff. IF area and community work is entered into with the right heart and spirit, and young people KNOW they are loved by their “home” churches . . . I have not seen many instances of where they leave to go to the glitzy big church up the road . . . unless of course that is where the youth leader would rather be!

• Youth Work done in schools across an area deals with so much of the disunity – it makes no sense to “big up” Christian Unions and Christian Lunch Time clubs . . . if as soon as young people are not in school we get funny about them meeting together – our young people are growing up, cheek by jowl, in schools with young people from other churches. DEAL WITH IT!

• Youth Work is a multi-disciplinary thing. We all have gifts and talents, but no ONE church has a monopoly on what young people need and what young people will value as they grow in faith – it is critical (for their sake) that we do stuff together, share resources and encourage every church in our local community equally. When (and if) young people choose to go to University at the other end of the country . . . will they find the “green, green grass of home?” NOTHING looks quite like your local church . . . you know what I am talking about! If our young people know nothing else, they won’t find a mirror image of what they have grown comfortable with in the same village never mind in Yorkshire!

Psycho Church . . . final thought

Envy, Fences, Resources, these attitudes undermine our spiritual and mental health. They lead us to turn away from the main task of life which is to follow Christ now, where we are, in what we are doing, by the grace of God, until He moves us on (either to somewhere else in this world – or the next). By denying the goodness of God in our very own lives, churches, youth work, we believe a lie – that we have nothing good to work with nor the capacity to work with it. We lose focus, confidence, and hope. A hope not in ourselves or our abilities or our church – but in Christ who is the Head . . . we forget – when we look at our own church navel that there is ONE church, ONE faith, ONE hope . . .

Psychoanalysts spend a lot of time trying to help their patients re-orient themselves to dealing with the life that they have. At first, this can feel very deflating. BUT, just like they must bust the myth that we can have someone else’s life, someone else’s castle, and someone else’s lawn – we need to bust the myth that we can have someone else’s church.

There is no “my church” “their church” . . . there is “The Church”. If we could grasp this . . . WOW what a light that would bring to every nook and cranny of our country!

The theme for this year’s Youth Work The Conference is “Lumen” . . . basically, LIGHT!  Once a month (maybe sometimes more) I am going to reflect on the theme and lob up a blog . . . read along if you like – but – more importantly, join us in November for the Conference!

As I get older, I am challenged more and more to ask myself this question, “how can I live a significant life that makes a difference to others and pleases God?”  When we are young, I think it is natural to want to be good at stuff, to prove ourselves . . . to BE the difference OURSELVES – but the reality is, the more people we can point to Jesus – the greater our impact will be, as we grow we should move away from a childish incentive of “look at me, look what I did!” to, “look, look at Jesus.” You might think I am being daft at 43 to be thinking about my legacy . . . but, hey – how will I be remembered?  Will it have made a difference that I was EVER here . . . well, WILL IT?

In his “Confessions” St Augustine describes how he heard the voice of a child singing “Take up and read, take up and read” – Augustine, who at the time was in great turmoil, took this as a message from God to read the scriptures – Augustine became one of the most significant theologians in Church history, but we know nothing else about the child. Yet, what an impact they had – and they probably never knew it!  When Christ gets the glory, and NOT US, the Angels rejoice!

Do you know who may have had the greatest impact on evangelism in the western world in the 20th Century?  Well, his name was Mordecai Ham (WHO?) . . . well, it was at a revival meeting where Ham spoke that a young man called Billy Graham gave his life to the Lord.  When we do what we do, and in doing it – we point others to Christ, we have no idea sometimes what the outcome will be – but when Christ gets the glory and NOT US, the Angels rejoice!

There was a guy called Rees Howells, he led revivial meetings in Wales . . . (get his biography and READ it, “Intercessor”), anyway . . . he was leading these meetings and God was doing amazing things . . . he had a colleague who did these meetings with him, but the guy who got the Kudos, the guy who got noticed, the guy they came up to, the “Christian celebrity” of these amazing times with God was Howells.  God then spoke to Howells and told him not to come to the meetings anymore, but that God planned to raise up his friend – God told Rees more amazing things would happen, if he stopped coming to the meetings, stayed in his room and prayed for the meetings . . . nobody was to know.  I don’t know whether in his mind the verse “He must increase, I must decrease” (John 3:30) was bouncing around . . . but, I would have argued with God if it was me. 

“You know God, I am happy – obviously – for YOU to increase, I mean, that is the whole point of the verse isn’t it.  I can’t see that it means my FRIEND . . . I’m carrying that guy – he would be NOTHING without me . . . er, oops, OK Lord, I get it.” 

Well, Rees Howells got it and did what the Lord said . . . the meetings went crazy!  Nobody knew what the score was with Howells, but the limelight was gone – it wasn’t being shone on Him anymore . . . when Christ gets the glory and NOT US – the angels rejoice! 

Maximus (played by Russell Crowe) speaks these lines in the epic film “Gladiator”, “What we do in life – echoes in eternity.” This simple but profound statement draws me to Philippians chapter 2 verses 12 – 16. Paul speaks of us “shining like stars in the universe” – what a powerful picture! Our nearest star, other than our own sun is some 40 trillion kilometres away. Many of the stars we “see” in the night sky are long dead, it is only now that we are seeing their light – in the same way, we may never see the impact of our own lives, but we can be assured that what we do in this life will “echo in eternity”.

This lighting the way for others, and being a light for Christ is NOT, fundamentally about ministry or the work that we do for the Lord . . . it is about the WHOLE life we choose to live.  Words can have sparkle if we are a great communicator . . but they grow dim and lose their shine if our lives do not match what we say.  Also, being a light for the short time we are here on earth is not about streaking across the sky in a blaze of our own glory . . . it is not BIG things we do that – when we point to them make others feel small – that make the difference.  It IS the small things we do (every day, the small decisions – moment by moment that are the fruit of the Spirit . . . a bit more love expressed, joy overflowing, peace in our words with others, patience with a difficult situation, kindness in the face of dislike, the goodness we repay others with when they have not been good to us, faithfulness in the small mundane, ordinary things of life, gentleness in the face of agression and self control in our weaknesses) . . . we might be the littlest light – but light is LIGHT!  

We might feel we are not in a position to cross continents to make a difference to the lives of others – but we can cross our own street! You and I, choosing to live differently right where we are could be all the difference to a neighbour or a friend. Living for Jesus Christ, is living counter-culturally, rather than living to be “centre stage”, and seek the glory for ourselves – we live, work, rest and play – mostly, behind the scenes, and with the hope that the glory will go to Jesus. Many of us never have an audience of thousands. What will make the biggest difference, to our lives, and the lives of others – is to live out our lives for the audience of one.

Think about that one small thing you could do, right now – you just never know what impact it might make, not just now – but for eternity.

Our third session, just done this last Tuesday, looked at what I have termed “The Cicle of Engagement” (see picture) - now it is not easy to paint a picture, briefly, of all the work that can and should be going on with and for young people. 

However, having some kind of shape does enable churches to see just how much is possible – or actually, in some cases realise how much they might already be doing without realising it. 

The circle, whilst having numbers from 1 – 6 is not intended to be linear – in fact, increasingly, I would say that young people might “engage” anywhere.  Joining in with great passion and committment for example with acts of service when they do not yet know Jesus . . . whilst some young people who have grown up knowing God from an early age can be apathetic about putting their faith to work for others. 

The numbers differentiate aspects of work, they do not denote “growth” or development.  What is challenging for the Church in general, is how little is done “together” (6) . . . this is work that I think every church can do – whether they have young people or not, or whether they have anyone to work with young people or not – they can pray for other churches nearby, they can communicate with each other about activities and – as we saw a few years ago with Hope 08, “do” stuff together for entire towns, villages, communities etc. 

A prime example of this would be a Holiday Club.  I see very little reason why churches would not do holiday clubs together, why plough in a shed load of people and resources on your own – for one week a year – when the challenges, the planning, the music, puppets, upfront teaching, team, catering, publicity can be done together?  I am yet to hear of a church that has run a holiday club and then weeks later . . . has grown their children’s work significantly as a result.  The lack of working together is not because people are worried that others will “poach” the “fruit” . . . it just isn’t thought about. 

In the discussion at the training sessison we discovered just how diverse the work being done in these five churches is – there is so much going on, so much variety and so much good stuff.  It is great to get together with key people in the local church who are making stuff happen for young people in their churches and communities.

The other challenge for me as I look at the “Circle of Engagement” is what I have termed the “bridge” . . . this can be misunderstood – I do not necessarily mean a “bridge into Church”, in fact . . . I like to think that (regardless of where children and young people end up), that Vincent Donovan’s thought is paramount when we build bridges and consider what they might be bridges to . . . he said,

“In working with young people do not try to call back to where they were and do not call them to where you are as beautiful  a place as that may seem to you. You must have the courage to go with them to a place that neither you nor they have ever been before“, Vincent Donovan, Christianity Rediscovered

This was written, over 30 years ago . . . !  How relevant it remains for the Church today.  We could look at the “bridge” we are trying to build . . . whether it is a bridge to “our church”, “our way of doing things”, “our institution”, even – in the current climate, the way the church tries to get young people involved nationally in synodical structures and get them excited about being on committees . . . we NEED young people in these places to challenge, encourage and lead us – but this is not the bridge to LIFE!  Life is found in Christ, and when we look round our churches and institutions . . . we might find that Christ has “popped out” and is involved in something elsewhere whilst we discuss the colour of the radiators . . .

The Bridge then might lead to something completely fresh and new, not just for the young people – but for those who might travel that journey with them.  There are not many books about this kind of journey, but “Gospel Exploded”, by Bob Mayo is one of them . .. honest, funny in places – sad too.  It reflects the challenge and the joy od seeing God do something NEW.

As we work with young people who know nothing of Church and less about Jesus, are we ready for this kind of journey . . . ?  Anyay, the bridge is just one part of the whole thing . . . we also have children growing up in the church who might take a different path, we might suddenly have a young person present themselves at church looking for something . . . we cannot predict this stuff!  We just need to be ready, have SOME idea (vague though it might feel at times) of how it all hangs together . . . and trust that God is working his purposes out . . . with us, through us, in spite of us.

What is your circle of engagement like in your church?  Where are the gaps?  Where are the opportunities to work together with others?  What are the God opportunties that could transform your engagement?

I remain deeply concerned and was not reassured by the answers. However, a couple of plus points:

1. The title ‘Going for Growth Advisor’ looks like it will be dispensed with after a strong call that we do not lose ‘children’ and ‘youth’ from the title of national posts.

2. The establishment of a ‘reflection group’, whilst not a stop – is a pause.

3. Decision in March gives breathing space for us to continue to ask questions and engage as much as we can (by we, I mean myself and other diocesan youth officers and children’s work advisers who are concerned).

What next then.

Well, thank you again if you signed the petition – it did its job in raising the profile of what is happening, got mentioned in the questions at General Synod, and communicated that the concern extends far beyond a few disgruntled DYOs!

A number of DYOs and CWAs are going to try and meet with the Chief Education Officer and possibly the Reflection Group mentioned by the Bishop in his answers at Synod.

The place to take this forward, is through face to face communication (as it is communication that has been lacking).

I will link to this page in a message to all who signed the petition, and keep anyone interested up to speed as we seek to engage and have conversations with those who are making these decisions.

The blog has had more activity in the last week than I think it has in rest of the time it has been ‘up’ put together. I have got the bit between my teeth with some of the challenges we face as the church and will aim to blog more often on those things – I don’t, however, want to generate heat with no light (dimly ranting in a corner), so please keep me on track with what I write and how I write it.

Well, these are the questions . . . and the answers (not the written ones, this is what was said in reply, taken from the audio recording from questions last night – Monday 6th February), I have transcribed, so any errors are mine – do let me know if I have missed words which would change the meaning of what was said!! 

Question 4: “To allow for the possibility of consultation with Diocesan Youth and Children’s Officers and other groups who would be affected by the proposed removal of the post of National Youth Officer and National Children’s Officer, is it possible to delay the date of re-structuring in order to consider all of its implications more fully?”

Answer:  “Going for Growth was adopted by the board in November 2009 and is a high priority for the Boards work.  A review of what has been achieved so far shows that we are not meeting the targets we set ourselves.  Our current arrangements mean that our resources are almost entirely tied up in staff costs and the changes proposed is designed to enable us to use the existing level of investment more effectively and creatively.  The consultation closed as planned at the end of January – I have now called together a small group drawn from the board to consider the comments received and develop the proposals further.  This means that the proposals will take a little longer than originally proposed, but given the importance of not extending the period of uncertainty for the officer concerned any longer than is strictly necessary, I intend to announce our conclusions in March.

Supplementary – Have the views of our national officers been made, what might they be?

Answer:  “We have been pretty well informed of what the views of officer are – there’s been, as you probably know a lot of emails and letters racing around – so I think we have certainly got the message and that will certainly be fed into the work that the reflection group will be doing.  We want to take those comments very seriously and see how we can refine them in the proposals and make them more effective for the delivery of Going for Growth – which is our real goal of course.

Question 5: “In the light of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s New Year Message, with its focus on youth and children, and recent statistics underlining national decline in numbers of children and youth in churches, has the Board considered how we can best invest at a national level in supporting ministry in this vital area in the dioceses and parishes?”

Answer:  “General Synod and Archbishops Council endorsed Going for Growth as a firm statement of the Church’s mission to children and young people.  The Board approved a detailed work plan expressing appropriate tasks for the National Team.  The current proposals for restructuring the central staffing are a direct response to the pressing importance of this work.  They are designed to enable the same overall level of resource to be used by the Education Division in a more flexible and creative way so that Going for Growth can have a real impact.”

Supplementary – “Having trained originally as a youth tutor in Secondary Education I know work is so distinct from Primary or Nursery provision – so my question is “How Can the Board Support the same overall level of response while amalgamating these two fundamentally distinct children and youth posts into one while we are losing children from churches so fast?”

Answer:  “I am well aware of the importance (certainly the iconic importance) and specific importance of having people who have the particular skills.  I was a Diocesan Youth Officer myself and know the significance of that so it couldn’t be an easy decision to make – but, if you are driven by the demands of this policy this work plan that has come out of the overall Going for Growth policy then we have got to find ways of delivering.  So what we would look for is somebody who can oversee the work and make sure that the total resources, that is – the resources that are released as well – are used for the kind of project work that really will make sure that we deliver across the board.  I see the problem, but I think there is an answer which is driven by the needs of “Going for Growth” rather than simply, we have got to have one person looking after each area.”

Supplementary – Can I just ask whether you have considered the work done by the Church lads and Church girls brigade will be of value to this kind of work?  In my two years of doing promotion with it with my colleagues I have been amazed at how few people are aware of the organisation and it is the Anglican Churches Uniformed organisation, it does teach the faith, it does bring children into the Churches and actually their parents and I’m an example of that (you might wish I wasn’t – but hey, ho).  Have there been any ideas about how they might be of help and how they might be supported?

Answer:  “You’ve taken the opportunity to mention the Church Lads and Girls Brigade very well Ann, Excellent.  They are in the forefront of my mind constantly.  What we would look for is a totality of stakeholders and our DYOs and Children’s Advisers are key, but so too are organisations across the board which are doing similar very good work.  I affirm the Church Lads and Church Girls Brigade and how they will very much be part of our ongoing planning as we refocus on Going for Growth and make it deliver. 

Question 6: “In the past decade the number of national posts covering children and young people have been reduced from four to two, and is now proposed to be reduced to one.  What long term strategy is in place to support this vital work?”

Question 7: “What effect with the replacement of the post of National Children’s Officer and National Youth Officer by a single “Going for Growth” Adviser have on the long term advocacy for children and young people?”

Question 8:  “In the light of the Archbishop of Canterburys New Year message calling us to work harder for children and young people, and the Archbishop of York’s lecture relating to the Good Childhood Report, does the Board of Education consider this to be an appropriate time to be cutting the number of national officers who support the church’s voluntary work with the young from two to one?”

Question 9:  “Given the clear leadership provided by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his New Year message, that caring about young people must be central to how we judge society, how does the education division justify its proposals to halve the team dedicated to work with children and young people?”

Answer:  “To questions 6, 7, 8, and 9 together.  The proposals do not in fact involve any reduction in the resources to be made available to this vital work or any loss of key functions currently being carried out including advocacy for children and young people, both within the church and with Government.  The Board is committed to this vital work for the long term and will be looking to supplement what Diocese’ continue to fund through Vote 2 by seeking external trust funding for particular new ventures.”

Supplementary – If this is the case, then the 13 questioners today and 1055 people who have already signed an e-petition on this matter have obviously got the wrong message.  What do we say to those who have raised their concerns?

Answer:  “I think we do have to get across the correct information, you’re quite right.  There is no reduction in resource and I look to Synod before me now and say please do not reduce this resource.  The Vote 2 is vitally important to deliver, we need the same resource, but we need to make it more effective.

Supplementary – The Bishop talks about new items as part of the Going for Growth – we are very clear on what we are going to lose  . . . what are we going to gain in replace of it?

Answer:  “I think there are two answers to that, but would very much hope that the reflection group which I am setting up will be generating those ideas.  Already we’ve got some from the Chief Education Officer – we will actually, as a reflection group, be wanting to do some work on that in order to target the task of the new officer.  But secondly, I would expect that a new appointee would have that expertise and view as a first call on their time and intelligence to say, “how shall we use this liberated resource that we can now use in a much more flexible way than we could before with most of our resource being taken up on staff costs.”

Supplementary – Going for Growth Advisor – a laudable title, but similarly titled Going for Growth programmes are common to the Economic Forum in Davos, the retailer Amazon, the Health and Safety Executive to name but three.  Is it not possible to keep Children and Young People in the Advisers title so that everyone understands?

Answer:  “It may well be (smattering of applause).  I would certainly not preclude that we need somehow to value that this is a cross the Board  inclusive approach to this crucial work that we are doing because we are losing, have been losing children and young people from the centre of our church life for many years now.  I would just say though that we do have a million children in our schools every day.  What a fantastic opportunity that is as well.”

Supplementary – 10% go to Church Schools, 90% don’t can the Bishop put more resource into children and young peoples work rather than just the excellent resource that already goes into Church Schools?

Answer:  “Can we find more resource?  Yes, I very much hope we can.  And what we will be able to do I think is “match funding” which you can only do if you put some of your funding in first.  So we would be looking to identifying particular projects that did involve the possibility of involving, getting people who are from organisations and trusts committed to similar tasks and putting their funding alongside ours.”

Question 10.  “In the light of positive and public contributions made by the Archbishops on the subject of engaging with young people in January 2012, what consultations have the Education Division held in respect of its proposal to remove “children” and “Youth” form the titles of national posts?”

Answer:  “The title of the post will be something that the small group that I am convening will be asked to consider – and it may well be, in fact I think it quite likely that we must incorporate both children and young in the title.”

Supplementary – “When will the board publish examples of the type of project work which the resources following the reduction in posts will be redirected towards?”

Answer:  “As I said, there will be two stages of that.  One will be when we have done some work in that reflection group and have started to tease out what really are the critical areas that we are missing that we need to target.  We’ve got some ideas already.  But secondly, when we have got an officer in post that person will be very much tasked with identifying what are those things that would make a real difference, a real impact, its impact, its far end stuff, its outcomes we need to see with this particular policy.”

Question 11. “Would the Board explain the process, including the skills audit, which led to the proposals in relation to current staff in the context of implementation of the “Going for Growth” plan?

Question 12.  “With reference to the proposed staffing changes in the Education Division, why is it not more straightforward, more cost effective, and much better employment practice,  to offer the current staff members additional training, rather than creating a new post and making the existing posts redundant?”

Question 13.  “Given the strong emphasis within the 2010 Archbishops Council Education Divisions “Going for Growth” report on the deliver at national, diocesan and parochial level.

(i)                 Why is the proposed that the existing, distinctive and highly valued skills of the National Youth and Children’s Advisers be placed at risk and reduced by incorporation into a single new post and . .

(ii)               What wider consultation has taken place with those whom they serve?

Question 14.  “It has been reported that a new post of “Going for Growth” Advisor will replace the National Children’s and Youth Advisor posts in the Education Division.  The rationale behind this change in staffing structure has been explained as a way of delivering the outcomes of “Going for Growth” which require specialist skills that the Division does not have with the existing permanent staff.  Would the Board outline what these specialist skills are and what they entail in relation to the new role of Going for Growth Advisor?”

Answer:  “Together with 12, 13, 14.  I have explained the process which led to the proposals in an earlier answer.  The review of the Boards “Going for Growth” work plan demonstrated the need for a more radical approach to achieve the impact to which we are committed.  Simply continuing to tie up almost all of the available resources in staff costs isn’t necessarily the way forward.  As I have explained, the details for the new proposals will be further developed in the light of the comments received during the consultation.”

Supplementary – “Will the small group that the Bishop has mentioned, looking further at the proposals consider consulting with the networks of Diocesan Youth and Children’s Staff about the proposed Job Description for the Going for Growth Advisor – given that some of the tasks detailed at present would represent a duplication of what is already being done in Diocese – such as the organisation of regional conferences and collection of statistics.”

Answer:  “Thank you yes, there is some dispute I think about whether that is being done but yes I take your point.  We are at a time of reflection, not consultation.  The consultation, the formal consultation finished at the end of January.  Never the less, a lot of comments have come in and those who are on the group are very much in touch with constituencies as well so there will be I’m sure a continuing debate and consultation in that informal sense but its actually a reflection group at work now, and needs to work fairly quickly.  We will do our best to make sure that all interests are represented in our discussions.”

Supplementary – “Can the Chair of the Board expand on what he means by a radical approach and what this would look like in practice?”

Answer:  “I’d like to be able to do that in some detail but don’t think it would be fair to do that before the reflection group has worked; before the appointment has been made.  What we are looking at is how we can take on the first phase of “Going for Growth”, which for three years has achieved many things – but actually, has not achieved others.  It’s those “others” that need to identify very clearly, very sharply, get the projects that are working that will make a difference there and then apply them.  So at the moment, I think it would be premature for me to give more detail

Supplementary – “The Bishop explained quite clearly, thank you, that there won’t be a reduction in funds because the single post will be supplemented with project work – the thing about project work of course is that project work comes to an end.  Id the Bishop prepared to make a guarantee that the current spending levels will not reduce in future years when projects do come to an end?”

 Answer:  “I very much would like to give that guarantee and I look to members of Synod to in a sense, make that mental note now, that you will not reduce Vote 2 in the future.  Because this is where the power lies, its here where the vote is made when the budget is put together.  But I regard nothing as more critical than our work with children and young people in our churches and in our schools and put together, we can make a huge impact for young people who – remember, The Good Child Report is showing are much disadvantaged in terms of well being and happiness in our society – so we have a terrific task on and mustn’t reduce our resources.  Synod please note.”

Question 15.  “With reference to the proposed staffing changes in the Education Division, will the Board outline how the Church of England Youth Council (CEYC) will be resourced in the future, and if there will be additional support could they explain what form this would take?”

Answer:  “The Board remains fully committed to the Youth Council and ensuring that it is properly supported.  This is an area to which the small group which I’ve convened to develop the proposals further will give particular attention.”

Supplementary – “Is there any scope for a representative of the CEYC to be in the reflection group you have convened or could somebody from the small group meet with CEYC to discuss the support we need?”

Answer:  “I think that latter idea is a very good one – that a member of that group should indeed make contact with the Youth Council.  You need to remember that there are all kinds of interests presented here, but the CEYC is crucial.  That would be a good conversation.”

Question 16.  “With reference to the proposed staffing changes in the Education Division, can the Board provide details of the following:

(i).      The duration of the contract of the proposed “Going for Growth” Officer.

(ii).     whether there will be an opportunity to evaluate the new position after a trial period, and

(iii).    Whether the Board would consider involving CEYC and the Diocesan Youth and Children’s Officers networks in an evaluation, if one occurred?

Answer:  “I am grateful for these suggestions and they will be considered as the proposals are further developed.  More generally, responsibility for the delivery of Going for Growth objectives lie with the Chief Education Officer and policy oversight is provided by the Board of Education on which two members of CEYC sit as observers.  The comments and reflections of those members are an important part of the Boards discussion and decision making.”

Supplementary – “It has been suggested that “Going for Growth” will run until 2015.  With this in mind could the Chair of the Board clarify whether he foresees Going for Growth time limited or an ongoing strategy?”

Answer:  “Our strategy for prioritising Children and Young People must be a continuing priority for any church that takes its present life and its future life seriously.  So I trust that a Going for Growth concept, whether it is called that or not, will be ongoing.  How long the actual particular content of Going for Growth in terms of the work plan that has come out of it will survive beyond 2015 I don’t know – but certainly, we’ve got an awful lot to do in the next three years and so that particular work plan has got a time scale and then we see where we have got to and review.”

My brief comment:  I will do something more substantive as I enter my own period of reflection on the above . . . but would be very hapy for any comments in the meantime (I will post again before the weekend with additional thoughts).  If you supported the petition – Thank You.

The thing is, the Evangelical Alliance recently carried out a survey (another research project) and was worried about the faith and the morality of adults in the Church in their 20s and 30s – they also noticed that we didn’t have many in this age group . . . there was a “Symposium”, that asked some questions about where all the missing 20s and 30s were . . .

Well, we are back at those tweenagers (now yesterdays news by the way) and . . . they haven’t come back.  Despite the growth and plaudites for Alpha (and there is a Youth Alpha) . . . we do NOT see thousands of adults coming to faith each year – it continues to be true that most people come to faith before the age of 19 . . . .

THIS IS KNOWN AS DISSONANCE – The evidence tells us to value our work with children and young people, the Bible (Jesus himself) tells us to value children and young people . . . so much so that they are held up by him as an example for us as adults . . . we too often fall into the TRAP as adults of believing that we now know better (Samuel, despite being used powerfully by God when He was a child and being spoken to by God – before He even knew Him, DID NOT see what God was doing in picking David, another small boy - not even in the ROOM when Jesse brought his sons out, because what is the point?)  God does not look at outward things . . . does not judge according to outward things . . . Sammuel had “grown up” and forgotten . . . he probably did a ”face palm” when it was pointed out to him.  With all the EVIDENCE telling us where we should INVEST for the Church to have a future – when it comes to children and young people nationally, ALL that our leaders can talk about (yes, I mean our Archbishops and those in nationl posts) is that we have SCHOOLS which educate 1 MILLION children and young people; The Children’s Society is great . . . and, if we scrabble around for a more localised example of people making a difference in the lives of children and young people – we can talk about the great work of Kids Company.  All True.  BUT, the ultimate difference for EVERYONE is made by Jesus Christ. 

We have a “Going for Growth” document that talks about a life “enhancing” encounter with Jesus . . . well, that is NICE, but we need a life TRANSFORMING encounter with JESUS CHRIST.  The Atheists at the moment seem to be in the process of stealing everything from us “religious people” that they consider life enhancing . . . I am struggling to see how they will notice a difference, or anyone else will, once they are DONE.  Why do I say that?  We don’t talk about Jesus being Lord, we don’t talk about the fact that He came for the least, the last and the lost . . . well, that certainly includes a significant number of children and young people . . .

Yes we educate a Million – that, by the way is just 9% of the children and young people in the nation.  We DO NOT educate through Church Schools 91% if the children and young people in this country.

What has ANY of this got to do with the two national posts of “Children’s” and “Youth” officer?

EVERYTHING.  The Church continues to write reports about important vital topics and shelve them.  A few years ago, Margaret Withers was the Archbishops Advisor for Children’s Evangelism (yes, we used to have posts that said “what they did” as part of the title!) – this was a five year post, the “Reach Project” explored how the Church engaged in evangelism and mission with children – it was great.  When the job was finished (and no, the work wasn’t finished . . . we hadn’t “done” children’s evangelism . . . !) reports were written and part of what Margaret Withers wrote up highlighted all that still needed to be done.  Made recommendations.  Received assurances. 

We haven’t done it.

We haven’t ”done” what was talked about in “Youth Apart”

We haven’t got to grips with planting church in contemporary youth culture – which Bishop Graham Cray talked about – yes, we have “Fresh Expressions”, but so many of those (as understood) seem to be about having a bridging strategy to get people into existing churches . . . . we aren’t seriously trying to DO what Bishop Graham said,

“Youth ministry involves entering young people’s world in order to plant the gospel and the church there – it is not a bridging strategy but a genuine commitment to new forms of church.  It is not a temporary way of holding them in church until they learn to worship properly like the rest of us““ (Bishop Graham Cray, 2002)

We are still doing most of our activity on a “come to us” basis.  This was written a decade ago, is still true – what we do a lot of the time does not work – but we have not changed.  DISSONANCE!

Which brings me back to “All God’s Children – Children’s Evangelism in Crisis” – It still is in crisis, we haven’t done it.

Whilst we educate 9% through Church Schools . . . 97% of children and young people are not involved in church activities / church life.  We should be looking outwards, encouraging our churches to engage with their community primary and community secondary schools, we should have HUGE national resources coming to bear on reaching, nurturing and discipling children and young  people. 

So – What is wrong with the proposals from the Chief Education Officer?

1.  No consultation.  Imagine, if you would, that someone centrally at Westminster, decided to amalgamate our two Archbishops into one.  They did not consult, they did not discuss it with anyone.  They proposed it to the two Archbishops concerned.   The two posts being “ring fenced” for competitive selection to this new post.  But, do not worry . . there would be sutiable “alternative employement for the unsuccessful (now ex) Archbishop”.

2.  Children and Youth become Going for Growth Advisor.  In the Education Division, our Chief Education Officer is called the “Chief Education Officer” because, (and I am assuming this), the work they do is more than simply aligning themselves to a current trend or project – otherwise, we would also be renaming them to be called “Lets Not Let Gove Get Away With It Officer”, or “Oh Help! Academies Officer”, whilst the attention of the Chief Education Officer has to be able to shift and flexibily engage with current trends, moves, agendas, projects . . . their title is broad, their title “covers it” Education – is not just about Schools, it’s Further Education . . . and, also – because at the moment they two Officer posts for Children and Youth are in that department – Education also means voluntary work, local parish “informal education” with children and young people outside of school . . . they have, as perceived by those of us who work with them to have a broad remit – because this work is so broad.  Broad and complex, which is why there are two (There used to be FOUR . . . but this post has already been long enough, so that is for another day).  In my own department, I am the Adviser for work with Children and Youth People – can I do it all – nope, I also have a Full Time Youth Officer and a Full Time Children’s Officer.  Essentially, the specialisms are so different . . . the work is so diverse, the needs of workers regionally and on the ground are different, the kind of work engaged in is different.  One person, nationally, cannot oversee this effectively without an aspect of the work being diluted.  Also, calling them “Going for Growth” explicitly links them to a short term – current trend / project / strategy – which “finishes in 2015.  Advocacy for Children and advocacy for young people should be something that we just DO.  I am sure our Chief Education Officer feels free to just talk about, reflect on and input to discussions on education in its broadest sense.  It is at the heart of what the Church of England has been doing for 200 years . . . what predates the National Society – is the biblical imperative to nurture the next generation and pass on the faith.  The needs of Children and Young People are different, 97% of them are not involved with our churches . . . 10 million of them are not in our Church of England schools . . .

3.  How the money will be spent.  Ahh, this is where the rubber hits the road.  We will be assured in the coming days no doubt, that this does not consitute “a loss of funding”.  Money is not being “saved” in a sense, it is being invested, so the Chief Education Officer would argue in a more productive way . . . BUT, down the road there will be a loss of funding.  YES, and it is stated in the rationale document – I quote,

 ”The savings in financial resources from the reduction of one post will be used to provide short SHORT TERM consultancies to deliver specific aspects of the Going for Growth Plan.  These will cover identified aspects of the plan that require specialist skills o a FIXED TERM basis.  THEY WOULD NOT FORM PART OF THE PERMANENT REQUIREMENT OF THE DIVISON.”

Another term for this is salami slicing . . . WE have had people working on stuff “fixed term” (i.e. Margaret Withers, Archbishops Adviser for Children’s Evangelism) and when they are done, they are done.  So is their work – once they are finished, we will have (possibly) one Officer left, with a redunant title as the Going for Growth strategy runs until 2015.

Finally, and thank you, if you have made it this far down the post . . . !  Here are some of the things that are being considered for the “consultants” (These are examples, given in a letter that was sent to Diocesan Directors of Education):

“There are a number of ways in which this funding may be used, including support for data collecting in dioceses to enable us to speak with clarity about what impact the Church is having; additional support for the Church of England Youth Council to bring it more firmly into central decision making; bringing professional expertise to bear on building regional conferences for children and young people to explore their responses to faith and the Church, and build pilot programmes from their responses.”

Taking three of these things: 

1.  Support for Data Collecting in Diocese to enable us to speak with clarity about what impact the church is having . . .

Well, you could always ASK US.  It does not – in fact – cost anything, I do not charge the Church for asking me, I look at our Diocesan data and – more than look a the data - I hang out with local churches and local church leaders exploring their actual impact and making very local, specific recommendations – you could say it is a specialism.  It is part of “what we do”.  Stats are often WRONG, because stuff gets filled in wrong on the boxes . . . a consultant looking at St Thingamy Bobs return might be led to believe that they employed 70 people who worked with children on behalf of the Church – but, I know different (They have 70 volunteers, they employ a part time administrator in addition to the Parish Priest).  Knowing the Churches is more important than the specialist skill of “analysing data” . . .

2.   Additional support for the Church of England Youth Council to bring it more firmly into central decision making. 

Well, this isn’t what the CEYC thinks it needs.  Support from a consultant?  For what?  There is a way of bringing them more firnly into decision making.  INVITE them.  As far as I am aware, someone please correct me if not, there is nothing stopping the Chair of the CEYC being invited to be an ex-officio member of Archbishops Council.  That would bring them RIGHT IN, it would also significantly lower the AGE of those on ABC.  It doesn’t cost any money (well, ok – maybe a bit of travel expenses and an extra hobnob or two on the plate of biscuts at the meetings).  Things like this are an act of WILL – do we want young adults to inform us as the Church?  Do we genuinely want young people to help us shape the Church of the future?  To set the agenda – rather than be left off the agenda?  INVITE THEM.

3.  Bringing professional expertise to bear on building regional conferences for children and young people to explore their responses to faith and the Church.

Well, this takes my breath away.  I don’t know if this is well known in Westminister, but we have these things called DIOCESE’.  A whole bunch of us run regional conferences, events, training, stuff for children and young people to explore their faith etc.  I run something called “May Camp” (this year it is in June . . . ), so many of us DO this already – which seems lost on the national church, but what is implied – if the Chief Education Officer KNOWS we do this - is the belief that we need “professional expertise” brought to bear on our work.  I am staggered by the cheek of this.  Just imagine if the Chief Education Officer wrote a similar paragraph in a letter to Bishops about bringing professional expertise to bear through running regional conference for SCHOOLS . . . I do not think our Diocesan Directors of Education would let that get past first post. 

Reading this back – I don’t know if I have captured the problem or articulated this very well . . . I am outraged and frustrated and sad and yes, slapping my face with my palm. 

WE MUST increase investment (spend MORE money) on reaching, nurturing, equipping and sending childen and young people with the good news of the Gospel, it is more than life enhancing it is life transforming . . .

Children’s Evangelism continues to be in crisis.  We need a national team, not in the Education Division – we need to think seriously about what we are “storing up on earth” (in terms of property, land, museum pieces etc) and what we are foresaking in the process . . . . the average age in the Church of England means we sit on a TIME BOMB – in 20 years, if we do not ACT NOW – it will be too late.

One of the authors of “All God’s Children” signed my petition, Bishop Gavin Reid, here is what he said,

“As a retired Bishop and as the main author of GS report All God’s Children I am convinced that children’s work and youth work are very different issues requiring diffferent areas of expertise. I also think it is vital that central church posts should “name the name” of “children” and “youth” at a time when the Church is very weak in its outreach to these generations.”

I don’t want to be part of a weak, diluted church that struggles nationally to talk about evangelism and outreach . . . we have a HUGE job to do.  Now is not the time to cut posts (we are mimicing something that is going on nationally – instead of making a clear statement about our intent), now is the time to launch a fresh evangelistic initaitve, now is the time to put all those great reports and books into action . . . while we still have time.

At 43, I want to know that I have done everything I can for the next generation – I see this as a watermark, a line in the sand, a point of no return . . . . a national conversation in the Church about something OTHER than GENDER would be great, how will we mend the GAP – we are in dire straights.  Lets Act.

“I have worked both in County and Church Youth work for 20+ years, and I cant believe that at such a key time, the church too are cutting staff. Very short sighted. Sad.” Judi Cox (Youth Worker, Horsham)

“A church without a clear strategic vision for the evangelism of boys and girls and young people will die! A church that prioritises youth and kids ministry will thrive. I want to belong to a thriving church.” Mark Griffiths (Author of “One Generation from Extinction“)

“As a retired Bishop and as the main author of GS report All God’s Children I am convinced that children’s work and youth work are very different issues requiring diffferent areas of expertise. I also think it is vital that central church posts should “name the name” of “children” and “youth” at a time when the Church is very weak in its outreach to these generations.” Bishop Gavin Read (Author of “All God’s Children: Childrens Evangelism in Crisis“)