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“)

As I type there are about 600 signatures.  I am after 1000 by lunch time this Friday, so I am keen to keep getting the word out to those who have not seen it, not had the chance to comment – or might be wondering WHY and WHAT?

What is Proposed?

The Chief Education Officer is planning to re-structure the Archbishops Council Education Division.  The only posts being considered vulnerable in this re-structuring are those of our National Children’s Offier and our National Youth Officer (The re-structuring – if it goes ahead would see a reduction in fulltime staffing from two to one – with a renamed position of “Going for Growth Advisor” and the effective removal of any reference to “Children” or “Youth” from national posts in the Education Division.   Whilst there is no loss of funding, two does not go into one – someone will lose their job and the money saved will be spent on projects and consultants commissioned by the remaining Officer in the new role.

 On the 6th January, Diocesan Youth Officers and Childrens Work Advisers became aware of this . . .

We were shocked.  I have never seen so much activity on our networks in relation to any one issue or concern in my six years as Adviser in Chichester Diocese.  Shocked because:

• There has been (and there is not) any consultation taking place – other than with the two staff members concerned and the Chief Education Officer.  Nobody else have been invited to comment.  As Diocesan workers, we only know because we were sent the information (the rationale and the job description for the new post) by someone other than the Chief Education Officer.
• This is being done very, very swiftly.  We became aware of this on the 6th January, the Officers concerned had until noon yesterday to submit “counter proposals” (30th January) and, “interviews” are scheduled for the 14th February.
• What is being proposed makes no sense:
  • Childrens and Youth Specalisms are very different.  That is why we have TWO national posts, “Children” and “Youth” . . .
  • The “Going fro Growth Advisor” would largely be working to a time limited (the Going for Growth Strategy finishes in 2015).  This dilutes the “general” functions of advocacy, partnership engagement and policy influencing as they will be working to a particualar “strategy”.
  • The rationale implies that TWO people cannot deliver what is expected – and it is being argued that our National Officers lack the skills to deliver “Going for Growth” . . . reducing the staffing to ONE (hence lessing the skills base, the expertise available in terms of full time staff . . . and then expecting this remaining Officer to be able to commission / appoint others to run projects that THEY are perceived as not having the skills to deliver is – to put it bluntly, DAFT.
  • Key Stakeholders, who would be required to work with the “Going for Growth Advisor” will have lost confidence in what the national Education Division is doing and the way in which they have gone about doing it – this will hamper the work going forward.

Why a Petition?

To be honest, I wasn’t sure what else to do.  Representations are being made (and have) through Bishops, Senior Diocesan Staff etc.  As I understand it, nationally . . . however, apart from a letter sent on the 16th January addressed to Directors of Education (another example of the lack of awareness at the Centre about who holds the brief for the work the church does with children and young people beyond formal education . . . We do not all reside in a Board of Education in Diocese’) the process, such as it is, does not give me – or my colleagues a way of engaging. 

It has been heartening, that over this short period of time – just seven days since the petition went live, I have gathered over 600 signatures – my belief, (possibly misguided) was that the decision about how the church understands and engages with work with children and young people – and how the National Church sets the tone – should NOT be decided by a lone person in Westminster, without that peson listening to and appreciating the views of everyone from retired Bishops to volunteer youth leaders, concerned parishoners to Diocean advisers to others in the voluntary sector who care deeply about the role WE play as the church in the work with children and young people across the Country . . .

Not convinced?  I will let others speak for why they have signed in a follow up post . . . If my arguments don’t convince you – please read what they have said (I will post this at about 2.30pm this afternoon – keep an eye out!)

You can Read (and Sign) the Petition Here:  http://chn.ge/zvhwsv

This could have been written yesterday, but written by Towzer (who died in 1963) . . .

I have nothing to add . . . what Tozer says is as true today as it was when he wrote it, at least 50 years ago . . . which – as I write this, makes me very sad

How do we change this culture in the Church?  How does the Kingdom of the last and the least being put first and foremost become our living breathing reality?  Can we live in the slow and less immediate rush of “now” and have a vision of the Spirit inhabiting every believer (As He most surely does!) in such a way that as the Church (Me and You) we might be so empowered and emboldened that – well, we are free to be all that we were made to be.

Sigh.  Help us God.

I also love the fact that the sentiment, Today Matters echoes what Jesus taught – see Matthew 6 verses 25 to 34. Especially verse 34 – do not worry about to tomorrow – basically, all we have is today – live it well, live it full – to the glory of God (Colossians 3 verse 23)

I am re-reading it this year, give it a crack . . . . make Today count!

Any other recommendations for New Year reading, would love to hear them . . .

Have a fantastic 2012 and expect a lot more on the blog!

14 Point Star – this fab star (how to make it) can be found on. YouTube, made famous by being used on the front of a ‘snow patrol’ album.

A simple thought – the phrase in scripture referring to the journey the magi undertook as they followed the star is ‘en te anatole’ – this phrase has astronomical significance – meaning the star rose at sunset and set at sunrise – thought to indicate that a celestial body was having its maximum intact on world events – and WOW – what an impact.