Over 25 years ago, our church started doing an extraordinary thing. Every Saturday, it opened its doors to the people who lived alone, lived out on the streets or hung out in the vicinity of the church.
Many of them would gather early outside the doors – along with their cans of strong drink and rough-looking dogs – before we opened at 12.30pm for food and fellowship.
I was asked to join the team by a wonderful man named Archie who led the work as a volunteer.
Change
I can honestly say that getting involved in this work changed my life. But it was not just my life, it started to change the nature of our church. Some of the guests also joined us regularly at the services on a Sunday too – they knew that they would get a warm welcome and a friendly encounter.
This story is about how the church handled this work in the longer term.
In time, the rowdiness outside the church building (it was okay when people got inside) became too much for the local residents and shopkeepers. The church made the wise decision to switch from a Saturday lunchtime to a Sunday afternoon with the core group of regulars being invited to a substantial afternoon tea at ‘Sunday Club’.
Professional
This carried on for a number of years and worked well. But when, Archie the leader, retired from his role, the church made the decision to hire a professional community worker to lead the work. He did a good job but the change had some important consequences. It started to create a distance between the church and the work – almost like “we have a community worker looking after that work, he’s paid to do it, we can now slope off a bit”.
When the church leader changed, the position of community worker was made redundant, and Sunday Club stopped. There was the hope and expectation that missional groups from within the church would lead on this kind of thing, but that never happened and it was clear that the church culture had not changed.
During this time I remember sitting in a service and being approached by the person welcoming on the door. He told me that a homeless person was at the door and “could I come and talk to him because you’re good at that kind of thing” as if the person was a different species. The church culture had obviously remained untouched.
Conflict
In the life of the early church, we read in Acts 6 about a conflict emerging between two different groups because one set of widows was being overlooked in the daily dispersal of food.
The church’s response was to anoint seven of their best leaders to run this ‘social action’ work.
“Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them. (Acts 6:3).”
Communal, decisive, honest
We can learn from how communal, decisive and honest this approach was.
We need to think communally because too often, good work in a church setting revolves around one person, paid or unpaid, and it becomes unhealthily dependent on just them. The Biblical example is clear – we need to work in teams and have a broad base from the start to sustain such a work.
We need to be decisive. The early church leaders didn’t mess about – they engaged with the tension between preaching and social action and commissioned faithful people to look after the food provision. It says something about the difficulty in dividing the two that Stephen, one of the seven charged with distributing food, goes on to preach the longest sermon in the New Testament – and becomes the first martyr.
And we need to be honest. The early church didn’t sweep the problem under the carpet or ignore it. They did not close down the social action because of the conflict it caused or use some spiritualising excuse like ‘we feel we are moving into a different season’. They faced up to it and acted to ensure the social action continued alongside the verbal proclamation of the gospel message.
Culture change
A culture clash lead to a culture change and it says in verse 7:
“So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.”
That’s the result any church would hope for!
Engaging with poverty
I am involved with a national Christian charity called the Besom Network which helps and encourages the church to engage with people affected by poverty in their midst. There are now 19 different Besoms around the country.
It is no coincidence that we recommend that Besoms are started by 6 to 8 people from 3 or 4 different congregations. The biblical model is plain to see: start with a broad base and prayerfully seek to maintain it.
Even then, this is hard to maintain and capable people rise to lead while others slip away. I have regular conversations with Besom team leaders around whom all the work seems to revolve.
Broad ownership
I worry that when churches employ workers in this area that it turns engaging with poverty into a specialist, professional role. It weakens the idea that this work is a task for everyone. Too often I find that ordinary members of the congregation don’t know how to engage with poorer people and sometimes don’t even believe that poverty exists in their area.
I offer this piece as a conversation starter: what are the best ways to build broad ownership of social action work rather than it become dependent on one person? I am keen to hear from you!
Please leave a comment or get in touch.
Gavin Howard lives in Cambridge and works (unpaid!) to support the Besom Network. Contact him on gavin.howard@thebesomincambridge.org
Discover more from Grace + Truth
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Grace + Truth 