Time to think

I've had some brain space over Easter to mull over my project and the issue of what it means to run it in my spare time. I wanted to log it as part of my ongoing reflection before it gets lost in the pressure of juggling other work now hols are over...

I know my course tutor is keen that any project be sufficiently lightweight to ensure longevity and a healthy non-reliance on central resources as there will be less and less to go round in future church circles.

While I do see his point, I wonder if this lightweight approach is fine for certain mission contexts but not others. For example, for projects working with children, elderly frail or learning disabled, I'm not sure a lightweight model is as easy or appropriate. More thought needs to happen in planning, preparation, safety, the logistics of getting the group to meet in one place.

I'm aware too that these groups share a similarity in that they have two groups within their sub-cultures i.e. the dependency of the firt group means that parents and carers are very much party of the day to day subculture but their needs are not the same as the first group. One could argue, any project working with one of these groups is actually working with two, therefore doubling up on the task of building relationships and taking more time.

Add to that, it will take even longer to grow a project if members have little initial connection to you.

So, light weight model works well for Christian adults looking to set up a project where they know each other, can sit around and drink coffee and chew over deeper life/faith issues. But not everyone fits this category. In short, does this lightweight model discriminate against some of our more marginalised groups in society?

The irony is that many of the creative projects working with these marginalised groups in society don't have full-time staffing because they are not deemed important enough to warrant it on their own. So I'm realistic enough to not try and argue for full-time leaders. One of the reasons some of these things have kept going is that a team has formed to sustain the work. Ideal really.

However, what do you do when you've been asked to start a project as one person (as I have) and/or the place from which you then hope to recruit team members has a culture that lacks confidence in volunteering, lacks imagination in what something might grow into or lacks free time to give to something. (A small traditional church, for example.) You're on your own!

It leads me onto another issue that I think I've touched on before. Some of these well-meaning recommended fxc processes involving stages that you develop over time don't seem to work too well when resources are limited. Three of four stages of lightweight approaches begins to look quite heavy.

I also can't get away from the fact that to start a project and make relationships can never be really light weight. Sure, the logistics can be. A meeting can cost little, take little time to organise but – and here comes the crunch - can you do lightweight relationships? Surely, not? OK, no need for everyone to become BFF but it takes time to listen to each other, to learn about each other, much less trust each other. Otherwise it'll just be shallow, surely. If what differentiates a fxc from an outreach project is that exploring deeper issues happens within the fxc and not 'main' or 'real' church, then I'm not sure light weight will cut it.

So what do I conclude? Aim for light weight in a way that doesn't require full-time leaderhip is good but to imagine a project can be developed into a long-term effective community at no cost is naive.