Is Vision a Bad Thing?

Tim Chesterton has an alternative take on the role of vision in church life:

'Where there is no vision, the people sigh with relief and get back to loving one another'.

Tim's been reading some provocative posts by David Hayward on vision, and why it's bad for the church. However, in one of those posts is the line: "What would it be like just to gather, worship, pray and teach the scripture, and love one another?" That, if I'm not mistaken, is a vision: a picture of the way things should be. Yes there is a danger in churches being dragged off course by one or two people having a strident 'vision' which everyone else has to conform to.

But if a whole church community can agree on their picture of the way things should be, on what they are working towards, then I can't see how that's a bad thing. Jesus is constantly setting before people a picture of things being different: the Beatitudes, the Lords Prayer, John 17, the parables etc. A church without an agreed vision is in danger of ending up going nowhere, or at the mercy of whoever prays the loudest. Like it or not, we all have a vision: a picture of how we think the church ought to be, a picture about which we are passionate. Ask people to describe their ideal church, or the most memorable act of worship they've taken part in, or the most enriching community they've been part of, and you're not often short of material.

Yes it's wrong to take business ideas wholesale and just drop them on a local church from a great height. But shying away from any shared picture of the kind of church you want to be, or the reason you exist in the first place, seems like deliberately closing your eyes when it would be better to open them.

PS comments on this may take a while to appear, as we have a church weekend on at the moment.

Move Over, Nicene Creed 3: My King

Always loved this, 'My King', inspiring stuff from SM Lockeridge. There's several versions of this on Youtube, though I'm not sure they can add very much to the words. Just close your eyes and listen.

Move Over, Nicene Creed 2

Following on from yesterday, here is a modern Christian creed, Pete Grieg's vision of "an army of young people - the tattoo on their back reads 'for me to live is Christ, to die is gain'.... who can stop them?... a generation (that) prays like a dying man".

Move Over, Nicene Creed

It's struck me for a while that we could do with something with a bit more energy than the Nicene Creed in our worship. Yes it defines many things that are core doctrines, but it's a document drafted in the 4th century, alive to theological issues then, but today we don't face the same issues.

Martin Luther Kings 'I have a dream' speech is one example of a modern 'creed' which isn't just about doctrine, but brings together deeply held principles with practical examples in a vision of how society can be. One thing that can put wind in the sails of the church is a clearly held vision, which we reinforce regularly, not simply of what doctrines we stand for, but what shape of community, society and world we are committed to.

Here is a very clever, and very good, example of a secular 'creed'.

'People Want to Know What Values You Bring': Grave Dave Cameron's Vision and Values

What makes Cameron tick? Last week I looked at the vision and values of Gordon Browns speech, now its 'Dave's turn. Except this was more grave than Dave. When Nick Clegg compared David Cameron to an Andrex puppy, he was partly right. Camerons speech to the Tory conference was certainly very long (65 minutes), but it certainly wasn't soft.

(Full text of the speech is here, quotes below are in italics. )

Strangely, in pragmatic political times, we've had two strong 'values' speeches. Brown was heavy on duty, service, and especially 'fairness'. Cameron was even more explicit:

(people) want to know whether our politics, and let's be frank, whether our politicians - are up to it. In the end, that's not really about your policies and your plans. Of course your plans are important… so people want to know what values you bring to big situations and big decisions that can crop up on your watch.

and so he told us. There were some clear inconsistencies between his stated values, and what he actually proposed to do, but we'll come to that later. But lets look at those values:

1. Responsibility:
For me, the most important word is responsibility, not a libertarian free for all, but personal, civic and corporate responsibility to others 'that's what this party is all about'. There was a superb section where he nailed Miliband (interesting that he went after Miliband and Johnson, the 2 Labour pretenders, as well as Brown), turning 'there's no such thing as society' back on Labour:

David Miliband said that "unless government is on your side you end up on your own."
"On your own" - without the government.
I thought it was one of the most arrogant things I've heard a politician say.
For Labour there is only the state and the individual, nothing in between.
No family to rely on, no friend to depend on, no community to call on.
No neighbourhood to grow in, no faith to share in, no charities to work in.
No-one but the Minister, nowhere but Whitehall, no such thing as society - just them, and their laws, and their rules, and their arrogance.
You cannot run our country like this.

Responsibility and society go hand in hand: " we will only be a strong society if we are a responsible society." Responsibility recognises that there are other factors than just what I want, or what suits me.

That was cashed out later on in terms of benefit reform, the behaviour of politicians, and being able to admit to failure. Irresponsible bankers were fingered for the economic crisis, and 'fiscal responsibility' was put at the core of economic policy.

2. Family:
"I'm a forty-one year old father of three who thinks that family is the most important thing there is." That line came early on, and family featured at the top of the Broken Society section, and how we fix it. Cameron was clear "If you want to know where the change will be greatest from what has gone before. It is our plan for social reform. be as radical in social reform as Margaret Thatcher was in economic reform." So the biggest change the Tories will bring is social change, and at the centre of that is family policy.

Why? Because "family is the best welfare system there is (and)... commitment is something we should cherish as a society." There was a hint at other things too - the broken family structure in the background story of those in prison, so hopefully Cameron has more to say than just this. His 3 proposals to strengthen families were: flexible working, backing marriage in the tax system, and 4,000 more health visitors.

I'm sorry, but if that is the engine room of the most radical social reform since Roy Jenkins, then then that's a bit weak. Very weak. Health visitors are fine so far as they go, but there is so much more that can be done to support families in terms of relationships support, parenting skills etc. (though see this).

At least at the core of this there is a vision of a "stronger society". Whether 'conservative means' can achieve 'progressive ends', is another question.

3. "Leadership, character, judgement"
In a full frontal attack on Browns 'this is no time for a novice' jibe, Cameron spend a long time spelling out an alternative view of leadership. I couldn't work out whether "thinking before deciding is good" and "go with your conviction, not calculation" (said within 4 sentences of each other) were mutually contradictory. But Camerons argument was that it's what you've got, not what you've been through, that makes you a good leader. Experience, if you've not learned from it, is a hindrance not a help.

Part of Cameron's leadership is a commitment to teamwork - he carefully namechecked all the major players in his team (even David Davis, remember him?), and it's striking to note that the shadow cabinet currently looks like a better team than the real thing, with several of the most talented Labour MP's on the back benches (Clarke, Milburn, Blair), or having done so much to annoy people that they're damaged goods (Balls, Byers, Mandelson, Reid, Blair again, etc.). There is a strength in depth to this opposition team, and Cameron does seem able to bring the best out of them. To have bound the notoriously independent IDS into part of a cohesive unit is an achievement in itself.

4. Within this there was a lot of talk about right and wrong.
"The popular thing may look good for a while. The right thing will be right all the time." Cameron applied this to Afghanistan, law and order and family policy. Someone commented afterwards that it was a bit of a Daily Mail speech, and perhaps that's right.

Cameron's rights and wrongs were a fascinating blend of old and new Conservative: sound defence, patriotism, the Union and fiscal conservatism, alongside gender equality, social justice, green politics and international development. Though the Tory tree logo gets its share of bashing, it's quite a good image for where the Tories find themselves: strong roots in one tradition of thinking, but trying to draw on them for something leafy and fruitful in the present.

5. Religion (not)
As if to prove Theos wrong, all the leaders have avoided religious references: Brown made a fleeting allusion to the Good Samaritan, Clegg made a joke, and Cameron invoked God only to show us how angry he was. Aside from the reference to faith in the Miliband attack, that was it.

6. Walking the Talk
Early in the speech Cameron said "it's not just about your values... the best you can do is tell people...how you make decisions" and he went on to set out 14 statements which were, basically, value statements. He seems a little confused about what 'values' are, but at least he's got some.

However, how he applied those values was a little confusing. Family policy, as I've noted, looks rather weak, and Tory solutions on both the NHS and schools were pure free market: publish information, reduce regulation, and open the thing up to more competition. Cameron stated that for the NHS people want an 'informed choice'. No David, we want a good doctor at our local hospital. When you're ill, you don't want to excercise your right of choice, you just want to get better. There has to come a time when we stop being consumers, but it didn't sound like it would happen under this leader.

On hearing the speech, it came across as a strong statement of the kind of leader Cameron would be. On reading it, I'm slightly more confused. There are so many value statements here, and so many vying for top spot: responsiblity, family, leadership, change, "Conservative values", mending the broken society, deciding on the basis of thought-through process, deciding on the basis of gut instinct, and so on.

Earlier in the conference Cameron went for a jog, slowed to a walk as he neared the hotel, then speeded up again when he saw the media. His speech was an attempt to portray himself as a man who wouldn't stop running, even when it got painful, even when it didn't look good to the media. There seems to be a gap between Camerons values, and how they work themselves out.


And finally....
And despite the occasional nod to 'quality of life', none of the leaders yet has gone after the big issue: is a consumer society powered by credit a sustainable one? In fact, can it be a 'society' if it's based on consumption? This lies at the core of green issues, banking, social justice, international development, mental health, social cohesion and so much else. There's no point in fixing the roof whilst the sun is shining if the foundations are built on sand.

"Who I am, What I believe"

Gordon Browns speech is already being binned by some opinion writers, but it's worth a look to try (again) to get to grips with Browns vision and values. This wasn't Gordon £rown, measuring everything in sterling, but seemed like a determined attempt to spell out a moral vision. The headlines are from Coldplay, in case you wondered.

(PS Welcome if you've come here from the Today website. How I've ended up there I don't know, I shall have to be nice to the Beeb now)

See What I'm All About
Browns opening line was : "I want to talk with you today about who I am, what I believe", so lets take him at his word. What does make him tick?

- the mantra of the speech was 'fairness', which clocked nearly 40 mentions in one form or another.
- 'duty' - which Brown applied both to himself and to others
- service: the role of the government is to serve the people: “our duty, what gives us moral purpose is serving the people who need us most… people on middle and modest incomes who need to know that they are not on their own amidst this change – we are on their side”

There was a lot of talk about values, enduring beliefs, the DNA of Labour etc., which all seemed to come back to fairness. But what does Brown mean by fairness? A few quotes which flesh it out
"treating others how we would be treated ourselves."

“And doesn't each of us want to say of ourselves:
That I helped someone in need.
That I come to the aid of a neighbour in distress.
That I will not pass by on the other side.
That I will give of myself for something bigger than myself" (in spite of Theos, this was the only Biblical or faith allusion in the whole speech)

and part of this fairness is advocacy: defending the weak at home and abroad. “the poor will not go unheard tomorrow at the United Nations, because we the British people will speak up for them and for justice.”

You've Got to Soldier On
...and fairness means not only that the government will support you if you're vulnerable, but if you're not vulnerable you should do your bit. “everyone who can work, must work” . Brown talked repeatedly of a new 'settlement' - we work hard, make the effort, be enterprising, and in return the government will 'serve' us by insuring us against the uncertainties of globalism, and protecting us when we're vulnerable.

Part of the 'settlement' was a raft of proposals for the vulnerable: free prescriptions for folk with long-term illness, more support for the elderly, a better safety net for educational failure, and free nursery places for 2 year olds.

Whoah horsey! Free nursery places for 2 year olds? Is that really about protecting the vulnerable, or is it adding a rider to that 'everyone who can work, must work' phrase: 'even if you've got children'. Despite the rhetoric about supporting families, it is working families who are valued, parenting families didn't get a look in. Parents featured as a) workers and earners and b) people with children in the education system but never as parents full stop. This continues to bother me.

Sometimes Even the Right is Wrong
There was the obligatory Tory-bashing, and no mention of the Libdems at all. Brown took issue, again, with the 'Broken Society'. His alternative is 'the Fair Society', and noted that “we should never forget one thing - that every single blow we have struck for fairness and for the future has been opposed by the Conservatives.”

Dreaming of When the Morning Comes
So what's the vision? What does he get out of bed for in the morning? What is the pulsating heart of Gordon Brown?
“Providing free nursery care for more children is a cause worth fighting for.
Providing better social care for older people who need it is a cause worth fighting for.
Delivering excellence in every single school is a cause worth fighting for.
Universal check-ups and new help to fight cancer - these are all causes worth fighting for."

‘fairness is in our DNA, it’s who we are – and what we’re for. It’s why labour exist… we stand up, we fight hard, for fairness….treating others how we would be treated ourselves."

This is an ethic of a different age. We're so used to being motivated by the 'feel-good factor' that ideas of duty, hard work, and plain boring old right and wrong don't really give us a buzz any more. But Jerusalem isn't built with a magic wand, it's a slow, labourious and back-breaking process.

Browns vision is not one of a great philosophy or dream, but of practical morality. If you don't have a serious moral purpose at the core of your being, you have no place in politics. I have some serious questions about where he goes with it, but I remember one recent election where what swung my vote was Browns clear commitment as Chancellor to dealing with global poverty. There wasn't much in it on the domestic front, so my vote went with the party likely to be most effective and energetic on behalf of the developing world.


Reign of Love... We're Waiting
Last night we had an evening looking at early church history, and one thing struck me powerfully. 2nd century church worship is described thus by Pliny

“They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing
responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not
to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their
trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so"

A couple of hundred years later, things have changed - the commitment to living a life of integrity and honesty has gone, and been replaced by the reciting of a creed: commitment to an intellectual version of Christianity, in place of a practical one. Subsequent church history shows how much of a mistake this was, sparking repeated attempts by monastic movements to spell out a 'rule of life', a way of living, a practical programme of Christian ethics.

Maybe we'd rather have an intuitive, touchy-feely leader like Blair or Cameron. They are certainly more in tune with society. But the practical morality of Brown - duty, service, fairness, integrity, advocacy for the weak - it may not get your pulse racing, but can we do without it?

The Leadership Effect

Great little passage from Bill Hybels which I stumbled across today. One day, Hybels will stop talking normal English and speak entirely in management-speak and in-house buzz words - it's a trend already noticeable on the Willow Creek CD's - but whilst we can still understand him, he's worth a look:

Change a Leader, Change a Church
If you’re ever going to change a church, a church leader will have to change from having a fuzzy vision (or no vision) to a clear and hot vision. They’ll have to change from a protecting ground mentality to a taking new ground mentality. They’ll have to change from merely presiding over a church to energising, empowering, and unleashing a church. A huge change has to occur in the heart, mind and skills of a leader in order for the rest of the equation to make sense.

A leader who has experienced that kind of change can then effect change in their church by changing it from a vision-free church to a vision-focused church and from a passive, spectator-orientated environment to an engaged, activistic environment.

A church whose top value used to be comfort and convenience will turn into one that thrives on commitment and mission achievement, and a church mired in lethargy will transform into one that pulsates with passion.

The Vision Thing

A lot of the talk around yesterdays Queens Speech was about vision, and whether Gordon Brown had one, and if he did whether it was really his or just a rehash of other people's ideas. Brown has been talking for a while about setting out his vision for Britain, but, as David Cameron pointed out, we've still not really seen it spelled out. The Queens speech, being simply a list of bills to come before parliament, delivered by an apolitical monarch, is never going to come across as particularly visionary anyway.

So what is vision? Well, a few things it isn't....

1. Vision is not talking about vision. That seems to be what Brown has been doing, and I've seen it happen in other places. 'we have to be a visionary church' etc. Talking about having £1m is not the same as actually having £1m, and talking about having a vision is not the same as having one.

2. Vision is not strategy. A strategy is how you put the vision into practice, and strategy without vision is like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

3. Vision is not elitist. There's a myth that vision is something had by great leaders, who descend from the mountain and impart it to their eager disciples. Rubbish. Everyone has visions. We all have a picture of life as we'd like it to be - that's a vision. We have a picture of church as we'd like it to be - that's a vision too. Some of these 'visions' are pretty off the wall, and some of them just simply fail to be grounded in real life and relationships, which takes me to...

4. Vision is not idealism. Most towns the size of Yeovil have their church-hoppers. After 3-4 years in any one place, they get bored, or decide that the church they currently go to isn't as close to the Kingdom of God as the other church down the road, or the new Vineyard/NFI/HTB etc. church plant, so off they go. 3 years later they are at it again. Why? Because they have a vision of church, but they fail to ground it in reality, and in relationships. It is an ideal which doesn't ever let its feet touch the dusty earth.

If after 3 years you can simply up sticks and leave a church, I'd suggest that you haven't really become part of it anyway. A church is the body of Christ in a particular place, it is a relational community of people who worship God through Jesus and invite others to do the same. The kind of folk who are just looking for the best church to attend have a consumerist mentality that is light years away from what Jesus taught.

So what is it?

For examples of vision grounded in reality, there aren't many better than Churchill. His vision wasn't up in the clouds - theres nothing more gritty than 'we will fight them on the beaches...and we will never surrender!' - it is earthed in the reality of the situation (war) in the character of the people he is addressing, and it is painting a picture that people can rise to and drive towards.

Which leades on to my favourite definition of vision: 'a picture of the future that produces passion' (Bill Hybels)- to do this vision has to be attainable, but also something worth attaining. Too high a vision, and people will be deflated 'we can't possibly do this'. Too low a vision, and people just won't be inspired.

Another key thing here is integrity. If the vision isn't a picture that's owned by the visionary themselves, and if it doesn't produce passion in them, then it is manipulation. Marketing is false vision, and is manipulative: here is a picture of you/your life/your face/your experiences for you to attain to. Spend money and it can be yours. It works very well. We are fed these false visions all the time.

But genuine vision is Martin Luther King dreaming aloud of an integrated society, it is the elderly apostle John writing 'what we have seen with our own eyes and heard with our ears, this we proclaim to you' - the visionary lights a torch from the fire burning within him/her and offers it to others.

Hybels writes, in Courageous Leadership of what vision achieves - it increases energy, moves people to action, increases ownership (if people know what your church is about then they can get in on it. If they don't, it can be a very frustrating organism to be part of), and provides focus (a clearer idea about where to put our energies and where not to).

The challenge for leaders is to get sufficient time away from the immediate demands of leadership to actually work out, with God, with others, what the vision is. We can develop strategies and schemes to deal with short and medium term problems: our church is looking to employ a children and families worker, that's a strategy. Activists like me will, unless we're careful, end up with lots of schemes and strategies but no vision. Contemplatives will, unless they're careful, end up with a vision that's impossibly high, or never get round to crystallising and grounding a vision at all. Between hyperactivity and dreaming, the middle way of vision brings the dream into real life and leads to focused activity directed towards making the dream a reality.

We need to arrive at the burning bush, the picture of the future which energises us, and which we can communicate to others to release energy in the church. And to do this, like Moses, we need to leave the flock for a bit.