Introduction

The death of Jon’s children was the occasion for Bread of Hope. He

‘lost his eldest son to meningitis, followed by twins through late miscarriage. Because those who gather round the risen Christ believe that they too will be resurrected, Jon began to imagine what meeting his sons in the new creation would be like. [1]

Consider Jon’s eulogy for his eldest:

Moreover, the church rallied round magnificently, providing food and fellowship for Jon and his wife Kathy. So Jon also began to wonder what church would look like if this interdependency were the norm – rather than something reserved for times of crisis; for example: if such interdependency were the norm, would it not mitigate the idol of self-sufficiency connoted by individualism?’ [1]

So in the most general of terms, Bread of Hope is about “more than individualism”, and the “hope of the resurrection”. These are its distinctives, if you will.

But founding a ministry is one thing, and growing it quite another. So what might it mean to grow a ministry, that is, what kind of growth is most desirable, especially in light of these two distinctives?

Note, asking what ministry growth means is not the same as asking about the means of ministry growth. Of course, the means will depend on the kind. For us, the means concerns being moulded to be like Jesus by breaking bread together in the Spirit, and less so ever increasing investment in the production of events and materials. (On growth through breaking bread together in the Spirit, see the Saved. So What? booklet, which you can find at the bottom by clicking here.)

To further anticipate the conclusion, ministry growth means more than one thing. And it means more than one thing even after laying aside the multiple connotations in the question.

“Growth” connotes both God and man, and “ministry” as a synonym for “work” connotes both “sacred” and “secular”, thereby blurring the distinction between them. God “grows” the Ministry of Defence: man – as God’s vice-regent – grows some evangelistic initiative. We understand what each means.

Laying aside these multiple connotations, the question – what does it mean to grow a ministry? – will be approached through two metaphors. This is because these two particular metaphors – friaries and factories – capture something of what individuals often mean by “growth” in relation to twenty-first-century mission agencies. (Again, we will leave aside, albeit touch on, the multiple connotations of “mission”.)

Bread of Hope

To reiterate: in the most general of terms, Bread of Hope is about “more than individualism”, and the “hope of the resurrection”.

“More than individualism” means taking relationships seriously. This value emerges in other ways, like when Bread of Hope articulates “the body corporate”, [2] or values someone for the relationships that they are already in. In an individualistic culture like ours, we need to rediscover relationships. We must not see people as (individual) units to be deployed accordingly.

John Zizioulas puts it beautifully: ‘The person is so absolute in its uniqueness that it does not permit itself to be to be regarded as an arithmetical concept, to be set alongside other beings, to be combined with other objects, or to be used as a means, even for the most sacred goal’ [3].

We will return to relationships below.

The “hope of the resurrection” determines Bread of Hope’s vision. Bread of Hope’s vision is therefore: the feast to come, to which breaking bread together directs us. We are children of the resurrection. It follows then, that Bread of Hope’s mission is to embody what breaking bread is all about, which we do by providing physical and spiritual food.

Breaking Bread

Centring Bread of Hope on the metaphor of breaking bread arose, in part, from Gisela Kreglinger’s book The Spirituality of Wine [4]. Kreglinger looks at how the production of wine for the eucharist breaks down any sacred-secular divide in that production. (And so it is for our own work.)

Furthermore, when wine is made for the eucharist by religious orders, it serves to critique the practice of scaling up wine production for the mass market. (And so it should be for our own work.) Scaling up wine production can damage the grape-soil relationship, the quality of the wine, and the relationship of the vineyard with the local community.

Scaling up should therefore always come with a risk assessment; for example: have you heard about parable of the good Samaritan who, on seeing the ambushed man, is inspired to found a hospital, and leaves the man to die by the road while he does so?

Or, insofar as scaling up entails reducing mission to a cause, the risks of causes (ends justifying means, rallying behind a cause being used to hide – rather than deal with – personal shortcomings, [5] etc.) should be considered.

Bread of Hope’s Worship@Work [6] course alludes several times to Kreglinger’s book. And it resonates strongly in session 6: Anticipating the Kingdom insofar as eucharist is about relationships. Breaking bread together gives us a picture of the new creation [1 Corinthians 11:17-34], where there is no place for looking down on other people.

Put another way, breaking bread together engages the powers that be. Breaking bread engages those Powers that divide the “have’s” from the “have-not’s” in such a way that the “have’s” look down on the “have-not’s”. (More will be said about the Powers in due course.)

Friaries

Bread of Hope not only owes its name to Kreglinger’s book, [7] it also owes something of its modus operandi. In so far as wine might be produced by a friary or monastery, charities like friaries provide a benchmark for our own. Some anecdotal observations:

First, the friars we know are preoccupied with the Objects of their Friary (which are the same as Bread of Hope’s: advancement of the Christian Faith, and the relief of poverty), and not with the Friary itself. It follows that a charity should focus on the public benefit before benefit to the charity. (“Love your neighbour …” and all that.)

Second, if you were to peruse their most recent Trustees’ Annual Report and Accounts, you would find repeated references to generic “pastoral care”. You might also wonder whether the references to this were rather scattershot, “not strategic” even. But wouldn’t that be a lot like accusing the local GP of taking a scattershot approach to prescriptions: one thing for this ailment; another for that? Such an accusation would miss the point about meeting needs. (As the surgery is to the physical health of the community, so we are to spiritual health of our “parishes”– our immediate geographical vicinities and wider relationships.)

Third, nowhere on the friars’ website or accounts is mention of any plans to “grow”. (Neither does the local GP surgery, which interestingly does have plans to work more closely with other local surgeries. Partnerships. There’s something to reflect on.)

The point is that growth needs to be appropriate to what it is that we want to grow. (Relationships, anyone?)

Relationships

But why relationships?

‘We ourselves are the comets. We are the moon and the stars. We are the fireworks in a darkened universe. To be in the presence of even the meanest, lowest, most repulsive specimen of humanity is still to be closer to God than when looking up into a starry sky or at a beautiful sunset.’ [8]

This value can be further illustrated by our proposed approach to recruitment (for non-operational roles). Before asking how someone might “fit into” Bread of Hope, we should first ask how Bread of Hope might “fit under” (and so support) them. If they are already involved in ministry (in the “twenty-first-century mission agency” understanding thereof), then are they already embedded in relationships? Valuing relationships begins by protecting their integrity.

Insofar as this is like repotting a plant (rather than composting it), valuing relationships continues by giving them what they need to grow. Where plants require light and water, relationships require on-going knowing and being known.

The Godspeed film captures something of why being known in ministry is more important than material (sermons, courses, etc.) Might we encourage you to watch it if you have not yet seen it? [9] (It’s only thirty minutes long.)

Similarly, knowing others is important because that is how we meet others’ needs (and thereby function as a charity). And knowing others begins with listening. (So when we talk about relationships, we don’t mean some extraneous activity without any purpose other than meeting some social need.) Good relationships rest on good listening, which is the skill not only of knowing what to listen for – counsellors are trained to listen for unhealthy subtexts – but also of transforming others:

‘A creative listener is not someone who simply allows me to say what I already want to say, but someone whose listening actually makes it possible for me to say what I never could have said, and thus to be a new kind of person, one I could have never have been before and could not have been before this directed listening.’ [10]

Thus, knowing and being known might mark the most profound (human) growth, as well as the most effective conduit for forming Christ in ourselves and others.

This doesn’t mean that there is no way of measuring our workplace relationships – or, at least, the pre-conditions for facilitating good workplace relationships. [11]

Factories

But it does mean that other forms of growth (say, running more courses) are secondary, albeit not extraneous. Clearly, selling (more) Godspeed courses is growth, but it is secondary to the kind of growth taught by the course.

‘(Imagine) a church that is a dynamic set of relationships, friendships, and acquaintances … a medium of living relationships through which the gospel can travel.’ [12]

To invert this, to have the tail wag the dog, to put the cart before the horse, etc. is how Baudrillard describes postmodernity. He argues that postmodernity puts the copy before the original (like when our image on social media become more “real” than our actual lives). [13]

‘[Nonetheless and] according to the economics story … churches are to focus on efficiency, effectiveness, and organizational growth.’ [14]

The Spirit of Capitalism pervades us all. This is not a bad thing unless we have failed to name this particular power. That is, if we are not aware of it, how can we help it towards its rightful place when it gets too big for its boots? Max Weber describes Capitalism as the strategic (or “rational”) maximisation of Capital by the reinvestment of profits back into business, by working harder, and by being frugal. [15]

Let us dwell on the first means of maximising Capital – reinvesting profits back into business. Since Weber wrote, brand has become an important non-tangible asset. Brand has become Capital. So when the first question we ask of, say, a particular Bread of Hope activity benefits the Bread of Hope brand, we are thinking capitalistically.

Three comments:

If this is the first or guiding question then we might find ourselves guilty of idolatry. (Oh, hail, Bread of Hope!)

It is not the same thing as asking how a particular activity might bring the charity into disrepute.

It is not a question that one finds a friar asking. (As above, a friar is asking about the benefit to the public: not the brand.)

Before concluding, and given the “more than individualism” distinctive, a word about the significance of individual leadership.