by Richard White

I’m not very fond of the word “cell”.

It has so much negative baggage. My friends who aren’t into church think of either prisons or terrorists. Many of my church friends on the other hand think it means a very prescriptive form of the Singapore or Columbia models of cell-church.

In Dream, the network I work with, we never use the word. We just have “groups” that are building community and learning to be like Jesus.

So why on earth are we calling this network Anglican Cell UK?

A few reasons…

-The movement that grew out of Singapore, etc brought us values that live on. Without it most of us would still be stuck in inward looking home-group bible studies. It also started many of us down a path of a radical new understanding of what it means to be church.

-We can’t think of anything better. “Small missional communities” may be better description, but that’s pretty longwinded and not really any sexier.

-We’ve had a wonderful relationship with Cell UK and want that reflected in our name.

-Sometimes it’s good to have a name that keeps you humble!

Certainly Church Mission Society who are behind this network don’t have the most a trendy and useful name anymore. Neither do Youth With A Mission who launched Cell UK (I was a YWAM’er for eleven years and know that lots of us weren’t exactly “youth” anymore!)

Often the cool new names quickly become just as dated and useless in a few years.

So (for now anyway), we’re going for the Columbo approach to subversive image management.
“Anglican” (The hunched up, greasy-haired detective) + “Cell” (with a crumpled old raincoat)

What do you think about the term?

…now just before I go, could ask you one more question about the night of the murder…

Andrew Attwood, one of our consultants, challenges our vision and commitment to reaching the poor.

Question: Given that Jesus seemed to spend quite a lot of his time with the rejected and disadvantaged people in his society, how come a large number of our churches are still predominantly filled with the wealthy or middle classes? And since Jesus even included some of them in his core team (like Tax Collector Matthew and Dodgy Mary Magdalene), how do our churches compare when selecting leaders from such backgrounds?

For those who wish to read further, I’m keen to admit to you just how hard and exhausting it is trying to develop a small-group based church that has a heart for the poor. For those brave enough to go beyond tokenistic ministry, to be committed to a full integration of needy people, to roll out the red carpet for the most messed up people and help make church accessible to them, I’ll keep writing.

It’s a pain.

Let’s be honest, for most of us, reaching out at all can feel awkward and hard work. Despite moments of passion, a lot of reaching out is down to obedience rather than nice feelings. So we fight to get over the hurdle of awkwardness and lack of skill, and have a go at reaching neighbours, friends and new contacts. And I say ‘well done!’- you make Jesus smile. However, to be asked to reach out to the poor, especially if you yourself are not poor, well that’s yet another additional major struggle, which is why so many churches don’t bother. I don’t condone this, but I understand.

I work as the Associate Leader at St. Mary’s Church in Leamington Spa, a church of around 140 with a commitment to serve and bless the needy in particular. Out of a straightforward response to Christ’s manifesto in Luke, Chapter 4, we aim to seek out the hidden and broken people in town, the addicts, the homeless and the relationally torn. It needs to be said that our church community also includes professionals, students and functional families, and when we are all mixed up together with the shop floor workers, the unemployable and the damaged, church feels pretty real. You get a fantastic range of wisdom and life experience to share in all directions. You also get exciting levels of honesty and courage emerging, which allows us to have a go at new ideas and projects at the drop of a hat.

But the process of reaching out through groups and as individuals to people who are not middle class is different and often a tiring task. The middle classes have calendars and diaries, but the underclass folk don’t, and tend to prefer to just turn up when they want you for something. Diets are different, and T.V. watching is different. They often view the establishment as the enemy, after being justly or unjustly treated by those in authority. Benefit culture has low aspirations and people need a huge amount of training and encouragement to imagine leading anything. And they go pear-shaped at unexpected moments, after hours of input and support. Arghh!

Small Group meetings can have high levels of intensity, with life stories that beat ‘East-enders’ hands down. Life change can take longer than with stable people. Folk routinely have a fag-break outside during our main Sunday services. The whole long journey of change requires us to be both more patient and also more challenging.

But on the upside, our present youth-worker, who used to be addicted to heroin a few years back, recently married the vicar’s second son. They make a formidable team and he will help her spearhead our work in one of the more deprived estates in town. This gives us a clear advantage in breaking into tough territory – we have the people who have been there. People from such backgrounds also understand the powerful community bonds among the poor, and help to teach we socially isolated folk how to share life better. They read the bible in a different and revealing way. Straightforwardly. Simple and powerful.

So, if you’re feeling stirred to explore this area, or if you’re weary of trying, let me challenge you. This kind of stuff makes church extremely rewarding. We are used to torn edges and messy ministry – it isn’t pure cell church, but we do see real changes. Go for it. King Jesus did; it hurt him too, a right royal pain, but he knew it would turn the world upside down.

Andrew Attwood