Okay, so 'church' can get a bad name, or at least, if not a bad name, a name that people don't quite understand: what does 'church' really mean? For example do any of us who are in the church really know what people who are a generation or two away from the church think or imagine when 'church' is mentioned.
How do you change what people think when you mention 'church'. It is really quite difficult to get past the baggage of generations and the stories that rise to the surface of hurt and abuse and prejudice. Yet the Church of England moved some way towards that today in typical church fashion where one house of the synod agreed not to note a report. It sounds all a bit convoluted and it is but it is positive movement in the style of the best traditions of the church.
But locally, how can we change what it means to be church so that when you mention the institution people don't first think institutionally but about purpose and transformation and being agents of change?
That's the big question as we take the results of our consultation which itself offers evidence that when you mention 'church' people turn off. What are we willing or daring to do in order to be church but not as people know it?
To explore that, watch out for some serious discussion during March all the way up to Easter. Going to be great.