Matt Stone asks whether fresh expressions are radical enough.
Fresh expressions are designed to be fishing nets. They are the central thrust of the church's mission to reach the growing unchurched population – those who are unlikely to just wander through the church doors for an occasional service, and who may not yet be ready for an Alpha Course.
Whilst there are many fresh expressions that are reaching out to the unchurched very well, many others seem to attract more churchgoers and those with a previous church connection. This is not necessarily a bad thing, because we need to close the back door of the church and not just open the front one. But what's the reasoning for why some expressions don't attract those very much outside the church radar? What can we do about it?
Could it be because of their format? Could they still be too much like church services? As Dave Male argues in Evaluating Fresh Expressions (edited by L Nelstrop & M Percy, Canterbury Press, 2008), 'The danger of starting with church worship … is that it works well for those looking to reconnect with church culture but does not hold much attraction for those with no previous experience of church.'
One Eucharistic fresh expression I visited last year still assumes a familiarity with the Eucharist. It still meets in a church, is structured around a liturgy, and is participative only in the sense that one drinks the bread and wine. Another fresh expression is a service that meets on church premises, albeit with food and a contemporary worship style. There is still a sermon, an offertory, and the chairs are arranged in rows around the screen and worship group.
Whilst I believe that worship, scripture and the sacraments are vital ingredients of church life and faith, I wonder whether some fresh expressions could be more radical in the way they present, or engage with, these elements. Yes, they are often more context-driven and missionary in intent than traditional forms of church, but if the unchurched are to be reached, are they radical enough? Are we still thinking in a churchy mindset?
I wonder whether part of the problem is the domestication of fresh expressions. Some fresh expressions are simply former children's work programmes or other outreach or alternative services that have been renamed, restyled or repackaged. They are not always that 'fresh'! Have we adopted a 'mission-flavoured' rather than mission-shaped approach?