Month: August 2015

Keeping the focus on fresh expressions of church (Ian Mobsby)

Ian MobsbyIan Mobsby wonders how we can keep the focus on fresh expressions of church.

One of the most useful chapters that came out of the new book Ancient Faith, Future Mission: fresh expressions in the sacramental tradition, was by the now Bishop Steven Croft. In his chapter (where he critiques the development and resistance to fresh expressions in the Church of England), he reminds us that the key focus of fresh expressions is to build ecclesial communities out of contextual mission. Steve reminds us that in the end all labels such as 'emerging church', 'fresh expressions' and 'alternative worship' are about contextualisation, and about the important refocusing on mission in our increasingly post-Christendom, post-modern and post-secular culture.

Often the term 'fresh expressions' can be confusing. This is why it is so important that the focus is on building church and not as some people seem to think, 'it's all about worship'. One of the strengths of the Fresh Expressions initiatives is that it draws on deep missiology. From the start it has drawn on the work of Vincent Donovan and Roland Allen, both accomplished missionaries who have written comprehensively about the process of mission as growing the church in particular contexts. It is for this reason that Fresh Expressions in its second phase of five years is focused on the process of listening, responding in loving service, building community, discipleship/catechesis, and finally, the development of contextual forms of worship.

This process is key if mission is to be focused on the 'unchurched', the largest growing missional need. As we increasingly become a post-Christendom culture, it is expected that the numbers of 'dechurched' will fall. The dechurched were a much easier group to do mission to in some ways; the unchurched are a greater challenge because of the socio-cultural challenge of engaging with people who have no understanding of the Christian faith at all, and some of the ways we express it can be deeply anachronistic. However, if we are to be committed to 'proclaiming the gospel afresh to every generation', this missional focus on the unchurched is crucial.

Fresh Expressions journey



We know from research that traditional church planting models are good at engaging with the open dechurched and recycling Christians, but not good at engaging with the unchurched in general terms. The other great problem with traditional church planting is that it tends to set up attractional rather than missional models of church. Attractional models of church tend to over-focus on a strong Christian subculture that makes it hard for contextual forms of church to develop. So we must not lose the focus on building ecclesial communities out of contextual mission. After all, this is the focus and definition of fresh expressions, of seeking 'to build church with people who are not yet members of any church'.

So how do practitioners engage with proper cultural, missional, theological and I would argue Trinitarian thinking to assist good practice? Well, one good book that has come out that I really think hits the mark is Pete Ward's Participation and Mediation: A practical theology for liquid church. This book is about keeping focused on building ecclesial communities out of contextual mission. The strange thing is that many of us, including me, are quite shocked by how well Pete articulates a method and process out of experience, which is pretty much spot on the journey that many of us practitioners have been making. Pete therefore has drawn together a book out of his great experience which I can only say would have made my life a lot easier if it was around 15 years ago! Further, Pete's work takes contemporary approaches to mission by culturally listening and engaging where people are as a bedrock to then engage with practical theology. As Pete says, I am convinced that practical theology and engagement with it, is crucial as a form of prayer and discernment. Or as Pete puts it:

The Challenge I faced as a youth minister required the ability to reflect both theologically and culturally… The style of relational ministry… I set myself [was] the task of journeying into the world of young people and meeting them in situations where they felt at home. The idea was that I went to their territory. This means that I was a visitor in a context where they were in control and they set the rules. Needless to say this was not at all easy, but interestingly almost from the start I felt that this kind of ministry was a deeply spiritual practice. Going to young people, rather than asking them to come to me, gave me a strong sense that I was in some way sharing in God's love and concern for the world. In fact more than that, I was struck by the conviction that the Holy Spirit was there with the young people even before I arrived. (Pete Ward, Participation and Mediation, SCM Press, 2008, pp 13,27.)

Commitment to reflection of the cycle of need, cultural analysis, mission, theology, God as Trinity, and building ecclesial community has to be the central craft of any committed pioneer minister. So, enjoy the journey, because at the end, it is about thinking and acting in our attempt to catch up with what God is already doing in people's lives, and this is what I believe fresh expressions of church is all about.

Fresh expressions of church growth? (Matt Stone)

Matt StoneMatt Stone asks how and why do fresh expressions of church grow.

How and why do fresh expressions of church grow? What do they do to bring in new members? What might traditional forms of church learn from their approaches? These have been the questions that have interested me as I've studied six varied fresh expressions in the south-east of England. Three key themes emerged.

First, it was clear that fresh expressions' leaders are networkers. They are the nodes in the networks that pass through and make up fresh expressions; reaching out and connecting through local churches, church organisations, schools, friends, families, social networking sites, blogs, websites, leaflets and parish magazines. Publicity is important, but word of mouth seems to be the most powerful tool. The networking is frequently multi-directional, as people connected to other church or social activities are brought into the fresh expression, and those who attend fresh expressions may be encouraged to attend other church or social activities.

Secondly, it became clear that networks were strengthened and embedded by people's desire for community. When asked what they liked about their fresh expression, questionnaire respondents repeatedly commented on the social nature of the expression and the friendships they had formed. As community developed, the members appreciated the way they journeyed together in faith.

How and why do fresh expressions of church grow? What do they do to bring in new members?

Thirdly, it was clear that many respondents appreciated the informality and fluidity of the expression they attended. A relatively unconstrained ecclesiology helped expressions respond to both the call of the Spirit and the spiritual and social needs of those attending. As one leader told me, "Our strategy was just to share values and worship together and teach and see what naturally evolved."

Whilst I only studied six fresh expressions, I would be interested to hear other people's stories. Do these themes ring true? Could and should these ideas be embraced by more traditional forms of church too? Are they fresh models for church growth?

Lay-led churches and communion (George Lings)

George LingsGeorge Lings investigates lay-led churches and communion, in a short extract from the latest edition of Encounters on the Edge (41 – do network churches work?).

Another issue of ecclesial identity is provoked because the lay-led church is unhelpfully dependent on outside provision of clergy to give them communion. At worst, this is a return to Mass Priests. At best, it is a ceaseless reminder that such a congregation is in permanent dependency on those outside its life and is thereby somehow second class.

If Anglicans deem having a sacramental life essential to ecclesial life through dominical warrant, it is then tiresome, and probably damaging, that such communities are denied the fullness of this dimension. By this, they are made more fragile. Such scenarios have similarities to the nineteenth century overseas problems that bedevilled those works that were 'missions' but denied the status of 'churches'. They had problems of dependence on the professional missionary and on finally becoming designated churches promptly lost most missional desire or impact. Such patterns are not to be repeated.

In practice, members of both network churches in Deal and Sandwich spoke with restrained frustration at how difficult getting suitable 'cover' was and how it made them feel like 'the poor relation'. Understandably, those of a free church persuasion found this doubly irksome. They had no conviction that this priestly requirement was necessary and served only to demonstrate to them the ecclesial imperialism of Anglicanism.

Eucharistic Presidency is an irenic and scholarly read of the Anglican Bishops' last published view of the topic and makes a good case that what is at issue is the catholicity of the church. However, this now exists in tension with the bottom up creation of churches who seek a fullness (or second century Ignatian catholicity) of their life and rightly sense their local oneness is impaired by this arrangement of a near stranger heading up the family meal.

There is also the vexing issue of whether the church is better defined by its overall ministerial arrangements or its localised congregational life. If the number of lay-led fresh expressions grows, the issue will grow sharper.

Members or missionaries? (Pete Pillinger)

Pete PillingerPeter Pillinger asks whether we want to see members or missionaries.

When asked about success of a church, many people think of numbers. Big churches are seen as success stories, smaller churches, often rural or city centre, seen as 'struggling'. When we do this we reduce the 'members' to 'bums on seats on Sundays' and make the church no more than a religious club. I may be overstating my position a little here but I do not believe the task Jesus called us to is to create churches. Nowhere are we commanded to do this. The word 'church' only occurs three times in two verses of Matthew's gospel. We are called instead to 'make disciples', disciples of Jesus.

Churches, especially those with 'professional' employees (often clergy) have a tendency to dis-empower members. At the worst, 'members' are simply the people who must sit and listen to the professional. Members are those who are there to learn, clergy the ones who are there to teach. Members are those who need pastoral care, clergy are those who provide pastoral care. Members are those who are there to be led in worship, clergy are those who are qualified to lead worship. In some churches these things are written into canon law. This seems to me to be contrary to what Jesus taught and the way he taught.

I do not believe the task Jesus called us to is to create churches – nowhere are we commanded to do this

Jesus made disciples. Disciples are learners and disciplined. They are people of purpose who follow a teacher to learn all they can from him. They are people who are growing in their knowledge of, and ability to, live as their teacher has shown. They are people who pass on their learning to each other. They are people who learn by their experience of doing the things Jesus did. This is what those who the church refers to as 'members' really are – or should be. The primary job of the gathered body of Christians, the ecclesia, the church, is to make disciples of Jesus. Disciples who will evangelise, serve, care for each other and whose life is gathered up individually and corporately into a living act of worship of almighty God; disciples who share the mission of God.

The word 'missionary' has gone out of fashion. To many it is irrevocably damaged by connections with colonialism in the Victorian age. But it simply means 'one driven by and committed to a mission'. In a post-Christendom age we need missionaries not members.

Overcoming obstacles? (Kate Kendall)

Kate KendallKate Kendall discusses overcoming obstacles.

This blog was sparked off by the two comment sections on Share – Things that went well and Things to learn from – and I'd be interested in knowing how other fresh expressions of church overcome obstacles.

Both fresh expressions we've set up have been in response to hopes in parish profiles that the church would become more inclusive and representative of its local community, but unfortunately a profile doesn't necessarily reflect the mind of the majority of the congregation so setting up a fresh expression can be a bumpy ride.

Our fresh expressions involved setting up weekly all-age Sunday worship at a separate time to the 'main' service. Neither church had much of a history of modern worship and both fresh expressions were initially to meet the needs of younger members of the congregation who were drifting away.

I'm sure other pioneers find that a fresh expression takes time to establish; the first took about two years and our current one has been going since September and is gradually finding its feet. This is part of the natural evolution of such services and is quite a gentle process, but we have found dealing with external factors more difficult.

My questions are:

  1. Have other people experienced hostility, or indeed sabotage attempts, from established congregations when setting up a fresh expression?

  2. Do you find that most of your church cannot comprehend why people need to experience different forms of worship?

  3. Is the reduction of clergy posts going to be a problem? My other half is about to become solely responsible for two sizeable churches with seven services on a Sunday, one of which is our fresh expression. For us, and those who called us here, that is a priority, but the increase in clergy workload isn't going to help and means creating a much-needed fresh expression elsewhere in the parish is impossible at this stage.

On the street where you live (David Coleman)

David ColemanDavid Coleman explores the street where you live.

What if I was to invite every member of my street to join a group set up specifically for them on Facebook? This was the crazy idea I had after discovering that my wife was having Facebook discussions with someone living only a few doors away. I drafted a letter from me to all 60 households in our road explaining that I had set up a group on Facebook that would be restricted to members of the road only, and delivered it by hand – having as many doorstep discussions as time would allow.

The aim of the site was listed as follows: 'We believe that making the world a better place starts with our own homes and our own streets. These days we are all so busy we know less and less about each other. This site aims to foster a stronger sense of community on our street.'

As God-incidence would have it, I was able to pick up on the big lunch initiative which has been promoted via TV adverts recently and suggest a street party on July 19th. The feedback has been really good, with 11 households responding within two days. Comments received have included: 'A great initiative. I have often thought we were all a bit isolated and incommunicative. So, well.done' and 'Fantastic idea'.  I have found out which householder has been resident  in my road the longest time (50 years) and the names of five families I hadn't even met. I know it is early days but the signs are very encouraging.

On a related issue I set up a private Facebook group for a small faith enquirers' group a local church was running. This has led to some very interesting conversations. One person who didn't say anything much within the group opened up in a big way on the site and we were able to pray specifically for some very serious 'baggage issues' with which they had been struggling for years. The whole experience was liberating and mutually supportive.

Isn't it ironic that the virtual community has led to improved understanding and a stronger desire to be better neighbours in the real community?

A pattern for church life (Edward Kerr)

Edward and Marilyn KerrEdward Kerr explores a pattern for church life.

Most cannot read. Many cannot sing. Some cannot move. Some cannot speak. Some cannot see.

All have fun, are involved and respond. All worship. All watch. Some wave flags. Some wander around.

Some try to sing. Some make strange noises. Some are silent, apparently passive. Some behaviour and contributions are "inappropriate" as labels go. Our expectancy is high; our expectations low.

We run a church that predominantly focuses on the needs of people with a learning disability, their carers and friends.

I wonder what the 'normal' church could learn from our community. If a mumbled, disjointed, semi-incoherent prayer is deemed to be acceptable for our folk, why can it not be acceptable in other churches? Why do we place expectations on mainstream church attendees to conform to a set of unwritten and sometimes unattainable behavioural guidelines?

If the use of straightforward language is acceptable in our setting, why do we often move to the opposite extreme in other settings? If it is acceptable to have low expectations but high expectancy with our folk, is it not acceptable for mainstream churches? If it is acceptable to have the very low level of pressure with our folk, is it not acceptable for others? If our worship, which seems so chaotic, is acceptable, why is worship sometimes so formal and non-involved?

It is too easy to say that it is acceptable for our folk, as they are, well – you know – because they're not the same as us.  But if our approach is acceptable to God, then it has to be acceptable to God for everyone. I am not advocating a "dumbing down", but a widening of the options.

We have little expectation of the 'right' way to worship, to pray, or to behave. There is little self-consciousness; apparently little competition. Each person is able to participate at their level without fear of censure. We believe that this could be a pattern for church life, rather than an oddity.

People and barbecues (Laurence Keith)

Barbecued meatLaurence Keith suggests we attend fewer conferences and more barbecues.

I've been noticing the way language and attitudes have been changing over the last few years with regards to mission. A good deal of it seems positive, with the movement away from bullet point evangelism tactics towards journeying with people. The distinction between de-churched and non-churched backgrounds has been helpful, but I wonder whether the next step is to move past de-churched and non-churched language and begin thinking of people, simply, as human.

Your exposure to 'church' doesn't necessarily have much bearing on your openness to God, or even your ability to live out Christian/spiritual concepts. Even if it does, discipleship for each person will be different and any real engagement with an individual will require a friendship to be formed, not a shove along the Engel Scale (which, of course, is hopelessly out of date). Any one of us is able to commune meaningfully with the living and eternal Creator, from the shallowest atheist to the deepest, most profound thinking holy man. Any of us can have a life changing, long term impact on another, if only we give them the time, energy, love and respect they deserve.

This may seem a naïve concept, but I truly believe in it. And I believe that there is strong resistance against it. Treating people with the respect and attention they deserve takes time, mutual sharing and energy. But we like our networks, our conferences, our ideas. And sometimes we like our private/work life divide, and the silence of our own homes. 

Attend fewer conferences and more local barbecues

So who is wise?  So who is your example?

Loving people is often called for, but to do it requires us all to have fewer, more meaningful relationships. Attend fewer conferences and more local barbecues; have less acquaintances and more authentic friends. Allow ourselves to be changed by those we're supposed to be discipling.

Feed my sheep (Pam Smith)

Pam SmithPam Smith asks what Jesus meant when he said 'Feed my sheep'.

When our grown up sons come home, we always have a takeaway. It's shorthand for a lot of things – this is still your home, you're special, I am still part of this family, being together is worth celebrating.

Jesus told Peter to 'feed my sheep'. He fed the multitudes; he was known to the disciples he met on the road to Emmaus in the breaking of the bread. On the night before he died, he had supper with his friends and said 'do this, in remembrance of me'. And when he met with his friends on the beach after his resurrection, he fed them.

When I became a Christian, I didn't take communion because I wasn't confirmed. Week after week, I longed to receive but had to hold back.

During a very rare communion service in a young offenders institution, one of the 'lads' asked what was happening. Then he jumped up, muttered 'I want some of that!' and joined the queue. The next week he asked to be baptised.

I asked a group of three boys under the age of seven why they wanted to take communion. They heard the priest say, week in week out,  'Though we are many, we are one body, because we all share in one bread' – and then weren't given any bread. They deeply desired to be part of the body.

At the recent pioneer minister conference at Ridley Hall, it was stated that a fresh expression should be working towards regular communion services because this was a mark of 'being church'.

Many of us were left with questions.

Should the Eucharist be seen as a target? Where does lay leadership fit in? Does the Eucharist create a Christ-centred community? Or is a Christ-centred community, by definition, Eucharistic? What does a fresh expression of the Eucharist look like? And if we're not church – what are we?

Reaching Out in Mind, Body and Spirit (Colin Brice)

Colin BriceColin Brice reaches out in Mindy, Body and Spirit.

Last week, 70 practitioners involved in ministries to spiritual seekers and the New Spiritualities gathered from different streams – Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, alternative worship and charismatic – some say it was the largest gathering in the world for this type of ministry, let alone the UK. The ancient Biblical texts tell us that when God's people are unified there shall be a blessing given; here at this conference there was a unity of heart, mind and spirit and the blessing of God was tangible for all present.

Hosted by Church Army and Journey into Wholeness, delegates gathered in Sheffield to hear insights from professor John Drane, Olive Drane and Ole Skjerbaek Madsen from Denmark who are key players in supporting and equipping new forms of ministry and mission to spiritual seekers.

Various workshops were run over Saturday to support, encourage and develop delegates working in this arena. These included: use of Tarot cards / the Jesus Deck / Wicca / how as Christians we can understand things like aura reading, chakras, Reiki, etc / use of Christian meditation with spiritual seekers / angels / use of prayer for healing / personal faith sharing and communication with people in the New Spiritualities / the spirituality of Glastonbury (the place more than the festival) and how we can engage with that, and dream interpretation.

Some conclusions from this conference include:

  • YogaImportance of networking together, to encourage and inspire each other and work as 'one' for New Spiritualities and its people.

  • God is at work in and through us and out in the world where no lines of separation are drawn – it is not 'them and us', but all of us together as spiritual beings and searchers.

  • A need for this type of ministry is required as we see the spiritual landscape changing.

  • Release of people (under 30s) to explore ministry to the New Spiritualities and permission by leaders to experiment and develop 'different' expressions and forms.

  • Encourage creativity to discover new ways, methods and connection points to enable fellow travellers to connect with Christ in contexts they understand and are familiar with.

  • The future shape of church is 'unknown', but are we willing to take a chance and develop models that may or may not work.