MSC 7 : An enabling framework  

The reports conclusions from analysis of the mission context  are that:

v     The existing parochial system alone is no longer able to deliver its underlying missionary purpose.  It then takes Archbishop Rowan’s phrase and argues that..

v     We need a mixed economy – no longer promoting one way of being church  

The language of MIXED ECONOMY was coined by Archbishop Rowan whilst still in Wales , out of his experience of seeing fresh expressions emerge alongside the existing. His radical instinct was to want to recognise church where it emerged, as this quotation given at the English General Synod shows.  

Mixed economy means looking at all expressions of church and making some assessment of what works for which groups in society.   This includes assessing the old and it is clear that some of these expressions are proving attractive and there is some obvious connection between the value of spirituality and the virtues of antiquity.  Holy Places are in, and by no means all of that is mere tourism.   That is not to say there are no weaknesses in these developments. There are dangers in being anonymous attenders who never enter the community life of church, and equally who never become part of the church’s mission to further outsiders.  

Mixed Economy also means investing in, creating & nurturing a diversity of the new. This is language that implies the transfer of priorities and resources to an underdeveloped part of the life of the overall church.  

The variety of FXC is considerable – here is one list based on chapter 4.   Planters and Pioneers can take great encouragement that this is the warm and welcoming way the ABC, is considering them :

“what has been so extraordinary, so life giving and wonderful in the last decade or so, is more and more stories coming in, of how those fresh encounters happen….. God is showing us examples of what the church is, in startling new ways, because we are seeing what corporate forms of life actually happen when people meet Jesus.”

++RW at SBK June 23rd 2004  

Mixed Economy is a both/and mentality, not either or.  The double listening principle in MSC is listen both to the mission context and the inherited tradition. From that expression of church grow. Part of our mission context still includes those who encounter Christ, through traditional expressions of church.  Other parts of our mission context lead to fresh expressions.  Mixed economy is living with both.

Then as Archbishop Rowan put it, in discussing structural response,  in June 2004

How does the church organise itself in such a way that ..

A]        it doesn’t simply send out the message that fresh expressions, new encounters are a kind of tolerable eccentricity on the edge ? 

B]        but neither does it send out the message that everything people are doing as the moment is wrong and they need to forget it.

++RW at SBK June 23rd 2004  

Or, later in the same talk, using a different metaphor

“Mixed economy…. Means that the church is always a mixture of the disciplined regularities of the prose and the unpredictable encounters, the new creation beginning to happen afresh somewhere, the poetry.”

++RW at SBK June 23rd 2004  

Yet we need to be clear what Mixed economy does not mean. The danger is the term can be a cop out, to have a few mission shaped churches existing alongside unchanged existing churches. Many of the latter are so unmission minded that I fear they have become mis-shapen churches.  Mixed economy is about the mixture of inherited and emerging churches – but all of them learning to be more mission-shaped.  

This charity to the fresh expressions is not new. A source, unlikely to some, comes from

The 1960’s and the WCC

The churches attitude towards experiments should not be one of silent toleration, especially towards experiments which are seeking to create new forms of Christian presence in terms of particular situations. A missionary church should welcome such attempts and encourage their multiplication

1967 WCC The Church for others  

What I think we do not yet know is what the future will be. Clearly we have already entered the Heineken world – the fresh expressions are reaching the parts the older expressions could not reach.  Mixed economy has no trouble with that.

What pleases some, and worries others, is that the change may be far more far reaching.  What I could call the Orange world – the future’s bright the future’s orange.  Will the church scene be like the change from the utter monopoly of landline to the world where the mobile phone is dominant and it is conceivable that the landline might go the way of the telegram or the carrier pigeon.  We don’t know. It will partly depend on how the culture evolves and whether traditional expressions of church can continue to connect.  Our role is not to become museum curators preserving the skeletons of past church, but bearers of the eternal vision – of a people, called of God to mirror his own community and to be a foretaste of his new creation.  

I think two major factors have led to the framework in which mixed economy is worked out on the ground.

1          Both new housing and the rise of networks mean that the mission task overflows the old ecclesial boundaries.  In such local cases ways of far greater flexibility are being found because the mission imperative is strong.  Better than simply tearing up the boundaries, people are looking to wider identities in which they could still be meaningful.    

2          Allied to this is what I would call a change about change.  MSC 124-125 recognizes that past gradualist and evolutionary change is inadequate for what is before us.  You might call this democratic and synodical process the convoy system – which proceeds at the pace of the slowest ship.  MSC recognizes that the speed of change needed and the slower speed the current system permits creates real tensions.  pp. 131-132 talk of this shift and a tension between being Anglican and Apostolic    

            At times in WW2 the crisis of assault on a convoy could sometimes lead to the decision that to scatter and remain in looser contact that was an advantage. 

            Whether we are at that point is not certain. What is clear is that in any climate needing rapid and flexible change, it is natural that the role of a leader is accentuated as the initiator or permission-giver. 

            The church rightly values order and relationships – because the body of Christ ought to be functioning as one, not divided nor anarchic. At the same time  it is rightly wanting to be responsive to a critical need which is one of the levers for change.  It is thus natural and theological that the role of the Bishop as more directive leader in mission should become the other lever.  

            So MSC reworded a draft document, I had written with others, from within Sheffield Diocese and recommended this way of proceeding.  It works with the two instincts I have aired – wider mission areas and serious roles for the Bishop – and uses  four interlocking principles to facilitate diverse church planting across a diocese.  It suggests the jigsaw of contemporary mission can be put together well, if all four are employed.   

a]         the bishop acts as authorised broker in discussions with ability to authorize or deny permission to proceed. Broker may be too mild a word. 

b]         the old and fresh expressions of church in that parish should be complementary in both aim and style, where it is agreed that a church plant should be begun, but its meeting place is in another parish.

c]         in all cases legal boundaries should be seen as permeable, reflecting that such boundaries need to be both respected and crossed

d]         a mutually agreed process be entered, including review and support to both expressions, in order to hold these values together [1]   

Some have found this revolutionary, some think it tame. Some argue true network church cannot sit at all with territorial instincts.

To the frustrated I’d comment in two ways. Politically the MSC group did have to make difficult judgements about what was achievable and to offer recommendations that could be accepted by Synod.  To construct a report that suffered rejection would jeopardise the gains for which it stood.  Its favourable reception is now the base from which to continue to build. 

Locally two other factors are important.  One is that network churches do have a relationship to maintain with other churches who may well still think in the territorial way. Also where a network church has a principal gathering point, ignoring neighbours is neither wise nor collaborative.  Where there is no permanent meeting place, clear ways of expressing their relationship with other Christian groups is still a right concern, within one body of Christ.  Celebrating difference and giving mutual affirmation seems the best way to handle this.   

Moving on,  but staying with the two principles, that the mission context dictates to boundary sizes and that the episcopal leadership in mission is crucial, MSC has revisited a well known statement made by a Bishop when a vicar is being put in post – “receive the cure of souls  that is yours and mine.” We observe that this cure is not given away, but rather shared. 

So for England we have proposed that the legal right of a vicar to refuse the entry of a mission initiative into his parish, which is wanted by the diocese, should be removed.

Protectionism can have no place, when the mission of God is discerned by a fair external process to overflow those boundaries.  The MSC hopes in a couple of years this change will become law.  

Any framework exists in a historical context.  That moment will certainly express chronos, it may also be kairos.  It may not be just a time, but somehow also “the time”  

Archbishop Rowan in the foreword to MSC speaks of a watershed.  Recently he used the phrase “a sense of providence” – over the coming together of various factors

My view is that MSC is well guarded by friends. The ABC is the most obvious of these. He has come from Wales with living experiences of church planting, and freely confesses they so impressed him that he openly makes the fostering of fresh expressions of church one of his two highest priorities. The very phrase mixed economy has given all expression space to interact with each other, not threaten each other.

The legal experts have been convinced and  recommended more open, more light touch, more flexible, more permissive patterns which will aid permission givers to follow their heart without fearing the backlash.

The Church Commissioners, holding historic assets for the Church are also convinced. 1st time round the traditionalists in Synod threw our their proposals, btu it may be that the moral argument is being won.

In England we are delighted that two key central appointments have been made. Paul Bayes to work with the early adopters and diocesan missioners and Steve Croft  to work as Archbishop’s Missioner to promote the agenda of FXC, not least with later adopters. Both are able and committed to this cause.

Equally among the pioneering community there are developments. One commonality is the yearning for missional or apostolic communities and for them to be more like Orders than pastoral clergy, that should offer us more flexibility over deployment and more concentration of resources to plant more effectively.  

Such is our kairos moment, for which we give thanks. What difference it will all make is a ceaseless topic for prayer, for consultation and discernment, and for the sending out of people to fashion further fresh expressions of church.  Could be a prayer for our time:  

Holy Spirit, your presence is liberty
Grant us that freedom of the Spirit
Which will not fear to tread in unknown ways
Nor be held back by fear of others or misgivings of ourselves.
Ever beckon us forward to the place of your will
Which is also the place of your power
O ever-leading ever-loving Lord.   Amen

Bishop George Appleton


[1] pp. 138-142 A version can be downloaded from www.encountersontheedge.org.uk