This report was written as a result of the experience of church planters over the last 15 years. It is an attempt to document and explain what has already happened so such work will increase and be rightly understood. It is not the latest bright idea of a theologian in ‘an ivory tower’.

The report acknowledges on p.20 and in chapter 4 the diversity of churches planted in the last 15 years. The phenomena of cell churches, café churches, youth congregations, midweek congregations etc. together illustrate there is no one way of doing church (providing the essential values listed on pp.81-82 and pp.96-99 exist). The Anglican instinct for monopoly about how church is done [Common Worship, attitudes to dissenters, etc] has been overtaken by the need for diversity, as modelled by the Trinity. So readers should not feel limited by the Chapter 4 list; it is not exhaustive but only descriptive of present reality. Be suspicious if people claim that only one form is a valid mission-shaped church.

network

This is also a response to the understanding that network communities as well as neighbourhood communities now exist within society (p.5-7), although less so in working class or rural areas. The parochial system is only equipped to reach neighbourhoods. Anglican churches are also needed for networks of people who spend their lives with others they meet at work, at the gym, when socialising rather than their geographical neighbours. Diversity will be necessary to respond to consumerism, a ‘pick and mix’ culture to be entered in order to be challenged from within by Christian values (pp.9-10).

The mission context should shape which way of doing church is appropriate (p.105-116). For example, if people are not used to offering and receiving hospitality within each others’ homes, cell church would not be a good choice. Don’t assume that rock music will connect with young people who are listening to rap or dance music. The ages, classes, employment, ethnic group and church experience of your target group is vital information to be discovered. Be suspicious if church leaders simply select from the list of fresh expressions of church which they fancy without asking if it is appropriate to their mission context.

Pages 36-41 of the report describe the non-churched (people who have never had any contact with church except for Granny’s funeral) and closed de-churched (people who have been members of churches but have left feeling damaged or disillusioned and have no intention of returning) that make up 60% of our society and look set to increase. These groups will not be reached by our existing evangelistic strategies. The use of the vague term ‘unchurched’ may be a tell-tale sign that someone has not understood that different groups exist within society and that different approaches are needed with each.

This report is not about church addition – a way of getting bums on pews. Be suspicious if church leaders are hoping it will do. It is not based on church growth theory where the intention is to add new members to existing church. This report is about the multiplication of different types of churches to reach the different groups within culture.

go, not come

For the non-churched, churches need to change from a ‘come’ mentality to a ‘go’ mentality (pp.12 & 41). The non-churched will not automatically appear out of the woodwork to attend a visitors’ service laid on at the church. Christians must go to the places in their communities or networks where people gather i.e. pubs, schools, shops, cafés, parks, places of work to get to know people without the ulterior motive of dragging them off to a service at the church, but with the instinct to begin something new with them.

The more effective the evangelist in working with those beyond the fringes of church, the more they must understand the importance of creating fresh expressions of church for those people that are converted. The evangelist must think in terms of church planting. Automatic assimilation into existing church can no longer be hoped for. Even people who make it through to the end of the Alpha course have expressed their alienation and discomfort when asked to attend ‘normal’ church; they miss the small group discussion, the freedom to debate and the chance to socialise over a meal.

Crucial to the report is the analogy of ‘dying to live’ (pp.30, 31, 88 & 89). Just as Christ entered a process of incarnation, cross and resurrection, our mission to the non-churched will require us to go through a process of getting to know these people by going to them, to lay aside our preferred forms of church with the intention of finding with these people, the ways of church that they find most helpful.

Page 32, the definition of the church planting process links this dying motive to an agricultural one; the ‘seed’ of the gospel and the church is planted in the mission context, but what expression of church will grow cannot be predetermined. Be suspicious if people want to do mission to any group, especially to the non-churched but do not want to change the way they are doing church. Some larger, more successful, branded churches may be more guilty of this.

The methodology by which the dying to live process is pursued is double listening, attending to both the mission context and to essence of the Christian faith handed down to us. This listening expresses attentiveness to the God of Mission. A set of helpful questions to pursue are explored in Chapter 6, which begin with attention to who a fresh expression is for, before proceeding to questions of church resources and wider partnerships.

Pages 92-93 of the report insist that mission to the non-churched should be cross-cultural rather than same-culture. Vincent Donovan in his book Christianity Rediscovered tells of needing to recast the vocabulary of the gospel and what it means to be church for the Masai tribe. In 2001, Donovan identified the ‘youth of the West’ as needing the same cross-cultural approach.

On pages 30-33, the report introduces the term ‘fresh expressions of church’ to mean the consequence of a process of ‘church planting’; ‘church planting’ is the verb and ‘fresh expressions of church’ is the noun. “Church plant” as a noun is unhelpful as it is associated so closely with the planting of the late ’80s and early ’90s that tended to clone existing expressions of church instead of listening to the mission context. Encourage people to use ‘church planting’ and ‘fresh expressions of church’ wherever possible as it rightly acknowledges the difference between the means and the end result. Even mission-shaped church is best seen as a process.

This report does not say ‘out with the old and in with the new’; it says a ‘mixed economy’ approach is needed. Traditional expressions of church must be encouraged where they are effective in mission to fringe and de-churched. Fresh expressions of church are needed in mission to those that traditional forms cannot reach.

more authentic church?

It suggests that this process of mission shaping church will result in more ‘authentic’ church (church as it should be theologically) with the implication than many existing churches who have not gone through this process are less so. This marks a hugely significant shift in thinking from the 1994 Breaking New Ground report that acknowledged church planters but only as ‘newcomers to the party’.

 

Claire Dalpra

Jan 2005