The Guide contains how-to-do-it advice on starting, developing and sustaining fresh expressions of church based on shared experiences.
More about The Guide
Share
- Guide |
- Blog
| - Networks |
- Perspectives |
- Community |
The Guide contains how-to-do-it advice on starting, developing and sustaining fresh expressions of church based on shared experiences.
More about The Guide
Posted by Andrew Wooding on 12 August 2008
I've been revisiting a number of pages on the Share site recently, and was especially struck by Does the fresh expressions journey risk manipulation?
The 'fresh expressions journey' is a framework offered on a number of pages on Share, but the page on 'manipulation' rightly points out the danger of treating this – and other frameworks - as formulas for success. That people will be seen as means to an end rather than having value in and of themselves.
Sounds obvious, doesn't it, but be honest: How many times have you been part of a group, a team, a community, an institution, where you have felt used or dispensible? Valued for what you can do to keep the machine going, rather than for who you are? And if you rock the boat you won't be missed, because the 'task' is far more important than the group being with you in your doubts and questions.
I am not talking in the abstract here. I have seen this far too many times, and continue to see it. To my shame, I have also in the past colluded with this sort of thing, justifying my collusion with that old 'ends justifying the means' argument.
How can leaders of fresh expressions prevent this happening? How can they retain the goal of forming church while at the same time making sure each step of the journey has its own integrity? See what you think about the suggestions on Does the fresh expressions journey risk manipulation?
Comments
it is a problem?
Posted by Paul Rowden on 10 November 2008 - 14:33
So I get the whole valuing people as individuals thing and i attempt (failingly) to do that. My question is what about people who have joined in with you thinking it was one thing with a chocolate flavour and now realise it's not chocolate at all it's more like coffee or strawberry?
These people are never going to be happy with this particular flavour because they have eaten chocolate for soooo long their taste buds don't even recognise new flavours.
I realise, now, that it is important to set your stall out, as it were, early on so that no-one makes this sort of mistake. But mistakes do happen so how do we, loving, encourage these people to jump ship to vessel going in another direction.
Posted by Paul Rowden on 10 November 2008 - 14:35
gosh just read that and i do sound callous, honest I'm not really. LOL
Concerns
Posted by Helen Hopkins on 11 October 2008 - 10:52
My fears may be unfounded but I do worry that if a Fresh Expression has been successfully set up and developed by the laity that the ordained might try to 'take over' or reel in.
Posted by Paul Rowden on 10 November 2008 - 14:25
fair comment i think
Manipulation
Posted by Ian Mobsby on 18 August 2008 - 20:31
I think this is a very good point. What we must never do is offer any sense of blue print or take off the shelf commodity. It is more about assisting people to explore the needs and potential solutions for worship, mission and community. Its about trying to support people with how other people have approached issues, and what has worked and what has not worked. Saying all that, Fresh Expressions has become a comodity, a brand, and this I think I want to be more critical of. Branding is not really an aid in seeking to assist the church to engage missionally and culturally. It encourages more subcultures of church rather than contextual engagement. So I suggest Share can really focus on what I said at the beginning and avoid the latter.