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 23 February 2009
I think we often underestimate the power of language. The words we choose conjure up images of what we are describing, and sometimes these can have unintended consequences. I am increasingly seeing this happen when people use the phrase 'fresh expressions of church'; indeed, even more so when people talk of their mission as 'creating fresh expressions of church'.
I remain a great supporter of both the analysis and aims of the Mission-Shaped Church report which has led to this kind of language. The problem is that the language has taken on a life of its own that means it is often no longer serving that report's vision; indeed, I think it is often working against it.
The insight of the report that we need fresh expressions of church for a new cross-cultural mission situation remains true, but increasingly the effect of the fresh expressions language is leading to something quite different. People seem to have got into their heads that the need is to 'create a fresh expression of church' and not that they are called to cross-cultural mission which may in time, and sometimes a long time, lead to a fresh expression of church emerging from that mission.
The result of this is that people set up whatever kind of fresh expression they think they ought to run and then go looking for people who might want to join it. Such churches are not in the least bit 'mission-shaped'; they are simply a way of consumer niche marketing existing church to provide a wider range of choices for church shoppers.
The categorising of fresh expressions as certain types of church may add to the problem, suggesting they are styles of worship. The likely result is that those attracted will be existing church members, or those who have left church. Such churches cannot enable new Christians from non-churched backgrounds to worship in their own culture when they have already had the culture of the 'fresh expression' decided for them in advance by a group of well meaning but culturally different Christians.
So, my suggestion? Let's stop starting fresh expressions of church and let's start doing the real task of cross-cultural mission in the belief that in time fresh expressions will emerge.
A fuller version of this blog can be found here.
Steve Hollinghurst is Researcher in Evangelism to Post-Christian Culture, The Sheffield Centre, Church Army.
Comments
langauge of 'fresh expresssions'
Posted by Steve Hollinghurst on 1 March 2009 - 14:08
interesting to note both here and on my blog where there is a longer post that this is generating a lot of comments from folks feeling the same way. and many useful additional observations, keep them coming they help me learn!
Mike
indeed we must experiment, but my problem is that it seems a mistake to start with worship experimental or otherwise if we actually want to reach those who don't yet see any need for it. Peter is spot on here.
A Big Yes
Posted by Robert Barker on 27 February 2009 - 11:24
No real time now to speak into this, but thought I had to say how much I agree with Steve.
It has to be authentic!
Fresh expressions
Posted by Peter Graystone on 26 February 2009 - 12:27
I have responsibility in Church Army for developing fresh expressions. I was nodding vigorously when I read Steve Hollinghurst's article. I visit scores of locations where someone has contacted Church Army seeking funding for an evangelist to work with them in their outreach. Invariably they use the phrase 'fresh expression' because they know Church Army has a great deal of experience in that area.
However, sometimes what they describe to me is their desire to start a new and different act of worship. I usually ask (politely and gently, of course) why, if they are seeking to bring the Good News to hardcore unchurched people, creating a new style of worship is the best starting point. If people had no interest at all in the old worship, why would they be interested in the new worship, just because it now involves a drum kit or a plate of sandwiches?
A true fresh expression ministry begins by meeting hardcore unchurched people on their own terms and engaging with their spirituality in the way in which they are most comfortable. In the goodness of God we hope that, months or years down the line, a regular Christian act of worship will be the culmination of that period of cross-cultural mission. But the style of that worship will be dictated by the needs and culture of the community that is developing, not imposed on it from the start.
Posted by Pam Smith on 2 March 2009 - 11:19
I'm doing the Mission Shaped Ministry course at the moment - which is mainly really helpful - but one thing I've noticed is that almost all the videos showing examples of Fresh Expression show worship, almost always in an alt.worship format with lots of candles being lit, hushed voices and prayers. It's usually made clear in the interviews that worship evolved after the group had been together a while, but since pictures are very powerful and what's being shown could be interpreted as FE = alt.worship I think identifiable worship is inadvertently being presented as an aim or a target.
I think there is a huge tension between freeing people up to do mission and somehow relating that to the life of the existing established church. I can see for all sorts of reasons the relationship has to be maintained but let's not forget that many local churches see themselves as being in a struggle for survival, willing workers and new members being seen as the lifeblood. If the focus is missional then people have to be released and sent and this entails maturity and sacrifice on the part of the local church.
This sounds very negative, and I'm not negative about FE at all - but I think Steve is right to point out that there is a process that has to be engaged in, and no short cuts.
fresh expressions
Posted by Michael Moynagh on 26 February 2009 - 10:52
I agree that there is a danger people start with an idea of what a fresh expression might be like and then look for people to join it. On the other hand, it is not always easy to explore possibilities without having anything in mind. Doesn't listening to the people you are called to serve often involve testing ideas you might have and then modifying - even abandoning - them in the light of what you hear?
fresh expressions
Posted by muriel sowden on 25 February 2009 - 21:13
I agree entirely that the idea that we need to be starting a new form of church for our changing culture and "primarily for the behefit of people who are not yet members of any church" seems to have been lost in translation! I find it so frustrating that so many people think that "alternative worship" equates toa "fresh expression".
I believe that a true "fresh expression" could take a long time to develop and must have the potential to become a mature type of church in its own right. We must be prepared to do the listening and thinking and just "being " with people where they are - for what could be months. I have nothing against trying different forms of worship in our own congregations, but that is not what this initiative was ever about!
Fresh Expressions of Churchs
Posted by Rebecca Seaton on 24 February 2009 - 15:36
This is very refreshing to read - my concern is that we are not yet exploring what it is to be an authentic worshipping community, and when we talk about Fresh Expressions we forget to add 'of Church' - and a form of church becomes almost any type of church activity.