Share

The word 'missional', though perhaps more redolent of North American English usage, has been a helpful one in summing up what makes many new forms and fresh expressions of church tick. It names our overriding priority and focuses on the primary challenge facing Christian community in our day. As someone who goes back to the early days of alternative worship communities, it also speaks to me of the primary motivation which gave rise to this kind of new form of church in the first place. It also makes me uncomfortable. This is because I am well-aware of the fact that most alternative worship communities tend to draw their members primarily from those who are already Christian.

The short history of alternative worship in the UK (now approaching its quarter century) has witnessed to a struggle for its own identity - either as a reforming movement, or as a evangelising movement, or as a therapy movement for 'church survivors'. There are those who may wish to argue that alternative worship suffers with too ill-defined a set of agendas to be in the running as a missional mode of church. There are others within alternative worship itself who would find themselves in full agreement, having rejected any missional calling or impulse completely.

A job move has meant that I have recently had to go through the experience of leaving one such community: Foundation in Bristol, which I had a hand in setting up. This has offered me plenty of opportunity to reflect on my five years, over which Foundation has grown from a handful of people who prayed in a cold candlelit church on a Sunday night, into the church it is today. In what sense was the whole project 'missional'?

If by 'missional' is meant a proven and primary capacity to bring unbelievers to faith and discipleship, then the answer has to be 'no' - although a new group within it has just started, aimed at the 'Alpha market' which may usher in changes here. However, if we broaden the definition to include a group which attracts people who might otherwise be on an exit trajectory from other forms of 'missional church' and which helps them to continue and to grow in the practice and articulation of their Christian faith, then the answer has to be a 'yes'. It has actively sought, often with considerable pain, not to become a therapeutic group for ex-evangelicals (or ex-charismatics). It is real church: a community of disciples committed to Jesus Christ and meeting together for worship, prayer, pastoral care and growing together in faith. But full-on intentional evangelistic work is still on the back foot.

This has led me to question the ecclesiology underlying the 'missional'/'non-missional' division. Effective evangelisation is badly needed in the western church. But too often we hear 'missional' being used as if it were distinct from 'pastoral'. The New Testament speaks as much about caring for God's flock as it does about mission. Alan Jamieson's research indicates that where churches fail to care effectively for growing disciples, then mission stalls in a crucial way. (See Alan Jamieson, A Churchless Faith, SPCK, 2002; and Alan Jamieson, Jenny McIntosh, Adrienne Thompson, Church Leavers: faith journeys five years on, SPCK, 2006.)

Growth in Christian discipleship isn't as straightforward as some might lead us to believe. It can be a messy, disturbing experience. My experience has suggested that there is a considerable difference between 'alpha' churches (those effective in evangelising unbelievers), 'beta' churches (those that are effective in helping people negotiate faith-development which may have a disruptive effect on their relationship with their initial church communities) and 'omega' groups (groups which cater for people who are on a trajectory where they will either leave organised Christianity or exist for some very protracted time in a marginal state).

The difference between 'alpha' and 'beta' churches is a real one, though one that should make us all rather uncomfortable, irrespective of which 'kind' of church to which we may currently belong. What I am convinced of is that whilst this distinction remains true, neither church has the right to be 'more missional than thou'.

Paul Roberts has been involved in planting two alternative worship communities in Bristol: Resonance and Foundation. He is presently Dean of Non-Residential Training at St. Michael's College, Llandaff.

 

I'm currently part of the leadership team in the Anglican Church of Second Life where I go by the name Helene Milena. Running church online seems to make things move even faster than in other forms of fresh expression from what I can tell, presumably because of the sheer pace of change on the internet. Online church is also something that seems to be classed as even more unusual than many other fresh expressions, although I would dispute that. From my point of view, church via a skate-park or in a surfing community seems equally unusual and way outside my experience. I'm sure it all depends on what you are used to.

I've been asked to write a paper for the DDO of Wakefield Diocese who wants to know more about the challenges and opportunities which this ministry in Second Life presents. The matter of leadership succession was one question that came to mind and I have found no information to answer my questions. It seems sensible to ask practitioners to help me out here so that I can learn from what has actually happened.

Fresh Expressions of church seem to start from the vision and enthusiasm of one person or a group of people. It takes vision and drive and persistence to start anything new. But what happens when the original leader(s) feel called to move on? Who takes on the leadership? Each group will have developed in its own particular way. Does a new leader have to have come up through that particular fresh expression in order to understand what makes it tick and so take it forward well? Is it better to have someone one new come in to bring fresh vision?

I know Dave Male moved from The NET. How did that work out? i-church also has experienced a change of leader twice in my time of being a member. It's obvious that nothing can continue with the same leadership for ever. Change happens in both traditional and new groups and is sure to bring out insecurities in the process. What are the opportunities and challenges of leadership succession in a fresh expression?

Note: If you can help Ailsa with her question, please leave a comment below.

 

Last month 23 'fresh expressions pioneers' were on a five-day retreat at Lee Abbey, on the north Devon coast. It was facilitated by me and three others and I'd like to share a bit about it with you.

We put on the advertising that this was:

• a special, prayerful place to stop for a few days;
• space to reflect, pray, worship and listen;
• time to be recharged, refreshed, reinvigorated, encouraged ... by giving space and time to God and to yourself.

As we know, Jesus modelled this as he spent time alone with God the Father in prayer, often in isolated places. He seemed to need the space to enable the activity of his ministry - 'time out' with God. Then he passed this on.

In Mark's gospel the disciples are sent out by Jesus two-by-two. On their return they gather around Jesus, eager to tell him all that they've done. His response to them is: 'Come away to a deserted place all by yourselves and rest awhile' (Mark 6.31).

The work of building fresh expressions of church can be demanding, but even Jesus needed time out! How much time out are we giving ourselves?

St Bernhard of Clairvaux - one of the great reformers of the 14th century encouraged his people with these words in a Pentecost sermon:

'If you be wise, you will make yourselves reservoirs rather than channels of God's love - the difference being the channel discharges all its water almost as soon as it is received - and a reservoir waits until it is full to the brim and only gives away what is superfluous - it gives away without loss to itself.

'...we have in the church today many channels, but few reservoirs. We want to give away before we have received, more willing to speak than to listen. Beloved, learn to minister from the overflow and do not desire to be more generous than God ... behold how much has to be poured into us that we may venture to pour out, giving of our plentitude, not of our poverty.'

At Lee Abbey it took time for us to begin to change gear ... to move into that place of 'being' rather than 'doing'. Many of us are activists, and rightly so because action is a vital part of life, and of ministry. We don't feel called to just sit and pray that God will magically change the world. As St Francis prayed: 'Make me a channel (or reservoir?) of your peace'.

There is a balance to be found between contemplation and action. By 'contemplation' I don't mean navel-gazing, but a rhythm of prayerful awareness of God – of his love, his abiding presence, and the challenge of his gospel. It can and does lead to action – often starting with the one person I can change – me! And then out into a needy world. Could contemplation be a crucial step along the way towards fresh expressions of church? I recommend a Grove booklet by David Runcorn on this subject, entitled The Road to Growth Less Travelled – spiritual paths in a missionary church.

In chapter 5 - 'A Contemplative Spirituality' - Runcorn says this:

'[Contemplation] is not about being quiet rather than active. Contemplative traditions ... have close links to the awakening of social conscience and to resistance movements. It is a way of depth and maturing that will help lead people away from a religion of easy answers...'

We don't have to be 'introvert' to go deeper in our faith, or to enjoy the space and silence of God's embrace that is beyond words and human activity. In Myers Briggs terms I am an 'extrovert', yet I have come to value silence and contemplation greatly, especially as a means of listening – to my deeper self, and to God in the midst of my responses to life.

The retreat was a journey for all. Like a super-tanker, it takes time to stop, especially when we're very active. In time the initial struggles gave way to a deeper ease. Much was shared and learned from one another and from God, in a safe and held space. 

Here are reflections from a few of the pioneers, when asked what the retreat had been for them:

• peace, space and affirmation;
• an unexpected sense of healing;
• inspiring, enlightening, relaxing, connected;
• time to live and breathe again, and a sense of His intimacy with me.

The retreat was not a conference. It was a place with space to be with God. We don't have to go all the way to north Devon to find space and God. It's about finding a rhythm for you and God in daily life.

Please blog your response here, and share your views on this.

 

When I first thought about working for Hope08, quite a few people told me not to bother. It was 2006 and nobody was really sure what this 'Hope 2008' thing was – just that it had some famous Christians attached to it, a bit of hype and a fairly unspecific website. I was told that the concept of unified, holistic, nationwide Christian mission was at best silly, and at worst cynically motivated empire building.

I'm not good at taking advice so I signed up to work for Hope08. I liked the passion of the leadership team and the real efforts they were making to genuinely give their idea away to local churches. I also liked that it was a bit ridiculous and that it could only work if God liked it too.

So we started trudging away – getting churches excited about working together and suggesting ways they could bless their communities. We put together books, gave advice, published yet more websites, went to conferences and made up a framework of 'high points' to help churches access the year of intense mission.

We were a comparatively tiny team attempting to commission the UK to 'do more evangelism, do it together and do it in word and action'. Sometimes it felt like the whole thing was stuck on pause, and sometimes we couldn't handle the number of people signing up. We had no idea what – if anything - was going to happen in 2008. Christmas 2007 was scary.

I've been in shock for the whole of 2008 – we were unprepared for the generosity, beauty, kindness and grit of the church in the UK. We'd had a few ideas of what churches could do, but our feeble bleatings were drowned out by the weight and originality of what happened in that year.

I couldn't ever sum this all up, but I do know that all over the UK people came to church for the first time because the church had come to them. Cheesy, but true! Simple things worked, like car washing and litter picking. Complicated things like citywide youth outreach weekends also worked. In some places family fun days gave churches roots in their communities, and in other places social action projects flooded Jesus into the places that need him most.

We've published an evaluation with lots of numbers in it – you can find at www.hope08.com. We like it because it's full of encouraging stats, and also because it tells the truth – there are things we could have done better and that future projects probably need to know about. Mainly, though, it's exciting stuff and it seems that Hope church groups aren't stopping here but are carrying on into 09 and beyond!

We had no idea it was going to go as well as it did, but we're glad to have been involved.

Note: How do you feel about Hope08? What was good? What would you have done differently? Please leave a comment.