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 - 07 July 2009
One of the most useful chapters that came out of the new book Ancient Faith, Future Mission: fresh expressions in the sacramental tradition, was by the now Bishop Steven Croft. In his chapter (where he critiques the development and resistance to fresh expressions in the Church of England), he reminds us that the key focus of fresh expressions is to build ecclesial communities out of contextual mission. Steve reminds us that in the end all labels such as 'emerging church', 'fresh expressions' and 'alternative worship' are about contextualisation, and about the important refocusing on mission in our increasingly post-Christendom, post-modern and post-secular culture.
Often the term 'fresh expressions' can be confusing. This is why it is so important that the focus is on building church and not as some people seem to think, 'it's all about worship'. One of the strengths of the Fresh Expressions initiatives is that it draws on deep missiology. From the start it has drawn on the work of Vincent Donovan and Roland Allen, both accomplished missionaries who have written comprehensively about the process of mission as growing the church in particular contexts. It is for this reason that Fresh Expressions in its second phase of five years is focused on the process of listening, responding in loving service, building community, discipleship/catechesis, and finally, the development of contextual forms of worship.
This process is key if mission is to be focused on the 'unchurched', the largest growing missional need. As we increasingly become a post-Christendom culture, it is expected that the numbers of 'dechurched' will fall. The dechurched were a much easier group to do mission to in some ways; the unchurched are a greater challenge because of the socio-cultural challenge of engaging with people who have no understanding of the Christian faith at all, and some of the ways we express it can be deeply anachronistic. However, if we are to be committed to 'proclaiming the gospel afresh to every generation', this missional focus on the unchurched is crucial.
We know from research that traditional church planting models are good at engaging with the open dechurched and recycling Christians, but not good at engaging with the unchurched in general terms. The other great problem with traditional church planting is that it tends to set up attractional rather than missional models of church. Attractional models of church tend to over-focus on a strong Christian subculture that makes it hard for contextual forms of church to develop. So we must not lose the focus on building ecclesial communities out of contextual mission. After all, this is the focus and definition of fresh expressions, of seeking 'to build church with people who are not yet members of any church'.
So how do practitioners engage with proper cultural, missional, theological and I would argue Trinitarian thinking to assist good practice? Well, one good book that has come out that I really think hits the mark is Pete Ward's Participation and Mediation: A practical theology for liquid church. This book is about keeping focused on building ecclesial communities out of contextual mission. The strange thing is that many of us, including me, are quite shocked by how well Pete articulates a method and process out of experience, which is pretty much spot on the journey that many of us practitioners have been making. Pete therefore has drawn together a book out of his great experience which I can only say would have made my life a lot easier if it was around 15 years ago! Further, Pete's work takes contemporary approaches to mission by culturally listening and engaging where people are as a bedrock to then engage with practical theology. As Pete says, I am convinced that practical theology and engagement with it, is crucial as a form of prayer and discernment. Or as Pete puts it:
The Challenge I faced as a youth minister required the ability to reflect both theologically and culturally ... The style of relational ministry ... I set myself [was] the task of journeying into the world of young people and meeting them in situations where they felt at home. The idea was that I went to their territory. This means that I was a visitor in a context where they were in control and they set the rules. Needless to say this was not at all easy, but interestingly almost from the start I felt that this kind of ministry was a deeply spiritual practice. Going to young people, rather than asking them to come to me, gave me a strong sense that I was in some way sharing in God's love and concern for the world. In fact more than that, I was struck by the conviction that the Holy Spirit was there with the young people even before I arrived. (Pete Ward, Participation and Mediation, SCM Press, 2008, pp. 13 & 27.)
Commitment to reflection of the cycle of need, cultural analysis, mission, theology, God as Trinity, and building ecclesial community has to be the central craft of any committed pioneer minister. So, enjoy the journey, because at the end, it is about thinking and acting in our attempt to catch up with what God is already doing in people's lives, and this is what I believe fresh expressions of church is all about.
Bio: Ian Mobsby, author, priest missioner, fresh expressions core team member and associate lecturer in theological education
Blog: www.ianmobsby.net
Moot: www.moot.uk.net
Ancient Faith, Future Mission can be bought here.
If you have something burning to say and want to contribute to the Share weekly guest blog, please contact Beth Keith.
Comments
dialogue
Posted by Beth Keith on 09 July 09 - 11:24
I've not had time to read the book yet but have heard so many positive comments about it.
We may be thinking along similar lines but whenever I hear about listening and fresh expressions I get this niggling feeling that perhaps we are using a word that doesn't really go far enough in describing what is going on.
Are we atually talking about the necessary movement from listening to conversation. Listeners can remain detached impartial and static, conversers are involved participating and connecting with others. The language of listening has become accepted in the fresh expressions methodology, it has become short hand for engaging with and connecting to the context, however it is a much more passive word than dialogue or conversation. It could affect a movement towards an engaged or attractional model of church and ironically away from the incarnational process of mission it is trying to promote. For example, listening to what people who do not attend church say they want from their local church can unhelpfully collude with consumerism and folk memories of a benign Christianity.
I wonder if the language of listening has been used to redress the power dynamic intrinisc in the traditional models of church. However if listening means asking what people want and then providing that service the power dynamic has been tampered with but still speaks of the church as providers of God/spirituality/transformation.
Richard Sudworth talks about how
intentional vulnerability and the risky unpredictability of authentic dialogue with others embodies incarnational mission. It is this dynamic discipline of conversation that is necessary in the ongoing process of seeing communties of faith evolve contextually.
And Ben Edson talks about constructing a theology and ecclesiology consistent both with Manchester City Centre and yet faithful to the historic Christian tradition. If we're enagaing in a dialogue between fresh expressions and more established forms of church can we do our communties the respect of dialoguing with them rather than just listening.
Posted by Pam Smith on 09 July 09 - 23:13
Yes, so true - and a lot of churches don't even get any further than listening to what their existing members want and changing things so they don't leave! ;)
I think what you might call 'intentional listening' is hard work and needs practice and awareness and maturity in the listener.
If we offer to listen to anything people want to tell us, they may need to offload a lot of negatives before anything positive starts to happen. It takes skill and practice and a certain mind set (and prayer and other support) to be able to deal graciously with other people's negativity and criticism.
I agree that listening without any response, or uncritically accepting everything that's said on face value and responding accordingly, isn't going to further relationship, which is presumably what we're trying to do.
Posted by Pam Smith on 09 July 09 - 23:15
Posted by Ian Mobsby on 17 July 09 - 00:10
Posted by Ian Mobsby on 17 July 09 - 00:05
I think listening rather than conversation is a good discipline because it is for me about empathetic listening. It is about us shutting up to hear people. What they have to say, what they mean, what they seek, and the prayerful discipline of getting beyond a power relationship. Too many Christians are terrible listeners - that's to people and God.
My problem with conversation, is that it it focuses on people working out what they think drawing on their own values and thoughts. Conversation is about having an ear to what people are saying, and then engaging with your won thoughts. I don't think this helps you to understand empathetically, as in from trying to understand what that means from wearing their shoes with their worldview and aspirations. This is one of the reasons I am so pro contemplative approaches to prayer and discernment, because it is all about the discipline of shutting up and getting beyond your own thinking and feeling. So I think Listening is a good discipline.
A good example of this is Michael Volland and Rob Ryan who both spent a year listening and forming relationships. Listening did lead to conversations, but it started with the discipline of listening, that opened both to engaging with people they probably would not have naturally have done, and responded in ways where people were really heard.
The Church can learn from this type of listening... It is too quick to make decisions and judgments in my view.
Posted by Beth Keith on 19 July 09 - 15:49
I agree with so much of what you said but think you are responding to what you see is culture of non listening in the church. So perhaps this language is better for now and in the context you find yourself but for me it descibes a christendom mode of church wanting to engage, where employees are out of touch with the communities they are trying to reach. I don't know Michael or ROb so don't really know what you're referring to and yes I agree that if you've been sent somewhere its important to spend a year listening. But most people aren't sent somewhere, most of us are simply working out our faith where we live and work. Do we need more emphasis on explaining that clergy need to listen to the communities they are being sent to, perhaps??
I'm not sure I'd want to say that Christians are terrible listeners, bit of a sweeping statement. Do some church cultures encourage bad listening, maybe...
Perhaps there's a power dynamic intrinsic when people are trained & paid to do mission which makes listening a more appropriate discipline than dialogue. But if that dynamic is not present, if people are good listeners, if 'wearing their shoes' is not a listening exercise but part of daily life then perhaps conversation shows a level of trust, value and vulnerability. Not to push your own thoughts, make decisions or judgements but to connect deeply and really share lives.