However, these things were nowhere near as challenging as planting a new church to reach people no other church is reaching.

The reason why is because our parish structures assume a population which is attracted to church already. The difficulty we find is that one of the fastest growing sections of the surrounding population (in my opinion) is the group that is not attracted to any Christian church. Changing the structures most Episcopalians, and probably most Americans, have in their mind as to what a local church is supposed to be like is far more difficult than building a new facility and moving to a new location.

In 2005 I moved to the Phoenix area and began work to plant a new church in the Diocese of Arizona. Most of the people who initially joined in with the new work had this picture of church:

priest + building + liturgy = church

I quickly began to see that something new was needed. Bob Hopkins and Mike Breen gave me a new model, or operating system, in their book clusters: creative mid-sized missional communities, 3DM Publishing, 2007. We have since been working to understand and implement:

faith + community + action = church

This is a profound change! A community of faith equipped and ready for action will make people with no church connection thirsty for what it has. For those who are used to a priest-centred way of operating this can be a very uncomfortable change, for both the priest and the people.

To pursue this new operating system I have a two-part strategy. The first part is to decentralise as much as possible. When we started out we had monthly dinners for the whole congregation to attend. We are now beginning to identify and train leaders who will host these kinds of dinners for their neighbourhoods instead of only church members. It takes a lot of encouragement for someone who is used to asking the priest about almost everything to begin thinking about what is the best kind of activity to serve their own neighbourhood. It is, however, the way to faith + community + action.

The second part of my strategy is to have our staff leaders spend more time in the community during the week. Our children's ministry team leader is gearing up for an adaptation of the 'Messy Church' approach. Our youth ministry team leader is preparing to volunteer in the local high school to meet students who know nothing about Jesus.

It takes a long time to change the operating system.

Revd John F Maher, Jr, Prince of Peace Episcopal Church, Peoria, Arizona, USA.

If you have something burning to say and want to contribute to the Share weekly guest blog, please contact Karen Carter. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and are not necessarily shared by the Church of England, the Methodist Church, the United Reformed Church, Church Army, Fresh Expressions or any of its partners.

It is a possibility that needs much serious consideration and assessment of what could be done in the areas in which this can be a real danger. However, at one level a response could be that this is the inevitable outcome of an "edge movement" that is effective and fruitful as it impacts and influences the centre ... the challenge being for new edge movements to arise that continually take us further and that in turn challenge the centre to further needed adaptation and flexibility.

We seem to remember that George Lings has long suggested that renewal movements can be likened to his beloved railways. A branch line being like a pioneering movement that starts from but initially is clearly separate and alongside the mainline (institutional centre), but if the traffic on it builds up, subsequently the mainline begins to divert and link to the branch line. Then he has always suggested that the need will be for another branch line. And this is probably just an analogy to illustrate the mechanism by which we observe the truth that Luther proclaimed that the church reforms herself and always is reforming (Ecclesia reformanda e semper reformanda est). 

At another level there may be the question as to whether some pioneers are particularly motivated by being "out there, unrecognised, breaking new ground that most in the mainstream haven't woken up to". This could mean that whilst they are worried and feel motivated to "move further out" ... the fact that their efforts so far have played a part in how God is stimulating thousands of churches to begin to think beyond their fringe and initiate engagement with non-churched families, de-churched seekers, the homeless, addicts, dwellers in deprived urban estates etc. and that the institution is encouraging this and adapting structures accordingly, has to be fantastically good news - even if it looks domesticated to some.

Lastly I note the many responses to Ben's original piece. There is much important stuff there too. But I confess a slight disquiet that the focus seems to have shifted from an original concern about the domestication of a movement of radical mission to reach broken humanity and transform dysfunctional society, to a primary concern about me and who I am and whether the institution and its structures suits or fits me. I'm personally much less worried about that, sensing that we can mostly find ways around the mismatches in order to follow God's calling to radical mission, if we are flexible and set ourselves to it.

Bob and Mary Hopkins pioneered Anglican Church Planting Initiatives which they continue to lead. Alongside this, they are part-time members of the Archbishop's Fresh Expressions Team led by Graham Cray. They are also working in partnership with CMS for a mission movement.

If you have something burning to say and want to contribute to the Share weekly guest blog, please contact Beth Keith.