The Guide

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

Browse The Guide

Tag Cloud (what is this?)

See all the tags

Home › FAQ › Question 29 - What is the difference between fresh expressions and emerging church?

Question 29 - What is the difference between fresh expressions and emerging church?

In terms of theology or understanding of mission, there is no fundamental difference. Those who prefer the phrase fresh expressions and those who prefer the phrase emerging church are both seeking to develop new ways of being church that are culturally and contextually relevant. There is a very high degree of commonality in the values of fresh expressions and emerging church.

Clubbers leaving a church at nightPractically there are differences. Emerging church in North America tends to be about doing church differently for Christians, though there are exceptions. Fresh expressions, as we have defined them, have a focus on those who don't attend church.

There are also differences in the way that the institutional church is perceived. Those who talk of fresh expressions tend to see it as a good thing that many denominations are recognising that for reasons of mission new forms of church are needed. They welcome the blessing and backing of the denominations.

Those who prefer the language of emerging church will argue that what they are part of is organic or of the community (rather than of the institution). They can often be wary of perceived attempts by denominations to control fresh expressions.

In this discussion we need to be careful that the urgent need to do mission and the energy we need for that is not lost in debate about words or unnecessary duplication of resources.

What is a fresh expression of church?

 

Comments

emerging church

Posted by Beth Keith on 30 May 08 - 10:36

I'm surprised that your description of emerging church mentions north america but not what has been happening over here. I agree that getting lost in a debate about words and definitions is pretty futile - its not like there is an official 'Emerging Church'to sign up to and those who have been labelled as emerging churches don't agree about the definitions anyway. However dismissing emerging churches here in the UK misses some of the important reasons why these new forms of churches have developed.

Elsewhere on the site you have described different types of church as attractional, engaged and incarnational, with the first two having existing church as the centre and the pull for mission and incarnational church as church that develops outside of established church and alongside and with the community the church is part of. Rather than simply being a new form of worship or expression of church, this is a church which emerges out of the community. In its organic development it has the opportunity to develop without the institutional or denominational constraints often found by those developing fresh expressions from established churches.

I have been involved with ReSource supporting and traininging emerging church leaders(www.resourcechurchplanting.com) and over the past few years there has been a shift with more connection and understanding between the established and emerging church. But I still hear too many negative stories. It is a sad fact that many people who are getting on with this type of mission (often in their spare time, rather than as employees)receive little blessing or backing from the established church and at times outright opposition and prejudice. Your point that emerging churches can be wary of denominational control is fair, but I do want to question why this is the case. Does the established church actually have much more to answer about its use of control, than those individuals and emerging churches living out their faith incarnationally often with the criticsm of the established church which has largely failed in our lifetime.