This report was originally compiled for the Discipleship and Ministries Learning Network East Central Region, and has been adapted/expanded.
Over the next five years, Fresh Expressions wants to avoid becoming anything more of the mission organisation that it is already. They want to release rather than control what is happening by developing deepening their local networks. Fresh Expressions want to create a movement that is ‘releasing, connecting, and enabling’. At the recent Hub conference in September, Phil Potter encouraged its leaders to be driven by two maxims; ‘Your success is my honour’, and ‘Partnership without ownership’. (In the case of the latter read, ‘Partnership without control or manipulation.’) Fresh Expressions do not want a monopoly. They are striving to promote unity whilst encouraging diversity. Fresh Expressions do not want a top down leadership. They do not want to form a community of their own. They do, however, want more to be than a list of names but less than a centralised organisation. Amidst this they are asking, ‘What do we stop, what do we start, and what do we enhance?’ I must confess that as I write this I am slightly confused as to whether I should say ‘they’ or ‘we’. That is precisely the point. Fresh Expressions are looking for more local leaders to own what is happening. Having been invited – and accepted the offer – of becoming a Fresh Expressions Associate – I should feel entitled to use the word ‘we’. This does not quite come naturally to someone like myself who is wary of misrepresenting what the movement or its leadership is saying. Nevertheless, be in no doubt that this paradigm shift is exactly what Fresh Expressions is calling for.
Nationally, a ‘network of networks’ is emerging, whereby multiple denominations and church groups are connecting with each other because they are geographically close (For example, For Starters in Peterborough), draw from similar traditions (such as new monasticism), share identical training needs (in developing pioneers), or serve particular mission fields (‘rural’ as opposed to ‘city’). Nationally this is patchy, and messy. In some cases, people from across different denominations align themselves to Fresh Expressions, whilst in others, there is a direct denominational link. Across the whole, some groups are more robust whilst others are more fragile. Unsurprisingly, Fresh Expressions has given rise to web-based forms of information sharing and support that can transcend local boundaries (for example, the Cumbria Fresh Expressions Facebook Page). Within the Church of England, there are some particularly striking examples of networked leaders; a bishop’s hub (incorporating some 30 bishops), and DDO hubs (incorporating Diocesan Director of Ordinands) who have a crucial role in assessing and forwarding people for ministerial selection.
As I reflect from a wider Methodist Church perspective, I sense that Fresh Expressions has done two things. First, it has spoken prophetically in a way that has encouraged local churches to modify and adapt their worship and mission, bearing in mind the needs of those who have little or no previous experience of ‘church’. Second, it has given Church leaders the warrant and confidence to call for change.
Some observations that might relate to us:
‘Slippage’ in the language around fresh expressions
Over the past three years, I have observed subtle changes to the language used by Fresh Expressions, or by its adherents in local settings. One example is the shift away from talking about ‘church’ to using the term ‘congregation’, or speaking of ‘new ecclesial community’. In my view, this reflects two issues. First, I suspect for free church denominations, the word ‘church’ is troublesome. For Methodists, a ‘church’ has a distinct legal definition; a church is formed only when twelve Methodist members unite. Local churches form a church council which oversees mission and ministry across the whole and are required to appoint key individuals: secretary, treasurer, stewards. Second, if the aim of a fresh expression is to create a ‘new form of church’, why would we constrain ourselves to this single model? Personally, apart from the challenge of making members, I think that the model we have is a good one; everyone is accountable to each other; decisions cannot be made in quiet corners; children and vulnerable adults are safeguarded from harm; those who hold office are properly vetted and approved; the teaching of the church is preserved; no one exists in a bubble – we want to form new churches and not cults. The problem is the language that we use switches some people off. In my experience, if I asked people to fill these positions I would receive a stare which questioned what century I thought I was living in. But if I asked a group who held the contact details of those who attended, or who looked after the money, or who liaised with visiting speakers, people saw sense. Nonetheless, talk of ‘church’ is troublesome. To talk of an ‘emerging ecclesial community’ has double appeal in that it honours the idea of creating ‘church’ without using the word. Talk of creating new congregations is helpful because a congregation (such as a new worship service) can be held by the wider church and as such, is less of a threat. It can, in theory, sit as a new church within the old, where newcomers can make it the primary local for their discipleship. The second issue – married to some of the above, and for other reasons that I will outline later, is that I suspect we are lacking confidence in ‘C(c)hurch’ as we know it.
Another concern is how the term ‘pioneer’ is being used in multiple contexts; fresh expressions are at ease in calling all fresh expressions leaders ‘pioneers’, whilst the Anglican and Methodist Churches have different pioneering pathways, and local circuits are free to appoint ‘pioneer workers’ at their own discretion. The challenge how we encourage one without disenfranchising the other. Here in Peterborough, we see ourselves as a Pioneer Hub rather than a ‘fresh expressions hub’, or a ‘mission hub’ because we recognise that the core of all things new is the apostolic dynamic of the Holy Spirit who brings openness, creativity, innovation, boldness, and even a measure of entrepreneurship. Not convinced? Remember that the apostle Paul was a tentmaker who supports himself and is, therefore, free to minister. Consider how the Holy Spirit leads him into unchartered territory.
What are we creating through fresh expressions?
In the 2014 Statistics for Mission Report, The Methodist Church stated that 2705 projects self-declared as fresh expressions. 548 churches stated that their projects were intended for those who do not attend church at all, whilst 304 stated that they were for those do not attend church regularly. The amount of independent research is limited, but to date, this suggests that very few have the intention of becoming a new church: they are fellowship groups or mission projects. Nonetheless, they are significant because they (i) retain people whose needs are not entirely met by traditional worship, (ii) provide a space and context in which personal evangelism can take place, and (iii) allow people to use their gifts and grow as disciples. Even so, given the 2017 Methodist Conference’s Notice of Motion 102 (which encouraged local circuits and churches to pray, promote acts of personal evangelism, nurture new disciples, and plant new societies), an examination of just how many fresh expressions might have the potential to become new churches would be well justified. Perhaps the broader question (if we are looking for an approach that could encourage both congregational development and church planting), is how we enable groups to become self-determining, self-financing, self-theologising, and self-propagating. (Drawing from insights in Indigenous Church Mission Theory).
One difficulty is that even if some fresh expressions do possess this ecclesial potential, comparatively few circuits will be able to draw from previous experiences of church-planting. (Most new societies are formed by merging declining churches, or by a declining church merging with a stronger ecumenical partner.) Granted, there are examples of church plants that are not a consequence of decline, but finding clear and detailed accounts of this is difficult.
Fresh Expressions are raising sharp questions about how local churches help those who attend local projects understand that they are part of the wider church, and vice-versa. My own experience of working in fresh expressions has been how some newcomers are skeptical of the Church as an institution, and therefore resist becoming members. This may be due, in part, to Fresh Expression’s argument that the inherited Church is failing in its missionary endeavours and therefore must change and adapt. Whilst this is helpful on one level – in calling people to action, it also asks people to trust a denomination that has a track record of sustained decline. Another issue is that whilst Fresh Expressions clearly defines what we mean by C(c)hurch – with reference to how ‘church’ emerges in the New Testament and the Four Marks of Church – we do not stress enough the importance of belonging to a denomination. This is key for Methodism, because connexionalism guards against insularity. And the question of how fresh expressions are incorporated into local churches is our business.
In terms of what resources we need, I would develop the following for my own context, if I had the time.
- We might create an audit tool to help churches assess their fresh expressions. Is their project a separate congregation, or is it a stepping-stone to the inherited church. Much more clarity and honesty around these areas will help churches discern their vision for the future, and deploy their resources accordingly. Strictly speaking, a fresh expression is not a stepping-stone to something else, but that is not the point.
- A separate issue is that for some reason, the most recent Statistics for Mission reports have focused less on fresh expressions. Is this because we lack the data, or because we consider them less important? The difficulty for those who are sceptical of fresh expressions, is that there is no clear alternative response to addressing church decline (apart from ‘keep calm and carry on’ or ReImagine Church with the challenge of encouraging re-imagination rather than cloning something and reproducing it at a different time, with less crappy biscuits – acknowledgement to Trey Hall for the ‘crappy biscuits’ reference). There may be theological objections around how we understand ‘Church’, whether we are pandering to consumer demand, the theological breadth of fresh expressions (are they top-heavy in their conservative-evangelicalism, are they too narrow in their understanding of church etc)…but in Fresh Expression’s absence there is no real alternative to what we are already doing.
- We might develop a resource to help fresh expressions use Methodist membership as a means of evangelism and deepening belonging. (This could be of used by the wider church, and would outline for those who have experience of other denominations, why membership is important). This might need only to be a conversation starter, but it would need to counter a skepticism towards the Church as an institution, explain why Methodism has membership (whereas the Church of England does not), and outline the benefits and expectations of membership. Is there a resource that could be used or adapted?
One possibility might be for us to develop of highlight training for ‘Class Leaders’. This might be ideal for fresh expressions and allow us to refocus our efforts on promoting prayer, evangelism, mutual accountability, and discipleship within projects. It could also revive our pastoral system wherein the notion of a class leader – in contrast to a past