quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
but my impression has always been that 'Pioneer Ministry' is (to paraphrase a Fry and Laurie sketch about the SAS) less of a reality on the ground and more of masturbatory aid for aging archdeacons and balding bishops who want to prove they're 'still with it'. The same is broadly true, although perhaps to a lesser extent, of 'Fresh Expressions' (which is conclusively and damning discussed by the Rev'd Prof. Alison Millbank, a brilliant theologian who also happens to be a woman and ordained).

---

I say 'somewhat naughtily' because my phrasing was, if I'm honest, meant in part to shock and also because I have absolutely no experience of 'Fresh Expressions'. There are certainly none where I live.

Frankly, I have little idea about what's meant by the term. From an (breathlessly adulatory) Mystery Worshiper, it looks like a pretty standard CofE liturgy plus a bit of technology, some rather middle class attempts at being multicultural (which definitely sound open to accusations of cultural appropriation). I can't help but feel it's just window dressing aimed at a very specific demographic (evidently middle class, white baby boomers). I seem to remember the correspondent for the Church Times was unimpressed.

Now, fine, if people want to do that sort of thing, then I'm sure it's the sort of thing they'll want to do. But it doesn't seem likely that it's going to set the church ablaze.

The Church of England is liturgically very broad. I myself find a wide range of liturgical styles very helpful and moving, from the traditional Anglo-Catholic Pontifical High Mass down to a BCP said service in tippet and surplice (by way of such variations as the modern Catholic concelabrated mass, the MOTR Cathedral Eucharist, and even the much-derrided 'folk mass'). I also adore choral mattins and like a nice hymn sandwich from time to time. I short, there's not much liturgical variety in the Church of England of which I have not taken part. I've been to services in London where a (predominately Jamaican congregation) sang the ordinary of the mass accompanied by steel drums, and I've been to 'jazz Evensong'. I've even sung one or two worship choruses ( I may even have enjoyed them ).

Given this huge variety, I'm not sure what Fresh Expressions is meant to add that isn't there already. I suppose that's not too much of a problem, but I do have two further concerns:

1. Fresh Expressions seems fetishized at the expense of the ministry of normal 'parochial' and chaplaincy clergy, who after all do the overwhelming majority of ministry in the Church of England. of the

2. I feel that Fresh Expressions is meant to engage the young. It doesn't. They're not interested in it. I'm in my twenties myself, and I feel reasonably confident in saying that young people either go to church or don't,* and that those that do overwhelmingly go to 'normal' parish churches (often higher than average, in fact). I know far more ordinands than can possibly be healthy (seriously, is everyone being ordained these days?) and none of them are training for 'Pioneer Ministry' (does this really exist, I've seen zero evidence for it).


Am I missing some Damascene insight on this issue?

***********************
*There is an additional category of young people who have some connection Christianity but don't go to church. In my experience, though, they're not likely to be good candidates for Fresh Expressions given that the churches with which they identify (but to which they do not go), are in more or less descending order, the Roman Catholic Church, MOTR to highish Anglicanism, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Welsh Chapel/Northern English Non-conformism.

[ 04. March 2014, 09:31: Message edited by: seasick ]
 

---

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
It's right-on masturbatory aid for certain clergymen. It's good for nothing but destroying or denigrating the parish ministry.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Meanwhile, a FE church has managed to keep me, Mrs Backslider and the kids within the church when we'd nearly given up.

So you know what you can do with your ignorant and judgemental bullshit, don't you? Fuck off.
 

---

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Meanwhile, a FE church has managed to keep me, Mrs Backslider and the kids within the church when we'd nearly given up.

So you know what you can do with your ignorant and judgemental bullshit, don't you? Fuck off.

---

So why don't you explain what it is about FE that engages you and your wife and your children?
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I will, when I've calmed down a bit after Vade's insulting shite.
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Hosting

Calming down would be a good idea all round. Discuss the matter in hand or call elsewhere. Engagement with the topic would be a fine idea ... or I shall say some most unecclesiastinculated things.

/Hosting

In the meantime I shall try to sort my way through the UBB of the OP

And, no, I'm not speaking in a foreign tongue.
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Nope. Sorry. That UBB cocktail is beyond me. Perhaps the OP can PM me if he has any indication where his "somewhat naughty" quote appears. Or doesn't.
 

---

Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 
"Fresh Expressions" probably manifests differently in different dioceses, but it seems to me to be a desparate attempt by bishops who see falling congregations to deploy clergy to something novel and different and off the wall and totally unproven with no track record in the desparate hope it may prove popular. So parishes are being starved of clergy and meanwhile a whacky young clergyperson can set up some nonsensical and improbably non-parish-based ministry, with no accountability to a PCC, no parish duties such as weddings an dfunerals and nursing homes an dschools, and become the bishop's blue-eyed boy (or girl) based purely in hype and self report of "innovation" and "rechaing the unreached".
 

---

Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 
"Fresh Expressions" probably manifests differently in different dioceses, but it seems to me to be a desparate attempt by bishops who see falling congregations to deploy clergy to something novel and different and off the wall and totally unproven with no track record in the desparate hope it may prove popular. So parishes are being starved of clergy and meanwhile a whacky young clergyperson can set up some nonsensical and improbably non-parish-based ministry, with no accountability to a PCC, no parish duties such as weddings an dfunerals and nursing homes an dschools, and become the bishop's blue-eyed boy (or girl) based purely in hype and self report of "innovation" and "rechaing the unreached".
 

---

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:
Nope. Sorry. That UBB cocktail is beyond me. Perhaps the OP can PM me if he has any indication where his "somewhat naughty" quote appears. Or doesn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Meanwhile, a FE church has managed to keep me, Mrs Backslider and the kids within the church when we'd nearly given up.

So you know what you can do with your ignorant and judgemental bullshit, don't you? Fuck off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
If it had actually contributed to your progress in the Church, we might expect less doubt about the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, and the Real Presence... As it is, I can only imagine it's stroking your spiritual ego, or equivalent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Meanwhile, a FE church has managed to keep me, Mrs Backslider and the kids within the church when we'd nearly given up.

So you know what you can do with your ignorant and judgemental bullshit, don't you? Fuck off.

---

If it had actually contributed to your progress in the Church, we might expect less doubt about the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, and the Real Presence... As it is, I can only imagine it's stroking your spiritual ego, or equivalent.

This is one of the problems with FE: it's usually (not often, but too frequently to be an accident) devoid of any sense of theology or ecclesiology, and very light on doctrine or catechesis. What began as a (slightly sad and retrograde) attempt to return people (quite rightly) to the Church became instead the fatuous "new way of being Church" (a phrase to loath for its grammar if nothing else), to the detriment of Parish life and an ordered understanding of the Church.

Much of which is admirably counter-attacked in Andrew Davison and Alison Milbank, "For the Parish: A Critique of Fresh Expressions"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Meanwhile, a FE church has managed to keep me, Mrs Backslider and the kids within the church when we'd nearly given up.

So you know what you can do with your ignorant and judgemental bullshit, don't you? Fuck off.

---

If it had actually contributed to your progress in the Church, we might expect less doubt about the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, and the Real Presence... As it is, I can only imagine it's stroking your spiritual ego, or equivalent.

This is one of the problems with FE: it's usually (not often, but too frequently to be an accident) devoid of any sense of theology or ecclesiology, and very light on doctrine or catechesis. What began as a (slightly sad and retrograde) attempt to return people (quite rightly) to the Church became instead the fatuous "new way of being Church" (a phrase to loath for its grammar if nothing else), to the detriment of Parish life and an ordered understanding of the Church.

Much of which is admirably counter-attacked in Andrew Davison and Alison Milbank, "For the Parish: A Critique of Fresh Expressions"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
This is one of the problems with FE: it's usually (not often, but too frequently to be an accident) devoid of any sense of theology or ecclesiology, and very light on doctrine or catechesis. What began as a (slightly sad and retrograde) attempt to return people (quite rightly) to the Church became instead the fatuous "new way of being Church" (a phrase to loath for its grammar if nothing else), to the detriment of Parish life and an ordered understanding of the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Meanwhile, a FE church has managed to keep me, Mrs Backslider and the kids within the church when we'd nearly given up.

So you know what you can do with your ignorant and judgemental bullshit, don't you? Fuck off.

---

If it had actually contributed to your progress in the Church, we might expect less doubt about the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, and the Real Presence... As it is, I can only imagine it's stroking your spiritual ego, or equivalent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Meanwhile, a FE church has managed to keep me, Mrs Backslider and the kids within the church when we'd nearly given up.

So you know what you can do with your ignorant and judgemental bullshit, don't you? Fuck off.

---

If it had actually contributed to your progress in the Church, we might expect less doubt about the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, and the Real Presence... As it is, I can only imagine it's stroking your spiritual ego, or equivalent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
This is one of the problems with FE: it's usually (not often, but too frequently to be an accident) devoid of any sense of theology or ecclesiology, and very light on doctrine or catechesis. What began as a (slightly sad and retrograde) attempt to return people (quite rightly) to the Church became instead the fatuous "new way of being Church" (a phrase to loath for its grammar if nothing else), to the detriment of Parish life and an ordered understanding of the Church.

---

You're presenting a ridiculous false zero-sum fight between Fresh Expressions and True Parish Church, in which Fresh Expressions is stealing away members from TPC. Karl is suggesting that, for some people, it's really between Fresh Expressions and No Church; True Parish Church won't happen for them. Some might at least hope that there's an eventual FE -> TPC move, in a way that there won't really be a No Church -> TPC move for most people.

Others would say that Christian worship is Christian worship, and that it's better than no worship at all, no matter what its precise form.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
Tubbs, I think that your "in spirit and truth" are precisely where VM's objections come from here.

Thurible

---

But where would you draw that particular line?! It has to be based on something more meaningful than worship I like is whilst worship I don't isn't.

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
dj_ordinaire: right you are. Ceasing and desisting.

Unreserved apologies to KLB for that paragraph. It really was too much.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I suspect it does rather depend on what you are calling Fresh Expressions. I was surprised to hear a number of long running outreach initiatives described as Fresh Expressions by someone on placement whilst exploring their vocation. He included

• the pram service - which deliberately fed into the church services;
• the monthly support group for bereaved following funerals;
• youth work in the community (I really questioned this one)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
...the fatuous "new way of being Church" (a phrase to loath for its grammar if nothing else), to the detriment of Parish life and an ordered understanding of the Church...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So you know what you can do with your ignorant and judgemental bullshit, don't you? Fuck off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
He included

• the pram service - which deliberately fed into the church services;
• the monthly support group for bereaved following funerals;
• youth work in the community (I really questioned this one)

He missed seeing the Beer and Bible bible reading group that's based in a pub - a monthly group who choose to meet in a pub. I *think*, but am not sure, that they meet in an upstairs room, not in the bar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
I don't contend for one moment that FE steals people (clerical or lay) away from Parish ministry (though it may very well do): rather that it saps energy, imagination and intellectual manpower, draining it away from revitalisation of the liturgy, of parochial ministry, of the clerical calling, and drains it into a great sink-hole which, to mix metaphors, is indeed a blind alley leading nowhere.

And this is, as Thurible discerns so succinctly, the problem I have (I am far from alone, it seems): what began as Fresh Expression of Church is now usually just Fresh Expressions - a linguistic mirror of the emptiness of so many of these benighted enterprises, too often novel for the sake of novelty.

---

I'm a firm believer in having diverse forms of church, because we need to have many different ways to help people to learn about Jesus and to start to worship him. I'd love to find a suitable FE that I could commit to.

However, I agree that there are issues regarding resources and manpower. FEs are usually started and funded by individual congregations, which means that only very well-heeled congregations in nice areas will do so, because only they can afford to divert manpower and funds for this purpose. This isn't always true, but it seems relatively common from what I've seen and heard. Yet poorer areas often have a greater need. I'd prefer individual congregations to be encouraged to invest in their own transformation, because this would be more generally affordable. Harder to do, though.

I don't know to what extent FEs suffer from an evacuation of Christian spiritual content. It seems harsh accuse them of this without proof! My impression is that some of them intend to function as independent congregations on a permanent basis, whereas others are set up with the hope of eventually channelling people towards more traditional worship. The latter probably have somewhat less Christian content. I think the former is a more authentic FE approach.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Right. Calmed down. Sorry Zappa, Vade. Ironically, our church exists on Bookface as a significant part of its community activity, and this very morning as is our Community Development Worker writes:

"When somebody's actions or attitude frustrates or grates on you and the anger rises, do not respond in kind. Instead, consider the exacerbation you would cause, the division you would create.
In all things let Christ be known and let him be seen."



So much for feeding my ego.

So let me tell you a story. Some background information might be useful; from a charismatic evangelical start I'd migrated up the candle and across the theological spectrum to liberal Anglo-Catholic, and for my part was quite comfortable there, and by happy coincidence that was the position of the parish church. It was a bit awkward socially; at 35 (at the time we started there) I was the second youngest there by about twenty years; Mrs Backslider was the youngest, but church isn't a social club, we said, so that shouldn't matter that much. Nevertheless, I never quite felt part of the community; I put that down to me being me and, if not actually on the Austistic Spectrum, at least shall we say "differently wired", and Mrs Backslider being from a free church background and never really feeling properly Anglican.

Then we bred.

Naturally enough, church with a baby is, well, church with a baby. Let it not be said that the congregation were in any way negative about this. And the babies became children, and they were fractious in services, and there was no Sunday School.

Not to worry; we formed one, with some people from another church in the Benefice. It was only twice a month, and we had to run it one of those Sundays, but it did mean that at least sometimes we had the opportunity to concentrate on the service.

In order to "fill in the gaps" in the month, as it were, on an experimental basis we started an all-age service on the First Sunday, where we replaced the sermon with a more interactive approach with stories and quizzes and so on and pared the wordy liturgy to the minimum the rubrics allowed. This worked quite well; it wasn't "dumbed down" for the adults, but some of the barriers for children were lowered.

Then the Rector retired. During the interegnum the pattern was suspended and there were no all-age services, although the Sunday School carried on. However, this ran into difficulties - we discovered that our children behaved perfectly for the other team running their work, but played up for us. After trying various strategies, we were then told by one of the other team (each team had only two people in it) that she had had enough (as a schoolteacher I think it was just too much to do it on a Sunday as well) which left us with a gap. And around the same time we also concluded that we couldn't carry on running sessions as a couple because the dynamic with the group largely being our children (there were our three and one from each of the other two leaders) wasn't working.

Around this time the new Rector started. He didn't immediately restart the all-age worship. He understood the problems the Sunday School were having, and proposed a re-launch as a Junior Church with a bit more formality. However, there was a snag.

No-one came forward to lead it. We needed one person to make up the four so that we could split along different lines and continue to run the work. But there was no fourth person.

Then we turned up one Sunday when we were under the impression someone had been found to do the Junior Church, to learn that no-one had, and it had been cancelled. Ended. No more. Even though I was on the PCC I knew nothing of this. But there it was.

The church in the neighbouring parish does have a running Sunday School, but has its own problems - a wide age range from 3 to 13 (only about half a dozen actual children) all in one group, with activities geared to the youngest. With our older children rapidly learning to loathe church we needed something more engaging for them. I know lots of people find their children actually prefer the main service to Sunday School/Junior Church anyway, and sit through it and engage with it and participate and yadda yadda, but ours Didn't with a capital "D". They were bored; bored beyond description. In February of last year Mrs Backslider had basically said that either the church experience has to change, or we'd have to find a new church. Now our hand was forced. This was difficult to me, because I like liturgy (yes, really) and get on badly with hymn prayer sandwiches and even worse with 'hands in the air let's just sing that a thirtieth time because some people aren't dancing yet'. Besides, the main concern was whether it would even more estrange the children from church than we'd already managed.

We knew of the FE church in town, which I'm not going to name although two minutes on Google and the SoF search function could find it. We gave it a try. Ironically there is no separate children's work. However, since the actual liturgy only takes about 30 minutes, that hasn't been a problem. Oldest child has gone from being nearly dragged kicking and screaming out on a Sunday morning through sitting there with his fingers in his ears to actively listening and taking part in the service. We don't get desperate pleas not to go like we used to. We actually feel part of the church community in a way we haven't in the past; perhaps it's because there are a larger contingent of people our own age, some of whom make super-annuated poster boy for Too old to rock and roll, too young to die here look positively normal; we have actually made friends, but whatever the reason it has actually made all of us see church with something other than dread - the children simple dread of boredom, us dread of having to somehow get through a church service with three bored children.

Given that whatever some people may think of my faith, it has actually given it a new lease of life and some actual enthusiasm, you might understand my initial anger at having it written off in such offensive terms, not to mention one of the hardest working ministers I know written off as engaging in "right on masturbation".

Open invitation to come along and actually find out what it's about if you're willing to be open-minded. Stay away if you're not.


 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by gog:
Can I just put in a reminder that Fresh Expressions (FE) under it's formal banner extends beyond the CofE, and that for others involved with FE (as for some within the CofE), there is not a do trad or FE it is more often do both.

Also I think that FE is a label that has brought together a lot of things that might have been happening otherwise, such as those that Curiosity killed ... lists. What I think the label allows is some working together on things.

Also going back to the OP, I don't think there is a Damascus road thing here. And for some it is the latest fashion accessory that is the must have. However for some idea about what it is http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/ might be a source.

---

Indeed; perusal of that site would show that the things in that list are probably not what would be considered FE by the actual FE programme. I sometimes wonder if people hear the expression, don't realise it refers to a specific programme, and assume they can plonk it on anything a bit different. Not that these initiatives aren't necessarily worthwhile, but FE as understood by the above website and the official programme they are not. The church in the pub might be

Svit - I'm not aware that our FE was set up by an existing congregation, well-heeled or otherwise - in fact, I'm pretty sure it was cut out of whole cloth.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Nice one, Karl: Liberal Backslider, and respect to you for such a measured and thoughtful post. I'd pop by to one of your meetings if I lived round your way.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Svit - I'm not aware that our FE was set up by an existing congregation, well-heeled or otherwise - in fact, I'm pretty sure it was cut out of whole cloth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's a new congregation outside of the parish system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's a new congregation outside of the parish system.

---

How would its leadership respond to the sort of criticisms made in 'For the Parish'? The fact that it's 'outside the parish system' would seem to mean that it's precisely the sort of arrangement which most concerns the Rev'd Drs and Milband and Davison.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's a new congregation outside of the parish system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pererin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's a new congregation outside of the parish system.

---

So a proprietary chapel under another name?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's a new congregation outside of the parish system.

---

How would its leadership respond to the sort of criticisms made in 'For the Parish'? The fact that it's 'outside the parish system' would seem to mean that it's precisely the sort of arrangement which most concerns the Rev'd Drs and Milband and Davison.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's a new congregation outside of the parish system.

---

How would its leadership respond to the sort of criticisms made in 'For the Parish'? The fact that it's 'outside the parish system' would seem to mean that it's precisely the sort of arrangement which most concerns the Rev'd Drs and Milband and Davison.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by *Leon*:
Sorry for the double post. I have a question:
What exactly (in practice) is a pioneer minister?

How does their training differ to that of an ordinary ordinand (now that there are pioneer ministry paths at some colleges)? How many actually exist, what do they typically do and how many of those have stipends?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Would you be so kind to read my long post again where I explain in some detail how the parish system didn't work for us?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by *Leon*:
Sorry for the double post. I have a question:
What exactly (in practice) is a pioneer minister?

How does their training differ to that of an ordinary ordinand (now that there are pioneer ministry paths at some colleges)? How many actually exist, what do they typically do and how many of those have stipends?

---

You'd probably be best addressing those questions to +Graham Cray's office. He's the head honcho for FE in the CofE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Would you be so kind to read my long post again where I explain in some detail how the parish system didn't work for us?

---

I did actually. It seems to me that your complaint was essentially that the parish churches in your area didn't have particularly good programs for children. I must admit that such programs have never been high on my own list for a church (even when I was a child, I much preferred 'grown up' church), but I can see why it would be for some people. However, it seems to be at most a critique of parish churches in your area, rather than evidence that the parochial system has failed per se.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pererin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's a new congregation outside of the parish system.

---

So a proprietary chapel under another name?

---

Wikipedia says that "A proprietary chapel is a chapel that originally belonged to a private person." - if that is so, then no, it isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
I don't contend for one moment that FE steals people (clerical or lay) away from Parish ministry (though it may very well do): rather that it saps energy, imagination and intellectual manpower, draining it away from revitalisation of the liturgy, of parochial ministry, of the clerical calling, and drains it into a great sink-hole which, to mix metaphors, is indeed a blind alley leading nowhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pererin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pererin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's a new congregation outside of the parish system.

---

So a proprietary chapel under another name?

---

Wikipedia says that "A proprietary chapel is a chapel that originally belonged to a private person." - if that is so, then no, it isn't.

---

That's a bit narrow on the legal definition of a person. To pick a particularly (in)famous example, take a look at what Emmanuel Church, Wimbledon, have to say about themselves:

"It is fully self-supporting in funding Emmanuel staff and ministry, and appoints its own clergy under the guidance of an appointed group of patrons. It has always owned and funded its own buildings."

Is that the basic reality of the FE set up?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
I don't contend for one moment that FE steals people (clerical or lay) away from Parish ministry (though it may very well do): rather that it saps energy, imagination and intellectual manpower, draining it away from revitalisation of the liturgy, of parochial ministry, of the clerical calling, and drains it into a great sink-hole which, to mix metaphors, is indeed a blind alley leading nowhere.

---

I don't agree with the general tenor of this post, nor with Davidson and Milbank's critique which seems to present a ridiculously rosy-hued picture of what the Parish Church can do, without recognising the cultural complexity of the present day.

Nevertheless, it is certainly the case in some denominations that money and people are being placed into FE rather than resourcing "old expressions". There is nothing wrong with new initiatives but we mustn't neglect traditional Church either ... especially as (in my opinion) it is often they who end up resourcing FE which rarely seem to be able to support themselves. There's a balance to be had here, but I'm not quite sure where it is.

BTW, am I right in thinking that the most "proper" FEs are considered to be those which stand alone, rather than those which are new ministries of already-established (small "e"!) congregations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
I don't contend for one moment that FE steals people (clerical or lay) away from Parish ministry (though it may very well do): rather that it saps energy, imagination and intellectual manpower, draining it away from revitalisation of the liturgy, of parochial ministry, of the clerical calling, and drains it into a great sink-hole which, to mix metaphors, is indeed a blind alley leading nowhere.

---

I don't agree with the general tenor of this post, nor with Davidson and Milbank's critique which seems to present a ridiculously rosy-hued picture of what the Parish Church can do, without recognising the cultural complexity of the present day.

Nevertheless, it is certainly the case in some denominations that money and people are being placed into FE rather than resourcing "old expressions". There is nothing wrong with new initiatives but we mustn't neglect traditional Church either ... especially as (in my opinion) it is often they who end up resourcing FE which rarely seem to be able to support themselves. There's a balance to be had here, but I'm not quite sure where it is.

BTW, am I right in thinking that the most "proper" FEs are considered to be those which stand alone, rather than those which are new ministries of already-established (small "e"!) congregations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
An established parish starting a new initiative designed to appeal to a new congregation would be a FE. A new service for the existing congregation probably not, as I understand it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
TBH I neither know nor much care. I'd like to know where you're going with this. You seem to want me to say "yes, it's basically that" and I want to know why you want me to say that, frankly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
"...The aim of a fresh expression is not to provide a stepping stone into existing church, but to form a new church in its own right".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:


Clearly one can be "church" without organ music, stained glass, hymnbooks or buildings ... but is there a bare minimum without which we do not (yet) have Church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma Louise:
I like it. I know it would get up the wick of tonnes of people here but its better than us not being in church, and far more valid for us at the moemnt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:


Clearly one can be "church" without organ music, stained glass, hymnbooks or buildings ... but is there a bare minimum without which we do not (yet) have Church?

---

For me (and for most others coming from an Anglican or RC background, I should think), what is important is that there be a community of people which meets regularly for the Eucharist and the Office.

---

Ah. That'd be us then
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:


Clearly one can be "church" without organ music, stained glass, hymnbooks or buildings ... but is there a bare minimum without which we do not (yet) have Church?

---

For me (and for most others coming from an Anglican or RC background, I should think), what is important is that there be a community of people which meets regularly for the Eucharist and the Office.

---

Ah. That'd be us then
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by *Leon*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
An established parish starting a new initiative designed to appeal to a new congregation would be a FE. A new service for the existing congregation probably not, as I understand it.

---

How long can a fresh expression run for before it ceases to be fresh and becomes established?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:


Clearly one can be "church" without organ music, stained glass, hymnbooks or buildings ... but is there a bare minimum without which we do not (yet) have Church?

---

For me (and for most others coming from an Anglican or RC background, I should think), what is important is that there be a community of people which meets regularly for the Eucharist and the Office.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by *Leon*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
An established parish starting a new initiative designed to appeal to a new congregation would be a FE. A new service for the existing congregation probably not, as I understand it.

---

How long can a fresh expression run for before it ceases to be fresh and becomes established?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
We seem to be confused as to what an FE is.

From the horse's mouth: http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/guide/about/whatis

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
A few months ago I knocked on the side door of a church running a Fresh Expressions scheme. There were people in the office inside. I made eye contact with them, and waited for them to answer it. They looked away. I knocked again. Nothing, and this time they withheld eye contact.

Another person walked into the room to talk to the people already there. She looked directly at me. I waved. She looked away and began a conversation. I knocked. Nothing. I walked off around the corner and pissed in their drain.

So yeah, they're of no use to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
A few months ago I knocked on the side door of a church running a Fresh Expressions scheme. There were people in the office inside. I made eye contact with them, and waited for them to answer it. They looked away. I knocked again. Nothing, and this time they withheld eye contact.

Another person walked into the room to talk to the people already there. She looked directly at me. I waved. She looked away and began a conversation. I knocked. Nothing. I walked off around the corner and pissed in their drain.

So yeah, they're of no use to me.

---

I don't think that one experience really reflects the whole range of FE schemes!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
A few months ago I knocked on the side door of a church running a Fresh Expressions scheme. There were people in the office inside. I made eye contact with them, and waited for them to answer it. They looked away. I knocked again. Nothing, and this time they withheld eye contact.

Another person walked into the room to talk to the people already there. She looked directly at me. I waved. She looked away and began a conversation. I knocked. Nothing. I walked off around the corner and pissed in their drain.

So yeah, they're of no use to me.

---

I don't think that one experience really reflects the whole range of FE schemes!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
A few months ago I knocked on the side door of a church running a Fresh Expressions scheme. There were people in the office inside. I made eye contact with them, and waited for them to answer it. They looked away. I knocked again. Nothing, and this time they withheld eye contact.

Another person walked into the room to talk to the people already there. She looked directly at me. I waved. She looked away and began a conversation. I knocked. Nothing. I walked off around the corner and pissed in their drain.

So yeah, they're of no use to me.

---

I don't think that one experience really reflects the whole range of FE schemes!

---

Except it does, especially to the un-churched and the de-churched who need a friendly, engaging group of people to get them back into some sort of communal relationship with God...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
A few months ago I knocked on the side door of a church running a Fresh Expressions scheme. There were people in the office inside. I made eye contact with them, and waited for them to answer it. They looked away. I knocked again. Nothing, and this time they withheld eye contact.

Another person walked into the room to talk to the people already there. She looked directly at me. I waved. She looked away and began a conversation. I knocked. Nothing. I walked off around the corner and pissed in their drain.

So yeah, they're of no use to me.

---

I don't think that one experience really reflects the whole range of FE schemes!

---

I was kind of joking, but also serious. If you're doing something based on meeting people where they are, but you won't even put yourself to the trouble of opening a door, you lost me. I could have been unchurched, and that might have been the only time I stood within church grounds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I don't think that one experience really reflects the whole range of FE schemes!

---

I was kind of joking, but also serious. If you're doing something based on meeting people where they are, but you won't even put yourself to the trouble of opening a door, you lost me. I could have been unchurched, and that might have been the only time I stood within church grounds.

---

And I would have to agree. But where do you want to go with it? Close down FE because one church side door had people on the other side of it being anti-social? Ye goddes and lyttle fyshes, we'd have closed down the mainstream church years ago on that basis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, that particular one probably isn't. FE probably is of no use to you anyway, because you're neither unchurched nor dechurched. They're not for you. But even if they were, your logic still appears to be that if one X is Y, then all X are Y. Which is of course bollocks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, that particular one probably isn't. FE probably is of no use to you anyway, because you're neither unchurched nor dechurched. They're not for you. But even if they were, your logic still appears to be that if one X is Y, then all X are Y. Which is of course bollocks.

---

You think they knew that? Of course not.

Oh I know, Karl. I know that FE people always revert to the haughtiness they accuse the mainstream church of whenever anyone even hints they should get adult.

I mean, think about it. That could have been their one chance. They don't know it wasn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
I know that FE people always revert to the haughtiness they accuse the mainstream church of whenever anyone even hints they should get adult.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I know they didn't know. All I am saying is that one experience of a FE setup that dropped the ball tells you nothing about whether it's generally a good thing and nothing about other FE setups. We all agree this particular incident as you describe it was a Bad Thing.

Hence what's your point? One particular FE setup mucked up on one particular occasion. Big deal. Why do you need to tar them all with the same brush?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I know they didn't know. All I am saying is that one experience of a FE setup that dropped the ball tells you nothing about whether it's generally a good thing and nothing about other FE setups. We all agree this particular incident as you describe it was a Bad Thing.

Hence what's your point? One particular FE setup mucked up on one particular occasion. Big deal. Why do you need to tar them all with the same brush?

---

Perhaps because they're a 'way of being church' which presents itself as being at its best when welcoming the stranger. That's their USP, it's the thing they're supposed to be better at than the mainstream church. I can walk into any parish church in the country and not get blanked by the people hoovering and arranging the flowers. If the FE brief is loose enough to admit that 'way of being church', why should I give it another chance? Would you expect an unchurched person who that had happened to to give it another chance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
[QUOTE]I don't want to go anywhere with it, I'm just saying they're no use to me. I've never been blanked in the mainstream church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
What Karl and Gumby said, but also where have you got this idea about haughtiness from? Is it from comments on this thread or from previous things you've heard, read or whatever? I'm sorry if I've contributed to the haughtiness at all; I know I have an unhelpful tendency to turn my nose up at written liturgy and what I see as antiquated formality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How many times do you have to be told that what happened to you shouldn't, is most certainly not what FE is about, and is in no way representative of what FE wants to be? The FE brief is not "loose enough" to include what you report happening.

So again I ask, given that absolutely no-one is defending this particular incident at this particular FE, why do you persist in making out that it's somehow part of the FE brief?

Your persistent harping on about this one incident is starting to look like a determined effort on your part to hate FE for reasons of your own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How many times do you have to be told that what happened to you shouldn't, is most certainly not what FE is about, and is in no way representative of what FE wants to be? The FE brief is not "loose enough" to include what you report happening.

So again I ask, given that absolutely no-one is defending this particular incident at this particular FE, why do you persist in making out that it's somehow part of the FE brief?

Your persistent harping on about this one incident is starting to look like a determined effort on your part to hate FE for reasons of your own.

---

I'm not harping on, I'm refusing to apologise for not blaming myself, just as you have and do. Only, on this occasion, you happen to be a member of the club being criticised. Why can't you deal with this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If we can actually extract a useful point out of PaJ's train-wrecking of the thread, the point isn't about being blanked.

I'm also fortunate that I've never been blanked in a mainstream church. But on the other hand, I've never felt actually part of, accepted by, and valued by a church community in the way I have been lucky enough to in our FE setup. It's not been about active exclusion for me, so much as always feeling not really quite part of the church community, owing to not quite being subculturally like the rest of the congregation. Not an issue of fault; it just is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
There seems, Karl, to be a slight inconsistency in that you want your experience to demonstrate that the parochial church system has failed (or at least can fail), but are unwilling to allow that the experience of anyone else might demonstrate that Fresh Expressions might be liable to similar failure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
I have friends who run a Fresh Expression, and I was interested in visiting it at one time. 'Those who criticise us must be bad people' is how cults think, Karl.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How many times do you have to be told that what happened to you shouldn't, is most certainly not what FE is about, and is in no way representative of what FE wants to be? The FE brief is not "loose enough" to include what you report happening.

So again I ask, given that absolutely no-one is defending this particular incident at this particular FE, why do you persist in making out that it's somehow part of the FE brief?

Your persistent harping on about this one incident is starting to look like a determined effort on your part to hate FE for reasons of your own.

---

I'm not harping on, I'm refusing to apologise for not blaming myself, just as you have and do. Only, on this occasion, you happen to be a member of the club being criticised. Why can't you deal with this?

---

And who exactly do you think I'm blaming, and for what?

Your point is extremely obscure. I've agreed with your criticism of this particular incident. I do not expect you to blame yourself for being blanked. I do not understand why you insist on generalising it.

To put it another way, what the fuck are you going on about?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If we can actually extract a useful point out of PaJ's train-wrecking of the thread, the point isn't about being blanked.

I'm also fortunate that I've never been blanked in a mainstream church. But on the other hand, I've never felt actually part of, accepted by, and valued by a church community in the way I have been lucky enough to in our FE setup. It's not been about active exclusion for me, so much as always feeling not really quite part of the church community, owing to not quite being subculturally like the rest of the congregation. Not an issue of fault; it just is.

---

You're comfy, so I'm train-wrecking? No.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Why do you and PaJ insist on ascribing attitudes, thoughts and opinions to me that I do not actually have?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How many times do you have to be told that what happened to you shouldn't, is most certainly not what FE is about, and is in no way representative of what FE wants to be? The FE brief is not "loose enough" to include what you report happening.

So again I ask, given that absolutely no-one is defending this particular incident at this particular FE, why do you persist in making out that it's somehow part of the FE brief?

Your persistent harping on about this one incident is starting to look like a determined effort on your part to hate FE for reasons of your own.

---

I'm not harping on, I'm refusing to apologise for not blaming myself, just as you have and do. Only, on this occasion, you happen to be a member of the club being criticised. Why can't you deal with this?

---

And who exactly do you think I'm blaming, and for what?

Your point is extremely obscure. I've agreed with your criticism of this particular incident. I do not expect you to blame yourself for being blanked. I do not understand why you insist on generalising it.

To put it another way, what the fuck are you going on about?

---

In a phrase: by their fruits ye shall know them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Why do you and PaJ insist on ascribing attitudes, thoughts and opinions to me that I do not actually have?

---

Weren't you doing that to me, just now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So you are saying that because you had one bad experience all FEs and the people in them are bad.

Which is unbelievably idiotic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So you are saying that because you had one bad experience all FEs and the people in them are bad.

Which is unbelievably idiotic.

---

No, I am not, I'm saying that if FEs don't give their occupants the discipline not to behave like that, they're no use to me. The people who smile at me when I enter a church never having met me are not my buddy, nor determined one way or another about me, they're just adults, doing their duties. I don't care how good a club feels, if it looks through strangers, it isn't being church, and my time is not for them to waste trying again and again to learn how to act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So you are saying that because you had one bad experience all FEs and the people in them are bad.

Which is unbelievably idiotic.

---

No, I am not, I'm saying that if FEs don't give their occupants the discipline not to behave like that, they're no use to me. The people who smile at me when I enter a church never having met me are not my buddy, nor determined one way or another about me, they're just adults, doing their duties. I don't care how good a club feels, if it looks through strangers, it isn't being church, and my time is not for them to waste trying again and again to learn how to act.

---

Well on that we agree. The point I'm trying to get across is that your experience does not mean it is representative of FEs in general. If you're not generalising that experience to all FEs, I don't see how how you get to your apparent blanket generalisation - i.e. where you say "if FEs don't..." - in the plural.

---

I know it isn't. The point is, unchurched people wouldn't care how nice the rest of them are. Especially the already vulnerable or marginalised. They'd think 'forget it' and walk away. You only have to make someone despair once for them to get the message and leave you alone. Dechurched people have had just the same reaction - most of them presumably haven't been to a statistically representative number of churches, but their disillusionment is based on a good enough working hypothesis for their purposes. They may be doing thousands of congregations an injustice. Too bad, they're hurt. And these people - those who have already generalised to save pain and wasted time - are who FEs are there for. It's not that I think my experience was representative of FEs, it's that FEs taken en masse aren't sufficiently representative of anything for me to put my trust in any one of them. In a time of real need, trying not to fall into the sin of despair, I could take the risk again. Or... I could attend Holy Communion. Lucky me, that I have that choice.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
FEs sometimes fail. This is because they're churches, and churches sometimes fail. We will never have a 100% record anywhere because we're human.

But as you say, lucky you, you have the choice of attending HC at a mainstream church. FEs are there for people who for whatever reason don't find that choice has meaning for them. Or works for them. FEs are not trying to be a panacaea for all that's wrong with the church, and inevitably because what's wrong with the church is what's wrong with people a lot of it will be wrong with FE churches as well.

You're probably right that FEs don't seem to be offering anything to you. I'd be surprised if they were, because, as you say, you have the option of mainstream Holy Communion, which clearly works for you.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
FEs sometimes fail. This is because they're churches, and churches sometimes fail. We will never have a 100% record anywhere because we're human.

But as you say, lucky you, you have the choice of attending HC at a mainstream church. FEs are there for people who for whatever reason don't find that choice has meaning for them. Or works for them. FEs are not trying to be a panacaea for all that's wrong with the church, and inevitably because what's wrong with the church is what's wrong with people a lot of it will be wrong with FE churches as well.

You're probably right that FEs don't seem to be offering anything to you. I'd be surprised if they were, because, as you say, you have the option of mainstream Holy Communion, which clearly works for you.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Also, unchurched people are unlikely to think of one FE scheme as having any connection to another FE scheme, particularly as the schemes vary in how 'churchy' they look and how connected they are to local churches. PaJ, YOU know that Fresh Expressions as a whole is something that Anglican and Methodist churches are responsible for, unchurched people won't, at least not in the same way that they'll be put off all Anglican parish churches by one bad experience.
 

---

Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 
I thought Fresh Expressions was a section of the grocery store displaying organic and harmless vegetables. Must be a Left-Side-of-the-Pond thing
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, unchurched people are unlikely to think of one FE scheme as having any connection to another FE scheme, particularly as the schemes vary in how 'churchy' they look and how connected they are to local churches. PaJ, YOU know that Fresh Expressions as a whole is something that Anglican and Methodist churches are responsible for, unchurched people won't, at least not in the same way that they'll be put off all Anglican parish churches by one bad experience.

---

Indeed. It's not like we hang a sign outside saying "This is a Fresh Expressions Church". I had been at ours for a few months before I even knew it was FE
 

---

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
I have friends who run a Fresh Expression, and I was interested in visiting it at one time. 'Those who criticise us must be bad people' is how cults think, Karl.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So you are saying that because you had one bad experience all FEs and the people in them are bad.

Which is unbelievably idiotic.

---

No, I am not, I'm saying that if FEs don't give their occupants the discipline not to behave like that, they're no use to me. The people who smile at me when I enter a church never having met me are not my buddy, nor determined one way or another about me, they're just adults, doing their duties. I don't care how good a club feels, if it looks through strangers, it isn't being church, and my time is not for them to waste trying again and again to learn how to act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
FEs sometimes fail. This is because they're churches, and churches sometimes fail. We will never have a 100% record anywhere because we're human.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
FEs sometimes fail. This is because they're churches, and churches sometimes fail. We will never have a 100% record anywhere because we're human.

---

And to some extent the point of "Fresh Expressions" the movement is to take a gamble*.

*I really should qualify gamble. But it would be very long and state the obvious (and so I'd make a hash of it), so it's probably easier to wait to see if it's needed.

---

• To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
• To teach, baptise and nurture new believers
• To respond to human need by loving service
• To seek to transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and to pursue peace and reconciliation
• To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth

• If the Church, and especially the Church of England with its parish system, is the (only?) institution that exists for the benefit of its non-members, and the Christian faith is fundamentally incarnational, and thus grounded in the particular town, village or neighbourhood that it represents, how does that relate to the mission of the church? How should this affect regular systematic prayer - the Daily Office, if you want to call it that - and sacramental life manifest themselves? Does it lead to their abolition? Can the two sit alongside one another?
• How do we prevent an undue fixation with processes while maintaining regular systematic prayer and sacramental life? By analogy, here is a surely apocryphal story. A lady had the habit of cutting the ends off a roast and putting them on the top before cooking it. When asked why, she said - "well, my mother always did it thus." Upon further questioning it transpired that this was merely due to size constraints of her mother's oven. Also obsession with processes can suck the Christian Faith dry - I think of Terry Pratchett when he says "Around the Godde there forms a Shelle of prayers and Ceremonies and Buildings and Priestes and Authority, until at Last the Godde Dies. Ande this maye notte be noticed." Also "you have works, I have faith" is often inverted into "I have works, you have faith" - how do we maintain an atmosphere of "Ora et Labora," especially for people who are not ministers or lay readers or anything theological or pastoral?
• What relevance do denominations have to common Christian Life? Is it possible to have congregations where denomination is entirely transparent, whilst maintaining regular systematic prayer and sacramental life? Is it desirable? Attempts at this - Milton Keynes (although as Max points out, this manages to be pan-Protestant but the Roman Catholics are maybe a bit on the edge; tends to at least preserve some sort of Eucharist.); Taizé (Catholic and Protestant Eucharist de jure although you have to purposely look for the distinction to find it.) India; Bishop Newbigin. Liturgically we ware all closer together than we were before. Common Worship Daily Prayer is not unlike the Roman Catholic Daily Prayer. Methodists have given us all congregational hymn singing. The reformation has given us all use of the vernacular. And I have no romanticism about the 1662 Book of Common Prayer either; I cannot remember who it was who described it as not unlike cutting up a service book, jumbling the bits in a hat and pulling them out in random order. What is distinctively Anglican?
• How do we put structures in place to prevent churches being abusive or heterodox? (although we are probably all more heterodox than we are aware or care to admit - at least on the ship such things get ironed out. I am thinking of the peculiar mystery worshipper http://shipoffools.com/mystery/2012/2426.html )

quote:

---

Originally posted by scuffleball:
The main Sunday service at this church is a Eucharist. There is a "Messy Church" every week in term time too. Many families attend this "Messy Church" who have never been to church before - including the parents - and do not even have a mythological/cultural-narrative familiarity with Christianity.

---

For me, this is the key point regarding 'messy church' and other fresh / new / simple expressions of church; they seem to be relatively attractive to people with no prior church involvement.

The problem, IMO, comes when things like messy church are seen as a sort of bridge between unchurched people and real / proper church. Hence, I was glad to find out upthread that the UK Fresh Expressions initiative's official position is that FE congregations are 'real church', not a stepping stone on the way to 'real church'.

Having said this, I do realise that many people's view of what church is leads them to understand things like messy church as not being church in the fullest sense. So I understand why such people might well want people to 'progress' from messy church to what they might call real church.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
A FE church, as understood by the FE movement, is a church in its own right. I also would be very sceptical of the idea of Messy Church on its own being able to be that. As part of a programme of services, in the same way that the mainstream offers Morning Prayer, Holy Communion, Evensong, Compline, Complan (heh heh) etc. etc, then there's no reason it couldn't be part of an FE church's offering. It's not so much that the official position is that FE is "real church"; it's more that if what you're describing isn't a "real church" but a stepping stone to "real church", then it's not an FE

I've been loosely connected (briefly) to a "simple church" - it also didn't seem to be fully church; it was more like a bible study. I can relate a terrible story regarding a pub, a carton of grape juice, some bread rolls and a complete lack of clue if you like, but I'd rather not revisit the cringing horror.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[QUOTE] ..... that the UK Fresh Expressions initiative's official position is that FE congregations are 'real church', not a stepping stone on the way to 'real church'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[QUOTE] ..... that the UK Fresh Expressions initiative's official position is that FE congregations are 'real church', not a stepping stone on the way to 'real church'.

---

The Official position - yes. The unofficial - perhaps not so affirmative. There are "pressures" to link into existing forms of church from all sources - beginning with invites to denominational gatherings right through to ful blown concepts of moving on to "real" church. All must be resisted at all costs - FE is only FE if it is and is seen as, church in its own right without interference (and even leading) from outside.

Let it be organic and grow through its seeking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[QUOTE] ..... that the UK Fresh Expressions initiative's official position is that FE congregations are 'real church', not a stepping stone on the way to 'real church'.

---

The Official position - yes. The unofficial - perhaps not so affirmative. There are "pressures" to link into existing forms of church from all sources - beginning with invites to denominational gatherings right through to ful blown concepts of moving on to "real" church. All must be resisted at all costs - FE is only FE if it is and is seen as, church in its own right without interference (and even leading) from outside.

Let it be organic and grow through its seeking.

---

"linking in" on an equal basis - Churches Together for example - is not inherently a problem, as long as the representatives of more mainstream congregations and those from FEs are able to regard each other with mutual respect. And indeed within the CofE a priest at an FE setup is just as likely to be called upon to fill in for absent clergy as anyone else - ours regularly does at a nearby very high AC place currently in interregnum. Similarly denominational gatherings need be no more a problem for an FE church than the presence of charismatic evangelicals and high churchmen within such a gathering (again I'm thinking within the CofE) is inherently a problem. It's actually quite important for FEs to remember that they are part of a larger church and to maintain links with the established communities and congregations within it.

It's important that we don't think we're doing it right and everyone else is doing it wrong. We try to do it right for the people who we're trying to reach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've started going to a Friday morning fellowship at a residential home for the elderly... People often ask me which church I go to - especially the various clergy who come to lead worship at the Friday fellowship. I usually have to bluster a bit, but perhaps I should just refer to the Friday fellowship.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0