Thread: Fresh Expressions Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024973
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Wondering if any Shipmates have any connection with any FE setups. After recent Unpleasantness we've fortunately found a home alternating between a FE outfit in town and the parish church of the next village along.

Specifically, I'm interested in people's thoughts on:

1. The relationship of FE to the mainstream church
2. FE inevitable tendency to be niche churches, whether that matters, in what way it matters, how it should be handled (probably relates to 1.)
3. Anything else.

I'll share my experiences in due course as and when.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
I'm not involved myself but a friend has just joined a FE group in the west of England. I'm visiting soon so I'll find out how it's going!

In general, I'm a huge fan of doing church differently so FE, at least what I know of the whole thing, gets a big thumbs up from me.

ISTM that FE in the Anglican context is rather hamstrung by the restrictions around things like who can lead Communion - I guess this contributes to the idea of FE groups being seen (by many? some? all?) as a gateway to 'real church'. I have a very low view of what constitutes 'church' so I'm all for people being involved in a FE group as their main church, without their being any pressure on people to move on to 'real church'.

Hope it works out for you, Karl... [Smile]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
I will confess to not much real-life experience with FE but watched a dvd on FE/Pioneer Ministry my DDO gave me. It struck me how many people running FE groups became ordained Pioneer Ministers so they could administer Communion but still wanted to be 'non-traditional' vicars. I did wonder if they wouldn't be happier in a church where lay people could administer the sacraments.

I have no problem with FE groups but I admit to being a little concerned at how niche they are and that they could replace 'real' church. I find churches in student towns that cater pretty much for students problematic enough. Being in churches with a range of ages/backgrounds and not being surrounded with people just like me has made church more of a family. I think FE has possibly the wrong emphasis - when Paul preached on Mars Hill, he didn't try to make church more Mars Hill-like to attract people to it. Not sure catering for individualism is right for churches. Just my $0.02.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Thing is, I think that many churches, whether they intend to be or not, are in fact niche churches. You've noted the big student shacks, but what about the village parish churches which effectively only minister to people over 50? The reason that we've wended our way to this particular FE setup is because our local church is in exactly this position.

I come from a position of strongly believing in the parish church principle, but I just don't think it's happening any more in many places. Many areas do not have any churches with a wide range of age and backgrounds; we tried for nine years as round pegs in square holes - we managed to cope, somehow, but as the kids grew older the problems became really obvious and once they get to loathing church because it does not and cannot cater for them, you know you're not in the niche the church aims at. I agree that this "nichism" is not ideal, but I also contend that society is now so diverse, with particularly significant cultural differences between age groups, that a single mode of expression that cuts across this diversity may no longer be always possible.

We compromise by attending our FE church twice a month (it only does an actual service twice a month) and attending a slightly more diverse parish church in the next village on the other weeks. Our kids are driven insane with tedium in a normal Sunday morning service, so there has to be a Sunday School or Junior Church, but I think they actually get more out of the FE service, which doesn't have any separate provision and doesn't need to because they can cope with the 30 minute audio-visual service style. I'm unconvinced that cutting, sticking and colouring does a great deal to feed childrens' faith.

FE cannot replace "real" church; it is real church. That's the point.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
I used to be very involved in that sort of thing.

It's worth noting that a lot of FE-like groups have a lot of members who also go to mainstream services (although maybe not in the same church). My experience (as one of these people) was that there were times when the FE group wasn't (for me) 'real church', and times when the mainstream church wasn't.

Among those who don't go to a mainstream service, some would view it as important that they aren't going to a 'real' church, while others would view it as important that they are.

FE groups tend to be explicitly niche; they view this as more honest than being implicitly niche, which is what they accuse everyone else of doing.

Relationships with the mainstream congregation are, in my experience, better than might be expected (I have been in a situation where the FE congregation got less criticism from the congregation and the minister than it wanted).
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:


FE groups tend to be explicitly niche; they view this as more honest than being implicitly niche, which is what they accuse everyone else of doing.

"Accuse" is a strong word. I'd rather say that I recognise that many churches are in fact niche whether they intend to be or realise that they are.

Certainly I think that the intersection between people who are comfortable at my FE church and the parish church I have reluctantly had to leave would be a very small set, because of the niche elements of both.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
There seems to be quite a wide variety of FE-type churches/services. I've read of one which takes the form of a very simple Eucharist and caters for a congregation of young parents and toddlers, augmented by others who value a weekday Eucharist and who cannot always manage to get to church on Sundays. This is the sort of thing I think we could do with at our place.....

......other neighbouring churches are holding or starting Messy Church, though I get the impression, Karl, that this is not quite your style!

Godly Play, anyone?

Ian J.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
There seems to be quite a wide variety of FE-type churches/services. I've read of one which takes the form of a very simple Eucharist and caters for a congregation of young parents and toddlers, augmented by others who value a weekday Eucharist and who cannot always manage to get to church on Sundays. This is the sort of thing I think we could do with at our place.....

......other neighbouring churches are holding or starting Messy Church, though I get the impression, Karl, that this is not quite your style!

Godly Play, anyone?

Ian J.
The kids enjoy messy church. I think it can vary in quality [Biased]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I should add, my comments about cutting sticking and colouring need to to be taken in context. The two churches nearest us consist of:

1. The one that was ours until very recently (story previously recounted) that now has no children's provision;

2. The next parish along, which has around six or seven children in the Sunday School usually, but aged between 4 and young teens. The problem is that the "lowest common denominator" approach is used to deal with the wide age range, which means the material's really not teaching nor deepening the older children in any way.

I think it's very telling that our FE setup has the express intention of catering to young adults of an alternative bent, but has actually found itself very appealing to relatively conventional people with children as well. It fits in with some hypotheses I have about church in the UK as it currently stands, but which I'm a little reluctant to expand on in Eccles because it would frighten be bejasus out of some of the regulars.

[ 15. November 2012, 10:39: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Hmm. Interesting - Karl, please don't be shy of sharing your views. I think they may well be thought-provoking......(and maybe the Church of England, at any rate, needs to be frightened)!

Ian J.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Well, they're all on my blog (link in sig), but essentially I'm increasingly of the view that what we do in church is devoid of meaning for most people outside it. They might get dragged along to a christening or a "back to church Sunday" service (if anyone in the congregation is brave enough) but they then get an hour to an hour and a half of obscure culturally irrelevant tedium. I'm reminded of a letter to the Viz Letterbocks:

"I saw a sign the other day that said 'Church - it may surprise you!' I went along and they were right - it was far more tedious than I had imagined."

It's not about choruses vs hymns, hymn-prayer sandwiches vs liturgy vs supposed free-for-all; they're all just different arrangements of deckchairs on the Titanic. I think it is significant what Mrs KLB has frequently said - she has lots of school gate friends who have greater or lesser interest in Christianity, but very few of them go to any church, and she couldn't, in all honesty, have ever suggested to them that they come to ours as was - not even on an all-age worship or a Sunday School day, because she just couldn't imagine them there. We had a succession of families who'd come, perhaps on and off, for a few weeks, but we were I think the only ones bloody-minded enough to keep at it.

If most people read the arguments on here about vestments, direction of thurifering and whatnot they'd think we were stark staring bonkers. And when we get excited about these things, I can't help agreeing with them. Pointless arguments about minutiae of obscure rites performed in front of ever dwindling congregations of ever aging people whilst society passes it by looking in, occasionally, with an increasing sense of WTF.

That's my analysis.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I think mistaking Sunday school for play, or a worship service for entertainment is a - perhaps the - problem. IMHO Sunday school ought really be a class taught at a developmentally appropriate level about the faith and denomination the child is being raised in.

Worship is analogous to going to the gym, rather than the theatre. If people go expecting to be entertained then they will be bored witless.

I would have thought that if you want to draw people in,then you probably need to be discussing moral dilemmas and philosophical approaches. There is a public appetite for this, you see it in the popularity of fiction and drama about ethical choices. And the myriad discussions one has over a year about the right thing to do in various discussion.

You need to get people involved in those kind of discussions, and then be moving that on to how you derive your sense of morality. A big part of that is then also talking about compassion and love. Then church and worship become about how you derive the strength to be who you aspire to be. Also the person you are called to be.

Otherwise, church seems like a purposeless activity - why worship God, is he/she/it perennially insecure needing our affirmation ? Why preach to those who already believe, it is not as if the end of the nativity story comes as a huge shock each year ?

Worship is good for us, rather than for God. And preaching is usually about how do we use what we know/believe to deal with situation x in life. Or perhaps why concept x is important (which then goes on to influence how we deal with situation x.)
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...I'm increasingly of the view that what we do in church is devoid of meaning for most people outside it. They might get dragged along to a christening or a "back to church Sunday" service (if anyone in the congregation is brave enough) but they then get an hour to an hour and a half of obscure culturally irrelevant tedium.
Absolutely right, IMO. I think we (Christians of all flavours) need to have a fundamental rethink about why we meet together. What is the church service for, and what does it mean to be church?

If we did that, I don't think we'd arrive anywhere near most of what happens in church buildings of a Sunday (or whenever each church meets), with the result that church is simply irrelevant for an increasing number of people.

I think Fresh Expressions and similar movements could be part of the antidote, as long as they are seen as church in their own right and not as a gateway to so-called real church.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...I'm increasingly of the view that what we do in church is devoid of meaning for most people outside it. They might get dragged along to a christening or a "back to church Sunday" service (if anyone in the congregation is brave enough) but they then get an hour to an hour and a half of obscure culturally irrelevant tedium.
Absolutely right, IMO. I think we (Christians of all flavours) need to have a fundamental rethink about why we meet together. What is the church service for, and what does it mean to be church?

If we did that, I don't think we'd arrive anywhere near most of what happens in church buildings of a Sunday (or whenever each church meets), with the result that church is simply irrelevant for an increasing number of people.

I think Fresh Expressions and similar movements could be part of the antidote, as long as they are seen as church in their own right and not as a gateway to so-called real church.
I suppose I just have problems seeing what makes Fresh Expressions real church. Truthfully it seems rather like a lot of messing about to me, but then I suppose people attending would see my Anglo-Catholic church services in the same way (thurible action, vestments etc as KLB mentioned)...
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...I'm increasingly of the view that what we do in church is devoid of meaning for most people outside it. They might get dragged along to a christening or a "back to church Sunday" service (if anyone in the congregation is brave enough) but they then get an hour to an hour and a half of obscure culturally irrelevant tedium.
Absolutely right, IMO. I think we (Christians of all flavours) need to have a fundamental rethink about why we meet together. What is the church service for, and what does it mean to be church?

If we did that, I don't think we'd arrive anywhere near most of what happens in church buildings of a Sunday (or whenever each church meets), with the result that church is simply irrelevant for an increasing number of people.

I think Fresh Expressions and similar movements could be part of the antidote, as long as they are seen as church in their own right and not as a gateway to so-called real church.
I suppose I just have problems seeing what makes Fresh Expressions real church. Truthfully it seems rather like a lot of messing about to me, but then I suppose people attending would see my Anglo-Catholic church services in the same way (thurible action, vestments etc as KLB mentioned)...
What makes it not "real" church?
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I strongly suspect that the reason why clegy and lots of lay people positively like and want church services to be boring is that if they confronted what the crucifixion actually means (you know, death, meaninglessness, rejection, politics) they'd be scared witless.

So it is all made as anodyne as possible. I have no experience of Fresh Expressions or charismatic worship, but I suspect they have a sense that something real is going on, which is what catholic worship ought to be about.

And I continue going to churches with boring worship, because I believe and am committed to the belief that Christ is present in the eucharist and its is my duty as a Christian to be there. Faith doesn't depend on my emotional feelings.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
One of the (many) people wafting through on placement was incredibly excited by the number of things he identified as Fresh Expressions here. We just looked blank until he explained that things that had been happening as useful support and outreach were these amazing examples of Fresh Expression. A couple of examples:
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
KLB, the lack of Eucharist and the lack of reverence for the presence of God mostly makes it not church for me. It feels 'dumbed down'.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I strongly suspect that the reason why clegy and lots of lay people positively like and want church services to be boring is that if they confronted what the crucifixion actually means (you know, death, meaninglessness, rejection, politics) they'd be scared witless.

So it is all made as anodyne as possible. I have no experience of Fresh Expressions or charismatic worship, but I suspect they have a sense that something real is going on, which is what catholic worship ought to be about.

And I continue going to churches with boring worship, because I believe and am committed to the belief that Christ is present in the eucharist and its is my duty as a Christian to be there. Faith doesn't depend on my emotional feelings.
It depends what you mean by boring. I go to traditional A-C services, not FE in the least but I don't find them boring. Isn't church meant for Christians? Obviously, outreach/mission to non-Christians is vital, but making church only for outsiders and neglecting the present church family seems like madness.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
One of the (many) people wafting through on placement was incredibly excited by the number of things he identified as Fresh Expressions here. We just looked blank until he explained that things that had been happening as useful support and outreach were these amazing examples of Fresh Expression. A couple of examples:
See, that is the kind of FE that I think IS a great thing.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I don't find traditional A-C services boring at all! My criticism was of the well-meaning Sunday school approach so frequently encountered.

In fact I don't personally find services boring, but that is in part because I am aware of aspects that are not usually mentioned.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
KLB, the lack of Eucharist and the lack of reverence for the presence of God mostly makes it not church for me. It feels 'dumbed down'.
I'm inclined to wonder if you are aware what FE is. Our twice monthly service is a Eucharist.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I strongly suspect that the reason why clegy and lots of lay people positively like and want church services to be boring is that if they confronted what the crucifixion actually means (you know, death, meaninglessness, rejection, politics) they'd be scared witless.

So it is all made as anodyne as possible. I have no experience of Fresh Expressions or charismatic worship, but I suspect they have a sense that something real is going on, which is what catholic worship ought to be about.

And I continue going to churches with boring worship, because I believe and am committed to the belief that Christ is present in the eucharist and its is my duty as a Christian to be there. Faith doesn't depend on my emotional feelings.
It depends what you mean by boring. I go to traditional A-C services, not FE in the least but I don't find them boring.
Then perhaps you personally have no need for a fresh expression. What about those of us who do?

quote:
Isn't church meant for Christians? Obviously, outreach/mission to non-Christians is vital, but making church only for outsiders and neglecting the present church family seems like madness.
FE isn't about making it only for outsiders. I'm finding great value in it as a Christian of many years who finds the mainstream offering, erm, boring.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I love being ignored, it gives me a warm fluffy feeling all over.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I love being ignored, it gives me a warm fluffy feeling all over.
Sorry DT - you actually raise some very important points but I haven't had time to think through my response yet.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think mistaking Sunday school for play, or a worship service for entertainment is a - perhaps the - problem. IMHO Sunday school ought really be a class taught at a developmentally appropriate level about the faith and denomination the child is being raised in.
That would be nice. There are two things that mitigate against this - one is lack of people who can actually do this, and the other is that when you've got five children ranging in age from 4 to 14, it's a bit tricky on the old differentiation. It tends to become play because learning through play is the age appropriate method with very young children, and that's the common denominator it tends to drop down to.

quote:
Worship is analogous to going to the gym, rather than the theatre. If people go expecting to be entertained then they will be bored witless.
Indeed. There's a line to be drawn here between the Scylla of trying to entertain and the Charybdis of being unbelievably boring whatever attitude the congregation have. Possibly the problem is looking along the Entertaining<->Boring axis when we should be looking along an Engagingly Relevant<->Apathy Inducing Obscurity axis instead?

quote:
I would have thought that if you want to draw people in,then you probably need to be discussing moral dilemmas and philosophical approaches. There is a public appetite for this, you see it in the popularity of fiction and drama about ethical choices. And the myriad discussions one has over a year about the right thing to do in various discussion.
Yes, and this forms an important part of what we do. But that's quite separate from worship, as you hint at:

quote:
You need to get people involved in those kind of discussions, and then be moving that on to how you derive your sense of morality. A big part of that is then also talking about compassion and love. Then church and worship become about how you derive the strength to be who you aspire to be. Also the person you are called to be.
Yes, but I'm not sure the way we present that worship opportunity necessarily enables that as well as it might. And that's quite apart from the getting people to that point element of all this.

quote:
Otherwise, church seems like a purposeless activity - why worship God, is he/she/it perennially insecure needing our affirmation ? Why preach to those who already believe, it is not as if the end of the nativity story comes as a huge shock each year ?

Worship is good for us, rather than for God. And preaching is usually about how do we use what we know/believe to deal with situation x in life. Or perhaps why concept x is important (which then goes on to influence how we deal with situation x.)
Inasmuch as it is good for us - but it was getting so that it most certainly wasn't - an hour long battle to deal with the kids' boredom, from which neither we nor them benefitted in any way.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
KLB, the lack of Eucharist and the lack of reverence for the presence of God mostly makes it not church for me. It feels 'dumbed down'.
I'm inclined to wonder if you are aware what FE is. Our twice monthly service is a Eucharist.
I know what FE is but have only experienced non-Eucharistic, evangelical and/or charismatic versions. Various thoughts earlier today made me wonder if I'd perhaps been a bit harsh on FE anyway. Certainly I think a reason for cathedral worship's relative success compared to traditional church is because a lot of people see cathedrals as attractions first and church second, and so are more willing to experience it. I am also finding myself missing some of the more social styles of church I experienced back when I was in an evangelical (Anglican) church - I don't miss evangelical Sunday services but I do miss more casual church outside of Sunday, and wonder if that could be done in a more A-C way.
 
Posted by Matrix (# 3452) on :
 
I've had close working relationships with a couple of FE's and have also found that they are as niche church as any other.

What i see as a significantly more worrying sign is how quickly people who lead them are held up as examples of good practice for actually accomplishing very little.

One can be a pioneer minister, work for 5 yrs and all you have to show is 4 folks of the same age and experience meeting once in the midweek and find yourself booked solid for conferences because you're so cutting edge.

Whereas the poor vicar down the road, who came to the inner city church that was on its knees and breathes new life into it, attracts people of all ages, adds a hundred converts to the church is left seeming that they have been rather overlooked and underappreciated.

Just because people tweet a lot about it, and have a decent social media presence, doesn't mean their results are actually all that impressive. For the money that's being thrown at it, i do wonder if it'd be more fruitful elsewhere.

As a Baptist, I'm glad we have the freedom to get on do pretty much what we feel is right for our context. Maybe there are lessons to be learnt first from movements and denominations that are growing and changing?

Grace and peace
M
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
New thread on Doublethink's comments on preaching.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Matrix - firstly I know of no such vicars down any roads around here; falling and aging congregations are pretty much the norm.

"Money better spent elsewhere" is a thorny one - the logical end of it is finding the cheapest available converts. On the other hand, we do have a faith where the founder talked about leaving the 99 sheep to go and find the one, putting an inordinate value on finding those strays. My experience of FE is that in many cases it appeals to those on the edges who just would not find their way to any conventional setting.

It also might just keep my kids interested when they reach the age where 95% of them around here drop out.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
I was once a member of a church, which was involved in several fresh expressions, and have also been to others with friends.
They are very varied ranging from a few prayers in a café, to an alternative sort of Eucharist. From high tech powerpoint presentations to a few people meeting in the local Starbucks and discussing issues. Some of the ones I have been to are very Christianity ‘lite’ so much so that I failed to see how they could be a ‘FE of church’.

The point with them, is that they are meant to grow out of the needs of the people who attend and so will be as varied as the people that they serve.

FE’s are church for the people who attend and are not meant to be a means of leading them to a mainstream church.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Time to come out of the woodwork here.

For a few years I've been part of a national FE network. I've done several FE bitz and pieces as well as taken part in 2 church plants both of which are thriving. I've been part of a mainstream church that's grown from congs of 70 am/20 pm to 180 am and 90 pm: this growth has come from simpoly doing more of what we do well and recognising that other churches do the bits we don't do.

A lot of FE stuff is very niche - and I have to agree with matrix here, it is very much flavour of the month in all denominations. Light a few candles, talk about monastic spirituality, watch a a few films, run cafe church, drink guinness, wear black rimmed glasses and your're in.

Many churches do a kind of FE on the fly, providing a variety of services, trying to hit everyone, but often not reaching anyone. It just gets confusing.

Too much FE is started with an aim to get people into "real church" (ie Sunday services). Get real - if they wanted that, they'd be there already. The best FE (if you can call it that) is, IME nd IMHO, taking a long hard look at what you do, remember Jesus' command to "follow me" and get out there and do it. The rest seems to follow. Recognise that FE doesn't work as a recruiting ground - to work it has to be church where it is, as it is.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
To ExclamationMark and the others upthread who have shared there experiences - my thanks. It's great to hear some of your triumphs and struggles in being part of this Fresh Expressions thing.

Reflecting on these descriptions of what FE (in all its variety) looks like, it strikes me that the church I've been part of for the last ten years plus is, in many ways, a FE church; we just don't call ourselves such. Odd that this thought hadn't occurred to me before... Ah well.

EDIT - Forgot to say 'Hear hear!' to this:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Too much FE is started with an aim to get people into "real church" (ie Sunday services). Get real - if they wanted that, they'd be there already.


[ 17. November 2012, 21:43: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I think this important point seems to be emerging - that FE is not about getting people into "real church" - it has to be "real" church.

The "niche" issue is one that it's worth developing. My hypothesis is that society is now so diverse that I more and more start to suspect that all churches are, to a greater or lesser extent, niche. I find the parish principle - congregations defined by locatation rather than age, income, culture etc. extremely attractive, and we did try for nine years to make it work at our local gaff, but I'm not sure it always actually works any more - as I've said, I've tried to picture the guys from the FE place I attend at our parish church, and I just cannot imagine it - the cultural groups are too far apart.

We have accepted that there are liturgical churches, hymn-prayer sandwich churches, and charismatic churches, with people in them who don't feel they could worship in one of the other ways; it doesn't seem so much of a problem to me that other expressions also arise, with some people who don't feel they could worship in one of the pre-existing ways.

[ 18. November 2012, 08:51: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
I agree with you Karl that many, if not all, churches are now niche churches, certainly in cities and towns, and in many rural areas too. If the parish church were truly the church of the community, then you would be able to imagine the community in it...

Ecclesiologically, I do have reservations about institutionalising niche-ness (if I can create that word) as an aim rather than an unfortunate reality but I think there are also practical issues in rural areas. In many of these, it is a struggle to maintain any kind of Christian presence and it seems to me all the more important that we find a way of having a single church/chapel/Christian community there that is truly the church for that locality. No easy answers though...
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I've no experience of Fresh Expressions, but I'm interested in the idea that the "parish principle" is unworkable. I'm in the unusual position where the population and isolation of the community is such that the "parish principle" is not so much a goal as a necessity - it's become financially and socially unviable to maintain more than one church building and congregation here, regardless of denomination. My question is whether there is a way to accommodate the whole spread of the church within the parish church? Obviously the absence of a priest presents significant practical difficulties to both Roman and Anglican Catholics (the island has an excellent CoS minister), though non-stipendiary ministry could help in the latter case. How do you build a church that genuinely values the diversity of traditions within it and allows expression to each of them? Is it a fools errand, and if so what is the future of the church in isolated areas?
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
Are there any shipmates with experience of both the Emerging Church and the Fresh Expressions movements? If so, I'd be fascinated to hear their experience of the similarities and differences between them.

[ 18. November 2012, 15:33: Message edited by: FooloftheShip ]
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Are there any shipmates with experience of both the Emerging Church and the Fresh Expressions movements? If so, I'd be fascinated to hear their experience of the similarities and differences between them.
AIUI, Fresh Expressions is the name of a specific project (or programme) within the UK Anglican and Methodist Churches. [Goes off to check this...]

Almost - the Fresh Expressions website says it was started by the Anglicans and Methodists but now involves a wider range of organisations.

Emerging Church, also known as Emergent Church, Organic Church, Simple Church and probably other names too, is - I'd say - a way of doing / being church, rather than a specific organisation. So you could have an emerging / organic / simple church within an existing denomination.

I think there's certainly overlap between FE and Emergent. Indeed my church (which is part of the Vineyard probably has elements of both, although we're not part of the Fresh Expressions movement and we don't use the language of emerging / organic / simple church either.

For more on what exactly emerging etc. church is, the Emerging Church Wikipedia article goes into some detail and seems quite balanced to me.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Are there any shipmates with experience of both the Emerging Church and the Fresh Expressions movements? If so, I'd be fascinated to hear their experience of the similarities and differences between them.
AIUI, Fresh Expressions is the name of a specific project (or programme) within the UK Anglican and Methodist Churches. [Goes off to check this...]

Almost - the Fresh Expressions website says it was started by the Anglicans and Methodists but now involves a wider range of organisations.

Emerging Church, also known as Emergent Church, Organic Church, Simple Church and probably other names too, is - I'd say - a way of doing / being church, rather than a specific organisation. So you could have an emerging / organic / simple church within an existing denomination.

I think there's certainly overlap between FE and Emergent. Indeed my church (which is part of the Vineyard probably has elements of both, although we're not part of the Fresh Expressions movement and we don't use the language of emerging / organic / simple church either.

For more on what exactly emerging etc. church is, the Emerging Church Wikipedia article goes into some detail and seems quite balanced to me.
Fresh Expressions and Emergant (or whatever) do cross over a bit but there a world of differences.

Trying to define emergant is like tryig to nail a jelly to a wall with six inch nails. Just doesn't work - it's not a movement but a conversation (in their own words).

To me it looks even more like an opportunity for a group of like minded people to get together to do their own Christian "thing" without major reference to the diversity of the whole body.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Fresh Expressions. New Frontiers. Emergent Church. Et al

Boils down to the same thing in the end.

An attempt to be 'relevant;' which invariably ends up in a schism of some sort.
 
Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
I've been involved in FX, pioneering and Alt Worship for around 10 years and I also don't really get emergent church. This is probably down to the fact I'm UK based and emergent church seems to mainly come out of the USA. The conversations are about emerging from a church culture that I'm not familar with.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I agree with you Karl that many, if not all, churches are now niche churches, certainly in cities and towns, and in many rural areas too. If the parish church were truly the church of the community, then you would be able to imagine the community in it...

Ecclesiologically, I do have reservations about institutionalising niche-ness (if I can create that word) as an aim rather than an unfortunate reality but I think there are also practical issues in rural areas. In many of these, it is a struggle to maintain any kind of Christian presence and it seems to me all the more important that we find a way of having a single church/chapel/Christian community there that is truly the church for that locality. No easy answers though...
Yeah, I thought that too until the parish church turned around and basically said "look, you're the only regular attenders under the age of 90 with children so don't expect us to make much effort to accommodate you."

That's after nine years of trying to make it work, doing the kids' work ourselves and what not.

I don't see our FE setup as institutionalising nicheness as an aim; rather it's saying "look, there are whole subgroups of society who simply don't do church - how can we reinvent it to make it work for them?"

Turning to Emerging Church - I have some experience with the Simple Churches movement I have to say is it's most certainly not for me, and IME it's a quite different thing. My experience is that they very much think they're how church should be and the mainstream churches are doing it wrong. The only point I really see in common is they both derive from dissatisfaction with the current offerings.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[QUOTE] My experience is that they very much think they're how church should be and the mainstream churches are doing it wrong. The only point I really see in common is they both derive from dissatisfaction with the current offerings.
Yep, that's pretty much it IME. Emerging churches have become as pigeon holed in their activities as the churches they claim are irrelevant.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Fresh Expressions. New Frontiers. Emergent Church. Et al

Boils down to the same thing in the end.

An attempt to be 'relevant;' which invariably ends up in a schism of some sort.
Shamwari - I've spent time thinking how to respond to you in a non-Hellish manner.

That you list FE, NF and EC together as if they were the same thing does not inspire confidence that you're speaking from much experience or knowledge of them. NF is a denomination like any other; the difference between an NF service and that of any other large charismatic evangelical church you'd struggle to slide a fag paper through. I have no objective views on them, having merely attended one of their services and hating it, but they do not, to my mind, have much to do with either EC or FE.

This "relevance" thing has become a bit of a trump card in Eccles and possibly on the Ship generally. It seems that if you can shoehorn an accusation that a group is trying to be "relevant", it's about as valid as a middle aged vicar trying to be Down Wid Da Yoof.

I can't speak for all FE, and of course once it becomes a recognised programme you're going to get all sorts of things claiming the label and jumping on. FE is not about "being relevant". Rather, let us consider that it's about "not being irrelevant".

The reason for this distinction is that as I see it, all churches have a relevance. But relevance to what? Generally, to their congregation - if a church wasn't relevant to its congregation it wouldn't have that congregation. Church traditions always start relevant. And they've moved and changed with the times. Tempora mutantur, et ecclesia mutamur in illi, as one might say. The mainstream services of today are quite different to those of 50 years ago. If you are obscure, irrelevant and incomprehensible people will not come. The post-war period was a period of possibly unprecedented rate of cultural change; the world of 1985 was a very different place to that of 1945; almost unrecognisable indeed. It's no accident that these decades gave us new waves of modern hymn writing, the whole "worship song" movement, the ASB and stacks of modern translations of the Bible. But what always happens is that churches get stuck. Just as by the 1970s much mainstream church had become anachronistic, so today churches can be stuck in the 1970s or the 1980s. Those who decry the call for relevance point to this as the danger of "relevance", but it isn't; it's the danger of slipping once more back into a bygone culture and again becoming irrelevant.

Fact is, Shamwari, the established mainstream ways of "doing church" are haemorrhaging people. Congregation numbers are on a downward trend across the field; there are anomalies, but the general trend, the feeling within our culture that aside from a few weird Ivan Jelical types religion in general, and churchgoing in particular, is something old people do, grows. I know at least two congregations near me that'll be gone within twenty years unless there's a lot of people in these parts intending to make longevity records. It's a shame that people who are trying to actually reverse this trend, to offer an alternative to what many see as irrelevance, have to put up with sniping from those comfortably within the established mainstream church as it shrinks around them.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
hosting

*Ahem*:


quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
... Tempora mutantur, et ecclesia mutamur in illi ...
Just a gentle mumble ... for now

/hosting
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I do apologise.

"The times change, and the Church changes with the times."
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Poppy:
I've been involved in FX, pioneering and Alt Worship for around 10 years and I also don't really get emergent church. This is probably down to the fact I'm UK based and emergent church seems to mainly come out of the USA. The conversations are about emerging from a church culture that I'm not familar with.
Yes, I think you're right - emergent etc. church is to some extent a reaction against conservative evangelicalism, which is far stronger in the USA than in the UK.

It seems to me that there's two (maybe more) angles to the whole emergent church thing; a theological one and an ecclesiological one. I guess the former, as a reaction against strongly conservative theology, is going to be stronger in the USA, but the latter - the embracing of more simple, participative ways of doing church - is just as relevant in both countries.

So maybe Fresh Expressions doesn't (yet?) have such a high profile in the UK because the theology of a FE group might well be very similar to that of the 'parent' congregation / parish. Whereas in the USA, there's a much stronger distinctiveness going on, with people like Brian McLaren and Rob Bell promoting theological viewpoints that many USA Christians find troubling, as well as the folks putting forward alternative church structures, meeting styles and so on.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Had on a second - can we clarify some terms?

Someone further upthread equated, or at least sub-setted "simple church" within "emergent church". I'm not sure about that; ET seems to be a much wider thing than the very specific we don't need no church structure, (IME conservative), evangelical Simple Church movement; I'm not sure that the latter would see itself as part of the former because my experience of SC is that they see what they do as The Way (accept no substitutes!).

If this understand of EC is wrong, then it does bring EC and FE closer together. As I see it, both EC and FE grow out of reflection that the mainstream church pattern leaves large groups within our culture untouched; SC seem to be a rejection of mainstream church altogether.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Someone further upthread equated, or at least sub-setted "simple church" within "emergent church".
I did this but not to imply equivalence. I was using 'emerging / simple / organic church' as a bit of shorthand, I guess, with the belief that there is some overlap between the three things. Although....
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
ET seems to be a much wider thing than the very specific we don't need no church structure, (IME conservative), evangelical Simple Church movement...
Yeah, I see your point, and I defer to your experience of Simple Church. I've only read about it, so it's interesting to get views from you and others who have actually been involved.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Fresh Expressions. New Frontiers. Emergent Church. Et al

Boils down to the same thing in the end.

An attempt to be 'relevant;' which invariably ends up in a schism of some sort.
As Methodists we're in a little bit of a glass house on that one, no?
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I do apologise.

"The times change, and the Church changes with the times."
Thanks! Apart from anything else my Latin is hopeless, and I got times mutate, and the Church mutates in itself [Ultra confused] ... I got 27% for the NZ equivalent of O-Levels Latin [Tear]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
One criticism made of FE is that it tends to be middle class, and usually ignores inner city/council housing estate territory. There are exceptions, but this seems to be broadly true. FE essentially requires that a single church funds and resources two congregations instead of one. In the CofE, I presume that some of the funding will come from elsewhere, but for the Methodists, this can mean that only a relatively wealthy church (or possibly a relatively wealthy circuit) can participate.

As a Methodist I was led to understand that FE was for non-church people. It's not meant to be an escape route for churchgoers who are disaffected with the 'traditional' church format!

Attitudes may be different in the CofE, which is used to different kinds of churchmanship, but the differences between Methodist churches are usually more subtle. So FE is a way of reaching out to seekers, but isn't really viewed as an extension or a reflection of a diversity (of worship styles, etc.) that's already present, or a desire for more diversity.

It would be interesting to know what kind of people are normally drawn into an FE. By now there should be some research on this.

[ 20. November 2012, 17:52: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
This is a bit melodramatic, I know, but can you do fresh expressions in a church which has just taken the decision the C of E has? How freshly can a death-wish be expressed?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Quite. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One criticism made of FE is that it tends to be middle class, and usually ignores inner city/council housing estate territory. There are exceptions, but this seems to be broadly true. FE essentially requires that a single church funds and resources two congregations instead of one. In the CofE, I presume that some of the funding will come from elsewhere, but for the Methodists, this can mean that only a relatively wealthy church (or possibly a relatively wealthy circuit) can participate.

As a Methodist I was led to understand that FE was for non-church people. It's not meant to be an escape route for churchgoers who are disaffected with the 'traditional' church format!
Since we'd just been effectively told by our parish church "sorry, we're not going to bother to accommodate people like you (i.e. under 80)" that's as maybe. But can I point out that without FE we probably would have become non-church people. So where do you draw the line? Whilst I agree (as does the FE movement) that the primary aim should be reaching the parts that the existing church doesn't reach, if it also provides a home for people who struggle to cope with the existing church then that's all well and good.

Essentially I think the model is that the existing churches consist of people who are comfortable with the existing churches; FE exists for those who aren't and are therefore thought not to be going to church. The model is probably largely true, but it doesn't preclude the possibility of strugglers jumping across.

quote:
Attitudes may be different in the CofE, which is used to different kinds of churchmanship, but the differences between Methodist churches are usually more subtle. So FE is a way of reaching out to seekers, but isn't really viewed as an extension or a reflection of a diversity (of worship styles, etc.) that's already present, or a desire for more diversity.
Well it should be. What we have to be very careful about is seeing it as solely evangelistic and having a sort of expectation that people will ultimately move on to "real" church.

quote:
It would be interesting to know what kind of people are normally drawn into an FE. By now there should be some research on this.
I think that's probably as variable as the range of setups coming under the FE label.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Karl

Oh, I wasn't criticising you for becoming part of an FE, simply expressing what I've read, and the vibes I've picked up. I'm currently between churches, and if I found a suitable FE that would have me, I might stay. But initially, I'd be worried about being seen as an interloper, about not being seen as part of the target group.

The other impression I get is that because FE is designed for non-churchgoers, the presentation of the gospel would be rather basic, the assumption being that participants would have a very low knowledge of the Bible. This might not be entirely satisfactory for practising, knowledgeable Christians who are simply looking for another way of doing church. But perhaps this isn't an issue for the FE you've joined. Small group work and mentoring might overcome this issue.

(In terms of participants, I'm sure there's variety. But it would be interesting to know how many people are returning to church life after an absence, how many were already on the fringes, how many already consider themselves Christians, the age range, etc. This kind of information would be useful to churches that are considering investing in FE, against some of the other models of 'alternative church'.)
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I don't think you'd be seen that way at all. This "target group" thing is interesting.

I'm not sure I should identify the FE group I'm attached to, but although it has a very specific "target group", I actually think it could have general appeal to anyone who doesn't have an actual positive aversion to black, gothic style text and unusual body adornments. Perhaps I'm wrong; it's terribly hard to know how PNLU (People Not Like Us) think - which, ironically, is exactly what I think the Church's pressing problem actually is on the whole.

Interestingly, you'd only know that it was a FE setup from the FE site; their own website doesn't mention it. I'm not entirely sure what that means.

I've not found the gospel presentation to be particularly simplistic; the preaching input in the twice-monthly gathering for the Eucharist is minimal (which is great because I get bored in sermons and the kids start eating body parts to stave off the tedium (slight exaggeration only)), but there is a monthly Deep Night dedicated specifically to looking at issues in depth.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
I was told that the definition of a FE is that it comes out of the needs/wants of the people it is for, and not from the ideas of a church and imposed upon them by someone who thinks they know what is needed.
A FE guru told a church I used to attend, that what they saw as it’s valued FE was not, because it was developed from within a church by church members, even though the attendees were mainly non church people.
The other point of a FE is that it is not a stepping stone to ‘regular’ church but that it is church for the attendees.

I have seen quite a few FE’s and some were simply church as we know it, but in a different place. Others were so church ‘lite’ it was hard to see the Christianity there.
 
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
At the heart of FE is the desire to reach the un-churched, not provide a lifeboat for those in the church who are frustrated by the lack of Charisma/Mystery/Informality/Chanting/WorshipSongs/etc.

I am involved in rural Fresh Expressions and I can say with confidence that where I am there are very few people who are completely un-churched as all the local schools are CofE and I make regular visits to social clubs of differing socio-economic backgrounds. So there has to be some flexibility in definition.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
At the heart of FE is the desire to reach the un-churched, not provide a lifeboat for those in the church who are frustrated by the lack of Charisma/Mystery/Informality/Chanting/WorshipSongs/etc.

I am involved in rural Fresh Expressions and I can say with confidence that where I am there are very few people who are completely un-churched as all the local schools are CofE and I make regular visits to social clubs of differing socio-economic backgrounds. So there has to be some flexibility in definition.
I agree. There are a number of fine lines which defy rigid definition. Where does carefully considering a move of church for valid reasons become an act of church shopping for a church that suits you? Where does unchurched morph into dechurched?

Hmmm. "Dechurchment". I sense a possible new thread, or perhaps a new aspect to one or two existing ones.

As I've mentioned upthread though, my FE outfit does not go out of its way to publicise that that is what it is.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Where does carefully considering a move of church for valid reasons become an act of church shopping for a church that suits you?
I was once rather against the idea of going from church to church, but I currently see its benefits, at least for a time. You learn about different worship styles, meet new people and pick up ideas about what church life can be.

I don't worry too much about thoughts of 'church shopping'. My former minister used to say that you shouldn't go looking for the 'perfect church', because if you found it and joined it, you'd only ruin it. To me, this is a counsel of despair! The implication is that we should just stay put and shut up!

There's a long-standing concern about how to maintain church discipline in an environment where disgruntled people can just up sticks and join another church - but in modern Britain, I'm not sure if this is worth worrying about. The far greater issue is that people have become inclined to give up altogether. But in a declining market perhaps church leaders become more jealous about the people who are still available....


quote:

Where does unchurched morph into dechurched?
Each FE has to decide what this means, I suppose. In a village where people generally have some sort of fringe contact with the church, via schools or whatever, the approach will be different from a housing estate where most people will be generations away from any meaningful contact or attendance.

Despite the evangelistic aims of FEs, I imagine that most of them draw on people who already see themselves as connected in some way. This is true for Alpha courses, and 'Back to church Sunday' specifically tries to reach out to the de-churched.

The non-churched are the most challenging group for churches to reach, a reality that has geographical and class implications.

(Sociologists have their own definitions for terms such as de-churched, non-churched, churchgoer, etc.)
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I had no idea that dechurched existed as a term.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Incidently, I found this googling "dechurched"

Dechurched link

It answers the question posed upthread.

[edited to fix broken scroll lock - djo]

[ 22. November 2012, 15:31: Message edited by: dj_ordinaire ]
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Non-Churched: those who have had little contact at all with the church.
Un-churched: those who have never belonged to a church but have limited contact
De-churched: those who have been part of a church but are no longer

While the boundary between non-churched and unchurched is blurred, the De-churched are a distinctly different groups with advantages and disadvantages for outreach activities. the distinction between non-churched and unchurched is really how comfortable they feel in current church culture. A lot of outreach is aimed at the "nearby" un-churched, and fails to address the needs of either the Dechurched or the Nonchurched. We stopped a lot of activity that basically took people from Non-Churched to Un-Churched about fifty years ago and consequently there are fewer in the Unchurched pool.

Jengie

[ 22. November 2012, 14:21: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
The report I linked to does indicate that FE is working for the dechurched as well as the non- and un-churched target group.

I think there's also a spectrum from the thoroughly de-churched to "those in the church who are frustrated by the lack of Charisma/Mystery/Informality/Chanting/WorshipSongs/etc." as Edward put it. I think this is important because there's always a difficult decision to make as to at what point one says "there's a lot that's making things difficult for me, but I can work with it", and "this just isn't working". We, for example, crossed that point with our local church in October. While I think we could have stayed within the church solely with the church in the next parish, we'd still have very much been in the "there's a lot that's making things difficult for me, but I can work with it" camp even there, especially with regard to children's provision, but it's the FE setup which most works for us.

Even if the little Anglo-Catholic in me finds himself picking up crumbs...
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I had no idea that dechurched existed as a term.
Some of the literature around also refers to 'open dechurched' and 'closed dechurched'
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0