Fresh expressions – towards a dialogue
Antipodean internet responses to the Church of England report A Mixed Economy for Mission (PDF) have been falling over themselves with unalloyed fervour and praise. Certainly there is much of value in this and its earlier report, Mission-shaped Church (PDF). But anyone who has previously seen the church’s enthusiasm wax lyrical about a new “solution to current issues” has probably seen the disappointment as those addicted to moving from novelty to novelty move on to the next big thing.
Please note that this balancing post is not in the context of phobia for the new. No one who spends time on this site I think would fairly accuse me of being a reactionary conservative. I am a strong advocate for an internet presence (this is the most-visited Christian site in New Zealand, Liturgy is the second-most-followed twitter page from New Zealand), I firmly encourage new monasticism, I thrive on insights from emergent and missional approaches, etc. I am enthusiastic about fresh expressions of church and see nothing ultimately sacrosanct, for example, in the inherited parish system. But just as such words as “evangelical”, “orthodox”, “liturgical”, and even “Christian” have been hijacked and are often no longer usable, so I can see this may happen to “fresh expression”.
So, to balance the praise, here are some points I hope that will encourage us to pause before we plough headlong into this latest salvation of the church. It has been well said: organised religion looks for new programs, healthy spirituality looks for new people.
Fresh expressions and liturgy
One of my strongest fears is that “fresh expression” will be used, by some, as merely another excuse to abandon the liturgical life of the worshipping community. Liturgy has often not been tried and found wanting; liturgical study, training, and formation of individuals and communities has, in many cases, been found difficult and left untried. Also, in some practice, the focus seems to be so much driven by an anxiety about shrinking and aging communities, that anything appears to be appropriate as long as it reverses those trends. This shifts the focus from God and the gospel. We may not just be throwing out the gospel baby with the inherited bathwater, but, in changing from a bath to a lounge suite, we may miss our primary purpose.
I immediately bristle when I see “vocations” used to refer solely to church positions (page 3 Mixed Economy). Such a non-missional perspective makes me alert to read what follows with great care.
A community I know speaks of their commitment to the rite Thanksgiving of the People of God (p404ff in the New Zealand Prayer Book, the most recognisably Anglican rite for anyone from anywhere in the Anglican Communion), with the complete Revised Common Lectionary, as being so rare that if there is any finance being offered for this they will apply as being a Fresh Expression.
The word “liturgy” does not occur at all in Mixed Economy, and the word “worship” occurs only incidentally.
The ‘common core’ strategy underlying Common Worship is helpful. It emphasizes patterns and structures instead of giving detailed and prescribed texts. If church planters are trained in the overall structures and patterns of Christian worship, then they should be trusted with the freedom, together with their new congregations, to develop culturally appropriate liturgy from below. This approach will help discourage the cloning of patterns of liturgy and of church in new areas of mission.
p117 Mission Shaped Church in chapter 6 some methodologies for a missionary church – patterns of worship
I totally endorse the above paragraph. In theory. Central to liturgical renewal was the shift from – the meals-on-wheels, instant-services, frozen-centrally, reheated-locally, 1662 BCP style, to – locally cooked meals:
Services in The Book of Common Prayer have often been likened to “meals on wheels.” They were centrally prepared, and then warmed and dished up locally. One began at the beginning of the service, reading most of it until one reached the end of it. Services in A New Zealand Prayer Book are more like “frozen peas,” or maybe a basket of groceries and a recipe book. A core of essential material is provided with some further resources, other content is added locally. Many will be surprised that the obligatory material from any of the eucharistic liturgies (pages 404 510) takes only about six minutes to recite. Most of the rest of the service is locally chosen. The quality of the meal is now much more dependent on the local “cook”! (Chapter 1 of my book Celebrating Eucharist)
My fear is, however, based on my experience that so, so many leaders have continued the “meals on wheels” approach, but merely with new, different texts. It appears that many, many worship leaders are not being “trained in the overall structures and patterns of Christian worship” to enable them to “be trusted with the freedom, together with their new congregations, to develop culturally appropriate liturgy from below.”
Fresh expressions and diversity
Chapter 1 in Mission Shaped Church – changing context sets the tone:
“‘One size fits all’ will not do.” p12 Mission Shaped Church (cf. Foreword of Mixed Economy)
“No one kind of worship can attract, much less hold, a major proportion of the varied population of this country.” p13 Mission Shaped Church.
The traditional, inherited model has always encouraged the meeting of people with similarities: Sunday school children, youth groups, women’s groups, etc. But there is a trend amongst some now to have that as the only or primary experience. To press the point, this approach would have a worshipping community consisting of and geared towards eg. car mechanics; no: white, male, car mechanics aged 25-35, with the likelihood that the 28 year old white male car mechanic pastor, in spending time preparing the service and sermon is alienated from his community because he is no longer sufficiently involved in car mechanicing!
Contrast this pressing of the approach, with the following quote:
When we gather around the table and break the bread together, we are transformed not only individually but also as community. We, people from different ages and races, with different backgrounds and histories, become one body. As Paul says: ‘As there is one loaf, so we, although there are many of us, are one single body, for we all share in the one loaf.’ (1 Corinthians 10:17).
Not only as individuals but also as community we become the living Christ, taken, blessed, broken, and given to the world. As one body, we become a living witness of God’s immense desire to bring all peoples and nations together as the one family of God.” (Bread for the Journey, Henri Nouwen)
I conclude this reflection with this important question: Is the primary goal of our worship to attract people into church? Or is the primary goal to worship God?
I believe the primary goal of worship is worship. It’s about GOD. We come together to worship God, to partake of the spirit of His body and blood in the shared bread and wine.
Of course, we need to be more than one in order to have communal worship–but if we sacrifice the worship for building community, what’s the point?
I grew up in a denomination stripped of most of the meaningful parts of liturgy. There was an order of service, certainly, but nothing built toward the Eucharist. It was kind of blah. We even took grape juice in these tiny shot glass looking cups; not even shared. There was nothing passionate about that church–and I hate to say it, but when I went back for my uncle’s funeral 30-odd years later, the current minister was still BORING.
I love Christ. I find worship and following a liturgy exciting. I love to see the seasons of the church year change. It’s the skeleton upon which I hang my adult faith. So I would hate for liturgy to be left behind in the effort to be “modern”.
The better we worship, the more our lives are transformed. The more our lives are transformed, the more we will bring people to Christ.
I’m half-way through reading ‘Ancient Faith, Future Mission: Fresh Expressions in the Sacramental Tradition’ (Steven Croft, Ian Mobsby, Stephanie Spellers, editors) and I think the book is the American edition, so it has a few more essays than the UK edition did. I also just discovered a blog that some may find helpful – http://sacramental-fresh-expressions.ning.com/
I have regularly attended two churches that consider themselves catholic and liturgical. One is distinctly incarnational, outward looking, joyful, creative and, frankly, fun to be a part of. The other, wanting, it seems to be a whited sepulchre, desperately tries to prop up a moribund liturgy and is neurotic about ‘doing things they way they should’ be done. *Every* Sunday, the same Great Thanksgiving is used (admittedly with seasonal variations) so that by the end of the liturgical year I think every parishioner has just switched off. *Every* evensong in the parish has the same prayers from the 1928 BCP, without variation, despite the numbers of occasional prayers that the book contains.
Outwardly worship looks similar at both churches (choir, incence, robes … etc), but the experience at the first one is attractive and makes one glad to be an Anglican, whereas the experience at the other place makes one feel like they ought to be told to ‘weep for themselves’.
If Fresh Expressions’ effect is to give us more opportunities for creative, Anglo-catholic worship in all its fullness, rather than the making of any more dead offerings unto the Lord, then I reckon it to be a good thing.
Robert, thanks so much for pointing us to that book – it looks good, I’m definitely getting it. It has a wonderful list of contributors. Also, thanks for pointing people to the ning site.
I do not have the answers, but it seems to me that so much of what passes for church today is entirely self-serving. Even the outreach to bring others to the church is more about having more bodies in the seats and so a greater number of folks to share the cost and cover all of the positions that need filling in this inward facing, self serving institution. So what passes for worship has merely become entertainment which is built around what appeals to the incredibly short attention span folks have towards media of entertainment today.
I have been thinking about “new forms of church for a fast changing world” and especially what “church” means in countries where a tiny percentage of the population set foot inside a church building on any kind of regular basis. I don’t think the _primary_ answer is a fresh coat of metaphorical paint on what is inside church buildings (although I’m happy to consider changes there), but to look at how the church is a part of many people’s lives 7 days a week.
An example: about a week ago somebody described the Gulf of Mexico oil problem as a disaster of “Biblical Proportions”… I thought to myself how this might have been handled if the event turned up in the bible, and looked at 2 Chron 20:1-21 for starters. My question is not just “should some convocation like this happen now?” but “HOW could people be gathered together like that today?”. There are so many factors against such concerted action. Do “fresh expressions” address them? Maybe. The separation between church and state is one thing (although I suspect those with Queen Elizabeth as Head of State might have a better chance), but the fragmentation within the Church (between and within denominations) is a big problem, as is the difficulty Christians now have in communicating with the rest of the world without being dismissed (if they are too vocal, or too bland). If BP are at the stage of looking for suggestions, would most people think it a waste of time if an Archbishop turned up instead of a trained oceanographer?? (Ironic joke there, by the way). If civilisation rushes on with the most dangerous bleeding-edge technologies, without pausing to think of the spiritual and ethical problems with worshipping knowledge, then there is definitely something wrong with the way the Church expresses itself.
Mark, I recall that the Presiding Oceanographer did have some words to share regarding the oil disaster a week or so ago when she was given an occasion to address it.
Well, I have just come back from the local Fresh Expressions conference, and I found a lot to like (and lots to think about).
The two relevant issues from the liturgy perspective seem to be:
1. The new expressions were repeatedly said to be “as well as” (rather than replacing) traditional liturgy (although there is an element of the old services dying out still, if they were before, related to the recognition that these initiatives should be seen as strategies to get others to boost old congregations).
2. Some fresh expressions do make a big thing of liturgy, and not watered-down versions, because that is what some find lacking from churches they may otherwise experience.
Listening/prayer/discernment seems to be of primary importance, which is something that is probably in need of care and attention in a lot of church life.
Thanks for this feedback, Mark. Your second point reinforces what has already been made above, and I particularly look forward to getting the recommended book. I’d be interested in exploring your first point further. I wonder what is being meant as “traditional” liturgy, say as contrasted with “contemporary” liturgy, or – just “liturgy”. More significantly, maybe, when the reference is to “as well as” – is this anticipating that each person experiences “fresh expressions” as well as “liturgy”, or rather that “fresh expressions” and “liturgy” are two parallel streams, “tikanga” if you will, that may occasionally meet, but mostly not?