by Philip King
General Secretary
of the Church of England Board of Mission 1989-2000
45 years ago, as a newly ordained curate, I attended my first meeting of the Southwark Diocesan Evangelical Union (DEU). It was an extraordinary meeting in the presence of the Diocesan Bishop, Mervyn Stockwood. The main purpose of the meeting was to express concern over a book just published by John Robinson, the Bishop of Woolwich, under the title 'Honest to God'. Bishop John's aim was a laudable one - he wanted to produce a 'fresh expression' of the Gospel in order to help those who were hindered from coming to faith because they held a childish picture of God as 'a bearded Grandfather in the sky'. It is good to be reminded many years later that we still need fresh expressions of the faith and of the Gospel and not just of church life. However the book was felt by many to be heretical on what was seen to be a 'first order issue' - the theology of God. It even attracted public criticism from the Archbishop of Canterbury. Yet there was no call by the DEU for 'principled irregular action'. In those days evangelicals lacked organisations equipped to facilitate (and perhaps fuel?) protest.
Southwark evangelicals are in the news again today, some supporting but many critical of the Dundonald church plants and 'irregular ordinations'. This article will refrain from any assessment of the rights and wrongs of these events[1] and of how far genuine consultation took place in regard to the church plants[2], but will focus on the wider issues of the relative roles of church planters, Bishops, deanery and diocese. These issues were debated in a House of Bishops' Report on Church Planting published in 1994 under the title 'Breaking New Ground' (BNG) and more recently in the 2004 report 'Mission Shaped Church' (MSC). The occasion for the 1994 report was a cross boundary plant by St.Andrew's Chorleywood against the wishes of the (evangelical) Vicar and PCC of the receiving parish. There was a concern that the whole church planting movement might be jeopardised by this incident, which received front page newspaper coverage, and that Bishops should be helped to encourage church planting within the context of proper consultation and partnership. At the time there was a national average of two new church plants a week.
The BNG report noted that neighbouring churches can be adversely affected even if the plant takes place within the same parish. In one case a parish church began a plant on the edge of its territory but within its boundary; the neighbouring clergy expressed concern
not only at the possible loss of members but that once the plant needed ordained leadership there would be increased competition for new staff because of the restrictions of the Sheffield Formula. This is not an argument that the plant should not have happened but that consultation and partnership is valuable whether or not boundaries are crossed. BNG called for a positive attitude to church planting and in that context for long-term diocesan and deanery planning. It suggested a Mission Audit process to discern what areas and networks were a priority for new mission initiatives. This call has been repeated in the MSC report, which suggests that the Bishop can act as a 'broker' to help an overdefensive 'territorial' incumbent relate to a pioneer church planter. It further suggests that Bishops should be freed from administrative overload and able to invest time in a more apostolic role, being proactive rather than simply reactive, by developing mission strategy and taking a lead in discerning priorities for mission initiatives. It will not be easy to free Bishops in this way when much of their staff meeting time is taken up with an increasing number of pastoral crises, but ways need to be found.
A good example can be found in one Episcopal area where the Bishop has taken the initiative to encourage the development of a 'youth congregation' in each deanery.
In the case of cross boundary plants our sympathies may be with the 'frustrated' planter or the 'threatened' territorial incumbent and PCC according to context, but it has to be noted that under present legislation too much power is with the latter. It is often said that 'the Church of England has the engine power of a lawnmower and the brakes of a juggernaut'. I was grateful that in the Board of Mission we were able to encourage a revision of the Pastoral Measure in order to make it easier for deaneries and dioceses to develop mission strategies. There will still be proper consultation and partnership but it will be less easy for irrational territorial intransigence to torpedo such strategies.
'Consultation' is of course a slippery word. Many of us have been victims of a consultation process where it is clear that the other party concerned is going to go ahead anyway and just wants our blessing. On the other hand there is a danger of setting up such a convoluted and lengthy consultation process that good initiatives are stifled.
There are some unhappy examples in the history of Local Ecumenical Projects.
There are of course several good models of strategic partnerships between both 'inherited' churches and 'fresh expressions'; St.Thomas' Crookes is a good example of a Resource Church for other congregations and cells throughout the city of Sheffield.
HTB has served us brilliantly through Alpha, church planting and in other ways but has not always found it easy to provide people resources for churches in its catchment area, usually preferring to come into an existing congregation in strength and to establish its own leadership and culture. Some of the missiological questions that are asked with regard to the 19th.century missionary movement may be relevant here.
We need to discern and develop the gifts of those who are natural 'entrepreneurs'. The leadership courses run over recent years by The Leadership Institute for senior and other clergy have usually included sessions on Entrepreneurs; it is likely that only a small proportion of the current clergy come in this category, but clergy need help to discern and develop the gifts of those who do.
It is good to note that new selection criteria for all clergy include the requirement of 'openness to being part of reenvisioning and reshaping the church for mission.... a creative understanding of the relationship between the richness of Anglican tradition and the development of fresh expressions of church' as well as 'flexibility, imagination and vision'. In addition Bishops' Advisers are asked to 'watch for candidates who have the necessary vision and gifts to be missionary entrepreneurs' and it is envisaged that there will be special training for those who will be 'Ordained Pioneer Ministers'.
It is also good to note also that the revised Ordinal being submitted to General Synod in February has a stronger emphasis on the Bishop as a leader in mission.
Although the BNG report distinguished between neighbourhood, network and territory many of the church plants of that era were of an 'inherited church' style. The growing emphasis on 'emerging church' and 'fresh expressions' of church or church life is strategically important. However many clergy are struggling with the buildings, structures and lifestyle of inherited church. It is refreshing to note that in his book 'Church after Christendom' Stuart Murray-Williams suggests that both emerging and inherited church need similar values and so the message of the MSC report is relevant whatever category we are in. Whatever form or shape is possible in particular contexts values such as relatedness, inculturation, transformation, holistic mission, total ministry, prioritising the poor and simplicity of lifestyle should be central to both inherited and emerging church.
It is no criticism to say that MSC is a report on ecclesiology, albeit a missionary ecclesiology, and not a report on missiology as such. Inevitably the major emphasis is on evangelism and church growth. Some readers may be tempted to forget that there are several other dimensions of mission such as social concern, peace, justice and care for the environment. There is some reference to these dimensions in the theology chapter and they may be implicit in one or two of the examples but inevitably they cannot be given adequate weight. The MSC working group had difficulty in finding an illustration of a Base Ecclesial Community, for example, and had to use one from the mid 90's that has already appeared in several publications. Furthermore it focuses on the church in 'gathered' mode and not 'dispersed' mode. It would be unfortunate if the report's remarkable and welcome success led to a narrowing of the understanding of mission.
For those who want to read further there are useful lists of websites and books at the end of the MSC report and at the end of Michael Moynagh's 'emerging church.intro' 'Fresh Expressions' now has its own website.
Canon Philip King was General Secretary of the Church of England Board of Mission until 2000, Secretary to the BNG House of Bishops' Working Party on church planting and is currently Director of Programmes for The Leadership Institute.
[1]For a perceptive theological overview, see Graham Kings, 'Judicious or Precipitate? Evangelicals and Order in the Church of England'
[2]For a detailed analysis, see Stephen Kuhrt, 'Why I as an Evangelical Anglican in the Diocese of Southwark support Bishop Tom Butler in his action against Rev Richard Coekin'
These posts are by guest authors for Fulcrum