1524

You have pointed out some of the differences and discontinuities between 'old' and 'new' thinking. I was inviting some deeper thought on the similarities and continuities. If we think only of what is radical and new, Church History tells us that we can leave important things behind for future generations to rediscover.

On the shape of the hole - one might say in your terms that a 'large plant' implies a 50-person-from-a-church-nearby shaped hole ... the language about holes can conceal such important insights.

If you read my previous post you will see that I did not say that the organist-choir idea was focussed on Sunday worship - that is how what you read in. But with creative imagination there are other possibilities. Many plants of the kind you would advocate are signficantly supported by a strong musical element.

While I was training for ordination I took Graham Cray's formidable course 'Modernity, PostModernity and the Gospel' and came out the other side - that gave an overview of a whole host of ideas and competing understandings of the driving forces in society and our Christian response. Any individual plant needs a strong vision, clear leadership and a practical and pastoral coherence. But the Church response to society demands a rich tapestry of responses. What I think is largely gone from the past is the idea that a single congregation can do it all - particularly in modern urban Britain. And that 'can't do it all' applies as much to plants as to more traditionally shaped churches.

The other factor is limited resources, of course - and church planting has an impact and makes a difference. I think we are probably too early in the modern generation of church planting to see in practice how they handle the passing on from the first generation of 'planters' to the second generation of church leadership and membership, and how enduring the models are, or whether they in turn will need radical revision in response to the changing demands upon them. But back to resources - church strategists and leaders (bishops) have to take all this into account when deciding how to lead the Church.

It is not a 'show' and there is no road - only the Way.

Just becuase you have been ordained, don't allow yourself to lapse into such cynical langauge, even in a  light way, this kind of talk  turns professional Christians into cynics (in the everyday sense !). The C of E clergy has enough of this already.

What is the remedy for such world-weary cynicism ?

Mark,

I guess it depends on what we're trying to plant. An organist and choir may help keep the show on the road, if it's Sunday morning you're aiming at, but I wouldn't call that church planting.

Much of the church planting literature from the 80's and 90's made the launch of Sunday worship the holy grail of church planting, as if that was what defined and made the church. Thinking has moved on from that, as the Anglican Church Planting website demonstrates - they critique the original model as identifying the 'birth' of the church with the launch of public worship.

The good thing about Fresh Expressions is that it's trying to create space to explore what church looks like if you don't have the standard equations of church = building + priest + Sunday morning service. That means planting churches which don't have a vicar (or building, or.....)-shaped hole in their heart, as well as taking the chances we get (as in Andrews excellent and encouraging article) to rejuvenate existing churches.

This leads me into an interesting thought - at least I think so.

We do (I allege) have a 'standard model' of church planting in the CofE, which involves sending a person called a priest, perhaps with a few people called their family, into a church from outside. Often the demands on the individual/family are unrealistic - and think about the psychology of the desirable family too. Often that puts a deal of strain on the few people concerned. And think about the family as very often unordained.

Is there a way of thinking this through which is conceptually in continuity between the priest + ?family model, and the 'large plant'. For example, in some places the import of a sympathetic organist and the core of a choir might be the right thing?

Putting the two in continuity might also help us to understand that we are not repairing a busted ecclesiology by creating a radically new way of doing things (the sheer terror factor of this is high), but doing better what we have always done.

A fascinating article.  It reminds me of what was called a 'church reboot' in the diocese of Toronto when 50 people from 'Little Trinity' went with their associate priest to one that was appropriately named 'Church of the Resurrection'.  Resurrection happened.  It is something I would like to see in our diocese.  Unfortunately I can think of no mission-minded parishes that would be able to pull it off.

We have just published on Fulcrum the following article:

'Church Planting: a London case study', by Andrew Watson, vicar of St Stephen's Church, Twickenham

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=265