Barrier 4 – lack of patronage
It is notable that as an institution the Church of England has pro-actively sought to encourage or even plant emerging and fresh expressions of church. The Nine O’clock Service in Sheffield inspired and provided a model for many within the Anglican Communion. Since then there have been influential think tanks and papers published, most notably, “mission-shaped church – church planting and fresh expressions of church in a changing context” (2004). This thinking and desire to try things new comes not just from specialist think tanks but from the very top of the Anglican Church with the Archbishop of Canterbury stating, “we have begun to recognize that there are many ways in which the reality of ‘church’ can exist”. Church Army (which described itself as, “a society of evangelists linked to the Anglican church”, is committed to mission shaped and fresh expressions of church, providing training, resources and partnerships to further this “radical new agenda for mission and fresh expressions of church”. Blah, which is organised by CMS (Church Mission Society – the Anglican Church’s mission agency) is a series of conversations which regarly takes place in a number of major English cities. It’s a space where those involved in emerging church can come to share stories, support and encourage each other and receive some input.
While it is not directly an Anglican run event, the yearly Greenbelt arts and music festival has been key in the development and support of different emerging church communities. Given it’s held on a bank holiday that we in Scotland don’t take the Scottish contingent who attend is small, and I would guess that the Scottish contingent who find the Emerging church stuff is even smaller.
Given the support and patronage the Anglican Church is giving to both fresh expression and emerging church the question need to be asked, “is anyone filling this role is Scotland?” The existing church structures in Scotland can work one of two ways. They can work like a rainforest canopy, depriving the grass roots of any light needed to be birthed and grow. The positive alternative is for existing structures to become greenhouses, environment makers that are conducive to birthing innovative missional church plants. Such an environment is created in part by positive attitudes and words of encouragement, but there must also be a release of resources both in terms of releasing people to pursue such ventures and releasing finances to help make this possible.
There are signs that the Church of Scotland are doing some things. Peter Nielson’s report, “The Church Without walls”, has made an impact, but as of yet there is not the same support structures in place supporting those or releasing people to pursue such ventures. Alan McWilliams at Whiteinch Church of Scotland runs a “leadership training and mentoring programme for those who sense that God might be leading them into creating new expressions of Church”. These are signs of great encouragement, but what about the Baptists or indepant evangelicals, what response are they making?
Barrier 5 – Platonism?
This is perhaps not a specifically Scottish issue, but I want to suggest that it has a Scottish twist.
What do I mean by Platonism? By this I am thinking about spirituality that promotes the “spiritual” or non-corporal over the “natural” or corporal. In such thinking a hierarchy of what is “more spiritual” is formed, so for example attending a prayer meeting is of far greater importance than meeting work colleges down the pub for a chat!
I want to suggest that by subjugating the mundane to the “spiritual” we not only perpetuate the state of an unhealthy sacred / secular divide but that we narrow mission to an extent that if fails to be a participation in the Missio Dei.
This reduction in the scope of mission converges with an evangelical platonic piety and evangelicalisms need to “win” and “be successful”, means that our mission / evangelism becomes very driven or programmatic. Even when we do care for the whole person it is with the agenda to “see them won for Christ”. I do not wish to disparage the intentions here, for they are good, but I fear we have an unhealthy “the ends justifies the means” mentality whereby we lose any sense of humanity or compassion.
I would suggest that this platonic / evangelical form of mission rather than attracting people to Jesus, makes them run in the opposite direction. Sociologist Thomas Humphery Marshall observes that, “when many people simultaneously run in the same direction, two questions need to be asked: what are they running after and what are they running from?” People are not just leaving our churches because of the pull effect of work, lifestyle or apathy, there is also a push. I want to suggest that spiritualities that subjugate the corporeal with the non-corporeal mitigate against a holistic spirituality. Thus people struggle to connect their experience in church, be that the “worship” or the sermon with the reality of their daily lives. Brewin in his book, The Complex Christ notes;
“Unfortunately, the Church’s answer seems to have focused, perhaps unsurprisingly in our culture so obsessed with the self, on personal change as the route to its revitalization. We have been told by our leaders that ‘revival’ will come just as soon as our individual personal holiness ratings reach a certain saintly mark. The resuscitation of the dying Church has been made out to be dependent on the sinlessness of its members, yet we have to ask the question: did the leavers all go in the first place because we weren’t holy enough? Of course not. They left because it was boring, unchanging, irrelevant, said nothing to them about their life, and was completely unconnected to their experience”.
The church’s answer would also seem to have focused on forms of mission that employ and bate and switch methodology, are programmatic and imported. I was recently walking in a part of Argyll where the commercial forestation is being harvested. The ground from where the trees have been removed looks like some strange bad lands from another planet in a si-fi movie. The landscape had become rutted from the furrows ploughed into the hillside for the planting of the original crop. It is difficult and dangerous terrain to walk over. It is also barren as the tree cover was so thick that nothing could grow beneath it. This bareness is extenuated by the fact that these foreign evergreen trees do not enrich the soil but strip it of any goodness adding to its acidic nature. Reflecting upon this sight made me think of how we have done mission over the past 80 years or so. Have we by using intensive, often foreign forms of mission planted the equivalent of a commercial pine forest which yields one good crop, after 40 years, but once this is harvested leaves the ground barren and ill prepared to grow native plants?
To keep with the forestry metaphor it is interesting to note that new commercial forest plantations are opting for a mixed economy of trees, breaking up the regimented lines of pine with indigenous deciduous trees. We to need a mixed economy of mission where the pre-packaged “commercial” forms of mission still have their place, but do not so dominate the landscape that what is indigenous and organic cannot flourish alongside.
Let’s be Positive
Having reflected on what might be specifically Scottish barriers to be emergence of an emerging church in Scotland we should also ask the question, “are these specifically Scottish cultural, sociological, historical or geographical factors that would encourage and support the formation of and flourishing of emerging churches in Scotland?”
The answer to this question is perhaps the topic for another conversation?
Recent Comments