Why inherited and new forms of church need each other

The writer of Ecclesiastes, observing the way of the world, states that…

there is nothing new under the sun, and that all is vanity.

It might be an accusation levelled at the Fresh Expressions initiative and other associated movements which have emerged over the past twenty years or so. Martyn Percy describes many of the attempts at new forms of church as ‘old tricks for new dogs’

While this might be justified in some cases, it is certainly not true of the myriad communities springing up across the United Kingdom, both within larger denominations and outside them. Their aim is to worship God, follow Jesus faithfully, and carry out mission appropriate to their current context. Whether or not what they do is ‘new’ is, to them, rather irrelevant.

In their book Emerging Churches: creating christian community in postmodern cultures (2006, pp. 44-45), Gibbs and Bolger list nine defining features of these new communities, the first three of which are outworked in the second six. Over a decade later, they still remain broadly true or have developed even further:

  1. Identifying with the life of Jesus. This might contrast with, or be additional to, self-identifying as a member of a particular church or denomination.
  2. Transforming the secular realm. Reflective of a theology which sees the work of God in all things is a desire to see an end to the distinction between the sacred and profane in all aspects of culture.
  3. Living highly communal lives. Emerging church participants tend to understand worship as a way of life rather than once-a-week service.
  4. Welcoming the stranger. This is offered without any anticipation that any new person will be expected to sign up to a doctrinal creed.
  5. Serving with generosity. Acts of kindness are viewed as foretastes of the Kingdom of God.
  6. Participating as producers. All members of the community take corporate responsibility for worship, mission and ministry.
  7. Creating as created beings. Revelling in creative acts of worship, generosity and community service, there is a strong sense among members that they are participating in God’s mission to the world.
  8. Leading as a body. Many emerging churches aim to have a flat structure and full equality among participants.
  9. Taking part in spiritual activities. Often ancient and contemporary spiritualities from a variety of different church traditions are adapted for corporate and personal use.

This is not to say that churches with a more traditional inherited structure do not have any or all of these features. For example, in my denomination, the United Reformed Church, the Walking the Way initiative encourages many of these features, especially the first. It is simply that they tend to be more explicitly acknowledged and held in emerging church communities.

A principle undergirding these features is the concept Missio Dei. This is the idea that all activity carried out, in the name of God, is part of God’s overarching plan to redeem the world, and that church is but one means of achieving God’s end.

Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, describes it as ‘working out what God is doing in the world and joining in’. This has implications for how church communities understand and structure themselves. Churches emerging in this tradition tend to focus much of their activity outwards, understanding their mission as God’s mission, and their service to the world as a foreshadowing of the redemption of all creation.

While this all sounds very exciting, such an idealistic way of envisaging church does have some practical weaknesses:

  1. Emerging church communities often require financial support from more established churches. Although models of church formed in this way do not necessarily require salaried leadership longterm, many leaders are trained and funded, at least in part, by the denominations from which they hale. Making new Christians and equipping them to become leaders themselves takes time, making new forms of church emerging from traditional denominations reliant on them, both for funding and practical support, for up to fifteen years.
  2. Because many of these new communities stand either on the fringes of, or outside, the traditional church, there can be a lack of accountability among the leadership. No-one wants to admit it, but there is a danger that new communities shaped by a charismatic leader are at a risk of being formed in the image of that leader rather than God’s. More established denominations have the expertise to offer practical and spiritual support to new leaders, and to provide safeguarding, accounting, property and legal advice, essential in undergirding new ecclesial communities as they grow and develop.
  3. A desire for mutuality in all aspects of church life can sometimes result in lack of proper leadership or direction. Flat structures cannot always be maintained, particularly where the transient nature of a community might mean a regular change in membership. Being part of a more established denomination can enable continuity, even though the membership of a new church community might fluctuate and change.

This need for continuity signifies what is, for me, one of the greatest potential weakness of emerging churches: failing to understand ourselves as carriers of a tradition into which we enter and become a part as followers of Christ. Being members of the church is not just about a fondness for old stories or relics; it is recognising that we are part of a story, going back to the beginning of time; one that will continue until the world as we know it is no more. As people of God, not only do we each have a role in that story, but we are an integral part of it: we make the story.

The technical term for this principle of corporate shared memory is ‘anamnesis’, a term discussed John Bradbury in his book Perpetually Reforming: A Theology of Church Renewal and Reform (2013, pp.171-187). Bradbury says that “most major moments of reformation are not seeking to break with the past, but rather to rediscover the past in such a way as the present can be reformed to better embody the tradition.” The question the church is currently asking, not only from within the Reformed Tradition, but across the denominations, is ‘how best can we do it?’

To be faithful to God I believe that the church needs both the anamnesis perpetuated by traditional churches and Missio Dei so passionately outworked in emerging churches. The two are related – it might even be said that they overlap.

Churches which have been around for generations, that are tired and out of ideas, might do well to adopt some of the features highlighted by Gibbs and Bolger in an attempt to revive themselves. In turn churches experimenting with new forms would be wise to pay attention to their forebears. Not only do they rely on them, both in practical and fiscal terms, but they are part of a tradition reflecting a story that has existed since the beginning – and will continue until the end of time.

Janet Sutton Webb, May 2018

Suggested Reading
For more on emerging churches see:

  • Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, 2006, Emerging Churches: creating christian community in postmodern cultures (London, SPCK)

For more on anamnesis see:

  • John P. Bradbury, 2013, Perpetually Reforming: A Theology of Church Renewal and Reform (Edinburgh, T&T Clark), especially pp.175-187

2 thoughts on “Why inherited and new forms of church need each other

  1. Hi Janet,

    I am sure it is just the pressure of fitting words into a word-count, or something – but brevity does not always bring clarity! I wonder if it might be worth revisiting your paragraph describing what you think “Missio Dei” means…

    you write: “This is the idea that all activity carried out, in the name of God, is part of God’s overarching plan to redeem the world, and that church is but one means of achieving God’s end.”

    The second clause is true – and the heart of the meaning of “Mission Dei” – that church (indeed, human) activity is a small subset and by no means the whole of God’s Mission to/in/for the world.

    Your first clause is not as clearly true…

    You write: “This is the idea that all activity carried out, in the name of God, is part of God’s overarching plan to redeem the world…”

    This is manifestly not the case. All manner of evil activity has been done “in the name of God” which is absolutely NOT “part of God’s overarching plan to redeem the world”. All manner of evil is STILL done “in the name of God” which is absolutely NOT “part of God’s overarching plan to redeem the world”.

    In addition to this, you SEEM to be suggesting that what you call “inherited models” of church are the “church” subset of God’s bigger and more encompassing Mission – and that “emerging” models top that up. Actually – ALL church activity (including emerging pioneer activity) is but a small subset of God’s Mission, it is not the case that one model of church is closer than another to “Missio Dei” – and that is not what Missio Dei means.

    Church models or ways of being that have Gibbs & Bolger’s 9 features are not doing “Mission Dei” better – “Missio Dei” is not a style or way of being church – they simply join all other models of church in being but a tiny subset of what God is up to in the world… “Mission Dei” is about the complex vastness of God’s dealings with her universe – not a way of being church… all our various forms of “missio ecclesiae” including emerging pioneer forms – are but responses to the much vaster and all-encompassing “Missio Dei”.


    1. Janet Sutton Webb

      Thank you for your comment. You are absolutely right. It is sloppy wording, and patently not all activity which is claimed to be in God’s name actually is. I don’t think I said that Missio Dei is a ‘style or way of being church’ (the term I use is ‘principle’) and I certainly haven’t suggested that any one model of church tops another. I genuinely believe that the church benefits from, and indeed requires, a broad a range of different styles and theologies. Every type of church has both strengths and weaknesses. I shall ponder a rewording of that sloppy clause. Thank you for drawing my attention to it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.