Emerging or Fresh Expressions of Church There has been much discussion about whether Fresh Expressions are forms of Emerging Church or Emerging Churches are forms of Fresh Expressions. A growing consensus suggests that the more pioneering forms of Fresh Expressions, such as Sanctus 1 or Moot are Emerging Churches. However, those Fresh Expressions of Church that are mission-shaped but operate out of existing traditional churches tend to have traditional understandings of ecclesiology so are not forms of Emerging Church.
Discuss...
6 comments:
Does it matter? Really?
Does definition matter? I'd suggest that it does, definition gives clarity. There is a spectrum within FE and everything within that spectrum needs affirming and encouraging, part of that affirmation is to recognise the different forms of FE that there are.
If we're looking to define by terminology, is Sanctus1 more likely to be a "mission-shaped church", than a "fresh expression"?
I ask because, in my head at least, in relation to the chronology of the terms, MSC came first, then EC, and then FE...
And if you told me I to pick one then I'd pick EC because for me it most closely describes the state that this community finds itself in (emerging from culture/ the church, not freshening it up).
We often decide what we like and what we don't like based on our experiences and encounters with similar things.
The term "fresh expressions" always makes me think of a session I went to at a youth event, which involved middle-aged people sitting at tables (cafe worship style) and singing hymns.
I delight in the fact that Sanctus1 is not like this, but shudder every time I hear the term "fresh expression" in association with us...
The terminology is complicated by the fact that by definition the movement is in embryonic form and the language is developing to fill the necessary roles.
I just spent the first chapter of my dissertation trying to unpick it all.
I think it is a shame that the CofE and Methodist churches felt the need to invent the term "fresh expressions". It strikes me as being a way of repackaging emerging church and alternative worship in a 'church friendly' manner.
I guess the term "mission-shaped church" could apply to anything.
I think that the most useful terms (and probably longest lasting) will be Emerging Church and Alternative Worship. They are the most accuratly descriptive and widely accepted across denominations in a wider eccumenical context.
I love Sanctus1 and everything about it.
When I describe to people what Church I belong to I say: "I go to Sanctus1, a funky liberal post-modern church in the city centre."
Describing it in two words will be much simpler, but most people will be unfamiliar with the terminology so I predict I will have conversations such as:
Random: So what church did you say you go to?
Lev: I belong to Sanctus1 - an emerging church in the city centre.
Random: {blank look}
Lev: Yes, er.. well.. it's a funky liberal post-modern church... very bohemian. You'd LOVE it!
Random: Right.
Lev: Tequilla?
Whatever we are (and I appreciate the sensativities sorrounding defination) - I totally love it!
...Lev
Post a Comment