From Canon George Lings
Sir, - The Revd Dr Stephen Brian raises questions about the
Church Army report on fresh expressions of church (Letters, 21
November), which was commissioned, tested and approved by an
inspection body of the church-growth programme of the Church
Commissioners. We are glad that we have an open Church in which
questions can be raised, and imagine that your readers may like to
know our reply within the confines of the letters page.
Perhaps his substantive point is that the report is based on the
leaders' opinion and not that of the participants. There are four
interlocking responses to this.
First, we have always been clear this was an acknowledged
limitation because of the size of the task, and in all public
presentations we have made that point. Second, we thought it
plausible that the leaders' view had some substance. They are also
participants, they lead small young churches of, on average, only
44 people, and pastorally they would have some grounded view of
their people's stories. Third, on page 102, we specifically
recommended that the leaders' view should be tested, and are glad
to tell your readers that the Church Commissioners concurred, and
this work is now under way. We will report on this evidence in
2016. Fourth, we need to remember that many of our national
attendance statistics are sourced from leaders, in this case clergy
and churchwardens. The search for utterly impregnable data is an
elusive one.
We think we can clear up a misunderstanding expressed in his
letter. It is the difference between an outreach project and a
fresh expression of Church. Dr Brian is right that beginning a
fresh expression of Church does involve outreach, and, in most
cases, came from an existing parish church. The criteria as a
whole, however, make clear that it is not only that.
A fresh expression of Church has both missional and ecclesial
identity. The process begins a further church, which exists
distinct from, but related to, that parish church. This is itself
not new, and was common in the 1930s and 1950s with what then were
called daughter churches. We comment on this key difference between
what is only an outreach project and a fresh expression of church
more fully at the top of page 82 and in the summary bullets of page
83.
Your readers may like to know that the parameter of the majority
of members seeing it as their church derives from research over 15
years into particular stories. One recurring strand of feedback has
been listening to those without a church background coming to a
realisation that surprised them, that what they were attending was
church.
We are very keen not to over-claim in this research, glad to
comment on questions raised, still on course to make known what has
been found, and wanting to discover more.
GEORGE LINGS
Director of Church Army Research
Church Army
Wilson Carlile Centre
50 Cavendish Street
Sheffield S3 7RZ