I agree with a lot of your posts about the potential for synergy between the inherited churches and fresh expressions. I do not share your same optimistic view that they can comfortably live together in the same world. In my diocese church plants and “fresh expressions” get looked at with a whole lot of skepticism. Our synods have passed not one protocol for planting or for fresh expressions. I could care less except it means that though I have been ordained twenty years all of a sudden I am being made to operate “under the care” of a priest who has been in orders only seven years? You ask why? Because he heads up a parish and I head up a fresh expression! How do you read that?
My brother Isaac (you and he have had dialog through Shapevine) has been in parish ministry even longer than I have – and yet (along with every other priest or worker leading a fresh expression or even a new plant) he has to function under a “temporary licence” from the “archdeacon for fresh expressions”. So get that: after 20 plus years in ordained ministry Isaac’s work now doesn’t even get the badge of a bishop’s okay! Really, from an institutional point of view it is off the map. It’s not exactly what I would call a vote of confidence! That is what we have both experienced in dioceses known as “friendly” to fresh expressions. What must it be like in the unfriendly places??
The Brits look to be a long ways ahead of us on this. Those of us that are planters get looked at like we have created a problem when we step out on mission and anybody with a heart and soul for a fresh expression is by that fact typecast as a poor churchman who obviously doesn’t understand “the tradition”. Obviously we are amateur churchmen. Otherwise we would be following all the established conventions working so well every place else! Except of course they are not. “No matter that we’re in a nosedive. At least we’re not changing anything”. You know the score! Maybe I am a little over sensitive on this but that is the basic attitude I pick up on. So brother, though I wish I could, I just can’t match your optimism.
Thank you for sharing what you have, so openly. It’s a painful truth that no pioneer is ever going to sit comfortably with the status quo! I guess that’s just par for the course! Perish the day when planters are good “churchmen” eh! Like you I regard the Anglican-Episcopal tradition as a story full of innovations!! But the place of the pioneer is never an easy one to occupy and that’s for certain!
I agree that with their BMOs and translocal episcopal jurisdictions the plucky Brits really have been pushing the boat out much further. And good on them. I see Anglican dioceses in Australia is echoing that with the use of Episcopal MOUs as a form for authorization, cover and assimilation.
Your concern is the same as mine with regard to using the parish system as the exclusive web of entry points into any region. My spiritual father Bishop David Pytches famously described the parish system as the church’s condom to prevent church multiplication! And he often commented that his former diocese (Chile, Bolivia and Peru) was a diocese without parishes. (It had scattered missions at that time.)
My mentor David Pytches in his Chile, Bolivia and Peru days
I prefer the plural approach of earlier centuries – as I have outlined elsewhere. Parish clergy are vital – to the parish churches. And parish churches are, generally, a diocese’s bread and butter in terms of generating income. (There are exceptions where dioceses have been cleverer about investing money into real estate that generates income instead of draining church coffers.) But parish priests do not have to be the gatekeepers for an alternative (and often very different) model of ministry – or even the “supervisors”? That would not be a plural approach. So I am with you there.
However, I just wonder whether (and could you tactfully ask your bishop if this is the case?) perhaps the parish angle has been chosen in your diocese – and the archidiaconal route has been taken in Isaac’s case – in order to avoid getting snowed under legislative approaches and issues? Dare I suggest that to ask diocesan synods to produce new protocols, legislation and ordinances might not be the most freeing way forward!!
The benefit of Isaac’s situation is that in truth the “temporary licence” may be truer to the exploratory and experimental nature of a good fresh expression or plant(?) Perhaps to create for every project an episcopal licence is something like putting Saul’s armour on David? I guess you see it as the bishop hedging his/her bets? I just wonder, might it be his/her way of allowing greater liberty? I have no idea in Isaac’s case. But it’s possible that’s why the archidiaconal route has been taken there.
Brother, it really is not an easy road and whatever you do I know you won’t wait until all the protocols have been ironed out before you step out and make an initiative in obedience to the Holy Spirit! See my other post “There’s no I in TEAM but there are 4 in INITIATIVE!”
At the end of the day there are no caveats or sub-clauses in the Great Commission! And if I can be so radical as to point it out – no mention of episcopal, archidiaconal, or any other kind of institutional or authority to buffer our obedience to Jesus! To repeat a point recently made by another dear American friend of mine, Canon Jon Shuler of NAMS, Jesus prefaces the Great Commission by saying, “ALL AUTHORITY in heaven and earth has been given TO ME! THEREFORE (I HAVE THE AUTHORITY ON MY OWN TO TELL YOU TO) GO…!”
Could it really be that simple?
Would it be fair to say that sending the 72 while the 12 were still having so many issues shows a quite different order of priorities to the ones we generally follow in today’s churches? Jesus seems to be able to live with a little untidiness!! How about us?!