Dawkins vs Baroness Warsi - Christian Britain and its Secular detractors

Richard Dawkins has just released details of a survey designed to explore why in the 2001 Census 72% of British people ticked the box marked 'Christian'. There are two posts about this survey on the Dawkins Foundation site  Dawkins survey post no.1  Dawkins survey post no.2 . I have analysed the original survey data and my bulletin on this can be downloaded here response to Dawkins survey .  On the day this came out Baroness Warsi the Muslim conservative cabinet minister was meeting the Pope to call for the protection of Europe's Christian identity in the face of secularist attacks upon it Baroness Warsi article in Telegraph . It seems that the arguments between those who want to 'defend Christian Britain' and those who want religion to play no role in public life are an ongoing media story. This is not to everyone's liking. Giles Fraser, who on national Radio caused great amusement by asking Dawkins if he could name the full title of Darwin's Origin of Species, causing the atheist Darwnian scientist to stumble and exclaim 'oh God' when eh couldn't, has written in praise of the tradition of religious tolerance attacking both positions.Giles Fraser in Guardian . What are the issues and how should Christians respond?

Firstly simply turning this into a battle between the two extremes probably only helps the atheist secular view. Dawkins if often strident and when met with gentle humour and non-dogmatic response he often comes over badly in comparison. This is partly why there was so much delight at his radio stumble; people rather liked him being caught out. Dawkins was right that in fact the stunt did not really act as an equivalent to asking people who said they were Christians to pick the name of the first book of the New Testament from a multi-choice list. But people enjoyed it all the same.  However, one thing that Dawkins Survey carried out by IPSOS/MORI did show is that those who ticked Christian in the census do not on the whole support Christianity as a state religion. At least as a Muslim Baroness Warsi is not a member of the Church of England, but the danger is that defending the role of the church in public life appears to be defending the Church's privileges.

On the surface Dawkins poll is seeking to show that most people who put Christian in the census are not really that at all; which rather ironically leads to an atheist defining what a real Christian is.  The real agenda however, is to argue that Christianity should be a private religion with no place in public life. The idea is that by showing most people who tick Christian in the census are not really so this undermines a role for the church in the state. Anyone who follows survey data on religion will be likely to realize that most people who tick Christian rarely if ever go to church or hold Christian beleifs. however, until this survey there has been no direct comparison of such to the answering of the census question. in one sense the survey makes Dawkins case; the majority of those who ticked Christian where not regularly in church, rarely prayed or read the bible and cited being baptized as a child as the main reason they were Christians. Whist claiming these as Christian may help bishops argue for seats in the Lords i doubt it really helps the church in its day to day life. without a church tax as is the case in many European countries, this is not going to fill the church pews or fund its ministry. More importantly should we as Christians be happy simply to bless this situation and not rather hope that Christian faith play a more significant role in these people's lives?

it seems to me both more honest and also helpful for the church's ministry with those people to admit that there are many who identify with the Christian religion but have little personal faith.  But does that mean conceding the argument or with Fraser opting for a tolerant dismissal of the question? Part of the problem here is our Christendom legacy,  I can understand why Giles Fraser argues that if people want to say they are Christian who are we to say otherwise, but in the end this simply upholds a view of being Christian that saw all born in our country so simply because they were British subjects and most were baptized accordingly. i have no problem with welcoming children into the church by baptism, neither do I feel that parents must pass a faith test first. But i think feeling that this is then 'job done' is a recipe for the kind of nominal Christianity Dawkins seeks to expose.

if i don't in the end agree with Giles Fraser i do think he is right to look for a third way between the defenders of Christian Britain and its secularist attackers. I also think Dawkins survey far from proving is case actually supports this third way. Firstly it shows that at least 18% of the population are seeking to follow the Christian religion and it's teachings, but significantly a further 22% of people identify their desire to be good people with Christian faith and associate this with the Bible as the best guide there is to morality. these people may not defend Church positions in the state, though many do, but they do want to see what they understand as Christian values influencing society. This is not however support for traditional positions on things like homosexuality and abortion, but would see Christian values as important on issues like poverty, business, human rights, support for families and children. If Dawkins wants to play the numbers game and argue that moral positions informed by Christianity have no role in public life because only 40% of the population support them, what then of the views of secular atheists? Survey's suggest they are at most 15% of the population. Dawkins might well respond that they don't have a privileged position because they are secular but simply have to make their case on merit of the argument. Perhaps it would strengthen the Christian case if they did the same? it may be that be surrendering some of the perceived privilege of the church  it might find it gained more authority to speak for what are still the largest grouping in British society, those who see Christianity as the best guide to live by. after all we must remember only 23% of people voted for the current conservative government.

i wish it could be Christmas everyday?

don't usually post my preaching - but as a sort of Christmas message to any who care to read it thought i would put up my midnight sermon from this year - didn't know then of course i would share the ending with the Queen's Christmas message - I rather like that unlikely link!

the bible text BTW was John's Gospel chapter 1:1-17 -in particular the following -  in the beginning was the word ...and the word became flesh and dwelt among us....he was the true light coming into the world...the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not over come it... to all who received him he gave power to become children of God....

The Archbishop of Canterbury on the Chris Evans show has told us not to hold out for the perfect Christmas – and for those who as Christmas eve fades and Christmas day comes close are sitting here saying to themselves ‘I’m not going through all this another year’ the quest for the perfect Christmas is indeed probably something we need to banish. It can so easily be that the pressure to have the perfect Christmas ends up as one of the factors that instead ensures everyone is so wound up that all the seasonal goodwill has dried up long before the turkey is carved.

When celebrating Christmas becomes a very expensive headache I can understand the people who say they look forward to Christmas with dread rather than joy. In spite of all that I have to confess to being one of the people who really likes Christmas, and not just because of its significance to me as a Christian. I like the tinsel and lights, and the idea that everyone is having a celebration. I even like the flashing Santa hats and the Christmas pop songs played in all the shops – though I do wish I didn’t have to hear them from sometime in November – there are only so many times you can hear Slade’s merry Christmas before it starts to get a little annoying.

If most can share in this as some of the magic of Christmas then I think for many there is also a special magic in the story that has become the Christian focus of this mid-winter festival – the story celebrated worldwide, even in places where snow and holy are not part of the equation because for them it is mid-summer.

David Cameron may want to draw on the Christian identity of Britain that was so much part of the Dickensian Christmas. That he feels the need to do so tells us how in many ways that Christian identity is far less a feature of most people’s lives. Many people however, still want to be part of the celebration of the story of the birth of Jesus and its magic along with the mince pies and presents.

And the story is magical – the miraculous birth, the angels shepherds and wise men following the star, the nativity scenes from school plays to Christmas cards. And it is also a great drama as Tony Jordan the Eastenders script writer will have shown anyone who saw his nativity series last year of the repeat this year; reminding us that at the heart of the story was a vulnerable young women who in saying yes to God put her life at risk, and a man challenged to stand by her when all the pressure was to do otherwise and doubt seemed wiser than faith.

And here as we move behind the nativity scene and start to think what the story means perhaps the deepest magic emerges, the story of a God who loves the world and wants to be intimately involved with it. Who comes not to a celebrity in a lavish palace but to an unknown woman who finds herself homeless. A God prepared to be vulnerable and in our care as part of a plan to restore love and care between all people that there may indeed be peace on earth and goodwill to all.

It is that story that at its best makes Christmas magical as a time when we do offer good will to others, when people ensure the marginalised and lonely have a Christmas dinner, the homeless are looked after; when we are generous to others in a way that is out of the ordinary. Indeed at its best the magic of Christmas gives us a glimpse into another way of living of a world that I think many of us long for – even in spite of the pressure to create the perfect Christmas.

Another of the ubiquitous pop songs played a little too often is Wizard’s I wish it could be Christmas everyday – and at this time of year someone guaranteed to be in the news, is Andy Park of Melksham in Wiltshire who is dubbed Mr. Christmas for apparently celebrating Christmas everyday since 1993, he has a new video on youtube to tell you all about it. Each day he has mince pies for breakfast, unwraps presents he has wrapped the night before and posts a card to himself through his letter box. He then goes to work – he runs his own electrical business – before coming home to a turkey lunch at 3pm and watches a recording of the queen’s speech.

I don’t know if that was what Wizard meant by wishing it was Christmas everyday but as much as I love Christmas, the tinsel and turkey are only fun because they happen for a few days only – indeed I think we already spend far too long dragging that side of Christmas out for the sake of the retail business.

But what if the care, generosity and goodwill could be for everyday of the year? What if everyday the poor the lonely the homeless and the suffering received the care they do at Christmas? What if there was peace and reconciliation all year round? The trouble is we all know how difficult that is to sustain, the economic realties that work against it, the darker side of human nature that means that greed and violence so often drive out goodwill.

If the magic of Christmas opens a window of longing for such a world then the cold realties of life sooner or later tend to pack away those dreams with the decorations.

God however has not packed away his Christmas gift. God’s love and care and commitment to all creation have not faded. In God’s mind it is indeed Christmas everyday. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness cannot overcome it.

Some have suggested that Mr. Christmas Andy Park is not being quite truthful about his daily Christmas, and Tony Jordan found when researching his programme that various scholars told him the familiar details of the Christmas story where also doubtful.  But as he researched further and talked to people of faith he concluded the details mattered far less than central events of the story and the impact of what God was doing in those people’s lives. Indeed if the story had been embellished – just as he himself does as a good story teller – this was to help the point get across. And so he found himself he says to his surprise like the character of Joseph coming to faith in Mary’s story in spite of all his doubts and with a cynical shepherd looking for a political revolution who instead found himself kissing the feet of a tiny baby in adoration.

People sometimes talk of the magic of Christmas as something for children that we grow out of. But John’s gospel reminds that for all who, in spite of their doubts and difficult life experiences, come to believe in God’s presence among us in that tiny baby; for all such people the miracle of Christmas is that they too are born as children of God.

Whatever the exact details of his birth, God’s word did come in flesh about 2000 years or so ago in Jesus, and his influence on those he encountered has had lasting consequences. But that is not the end of the story. Each Christmas he seeks to be born again in human form in the lives of all who will open themselves to his presence. The hopes and fears of all the years are met in him tonight not just because of the magic and the meaning of the story back in time. It is God’s life in us that can enable us to be the people who whilst we pack away the decorations to enjoy another year really do live as if it is Christmas everyday. It is that light shining in our hearts that can banish our darkest places and enable us to be people of the light in the darkest places of our world.

And so, as the carol tells us, God imparts to human hearts the wonders of his heaven. That earth may become like heaven, that the magic of Christmas may not fade but transform us and our world.

This Christmas let it be for each one of us as that carol continues

O holy child of Bethlehem, descend to us we pray, cast out our sin and enter in, be born in us today.

the carol referenced is printed in full below - every blessing for Christmas and 2012

O little town of Bethlehem
How still we see thee lie
Above thy deep and dreamless sleep
The silent stars go by
Yet in thy dark streets shineth
The everlasting Light
The hopes and fears of all the years
Are met in thee tonight

For Christ is born of Mary
And gathered all above
While mortals sleep, the angels keep
Their watch of wondering love
O morning stars together
Proclaim the holy birth
And praises sing to God the King
And Peace to men on earth

How silently, how silently
The wondrous gift is given!
So God imparts to human hearts
The blessings of His heaven.
No ear may hear His coming,
But in this world of sin,
Where meek souls will receive him still,
The dear Christ enters in.

O holy Child of Bethlehem
Descend to us, we pray
Cast out our sin and enter in
Be born to us today
We hear the Christmas angels
The great glad tidings tell
O come to us, abide with us
Our Lord Emmanuel  

Mission, Maori and the Anglican Covenant

for those not in the Anglican Communion there is an international debate going on in response at least in part if not predominantly over the tensions created between liberals and traditionalists and majority world and 'western world' countries over issues of same sex relationships. a proposed solution is a covenant that creates more accountability across the communion - or from another angle more control on what have been independent churches.

this can be viewed simply as a tension between traditional and liberal Christians. There is also a very real backdrop of colonial Christianity; it is the old colonial nations that are pursuing more liberal agendas and their former colonies tat are arguing against them on the whole, though there are diffrent voices in both contexts.

the Maori Christians in the church of New Zealand have opposed this covenant by viewing the issue very differently - see http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=120448 they have i think rightly perceived that diversity in the church is not about liberals vs conservatives but the nature of the church's mission. the choice is between a church whose form and practice are dictated from a centre, and it mattes not if that is Canterbury or Lagos or Washington, and one in which each church incarnates the faith within it's own culture.

globalization, the fading of Christendom and the shift towards post-modern culture all put enormous pressure on different cultures and societies. in such a world it is understandable to seek security and a strong global identity. if you are a Christian in central Africa or much of Asia you live alongside a strong Islamic presence and the tensions often tip over into violence. being associated with 'liberal western Christians' can be a trigger that lights the volatile material in such places, this can lead to death and destruction. in our world we no longer live within our own small cultures and communities, we are increasingly global citizens.

yet as many missiologists like Andrew Walls have noted, churches have failed in may areas of the world because they failed to remain at home in the local culture. in a world in which increasing diversity exists alongside globalization we are pulled in two ways - i think history suggest the Maori have seen he issue correctly - the future mission of the church requires it to be more diverse not less in our changing world, we need another way to live together and it will not by tightening the rules at the centre, but by understanding and blessing the many edges that the chuch's mission will be strengthened. it is this principle that lead to the great diversity of early churches across the world that i believe we need to re-capture today

does my society look big in this?

rather taken with the idea of these tee-shirts bearing the legend 'does my society look big in this?' http://www.philosophyfootball.com/new_win.html i think good Greenbelt festival wear.

OK i am by inclination a committed Christian Socialist so i am likely to think the Big Society is just another way of expressing the ideology of a small government - which i think may be driving cuts as much as a desire to reduce budget deficits. So you can see the appeal of the tee-shirt - as well is it being great fun. But how should Christians view this idea and does it have any implications for mission?

regardless of whether i am right about the ideology of the Big Society and Christians will take different views, clearly it raises an expectation that groups like churches are possibly being invited to play a more prominent role in community projects, welfare provision, youth work, health care etc. how should we respond to this?

well from my viewpoint there may be some weariness. if the churches do step in to fill roles left vacant by government cuts are we not simply supporting a policy we don't agree with? this is true but can I as a Christian not offer care to people simply on those grounds? my ideology is based on a belief that the whole of society should care not just those who chose too; it is a shared responsibility. but i do want to see care happening. i also would be an advocate of Christians doing so regardless of public policy; it is part of being agents of God's Kingdom in which the poor hear good news, the hungry are fed and the sick healed.

if you do not share my political concerns this may indeed look like a great opportunity for the church to return to a role it played for centuries of being the centre of care and education for the community. i certainly know Christians who thank that way. so perhaps whatever our ideology, Christians may find themselves united in filling those Big Society roles.

however, i don't think that solves the issue. there are i think some underlying pitfalls that may await us. i hear from some a sense that the Big Society agenda may help reverse the marginalization of churches in our public life; returning to them essential roles in the community. this may be partly true, but there are two dangers here. one is that we can even if we don't mean to, appear to be doing our bit for the purpose of gaining status and not because of our care for others. a test of this will be our willingness to be involved in care projects that are not specifically Christian as opposed to those that look as if they are rather like company charity giving; basically an advertising exercise. the other is how this new church involvement can be portrayed by those who view all church involvement in society as dangerous and to be challenged. if the church gets more involved in social projects we can expect more scrutiny from the secularist lobby wanting to catch us out. these two danger clearly fuel each other. a sense that the Big Society projects aid the church's profile is exactly the kind of evidence that will be used against such involvement.

i think for all these reasons, whatever our ideology, we need to offer care to those who need it as best we can. however this has to be based on people's need not on how it makes the church look. for both reasons the best answer may not be lots of high profile church care projects, but Christians joining in with wider based community action. this is likely to best use skill and resources as well as being clearly free of an ulterior motive. it may also be the best way to be salt and light in our society - whatever it's size.

Not Ashamed of what?

last week saw the launch by Lord Carey and others of Not Ashamed, a campaign to support the recognition of the Christian heritage of Britain and support Christians who feel they have been discriminated against for their public stance for the Christian faith - you can read more here http://www.notashamed.org.uk/leaflet.php

i think it is important to remember the positive contribution the Christian faith has made to our culture and help people make the connections between that contribution and things they may well take for granted about it that they too value. I want Christians to be comfortable about expressing their faith both in public and private. I believe just as i have found personal encounter with Christ both personally transforming and visionary for the blessing of all creation others will find this true also and want them to discover that. I am confident that God is at work in all creation bringing fullness of life and the new creation as he has spoke of it through the ages. i am not however confident this campaign actually serves those beliefs. why is that?

firstly i am not sure it has rightly understood the world we are in our the nature of the issue. it is easy to quote the 72% in the last census who said they were christian, but this doesn't mean they support this kind of understanding of what being a christian nation is - indeed the survey evidence is strongly that most who say this see it as a positive statement about loving ones neighbour but also see that as affirming the kind of policies Christian agencies and individuals are clashing with. the reality is that whilst for centuries of Christendom if it was never the case that the majority of British adults went to church often the majority of children went to church or later Sunday school and were raised in that faith. this totally collapsed during the twentieth century. this was indeed a time of great social change - but is this collapse due to the challenge to faith that change brought or due to the failure of the church to engage with that change? either way does a political campaign seeking to reverse supposed marginalisation of Christians on thee basis of our past contribution address either issue? it simply treats cultural change as a political debate and ignores whatever the extent is, and i suspect it is high, that the church has failed to engage with it.

secondly whilst there is much to be proud of in this country's Christian heritage there is actually much of which we should be ashamed. i think we need to wake up to the harsh reality that Christendom, the declaration of Christianity as a political as well as a spiritual reality as a basis for state rule as well as culture, has left a legacy which seems to have little to do with Jesus. firstly it enforced faith on its citizens banning the free expression of belief, i then instituted the spreading of faith on other nations by military conquest. it then made opposing the state religion a treasonable offense often punishable by death usually after torture. christian nations fought over faith and persecuted religious minorities. of this we should be ashamed. and i think the root of the problem is that we forget Jesus teaching that his kingdom was not of this world otherwise an army would come to defend him. and so we created christian armies and christian governments. any political campaign about the political rights of Christians based on our nations Christian heritage thus appears to be a desire to return to that which we should be ashamed. if we are to argue for the civil rights of Christians they are going to have to be argued on a different basis.

because i think both these things are true i fear this campaign far from strengthening the position of Christianity in this country actually serves to marginalise it further. firstly it makes Christians look as bad as they are feared to be by the majority of the population - there may be some wave of anti-political correctness that can be ridden but in the end it all looks like Christians defending their own power and privilege and their right to go against the wishes of society with no consequence. secondly it creates an embattled mentality amongst Christians like that amongst some sections of the Muslim population which risks becoming the breeding ground for religious and political extremism.

the Emperor Constantine who adopted Christianity as the faith of his empire was followed by Julian who is labelled by Christian history as 'the apostate'. he attempted to reverse the fortunes of Christianity and return Paganism as the official religion. many of his policies toward this end involved politics and power but his own recognition was that the real issue was the respect the Christians had in society. the reality was as Julian admitted the Pagans of his day simply did not match this and he exhorted them to do so. the christian community that had no power or privilege was at best ignored and at worst persecuted, was slandered and dismissed against all the odds had so excelled in caring for the poor and the sick, helping the outcast, building communities of care in which all were supported and in loving those who persecuted them as Jesus commanded that in the end even the Roman Empire could not resist its witness.

we can indeed by proud of this heritage, we can also point to those shining examples that have carried it forward, we can also be glad that many still speak well of the individual christian they know. but we then have to accept an uncomfortable reality just as this witness brought Christianity into the centre of Roman power so i fear it corrupted it - the persecuted became the persecutors, the philosophy of roman state religion became the churches philosophy and faith became for many not a matter of conviction and lifestyle but of birth and political dictate. in truth the various reforms and reformations whilst they have inspired some to renewed vision and witness have done little to change this. in the end perhaps though their is much to morn the collapse of Christendom is the only way for the church to find again that calling and that witness?

so let us not seek a political campaign that seeks to restore a christian nation that whilst it has enabled good has also robed the faith of its heart and much of which we should be ashamed. let us instead this Advent hear the call of the Baptist to repent and bear the fruit of repentance rather than look back to ancestors to save us and become again the people whose lives so witness to Christ in the face of whatever opposition may or may not arise, to bless those who oppose, that Gods presence becomes irresistible and no political power or privilege is needed to support faith.

Zodiac Christ?

Anyone following this site will know that i think we can explore spirituality through the beliefs, practices and experience of all paths and traditions and as Christians find parallels and places we recognise form our own encounters with God through Jesus as the one who opens up the way to God. An area i have often found myself exploring at places like Mind Body Spirit fairs is the way personality types in things like Astrology or Tarot relate to ideas of growing into wholeness as Jesus expressed it, coming to Love God with all our strength, mind, heart and spirit.

The Re:Jesus website is designed to be a place that opens up exploration of Jesus from a range of perspectives, historical, artistic, spiritual etc so that people from any spiritual path or religion or none can enter into that journey. i was recently asked to put my experience of discussing personal development and spirituality with those exploring astrology as a similar path into a monthly blog series looking at the links between Jesus and the personality types associated with star signs. you can have a look ans see what you think by following this link http://www.rejesus.co.uk/site/module/zodiac_christ/

i am not surprised that this has raised questions for some Christians who have posted comments on the site after the march/Pisces edition. i think these questions are worth exploring and so thought I'd add a blog here where the issues can be raised and discussed at what ever length people wish.

i am always aware when i explain my approach to other beliefs, of whatever nature that some christian will view all other belief systems as a deception. For me centuries of Christian tradition and the biblical texts they are based on tell me God is found in many paths and spiritualities. not that they are all the same, they clearly are not, and therefore not everything in every tradition can be right. some post-modern thinkers might disagree with that. for me if there is a God then ultimately that limits truth to that which is consistent with God so not all things can be true. But not only do i think most spiritual paths have genuine insights of God, i am also aware that if even my Christian faith is true in seeing God most fully revealed in Jesus that is very different i saying i have all the answers or fully understand God. i am rather aware of my humanity and the limits it sets to my understanding. i think some of the concerns raised on Re:Jesus are around this issue

however even if you accept my view here i want to raise a question about how we come across and how context may change that. i think this issue is also present in some of the comments on the site. does it change the apparent message when i move from a discussion with people exploring astrology to a post on a christian run website? is this use of Astrological types a form of deception? i am i likely to be read as supporting interpretations of Astrology i may not actually hold to?

no doubt you can think of other questions, so please do raise them!

The language of ‘fresh expressions of church’ may be killing our mission

I think we often underestimate the power of language. The words we choose conjure images of what we are describing, and sometimes these can have unintended consequences. I am increasingly seeing this happen when people use the phrase ‘fresh expressions of church’ indeed even more so when people talking of their mission as ‘creating fresh expressions of church’. I remain a great supporter of both the analysis and aims of the Mission-Shaped Church report which has lead to this kind of language. The problem is that the language has taken on a life of its own that means it is often no-longer serving that report’s vision, indeed I think it is often working against it.

The report gave us several valuable insights. It noted that, with the rise of a ‘non-churched’ population Britain, as with much of what was Christendom, was now effectively a foreign mission field. From this it applied cross-cultural mission principles to our situation and suggested that we needed churches that emerged from within the various cultures of Britain as a result of a process of incarnational mission within those cultures. It also noted how much of our society was organised on a network rather than a local basis and that the parish system needed supplementing with network based churches. Finally all this meant that we needed to move away from thinking about growing existing churches to planting new ones. Within this context the language of ‘fresh expressions of church’ is a reminder that the new mission field would require new ways of being church.

The above remains true, but increasingly the effect of the fresh expressions language is leading to something quite different. People seem to have got into their heads that the need is to ‘create a fresh expression of church’ and not that they are called to cross-cultural mission which may in time, and sometimes a long time, lead to a fresh expression of church emerging from that mission. The result of this is that the process set out in Mission-Shaped Church is reversed, people set up what ever kind of fresh expression they think they ought to run and then go looking for people who might want to join it; such churches are not in the least bit ‘mission-shaped’ they are simply a way of consumer niche marketing existing church to provide a wider ranger of choices for church shoppers. The likely result is that those attracted will be existing church members, or those who have left church. What’s more even if over time missionary members of such churches do make contact with the non-churched or groups of people they have not in the past reached how are these new Christians going to be enabled to worship in their own culture when the have already had the culture of the ‘fresh expression’ decided for them in advance by a group of well meaning but culturally different Christians?

The categorizing of fresh expressions as certain types of church may add to the problem. The idea that something should be called a ‘café church’ for instance tends to define the fresh expression according to a worship style. It unfortunately suggests I decide to model my worship on the style of a café, which is quite different to a church that has emerged from mission within café culture in a particular place. The classification of a fresh expression should not reflect a style of worship, rather the type of community or network that has given birth to the appropriately inculturated expression of church. So to talk of a Goth church makes sense if it has emerged from cross-cultural mission within the Goth community, to talk of starting a Goth service, unless it has such a history, is to totally miss the point. In essence ‘fresh expressions’ is properly not about types of church it is a methodology of cross-cultural mission that leads to inculturated forms of church, the fact that the churches which emerge are inculturated is all that matters not how they do worship. I know that the authors of Mission-Shaped Church where very aware of this danger and considered not putting in the examples. In hindsight I suspect the problem was not the examples but the suggestion that they could be classified under different labels. Telling the story of how fresh expressions had emerged makes the point well. Suggesting there are different types of fresh expression labelled according to styles of worship encourages exactly what the report’s authors didn’t want; looking down the list and deciding to start one of the options and thus ignoring the whole thrust of the report.

So my suugestion? Let’s stop starting fresh expressions of church and let’s start doing the real task of cross-cultural mission in the belief that in time fresh expressions will emerge.