21st Century Shapes Of The Church?
Introduction
In an earlier article (Williams 1986b) I used sociological analysis to explore a range of patterns
of church life that might evolve in response to changing social and cultural conditions in Britain,
drawing upon a nuanced version of the secularization thesis, not simply endorsing the view that
secularization equals ‘religious decline due to modernity’. Since then the weaknesses of the
secularization paradigm for understanding what is happening to contemporary religious life have
become steadily clearer (despite some continuing advocacy, see e.g. Brown 2000; Bruce 2002).
In recent years there has been a massive increase in published work proposing a whole range of
scenarios for the churches into the 21st century. Therefore, in this article I revisit the question
of ‘shapes of the Church to come’ by way of a fresh analysis, in which the somewhat uncritical
acceptance of secularization still found in the literature of the1980s has been replaced by a
popular ‘take’ on what constitutes postmodernity. In the next section, I shall provide a brief
portrait of this ‘popular postmodernity’, using a comparison from an earlier period, before
proceeding to an analysis of the future scenarios on offer in the literature.
In my analysis I want to highlight three sorts of questions to put to the churches, concerning:



The quality of the underlying sociological analysis and how it is being used;
The different ecclesiological presuppositions underpinning the judgments made;
As an issue for further investigation, the relationship between ‘changing shapes of
church’ and the content of what is believed by church adherents.
The Diagnosis of ‘Popular Postmodernity’
A comparison with the present situation is provided by the 1960s, when there was a burgeoning
literature taking the temperature of contemporary church life and making prognostications of
likely trends (documented in Williams 1986a). Commentators typically embraced the view that
society is becoming irrevocably more secular and that therefore the churches must develop
more ‘this-worldly’ ways of expressing the Christian message, in terms both of theological
language and of the shapes of church life (Robinson 1963 and 1965). In the 2000s, conveniently
the opening decade of a new century and therefore a time inviting ecclesial futurology, writers
are heralding not a secular but a postmodern society. It is decentralised and deconstructed into
fluid networks (see for example in Gibbs and Coffey 2001: 83ff), shifting allegiances and do-ityourself pick-and-mix lifestyles, and rejects the constraints of oppressive meta-narratives and
institutions. Accordingly it is argued that the churches should develop eclectic approaches to
spirituality and worship, and encourage non-geographical, looser forms of belonging and nonhierarchical, organic or ad hoc patterns of leadership and ministry.
Thus the report Mission Shaped Church (Archbishops’ Council 2004) is structured around a
contextual analysis that identifies such features as ‘a fragmented society’, ‘the power of
networks’, ‘consumer culture’ and ‘post-Christendom’ (2004: chapter 1). Mike Riddell (1998:
chapter 7) depicts contemporary culture in terms of (amongst other things) urbanization,
pluralism, holism, technology, immediacy, human relating and apocalyptic. Gibbs and Bolger
(2006) organise their material on Emerging Churches around such themes as ‘Transforming
Secular Space’, ‘Living as Community’, ‘Creating as Created Beings’, ‘Leading as a Body’, ‘Merging
1
Ancient and Contemporary Spiritualities’. Pete Ward (2002: chapter 10) envisions a ‘liquid
church’ responsive to contemporary culture that would have the characteristics of network
(‘replacing congregation with communication’, p87), community (‘in a state of continual change’,
p88), maximal choice, leadership by example, imagination in events and activities, and ‘decentred
worship’, that ‘does not rely on a congregational dynamic’ (p94). All of these examples capture
the flavour of the popular postmodern cultural analysis I am identifying here.
A Spectrum of Scenarios
The recent crop of publications offering blueprints for potential future shapes of the Church can
be arranged along a spectrum determined by the degree of acceptance of the ‘popular
postmodernity’ described above. Each of the six ‘shapes’ is characterized by family resemblances
rather than exclusive features, so there is room for overlap between them in certain respects.
Moving from the most traditional to the most unambiguously ‘postmodern’ portrayal of the
contemporary cultural scene, the six are as follows:
1. What I have termed Retrieving the Tradition, found in the work of Platten (2007), Avis (2005),
and at least some elements in Percy (2001): these writers seek to contribute to the cause of
mission for the churches today from a position of optimism about the potential of the churchin-the-community (i.e. parish church) model to continue to trade on the values and benefits of
its inherited standing and opportunities.
2. Local Ministry: more self-consciously a ‘movement’, this approach is now over 25 years old and
basically relies upon seeking regeneration of local church life by mobilising and maximising the
gifts of the whole church population and fostering patterns of collaborative ministry, see
Bowden and West (2000); Greenwood (2002); Bowden (2003).
The next two scenarios are grouped together as both stem from the influential Mission Shaped
Church Report (Archbishops’ Council 2004) and only subsequently did the Fresh Expressions
option emerge as an initiative in its own right.
3a. Mission Shaped Church: arguably the analysis contained in the Report was more broadly
geared to challenging the churches to engage with, and embody, a mission agenda in all their
activities rather than focusing on alternative patterns, and this has spawned a considerable
literature with ‘Mission Shaped’ in the title (e.g. Bayes and Sledge 2006; Croft ed. 2008); it is also
the perspective of Tomlin (2002) and Nazir-Ali (2001).
3b. Fresh Expressions: now a ubiquitous phenomenon of which the Bishop of Sheffield, Steven
Croft, has been an assiduous pioneer and promoter. The emphasis here is more on setting up
new patterns of church life alongside and within more traditional expressions. For insights and
descriptions see Mobsby (2008) and, more critically, Nelstrop and Percy eds (2008) ; this is
perhaps also the basic position of MacLaren B. (2000).
4. Post-Christendom approaches, as in Murray (2004); Bartley (2006) and (in essence) MacLaren
D. (2004). While not entirely dismissive of the existing institutional churches these would
advocate a radical ‘stripping down’ of systems and structures to embrace something more
closely resembling what they would see as a ‘primitive’ Christian model.
2
5. The Emergent Churches (non-)movement, expressed thus to indicate that a thoroughgoing
postmodern perspective resists the notion of a ‘movement’ as suggesting the idea of something
planned and co-ordinated: for an overview see Gibbs and Bolger (2006); for examples see
Rollins (2006); Riddell (1998). These are the most sceptical of the prospects for the ‘inherited’
models of church and the most likely to advocate the need to ‘start again’ in a new place.
Broadly speaking, the transition between points 3a and 3b marks the shift from a fundamental
stance of church ‘doing familiar things differently’ to needing to ‘do different things’. At point 1
on the spectrum, there are profound reservations about the postmodern diagnosis; at point 6, it
is wholeheartedly embraced. I turn now to the three areas of critical interrogation of this now
widespread paradigm.
The Six Scenarios: critical reflections
(a) The use of sociological analysis
Taking its cue from influential works such as Harvey Cox’ The Secular City (Cox 1965), the
literature of the 1960s adopted a more or less uncritical endorsement of the ‘classic’
secularization thesis as proposed by sociologists such as Bryan Wilson. There was already a
developing lively debate about the secularization thesis within sociology of religion (see
especially in the work of David Martin) at precisely the time the church commentators and
popular theologians were embracing it most wholeheartedly. In a similar way to the literature of
the 1960s in regard to secularization, much popular church commentary and mission theology
today has bought into a simplified ‘postmodern’ model in its socio-cultural analysis. This does
not necessarily mean that any or all of the characteristics identified are irrelevant for the
churches, but there is a fairly uncritical convergence upon a particular kind of unexamined
postmodern diagnosis. The churches have a tendency to adopt a one-sided ‘take’ on a particular
sociological analysis that suits them, while ignoring the critiques of that analysis.
But the popular postmodernity picture of contemporary culture is rather at odds with the
empirical research being done within congregational studies (see Cameron et al 2005; Guest,
Tustin and Woodhead eds. 2004). This discipline utilises the methodologies of the human
sciences to construct ‘thick descriptions’ of particular instances of congregational life, from
which it seeks to draw out lessons for those churches’ conduct of their mission, ministry and
community life. Although research is now growing into examples of ‘fresh expressions’ and
‘emerging churches’ as well as traditional congregations, the features of popular postmodernity
do not tend to be at the forefront of these analyses. Among the critical issues faced by such
churches, studies identify territoriality (or the significance of ‘place’), institutional pressures and
dilemmas, the problematic of membership (who is in and who is out), structures of authority
and the permissible boundaries of orthodoxies. All these loom large in a way that scarcely
suggests a postmodern brave new world as the controlling contextual framework.
In relation to ‘emerging church’ ecclesiology, Mark Mason (in Nelstrop and Percy eds. 2008,
chapter 7) observes:
Obviously, there are huge areas of church governance and authority to engage with here. One
area within the emerging / fresh expressions conversation where the issue of power is most
clearly in evidence and urgently needs to be engaged with is that of how decisions are arrived at
3
and which interpretations are agreed and ‘authorized’ vis-à-vis the direction and theological /
ethical ‘position’ of the community.
Writing from within an alternative worship community, Contemplative Fire, Philip Roderick
admits that ‘as a young organization we wrestle with the nature of authority and
decentralization, power and sacrifice, responsibility and autonomy’ (Nelstrop and Percy eds.
2008:147). Meanwhile Swinton and Mowat (2006: chapter 5) document the struggles of an
independent ‘community church’ to establish norms and boundaries for critical questioning in
matters of faith and practice against the backdrop of internal debate about what constitutes
evangelical identity. The point is that the churches cannot realistically afford to reinvent
themselves on the basis of a blueprint drawn from a one-sided endorsement of those aspects of
socio-cultural analysis that seem to promise renewed cultural relevance. Ballard and Pritchard
(1996: 108-9) have issued a wise warning in this regard:
The storehouses of anthropology, sociology, social psychology and group dynamics have been
raided to suggest how and why church growth can occur. But there is sometimes no reference
to alternative understandings nor any critical analysis of the material used. Sociology can show us
how religion really works in society and may enlarge or correct our theological understanding.
On the other hand, some work at point 1 of the spectrum reads like a nostalgic reaction against
the postmodern diagnosis and appears overly optimistic about the prospects for a retrieval by
the churches of patterns of mission and service predicated upon a more accepted and affirmed
place at the heart of the community. Stephen Platten, for example (2007: 3) asks rhetorically, ‘Is
it true that the Church of England did resonate with the natural religiosity of the hearts of the
people of England…and at some point ceased to do so?’ In attempting to trace the complex
linkages between ‘natural religiosity’, Christian faith as ‘revealed religion’ and the claims and
character of a particular religious institution, i.e. the Church of England ‘as by law established’,
Platten as much as the would-be postmodernists is sociologically selective. When he asserts that
‘the underlying issues about what bind [sic] our society together cannot be dissociated from the
healthiness of faith and its ability to respond to the natural foundations of religion’ (2007: 15), he
adopts a Durkheimian line that can scarcely claim to be the definitive answer to ‘how religion
really works in society’, and even if it were broadly correct, it would leave the argument well
short of justifying the need for the Christian religion, still less the Church of England!
(b) Ecclesiological Presuppositions
At this point some unacknowledged fractures and slippages begin to open up between the
various adherents of the postmodern diagnosis and their prognoses for church, mission and
society. Broadly speaking, the dominance of evangelical perspectives and backgrounds tends to
increase as the spectrum is traversed. Thus the proponents of Retrieving the Tradition have if
anything something of a liberal Catholic flavour. Local Ministry has always been a relatively
inclusive movement, embracing the broad middle range of church traditions (i.e. with less impact
among Conservative Evangelicals and Traditionalist Catholics). Mission Shaped Church and Fresh
Expressions would see themselves as available and appropriate across the churchmanship
spectrum despite largely evangelical origins. The post-Christendom position represents a strand
within evangelicalism, while the Emerging Churches are noticeably influenced by what has come
to be described as ‘post-Evangelicalism’ (Tomlinson 1995).
4
It is probably within Fresh Expressions that the ecclesiological tensions are most keenly felt,
because this movement sits just on the ‘radical’ side of the spectrum, i.e. at position 3b,
denoting a commitment to ‘doing different things’; the question is therefore, just how different
can be allowed? Hence in the Church of England, the recent legislation for ‘Bishop’s Mission
Orders’ that enable pioneering initiatives (church plants) across traditionally sacrosanct parish
boundaries: an attempt to provide for innovation in a way that safeguards certain traditional
patterns of authority, in this case the role of episcopacy as guardian of the boundaries. This is
why Peter Rollins (in Nelstrop and Percy eds. 2008) argues forcefully against pioneering
initiatives becoming subsumed into denominational structures or co-opted by the inherited
churches. As a thoroughgoing representative of point 5 on the spectrum, Rollins simply
mistrusts the denominational churches and fears the dead hand of institutionalism in any such
proposal for legislative constraint.
From a different standpoint, Murray (2004) regards the entire ‘Christendom’ project from
Constantine to the present day as a fundamental wrong turning for the Christian church and
therefore embraces an ecclesiology which both constitutes a bracing theological challenge to
Anglicanism and calls profoundly into question the strategies represented by those at point 1
(and to an extent even points 2 and 3a) of the spectrum. Thus for example he can argue: ‘In
pre-Christendom, although church leaders had specialised roles and exercised considerable
authority, they were chosen from within a congregation and generally stayed in it’ (Murray 2004:
125), distancing himself from Mission Shaped Church and Fresh Expressions assumptions about
ministerial leadership and yet aligning himself with some aspects of the Local Ministry movement.
On the other hand, Murray would be far less sympathetic to the willingness of Rollins and
Riddell to embrace forms of spirituality and worship drawing on eclectic sources from beyond
the Christian tradition, since the Post-Christendom approach aims rather to rediscover a form of
primitive Christian purity: ‘Becoming peace churches, creating “learning communities”, practising
mutual accountability and radical hospitality are more demanding than meeting in pubs, building
labyrinths or mastering PowerPoint.’ (Murray 2004: 275).
The understandable desire of the various proponents of recipes for church renewal to market
themselves as widely as possible (with the possible exception of the ‘post-christendom’ strand),
particularly those operating within an Anglican context, tends to lead to the suppression or at
least the playing down of sharp ecclesiological differences. The troubling question often shelved
is whether some of the projected scenarios are actually compatible with the existing
ecclesiologies; can the church ‘mutate’ in adaptation to its environment while retaining the same
‘official’ teachings about itself? This point broadens out into the third area of critique to be
raised here: what is the relationship between ‘new ways of being church’, to use an expression
that was current before ‘fresh expressions’ tended to supersede it, and patterns of believing?
(c) Changing shapes of church: changing shapes of belief?
By and large these analyses fail to engage with those aspects of postmodern thinking that
implicitly challenge much more radically the very heart and soul of the ‘church’ project, as Don
Cupitt saw in his Radicals and the Future of the Church (1989). Indeed, Cupitt’s genuinely
postmodern theological project (deeply flawed though it may be) is something of an
embarrassment to the proponents of the postmodern future for the church, because they need
to distance themselves from an analysis that in the end deconstructs historic Christian faith into
something almost unrecognisable- and yet, it is at least arguable that this is precisely what a full5
blown embrace of postmodern categories would do. Gibbs and Coffey (2001:129) illustrate the
dilemma- ‘Generation X’ refers to those born from roughly the late 1960s to the 1980s, the
children of the post-war ‘baby boomer’ generation:
Generation Xers’ are not ‘seeking answers to the philosophical questions that have preoccupied
Christian apologists…They are not interested in listening to people who presume to have all the
answers. Rather, they want to meet people who have a transforming relationship with God…they
want a place where they can relate and contribute…they are drawn to Christian communities that
are prepared to operate from the margins… GenXers want to see individuals who demonstrate
God-inspired service to their fellow human-beings. They are attracted to people who are prepared
to speak the truth whatever the personal cost.
This telling depiction raises clearly the question of belief: what is the ‘truth’ the Generation Xers
find attractive in people who stand up for it?
It is significant that many of the members of emerging churches interviewed and quoted in Gibbs
and Bolger’s research (2006) were former members of evangelical churches that had placed a
high premium on ‘right doctrine’ or ‘sound teaching’ and were now distinctly cagey about forms
of Christian identity and authenticity based on orthodoxy. A similar position underlies Dave
Tomlinson’s pioneering statement of the post-evangelical condition (Tomlinson 1995) and Alan
Jamieson (2002) has researched the spiritual journeys of many leavers of what he terms EPC
(Evangelical Protestant Charismatic) churches. This remains an under-researched element within
the whole Emerging / Mission Shaped / Fresh Expressions phenomenon: what will happen if
there is a coalescence between ‘post-evangelicals’ and previously unchurched new Christians
within the new congregations forged through these initiatives?
Much of the literature continues to assume a criterion of orthodoxy, often explicitly stating that
the object of the new movements is to cultivate new social and cultural expressions of ‘church’,
while retaining a framework of inherited historic Christian belief. Thus Croft (2002: 88-9)
affirms that ‘in contemporary society, the church…needs to provide a context in which people
can come and worship on their own terms, in their own way, a place to explore Christian faith,
to visit and to look in from the outside, without commitment’, but he is swift to go on to say
that having supplied this, churches also need to provide the places of substantial teaching that
will ground and nurture people in their faith. And yet, if the alliance of the disillusioned and the
untutored becomes strong, and many of those charged with teaching responsibilities within
nascent church communities identify themselves as ‘once bitten twice shy’ in relation to
doctrinal definitions of Christian faith, it is hard to see how that orthodox line can be held.
Conclusion
Perhaps the most ‘generic’ of the points along the spectrum is the ‘mission shaped’ option:
sitting as it does just on the ‘inherited church’ side of the line, it may well represent the farthest
advance into new ways of doing things that most churches will embrace. To ‘move from
maintenance to mission’, and to try to see all church activities as mission-driven, is an idea
whose time has undoubtedly come. However, the determinants of mission include those social
and cultural currents that toss and turn the church on all sides; and therefore a framework for
understanding these is also necessary for churches to address what the ‘mission’ actually is. This
is why ‘Mission Shaped Church’ is not enough (the shortcomings of this can clearly be seen in
the growing popularity of ‘Back to Church Sunday’ with its suggestion of a safe, unthreatening,
6
rather nostalgic way of being mission-shaped: do what you normally do but invite people to
come ‘back’ to it). A critical sociological and cultural diagnosis is therefore needed; and those
driving the agenda have clearly opted for one, the ‘popular postmodern’ analysis outlined here.
The questions demanding rigorous engagement are twofold:
 On the basis of the sociological literature, to what extent is this an adequate analysis of
contemporary social and cultural change? Might there not also be significant countertrends, and how indeed do churches cope with the co-existence within their institutional
life of substantial modern and indeed even pre-modern elements as well?
 To the extent that the postmodern diagnosis is sound, can the churches engage honestly
with the far-reaching challenges it raises for them? Are the existing frameworks, both
institutional and of belief itself, sufficient to the task- or might much more have to be ‘up
for grabs’ in terms of re-shaping and reconstructing than is currently being allowed?
Stuart Murray (2004: 284) proffers the following advice: ‘We anticipate survival, not revival. We
are not expecting restoration of former glories, the renewal of Christendom or rapid and
painless transition to a new era of triumphant progress. We are hoping to survive and incarnate
the story of Jesus faithfully in whatever culture emerges.’ Neither the hope of retrieval of a
culturally embedded communal faith, nor the embrace of a heady postmodern world of fluidity
and fragmentation rings true to the reality of the cultural situation. Amidst the plethora of plans
and blueprints, whether embracing postmodernity or more distanced from it, the likes of
Murray challenge us as to the honesty and realism of both our diagnoses and our remedies, in
terms of the socio-cultural analysis and the strategies for responding to it.
Bibliography
Archbishops’ Council (2004) Mission-shaped Church, London: Church House Publishing
Avis, P. (2005) A Ministry shaped by Mission, Edinburgh: Continuum (T & T Clark)
Ballard, P. and Pritchard, J. (1996) Practical Theology in Action, London: Mowbray
Bartley, J. (2006) Faith and Politics after Christendom: the Church as a Movement for Anarchy,
Authentic Media
Bayes, P. and Sledge, T. (2006) Mission-shaped Parish: Traditional Church in a Changing Context,
London: Church House Publishing
Bowden, A. and West, M. (2000) Dynamic Local Ministry, London: Geoffrey Chapman
Bowden, A. (2003) Ministry in the Countryside: a Model for the Future, London: Continuum
Brown, C. (2009, orig. pub. 2000) The Death of Christian Britain: Christianity and Society in the
Modern World, London: Routledge
Bruce, S. (2002) God is Dead: Secularization in the West, Oxford: Wiley Blackwell
Cameron, H., Richter, P., Davies, D. and Ward, F. (2005) Studying Local Churches: A Handbook,
London: SCM Press
Cox, H. (1968) The Secular City: Secularization and Urbanization in Theological Perspective,
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books
Croft, S. (2002) Transforming Communities: Re-imagining the Church for the 21st Century, London:
Darton Longman and Todd
Croft, S. ed (2008) Mission-shaped Questions: Defining issues for today’s Church, London: Church
House Publishing
Cupitt, D. (1989) Radicals and the Future of the Church, London: SCM Press
7
Gibbs, E. and Bolger, R. (2006) Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern
Cultures, London: SPCK
Gibbs, E and Coffey I. (2001) Church Next: Quantum Changes in Christian Ministry, Leicester: InterVarsity Press
Greenwood, R. (2002) Transforming Church: Liberating Structures for Ministry, London: SPCK
Guest, M., Tusting, K. and Woodhead, L. eds., (2004) Congregational Studies in the UK: Christianity
in a Post-Christian Context, Aldershot: Ashgate
Jamieson, A. (2002) A Churchless Faith, London: SPCK
MacLaren, B. (2000) The Church on the Other Side: Doing Ministry in the Postmodern Matrix,
Zondervan
MacLaren, D. (2004) Mission Implausible: Restoring Credibility to the Church, Milton Keynes:
Paternoster Press
Mobsby, I. (2008) Emerging and Fresh Expressions of Church, Moot Community Publishing
Moynagh, M. (2001) Changing World, Changing Church, London: Monarch
Murray, S. (2004) Post-Christendom: Church and Mission in a Strange New World, Carlisle:
Paternoster Press
Nazir-Ali, M. (2001) Shapes of the Church to Come, Eastbourne: Kingsway
Nelstrop, L. and Percy, M. eds. (2008) Evaluating Fresh Expressions: explorations in emerging church,
Norwich: The Canterbury Press
Percy, M. (2001) The Salt of the Earth: Religious Resilience in a Secular Age, London: Continuum
(Sheffield Academic Press)
Platten S. (2007) Rebuilding Jerusalem: the Church’s Hold on Hearts and Minds, London: SPCK
Riddell, M. (1998) Threshold of the Future: Reforming the Church in the Post-Christian West, London:
SPCK
Rollins, P. (2006) How (not) to Speak of God, London: SPCK
Robinson, J.A.T. (1963) Honest to God, London: SCM Press
Robinson, J.A.T. (1965) The New Reformation, London: SCM Press
Swinton, J. and Mowat, H. (2006) Practical Theology and Qualitative Research, London: SCM Press
Tomlin, G. (2004) The Provocative Church, London: SPCK
Tomlinson, D. (1995) The Post-Evangelical, London: Triangle
Ward, P. (2002) Liquid Church, Carlisle: Paternoster Press
Williams, J.A. (1986a) ‘Church, Religion and Secularization in the Theology of Christian
Radicalism 1963-69: Critical Perspectives from the Sociology of Religion’, unpublished PhD
thesis: University of Durham
Williams, J.A. (1986b) ‘The Shape of the Church to Come?’ Theology, Vol. LXXXIX, 194-202.
8