How is maturity to be understood?

By Claire Dalpra.

Issues of sustainability are always more complex than start-up. Take the example of a fresh expression of Church that has evolved within a larger existing church and wishes to remain closely attached as it
develops.

Drawing on the insights of Henry Venn on the three-self principle (1), church planting strategists say that a mature church is one that is self-sustaining. If self-sustaining is defined by institutional or managerial ways of thinking that look to formal (legal, governmental or sacramental) independence as priority, the lack of this fresh expression’s aspirations in these directions suggests it may never be considered as mature.

Here are some of the key hurdles identified by the leader of one such fresh expression of Church (2). Firstly, if financial support from the larger church was withdrawn, they would struggle to continue in their present form. Secondly, although members of the Sunday congregation give money, very little practical help is offered; because their public gathering takes place on a week day, rarely do others visit and therefore it remains a ‘hidden’ mission and ministry. Thirdly, there is a need to continually communicate to members of the Sunday congregation (and even PCC members) that what happens isn’t only a social or outreach event, but an expression of Church.

Yet, despite these hurdles, they wish to remain in close relationship with the larger existing church. Why? Firstly, as a lay, volunteer-led fresh expression of Church, it lends a sense of security. Secondly, with volunteers from the larger existing church, the fresh expression is able to mount an annual celebration to resource Christians from the wider area working in the same under-resourced mission context. Lastly, building a sense of trust and mutual respect in the informal working relationships between them and the leaders of the larger existing church is how the leaders of this fresh expression of Church believe ‘God intended us to live’.

This last reason relates to the understanding of maturity in Carter and McGoldrick’s sociological interpretation of life-cycle thinking. In contrast to assumptions that maturity equals that of western, male, individual, self-sufficient independence, their study highlights the need to see human development in a communal setting rather than an individual one. Relationships become the proving ground for maturity. Are these churches able to ‘empathise, trust, communicate, collaborate and respect’ each other though they are different and ‘negotiate… interdependence with others without  exploitation’ (3)?

Whereas Venn’s three-self thinking focuses the challenge of  ecclesial maturity on the ability of a fresh expression to sustain itself, Carter and McGoldrick’s understanding highlights the need for maturity on the part of both the sent and sending churches. While the informal nature of respecting each other’s ecclesial identity in this example conflicts with the way Venn’s thinking has been interpreted as formal and legal independence, informality is an opportunity to cultivate authenticity in the kind of interdependent relationships that Carter and McGoldrick believe denote maturity. Here, churches do not need to rely on formal legal or organisational mechanisms to force each other to work together (4). Rather they trust that interdependent informal relationships can be sufficient.

(1) Henry Venn was CMS General Secretary in the mid 19^th century. W. R. Shenk, Henry Venn: Missionary Statesman (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1983).

(2) The identity of the church has been kept anonymous.

(3) B. Carter and M. McGoldrick, The Expanded Family Life Cycle, Individual Family and Social Perspectives (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1998). Chapter 2.

(4) Formalities may need to be addressed at some point to ensure wider diocesan recognition, and protection to guard against
unsympathetic changes brought by the next incumbent.