Two complementary models of planting

As I look back on five years since the official launch of the Anglican Network in Europe (ANiE), it has been fascinating to reflect on the way our ministry has developed under the Lord’s guidance. In particular I’ve been able to discern two complementary models of mission through church planting.

In 2017 I was appointed as “Missionary Bishop to Europe” by GAFCON, to promote a Biblically-faithful Anglican movement in our region as an alternative to alignment with Canterbury. What is a “missionary bishop”? To summarise, we could say that it is a leader who gathers faithful individuals and emerging congregations into an Anglican fellowship and polity in a designated area. And it is to actively instigate the establishment of the church, ordaining and pastoring clergy, linking the new local movement with orthodox Anglicans globally, under the leadership of the GAFCON senior archbishops.

We could say that these two roles represent both “bottom up” and “top down” models of mission. We’ve seen both models in the development of ANiE.

Many of our congregations were started locally, by groups of lay people, sometimes led by full-time clergy. Usually the trigger is a need to separate from the Canterbury structures; sometimes they are independent fellowships looking to be part of a wider accountability and identity which they find in Anglicanism. I did not lead the formation of these churches, but perhaps played a role in gathering, administering and caring for congregations that had already started, from the “bottom up”.

Now I take more of a role in being there at the start of new church-planting initiatives. It has been a pleasure in the past year to inaugurate new mission groups in Glasgow, Dublin and the Wirral among others. Seeing the Holy Spirit at work in this way is a great privilege.

In one of our Dioceses in the Network, an effective “top down” model has been used from the start. This is a typical story: a house fellowship, consisting perhaps of two or three families who have just started to meet regularly, is visited at the earliest opportunity by the bishop, who preaches the gospel to the assembled group and visitors gathered from the wider community. He arranges for an ordained minister to visit regularly to administer the sacraments (sometimes at great sacrifice of hours of travel). The bishop will ensure that one or more leaders of the local fellowship begin or continue suitable training in theology and ministry practice in their spare time, and at the earliest opportunity will ordain them.

Most members of this Diocese originate from Nigeria, where this “top down” model of church planting actively led by bishops has been so fruitful in recent decades.

There are potential downsides in both approaches of course. A church which has started locally without the input of a bishop or a wider denomination may encounter division among the members, some of whom want to be part of something bigger and more structured, while others value independence. A “top down” model could lead to dependence, lack of local initiative and, in the worst case, abuse of power.

The history of the church and its mission over the past 2,000 years has seen both methods used. Some have insisted that only a “top down” model can ensure unity and ecclesial authenticity, but the Thirty-nine Articles make it clear that while a structure led by bishops is useful for the ordering of God’s people, the church’s existence does not depend on bishops, but on the faithful preaching of the Word of God and Christ-focused ministry of the sacraments. Meanwhile many from the tradition of Independency prefer the undoubted advantages of a “bottom up” model of establishing and governing local churches, and are suspicious of outside human authority, with dangers of lack of accountability. I am appreciating the flexibility and “best of both worlds” that authentic Anglicanism brings.