What on earth is an “NWC”? Well, options include Northwest College, Wyoming, and the National Water Council, an obscure statutory government agency in Britain. Thanks, Google.
According to a report from the rather grand-sounding Center for Church Planting Theology and Research, based within a Church of England seminary at the University of Durham, NWC means “new worshipping community.” A what? Is that what we once called a church?
The Church of England has lost its way, trapped in a mire of tortuous language, multifarious experimentation, and a superficiality that has led to doctrinal declension and a loss of confidence in its very foundations and, indeed, its Founder and head. We need to recover our confidence in being the Church of Jesus Christ and not some vague imitation or self-help salon.
Churches in decline often seek turnkey answers to reverse direction. In other words, they constantly search for a formula or method that, magically, will turn fortunes around, bring more people in through the door, make them more relevant (we are told), and connect with people “where they are.” Most of this is nonsense. I am not sure whether readers in the United States are aware of the formulation increasingly common in Britain that “Jesus meets us where we are.” Everybody nods, but it is a meaningless formulation. It might help turn the tide, it is believed, so that’s all right then.
The current temptation to “relevance” is to drop the word church itself. This is a profound mistake. To do so disconnects the Christian community from its deepest roots. The terms most often used instead of church illustrate the lack of both thought and theology. Examples include congregation, community, movement, experimental, pioneering, network. In the Church of England, these are sometimes referred to as “fresh expressions.” Almost anything except church. I suppose a fresh expression is better than an old one—except it isn’t. Ancient truths of gospel and faith are being passed down the ages through that little word church. If I wanted to join a network, I’d sign up for a LinkedIn account.
I recall when “seeker services” were all the rage. The idea was that people were put off by all the “churchy” spiritual activities, such as prayer, which was hence left out. A moment’s reflection surely tells us that this is bizarre. A church that does not pray is, perhaps … not a church at all? In which case, dropping the name church might be a good idea!
The consequence of all this is the triumph of superficiality over substance. Is it possible that what people truly want is for the church to be the church and not pretend to be something else? After all, who else is going to be church for them?
Let’s return to the report from the Center for Church Planting Theology and Research. It highlights many of these issues and trends, which is commendable. The author looked at a sample of 11 Church of England (or, perhaps I should say, Worshipping Communities of England) dioceses and identified somewhere in the region of 900 new initiatives. The report refers to these enterprises as “new things.” This is a rather strange terminology. In some ways this reflects the fact that there is such a diversity of terminology being used that it is difficult to alight on one word to describe the phenomenon. I suppose one could use church for familiarity’s sake, but I assume that is now too retrograde. The language of “new things” also illustrates the trap we have fallen into, that of always seeking the next new idea or initiative. Why must everything be new?
The Reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) argued that biblical interpretation should have brevity and clarity, which seems pretty clear to me. Well, the modern evangelical Protestant tradition certainly seems to have lost the clarity and probably the brevity as well. Lucidity and precision have been replaced by ambiguity and confusion.
The Center’s report itself (which is mostly descriptive) becomes so convoluted in places that the language used is tantamount to a newly invented syntax and vocabulary. It refers to the emergence of a new ecclesial language, which it calls an “espoused ecclesiology,” and goes on to say that “this espoused ecclesiology is affecting an operant theology within the Church of England.” Now, forgive me, but I hold two degrees in theology and have taught at Oxford and elsewhere. I literally have no idea what this terminology means. In our quest for relevance, we have allowed language to become our master rather than our servant, and the consequence is that no one is listening. Or reading.
We think we are making the church more relevant to a new generation, but in reality we are replacing deep truths and ancient rhythms with a shallowness that is leading the church to disaster. We have lost our way. Not only so, but because of the lack of reliable guidance, we are headed down the wrong path. This stems from not teaching plain doctrine. “But at least I belong to a ‘community’ or a ‘network.’” Please keep the sermon (often now a “talk”) down to 10 minutes; Otherwise you might put people off. Carl Trueman noted in a recent article that a silent disco at Canterbury Cathedral (what utter nonsense) and a rave in the nave in Peterborough Cathedral (Lord, forgive us) speak of a childishness and triviality in buildings that have stood for centuries and that were designed for serious and sacred purposes.
The increasing abandonment of the very word church shows how the Church has lost confidence in its very foundations. How then might we respond? Here are a few suggestions.
First, we should teach the first things rather than new things. Psalm 127 tells us that unless the Lord build the house, those who build it labor in vain. What really matters? We need to take our churches, our fellow Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, back to the foundations of the faith. This includes teaching what we believe about the person and work of Jesus Christ for us— what a radical thought! The first things, though, include not only doctrine but also the ability to understand the history and development of the Church. Theology, history, ideas, literature are all key building blocks for a Christian view of the world. So let’s get these foundations in place.
Second, let us teach the ancient truths rather than fresh expressions. Mormon missionaries occasionally knock at my door. I always ask them to produce the Book of Mormon and open it. I point to the title page where the subtitle is “another testament of Jesus Christ.” I suggest that I prefer the original testament, and I would love to explain it to them. I remember meeting James “Jim” Packer (1926–2020), a prolific writer and leader in the evangelical Anglican world who taught at Oxford, Bristol, and then Regent College, Vancouver. He was wearing a clerical collar—unusual in the more conservative evangelical part of Anglicanism. He noted my slight surprise and explained that he had been forced out from the Anglican Church of Canada for refusing to surrender biblical moral and theological doctrine and had realized that the things he had previously sat lightly to had become more important. The passion of his later years was catechesis—the teaching of the ancient truths, of the Bible, of doctrine, of the Fathers of the Church. If we do not teach doctrine, we will lose it, hence the descent of the church into liberalism, even chaos. Doctrine matters. Teachers of doctrine matter. Helping Christians understand doctrine matters deeply.
Third, we need spiritual depth in worship rather than superficiality. Many churches today do not say or recite a creed, which typically would be either the Nicene Creed or the shorter and probably more ancient Apostles’ Creed. The sermon is squeezed into “extended times of worship,” previously known as the liturgy, which once included preaching, prayer, song, and sacrament. “Let’s sing that song for the third time” has the same impact as “we must accept the norms of society” in rewarding superficiality at the expense of spiritual depth.
Maybe, just maybe, the word church has not lost its currency. Perhaps, just perhaps, demonstrable confidence in the idea of a Church Universal might restore us to our solid foundations and enable us to re-embrace that little word church. The first things, the ancient truths, and the spiritual depth cultivated over 2,000 years all contribute to the development and building of Christian virtue and Christian character. In that way, in the grace of God, we are equipped to live our lives as faithful Christians, followers of Jesus Christ, with confidence in this secular age. Spare us the banality. Let the Church be the Church.
