What have we learnt so far? This page includes learning from those involved in the pilot areas and is divided into a general area for questions and the five stages identified to try and keep the content coherent. Please get involved in the conversations by starting thread discussions. (for information and background please ensure you have read the About Church on the edge page).

General Learning and Questions:

Initial questions have been raise about the process and where the concept of church/ecclesial community starts. We have found in Chard pilot area that due to the intentionality of the approach we could already be an ecclesial community. The level of relationship and openness because of the intentional nature does make the whole process feel like church. The issue of pace is important. In some ways having the stages predicts a pace and movement/progress which is important. However within the stages it is important to go with what God is doing not trying to force the pace because of the strategy.

I have learned that the process from building relationships to 'asking the question', "do you want to 'form' church", is a very difficult and scary one.

How do you form 'church' with non-churched/christian volunteers?

Learning and Questions about contacting community –

Critical Questions may include: What structures work and release this sort of project to happen? What initial approaches to young people work? What shape does the project need, balancing needs of young people in the community with ethos of growing church, are the two compatible? How/when do you introduce the concept?

Learning from Chard and reflections on missiology mean that we feel it is important to approach the groups of young people as communities, working with them as a whole as well as individuals. The detached work process holds up well and can continue to be used.



Learning and Questions about growing community –
Critical Questions may include: What helps or hinders the relationship process? How/when do you introduce the concept? Where does ambiguity[1] fit into the process? The role of groups and risk?

Could introduce as research into spirituality, these questions and phrases may help. Church does not connect with people but there are those moments in life when we are aware that there could be something bigger. We would say this is God, but perhaps you don’t have a language to describe it? Would you be willing to help us discover what these flow moments are about? I think God is more/as present in the (skate park/toddler group) than in the church. Basically we need you to be willing to be guinea pigs? The next stage/residential is about provoking flow and we could tell you some stories and see if these make sense to you or help you describe your experience. It is not about church with singing and all that but if we were to do (skate)church with you guys what would it look like, I don’t have clue and e need you to help us define it. We are not asking for you to commit to something you don’t believe in (ie become a Christian) but asking if you would be willing to commit to helping us explore what church is and how this connects to flow?

The idea of working with the young people as community is further reinforced, and to think of the small group stages in the detached plan as community groups may be helpful. One of the issues is that as you approach different groups (see detached plan) as mini communities. The process then naturally brought these together because of the growing spiritual awareness of individuals*. However some of the initial group/mini communities identity is resilient, which can cause issues in the new joined community. This also ties into the ideas of working with and identifying the people of peace but doing so as a community approach.

Learning and Questions about connected community –
Critical Questions may include: What might resources might help build a sense of commitment? How we continue to work if young people do not want to? Can we mirror a rite of passage pre commitment to Christ what might this look like?

Learning from chard would suggest that the community element remains important and the need to reform community around those willing to connect (also see above*). The idea that the connection has to reflective of their culture is questionable, the skate pilgrimage was an important step but equally important was using film and conversation as a medium to facilitate connectivity particularly when used in unexpected ways. The young people carried some expectations that when we were talking/doing group work that it would be traditionally Christian in nature, and keeping the mediums for communication away from these traditional Christian approaches was important. Maintaining a clear space from any traditional trappings of church/Christianity was important in creating the space we now have to explore in the new stage, so take care here. The pilgrimage provided an element of liminality and communitas for the group, that should not be underrated, and the idea of additional steps being required may not be needed.
Learning and Questions exploring community – Critical Questions may include: Is the exploration transformative, what does this look like? What are the young peoples takes on issues like the sacraments? How would they communicate the story?

The previous stage gave us permission to push ahead with this without the need for formally asking people to commit as a group. (however they have committed individually {in a group setting} to explore God/Flow with us). The communitas engendered by the process holds throughout giving us space to move into this area as we see fit. What this does mean is that the role of the worker as priest/facilitator for exploration remains. Bearing in mind the questions raised in general about the intentionality of growing church and that it is present from the outset, it could be what will differentiate this stage from the next will be the role the community takes in actively leading the exploration together.


Learning and Questions about practicing/ecclesial community – (perhaps this should be changed to a practicing community) where the group begins to practice what they have discovered over the previous stages.

Critical Questions may include: Has this approach collapsed gaps between mission and church? Is this relevant to young people not involved in the other stages of the process? How is it connected to tradition? How can it be replicated – is it temporary or group specific? Is it a cycle or a closed process?

It could be that using sociological definition of church will help here, ie is the group self governing. In the previous stage we are still in some ways the bringer of the story, so the exploration could lack some mutuality in generating resources for reflection/being perhaps a greater equality in this is what defines this stage.