














































Rooms.indb


31

Towards the Acceptance of 
Diversity: A Brief History of the 
Mixed Economy of Church and 
Continental European Adaptations1

Sabrina Müller
Theological Director of the Center for Church Development, Theological Faculty, 
University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland
sabrina.mueller@theol.uzh.ch

Abstract

During the past fifteen years, the self-understanding of the 
Church of England, a traditional state church with its parish 
structure has changed. The mother church of the Anglican World 
Communion claims since 2004 to be a mixed economy church; 
one that supports and recognises innovative ecclesial spaces (fresh 
expressions of Church) as church, as well as parish churches. It is 
the goal to have an innovative diversity of churches in a pluralistic 

1. This article originally appeared in German as “Eine kurze Geschichte 
der Mixed Economy of Church” in Pastoraltheologie: Monatsschrift für Wis-
senschaft und Praxis in Kirche und Gesellschaft 109.1 (2020) 5–18. It has been 
translated into English, peer reviewed, and edited from the original. The jour-
nal editors are grateful to all those who contributed to creating the English 
version. 



E c c l e s i a l  F u t u r e s :  Vo l u m e  1  I s s u e  1

32

society. At the same time these churches should be recognisable 
and contextual. It is the concept of the mixed economy that man-
ages a fair cooperation between parochial and fresh expressions of 
Church. In the meantime, the concept of mixed economy is not 
only received in the UK, but rather in different national and free 
churches in continental Europe. As of late the concept is taken up 
by the CPCE (Community of Protestant Churches in Europe).

Introductory Remarks

For centuries the Church of England was characterized by liturgy, 
episcopacy and parochial structure. (“The Lambeth Quadrilateral” 
contains four articles adopted by the Lambeth Conference in 1888. 
These contain: Scripture, Creeds, the two Sacraments and the 
historic episcopate. See Booty et al. 1998, 502.) In the last twenty 
years, however, it has undergone major changes in its ecclesiastical 
self-image. Not only has the religious diversity within parishes and 
services increased but also more than two thousand new churches 
outside established parishes, so-called fresh expressions of churches, 
were begun (see Müller 2016; Lings 2016). Of the fresh expres-
sions of church, some claim church status and others already have 
church status. In the Church of England the term mixed economy 
of Church is used for this coexistence and sometimes also confu-
sion of churches. (It can be observed that some prefer the term 
mixed ecology, “which has a more organic ring” [Moynagh 2012, 
432].)

The following article discusses the historical development of 
the mixed economy and its confirmation by the Church of England 
and gives some insights into its reception in continental Europe. 
In addition, the opportunities presented by this programmatic ap-
proach are discussed and the challenging question of how unity 
in a diverse church should be thought and understood is reflected 
upon. The aim of discussing the mixed economy as a concept for 
a sustainable church is that it can lead to a change in attitude, 
especially at the level of church leadership. Through the horizon 
of thought of the mixed economy, a generous understanding of 



Sabrina Müller—Towards the Acceptance of Diversity

33

ecclesiology can be promoted, in which the church is recognized 
as diverse and can thus also be promoted. It also allows new lo-
cal and missional forms of ecclesial community to reflect and find 
their place in a larger whole.

A large part of the data referred to in this article comes from 
my PhD project: Ekklesiologische Beobachtungen und Interpre-
tationen einer neuen kirchlichen Bewegung. The monograph was 
published in 2016. I spent six months in England during 2010–
2014 for the project, conducting numerous participant observa-
tions and expert interviews with Archbishop Rowan Williams, 
Bishop Steven Croft, Bishop Graham Cray, Dr. George Lings, Mike 
Moynagh, and many others.

Origin and Reception of the Mixed Economy in 
the Church of England

Unity in Diversity

For more than one hundred years, and perhaps even since its 
inception, the Church of England has been concerned with the 
question of how unity in diversity should be thought of (see Lings 
2012). Therefore, the emergence of a way of thinking and program-
matic approach like that of the mixed economy of Church must be 
regarded in a longer temporal horizon and as historically grown. 

Since 1910, the Church of England has been repeatedly af-
fected by various movements that have questioned its self-image 
and ultimately changed it. Thus the idea of unity in diversity, which 
is now made fruitful also in the face of today’s plural ecclesiasti-
cal situation, goes back to the ecumenical movement and liturgi-
cal innovation (see Müller 2016, 71ff). The ecumenical movement 
dates back to the World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh in 
1910. The first World Conference on Faith and Order was held in 
Lausanne in 1927 (see Butler 1998, 47). Through the ecumenical 
movement the awareness arose within the Church of England that 
unity in diversity is possible within a church: “In recognizing other 
ways to do and be church, we could no longer think there was only 



E c c l e s i a l  F u t u r e s :  Vo l u m e  1  I s s u e  1

34

one way. Here was a harbinger of unity yet acceptable diversity” 
(Lings 2012, 162).

Another movement in which the idea of unity in diversity 
played a central role was the liturgical revision of the 1960s. In 
1958 the Lambeth Conference recognized that the Book of Com-
mon Prayer could no longer be the sole basis for church unity (see 
Chapman 2006, 126). This led to the development and introduc-
tion of alternative liturgies and worship services by the Anglican 
Congress in 1963. These changes increased the flexibility of in-
dividual parishes and better integrated contextual and pastoral 
needs. In addition, the language of worship became more under-
standable (see Hatchett 1998, 141ff). Such liturgical revision led to 
a great variety of liturgical forms and approaches in the Church 
of England. The unity expressed before the liturgical revision by 
the common, uniform liturgy is now, according to Bishop Steven 
Croft, determined above all by common values: “It is, I believe, in 
the articulation and shaping of common Anglican values that we 
will find, preserve and deepen our unity as the Church of England” 
(Croft 2006a, 180).

In the Church of England, the awareness of unity in diversity 
has grown historically. For a long time, however, it was mainly 
interpreted in terms of different religious traditions and was with-
out any theological or structural implications. In the Anglican 
Church, three or four theological traditions are distinguished, 
whereby each tradition again exhibits a great diversity in itself. 
This becomes clear in the different designations: The first tradition 
is called evangelical or reformed, the second Anglican catholic or 
traditionalist and the third liberal, broad church, central or non-
party. The position of Anglican charismatics is often not referred 
to as a tradition in its own right, as it has affected and influenced 
all other currents. It has brought them greater spontaneity in wor-
ship, renewal of spirituality and trust in the Holy Spirit (see Avis 
2000, 15). However, the role of religious traditions in creating the 
context for diversity in the last fifty years of the twentieth century 
should not be underestimated. It may be correct to say this did not 



Sabrina Müller—Towards the Acceptance of Diversity

35

have structural implications at the time, but it did have theological 
implications concerning unity in diversity. 

From “Unity in Diversity” to the Mixed Economy of Church

With the emergence of the Church Planting Movement and later 
the fresh expressions of Church, the principle of unity in diversity 
was expanded, theologically reaffirmed in the doctrine of the Trin-
ity and described at the ecclesiological and structural level with 
the term mixed economy. At the end of the 1970s and in the 1980s 
there were disagreements in the Church of England. For, inspired 
by the American Church Planting Movement, new Church Plants 
also emerged in the Church of England, which began to cross pa-
rochial borders. As a result, a commission was set up to observe, 
analyse and recommend how to deal with these new churches. The 
results of the analysis were presented in the Breaking New Ground 
report, published in 1994 (see Harris et al. 1994). Two conclusions 
contributed to the emergence of the mixed economy. First, it was 
recommended that Church Planting be understood as a comple-
mentary strategy to the parochial system. Through Church Plants 
local congregations should be supported and supplemented. At 
the same time, it was suggested that social changes such as mobil-
ity and relational networking require the parochial system to be 
supported and supplemented. Secondly, strong cultural and socio-
logical changes have been observed in British society. For example, 
it was found that the municipal boundary is often no longer identi-
cal with the people’s relationship environment. Recommendations 
for church action were derived from this. Through the distinction 
between geographical borders, neighborhood and networks of re-
lationships and interests, it was established as a consequence that a 
people’s church needs complementary, new structures (see Harris 
et al. 1994; Müller 2016, 75ff).

The new Church Plants grew rapidly and became more di-
verse, so that in 2002 the Church of England considered it advis-
able to re-establish a working group to revise the Breaking New 
Ground report and review developments for change and progress. 



E c c l e s i a l  F u t u r e s :  Vo l u m e  1  I s s u e  1

36

The relevant report Mission-shaped Church came from this work-
ing group. The report published in 2004 became an influential and 
remarkably widely read document in the Church of England. The 
newly elected Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, gave 
additional meaning to the report in his guiding foreword:

If “church” is what happens when people encounter the 
Risen Jesus and commit themselves to sustaining and 
deepening that encounter in their encounter with each 
other, there is plenty of theological room for diversity of 
rhythm and style, so long as we have ways of identifying 
the same living Christ at the heart of every expression of 
Christian life in common. (Cray et al. 2004, vii)

The Mixed Economy of Church

Already in the preface of Mission-shaped Church unity in diversity 
was emphasized. The introduction to the report was then more 
explicitly related to the parochial principle, in which the changes 
of the last ten years were also presented: 

Breaking New Ground saw church planting as “a supple-
mentary strategy that enhances the essential thrust of the 
parish principle.” Perhaps the most significant recom-
mendation of this current report is that this is no longer 
adequate. The nature of community has so changed (and 
was changing long before 1994) that no one strategy will 
be adequate to fulfil the Anglican incarnational principle 
in Britain today. Communities are now multi-layered, 
comprising neighborhoods, usually with permeable 
boundaries, and a wide variety of networks, ranging 
from the relatively local to the global. Increased mobil-
ity and electronic communications technology have 
changed the nature of community. It is clear to us that 
the parochial system remains an essential and central 
part of the national Church’s strategy to deliver incarna-
tional mission. But the existing parochial system alone is 
no longer able fully to deliver its underlying mission pur-
pose. We need to recognize that a variety of integrated 



Sabrina Müller—Towards the Acceptance of Diversity

37

missionary approaches is required. A mixed economy of 
parish churches and network churches will be necessary, 
in an active partnership across a wider area, perhaps a 
deanery. (Cray et al. 2004, x) 

In addition to Mission-shaped Church, the A Measure for 
Measures report published in the same year concluded that the pa-
rochial system and with it the principle of “one-size-fits-all” as the 
only model in a plural society no longer meets the requirements 
(see Toney 2004). Both reports point out that the parochial system 
is no longer sufficiently capable of fulfilling the incarnational mis-
sion of the Church. It needs to be supplemented and this is seen 
through a mixed economy of church, consisting of local congrega-
tions, contextual expressions of church, network congregations, 
house churches, church plants, etc. .  .  . Only in this way could a 
people’s church still do justice to its actual task of being in dialogue 
with the people of the country about God and of turning invitingly 
to them. The naturalness with which the term mixed economy is 
used in the reports is therefore surprising because the term was 
introduced only two years earlier. The term “mixed economy” was 
first used by Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canter-
bury, to refer to the Church of England. During his term as Arch-
bishop of Wales he used this term in the report “Good News in 
Wales”: “We may discern signs of hope. .  .  . These may be found 
particularly in the development of a mixed economy of Church life. 
. . . There are ways of being church alongside the inherited paro-
chial pattern” (Smith et al. 2012, 7). Michael Moynagh gave the 
programmatic approach an additional impetus, and his definition 
is often referred to: “The phrase ‘mixed economy’ . . . refers to fresh 
expressions and ‘inherited’ churches existing alongside each other, 
within the same denomination, in relationships of mutual respect 
and support” (Herbst 2018, 24:159). 



E c c l e s i a l  F u t u r e s :  Vo l u m e  1  I s s u e  1

38

Mixed Economy—The Theological and Ecclesiological 
Programme

According to Bishop Graham Cray, who led the Fresh Expressions 
movement from 2008 to 2014, the term economy is not understood 
as an economic metaphor, but is located in the biblical context. 
Thus economy is linked back to the Greek original word οἰκονομία 
(administration, budget, and plan for salvation; see Bauer et al. 
1988, 1134–35). Reference is made to Ephesians 1–3 and God’s 
plan of salvation in and through Christ described therein. Cray 
calls the church, which shares the responsibility for God’s plan of 
salvation, “God’s household.” In this way the mixed economy is 
defined as a theological programme that challenges and changes 
ecclesial self-conception (see Müller 2016, 176). The theological 
leitmotif of the program is, besides the idea of God’s household and 
plan of salvation, the concept of the Trinity. The Trinity is used, 
among other things, as a symbol of “unity in diversity” and thus 
also for the mixed economy of Church. In addition, reference is 
made to the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and Ephesians 4. The 
biblical references show that the principle of “unity in diversity” 
and thus also the mixed economy are already biblical and that 
unity cannot be equated with uniformity. While unity appears as a 
desirable goal leading to consistency in the body of Christ, unifor-
mity is seen as narrowing. 

The fresh expressions of Church are attributed with the func-
tion of having extended ecclesiology in the sense that church can 
be diverse, multiform and structurally variable as Bishop Steven 
Croft points out: 

FxC helps us to lose our arrogance about “there is only 
one way of being church.” But we regain a sense of mis-
sion, of humility, of being church for others, service. . . . 
And that is producing a helpful learning and shift back 
to seeing church in a more diverse and generous way. 
Which I think is very helpful for our overall mission, 
but it is profoundly an ecclesiological shift that is taking 
place. (Müller 2016, 171–73) 



Sabrina Müller—Towards the Acceptance of Diversity

39

It has to be noted that the mixed economy in the Church of England 
is not only and not first of all an organization-logical program-
matic approach, but a theological and ecclesiological one, which 
should then be reflected in the structures. (The deep philosophical 
and financial commitment to resource church has reshaped this 
narrative somewhat since “Renewal and Reform” but further re-
search might be worthwhile. See Church of England 2016.) 

Structural Dimensions of the Mixed Economy

Over the last fifteen years, the mixed economy has become part of 
the Church of England’s implicit ecclesiological self-image: both 
traditional parochial congregations and fresh expressions of Church 
are to be promoted (cf. Croft 2006b, 178). The aim is to create 
relationships based on partnership and not competition within 
the church. For this reason, the mixed economy was structurally 
anchored at the national level of the Church of England by a Syn-
odical decision. The dioceses are encouraged to implement this 
equivalent ecclesial partnership. Bishop Graham Cray remarked: 

What Archbishop Rowan has called the mixed economy, 
the positive partnership of an on-going inherited minis-
try in the parishes and the planting of fxC is the official 
policy of the Church of England as agreed by its Synod. 
So we have the “this is what we do.” Yes, we have some 
people who haven’t quite realised yet, that’s what we do, 
and yes, we have people who are waiting for those in fxC 
to come to what they call “real church,” but we have com-
mitted ourselves to this, we have approved it through our 
national Synod three times, we’ve had a formal ‹faith and 
order› report written on it, jointly with the Methodists, 
and the General Synod, and the National Conference of 
the Methodist church have both unanimously approved 
it, so it’s our policy. (Müller 2016, 176–77) 

With the mixed economy, ecclesial diversity is to be further pro-
moted and it has been ensured that fresh expressions of Church do 
not form a parallel structure within the Church of England, but are 



E c c l e s i a l  F u t u r e s :  Vo l u m e  1  I s s u e  1

40

given a legitimate place in it. (Given that just under 15 percent of 
the churches in the Church of England are fresh expressions of 
Church and that these account for 10 percent of the total num-
ber of participants, the preemptive synodical decisions on mixed 
economy were strategically important decisions to avoid divisions 
and promote a sense of unity. cf. Lings 2016, 53ff.)

In the structural dimension of a mixed economy church the 
bishop—whether female or male—plays a key role. An important 
structural change since Mission-shaped Church has taken place in 
the Church of England at the national level. It concerns the Bishops 
Mission Order (BMO). The Bishops Mission Order was approved 
by the General Synod in February 2008 and came into force imme-
diately. The Bishops Mission Order is intended as a flexible tool to 
support the development of the mixed economy in contexts where 
broad and well-supported recognition of non-parochial churches 
is necessary and helpful. The Bishops Mission Order can be issued 
by the bishop of the diocese and gives an fxC legal, authorized 
recognition and the status of an Anglican church, which in turn 
means some financial security (see Church of England 2019). The 
bishop is the point or focus of unity under which a mixed economy 
is realized. A parish can also have a mixed economy within it, but 
the core is the idea that there should be churches which are not 
geographically fixed churches working alongside parishes. There-
fore, in the Church of England the diocesan level is decisive for the 
programme and also the regional deanery areas are of importance. 

The task and function of the ordained office is also changing. 
Only 54.8 percent of the fresh expressions of Church are directed 
by ordained persons (Lings 2016, 62). This means that in a mixed 
economy a close partnership between pastors and volunteers 
is necessary and responsibility must be shared. In this situation 
a real implementation of the priesthood of all believers becomes 
necessary and the pastors assume a maieutic function in the 
promotion of the theological productivity of volunteers (see Mül-
ler 2019, 66–88).



Sabrina Müller—Towards the Acceptance of Diversity

41

Liverpool is a successful example of a diocese in which the 
mixed economy is consistently promoted and lived.2 For many 
years, the Diocese of Liverpool has relied on diversity and creativ-
ity as part of its identity (see Diocese of Liverpool n.d.). In Liver-
pool, cooperation between traditional and new forms of church 
expression is standard, and hence this diversity is also visible in 
the Anglican Liverpool Cathedral, for example. Thus the life of the 
church in the cathedral is consistently contextual (see Liverpool 
Cathedral n.d.). Since this basic attitude has long been cultivated 
in the diocese, 68.2 percent of the churches are local congrega-
tions and 31.5 percent are new non-parochial congregations (cf. 
Lings 2016, 53).

Mixed Economy of Church—A Challenging 
Concept with Potential

Not everywhere is the mixed economy as harmonious as in the 
diocese of Liverpool. Statistically it is clear which dioceses pro-
mote a mixed economy and thus also non-parochial communities 
and where this is considered superfluous. In the following statis-
tics, the differences in the implementation of the mixed economy 
and the promotion of fresh expressions of Church are clearly visible 
(Lings 2016, 53ff):

2. The diocese of Liverpool works with the idea of the mixed economy but 
uses for the communication of this the metaphor of the lake and river.



E c c l e s i a l  F u t u r e s :  Vo l u m e  1  I s s u e  1

42

During the last nine years of my research in the Church of 
England on fresh expressions of Church and the mixed economy I 
have been confronted with the struggle for a good and fair mixed 
economy. Th e question of the status of non-parochial congrega-
tions and local congregations, the diff erent distribution of fi nan-
cial resources, but also mutual accusations of traditionalism and 
ignorance of mission and context make the mixed economy a 
challenging concept. Th ere are still dioceses which adopt a critical 



Sabrina Müller—Towards the Acceptance of Diversity

43

attitude towards a mixed economy and only grant the status of 
“church” to the traditional local congregations. Fresh expressions 
of Church and its leaders are struggling with recognition, support 
and finances in these dioceses. 

The different dioceses show that a mixed economy can be 
prescribed structurally, but that this does not guarantee success-
ful implementation. A functioning mixed economy depends on 
people and their beliefs. Like many theological and ecclesiological 
programmes, that of the mixed economy also describes an ideal 
that can be aspired to, but the basis for a successful implementa-
tion is mutual goodwill and a generous and broad understanding 
of ecclesiology. 

Structurally, there is a need for people who see themselves 
as a hub and thus take on a mediating position, people who care 
about very different expressions of church, such as the former 
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the current Archbish-
op of Canterbury Justin Welby, Steven Croft, Bishop of Oxford, or 
Paul Bayes, Bishop of Liverpool. 

Reception of the Mixed Economy in 
Continental Europe

The programme of the mixed economy quickly spread beyond the 
Church of England and attracted great interest in many denomi-
nations and in various countries. In continental Europe there are 
meanwhile different receptions of the mixed economy. The Com-
munity of Protestant Churches in Europe (CPCE), together with 
some researchers from Germany, England, Denmark, Holland, 
Sweden, Switzerland, and Norway, has taken up the topic in its 
Plenary Assembly 2018. Resolution 6 under point 3.2, “Social Eth-
ics of the 8th Assembly 2018,” reads as follows: 

The Assembly welcomes the research groups on “mixed 
economy” and “church in rural areas” which emerged 
from the document “ecclesia semper reformanda.” She 
recommends that these groups be continued and that 
the Council continue to provide material to the groups, 



E c c l e s i a l  F u t u r e s :  Vo l u m e  1  I s s u e  1

44

collect results and send them to the regional groups. (cf. 
CPCE 2018, 7.6)

In addition, within the framework of the formulation of objectives 
2018–2024, the CPCE General Assembly pointed out the impor-
tance of church renewal processes under Objective 2, Measure 6: 

The CPCE will recognize new forms of church, such as 
Fresh Expressions. Through appropriate instruments 
such as consultations and study processes, it will reflect 
upon their ecclesiological meaning and ask how they 
contribute to the renewal of the church. The CPCE will 
seek conversation with these churches, movements, and 
communities.

What was decided by the CPCE in 2018 has been prepared by an 
international research group since 2016. In April 2016, as part of 
its “Reform and Renewal” process, the CPCE invited various re-
searchers to discuss current ecclesiological challenges in Europe. 
Some researchers saw the mixed economy as an ecclesiological 
concept that could serve the churches in Europe and that should 
be further explored. At this first meeting in Frankfurt am Main 
some overlaps could be identified between the programmatic 
approach of the mixed economy and the CPCE reform paper 
“Ecclesia semper reformanda,” which in turn spoke in favour of 
further deepening the topic. On the one hand, “Ecclesia semper 
reformanda” refers to the necessity of structural diversity and 
contextuality. Secondly, the concluding recommendations state: 
“It is the fundamental conviction of Protestant churches that the 
gospel does not prescribe the form of the church. The Church is 
continually called to transform herself in response to the Gospel” 
(Protestantse Kerk 2017). 

The mixed economy should therefore be examined more 
closely as a possible practice of “Ecclesia semper reformanda” 
(this Latin expression was born in the Protestant tradition, it 
clearly dates from the Reformation. In this way we note the lack 
of a greater sense of the Catholic Church’s ecclesiology that still 
courses through the veins of the Church of England in Continental 



Sabrina Müller—Towards the Acceptance of Diversity

45

Protestant churches). A further meeting was then organised in 
Durham UK in September 2017, where an extended group of 
researchers met to discuss the issue. European researchers from 
different denominations discussed the programme and its prac-
tice in various European countries (Germany, Denmark, England, 
the Netherlands, Switzerland) and sent the CPCE a final report. 
The report made clear that the mixed economy is received in the 
various member churches and is regarded as an important topic 
for church development. However, the mixed economy is already 
becoming and must be viewed in its ecclesiastical and cultural 
horizon. The transfer possibilities must in themselves be contex-
tual and culturally sensitive. An example of this transfer becomes 
visible when using the terminology for the programme. In the 
Netherlands, for example, the mixed economy is translated with 
the term Pioneering Places (Protestantse Kerk 2017), in Germany 
both mixed economy and regional church development (Herbst 
and Pompe 2017) are used as terminology, and in Switzerland the 
programmatic approach is described with the metaphor of ecclesial 
biodiversity (Müller 2015). The example of the adapted names in 
the different countries alone shows that the reception and practical 
implications vary. As different as the names for the mixed economy 
are, as diverse is their history in each country. However, it is clear 
that the mixed economy is not a concept that can be adopted one-
to-one at a structural level. Rather, it is exemplarily demonstrated 
in the different names and approaches that the mixed economy is 
a term that describes an ecclesial attitude which in turn must be 
contextually located and adapted. The mixed economy is a helpful 
frame of thought precisely because it can be thought of contextu-
ally and adapted. But at the same time, this framework helps in 
the search for answers to how to deal with new, contextual forms 
of expression of church. In the example countries mentioned it is 
evident that new forms of expression of church are increasing and 
that the mixed economy is a theoretical framework with which 
the chance of a peaceful coexistence can be shown. In addition, 
the mixed economy is increasingly bringing the ecumenical per-
spective into focus. While at the beginning the programmatic 



E c c l e s i a l  F u t u r e s :  Vo l u m e  1  I s s u e  1

46

approach described above all “unity in diversity” within a single 
denomination, more recent developments set ecumenical accents. 
Given many experiences in Switzerland, Germany, Great Britain, 
the Netherlands, North America, and South Africa, the issue of an 
ecumenical horizon is extremely important and would be worth 
further research and certainly another article.

The topic is increasingly being taken up by universities. This 
not only in articles and research reports, but also, for example, in 
a joint seminar on church theory between Practical Theology in 
Göttingen, Greifswald, and Zurich.

Reflection

The beginning of the mixed economy as a programmatic approach 
can already be seen in the work of Preul. He sees a characteristic of 
Volkskirche (people’s church) precisely in the fact that it is not nec-
essary for the true unity of the church that everywhere the same 
human traditions or rites or ceremonies established by human be-
ings are found. This gives room for new experiments and ideas, but 
also makes it possible to hold on to traditions that have become 
dear (Preul 1997, 191; cf. Melanchthon 1530, art. 5). In this sense, 
mixed-economy thinking is not radically new or different, but for 
the first time it found a more or less consistent implementation in 
the Church of England. 

Although the situation in the various churches in Europe 
varies (for example, with regard to the financial situation and the 
relationship between church and state) through historical devel-
opments and contextual circumstances, they are all fundamentally 
challenged by demographic change, religious diversification and 
pluralisation. This refers to both its institutional form and concrete 
manifestation of ecclesiastical life and its role as church in society 
(cf. Schlag 2012, 11ff).

Institutional hierarchies, church ordinances and law or staff 
employed full-time by the church will no longer be in a position 
to determine the future shape of the church alone in its present 
form or function. In order to pursue the vision of a living, plural, 



Sabrina Müller—Towards the Acceptance of Diversity

47

and open church, which deals with its tradition in such a way that 
it at the same time deals courageously and constructively with the 
challenges of the present (see Hauschildt and Pohl-Patalong 2013, 
438), it is obvious that new and complementary forms of church 
life are necessary. This explains the interest for and the dynam-
ics around the mixed economy, since it makes visible changes in 
traditional (national) churches in theory and practice (see Herbst 
2018, 24:158–68).

However, it is necessary, both in practical theological re-
search and in church practice, to analyze and interpret changes 
related to this programmatic approach in detail so that conclu-
sions can be drawn about future church-theoretical processes and 
the formation of church staff and so that new church initiatives 
can be promoted. 

Although the implementation of the mixed economy is tanta-
mount to a balancing act, it is a helpful idea with which the pros-
perity of different ecclesiastical communities can be promoted and 
people’s church offers and traditional structures are also preserved. 
With its “one as well as the other principle,” the mixed economy 
is not a radical concept, but one that seeks to strike a balance 
between tradition and innovation, between local communities 
and new ecclesial communities. Whether this programme is suf-
ficiently radical to bring about real changes in traditional state and 
national churches remains to be seen, but it is meant to preserve 
old things and to create new things. 

In a church that tries to live the idea of a mixed economy, the 
question arises where the unitas ecclesiae becomes recognizable. 
The challenging programming of the mixed economy in particu-
lar can provide at least some answers to the question of the una 
ecclesia. For at both regional and national levels, a mixed economy 
strengthens the sense of togetherness, since within the framework 
of a mixed economy local congregations, new ecclesial commu-
nities and the various dioceses can no longer see themselves as 
individual entities. The entire programme aims at network-like 
cooperation across parochial and diocesan borders. It is precisely 
here that the una ecclesia becomes apparent, because ecclesiastical 



E c c l e s i a l  F u t u r e s :  Vo l u m e  1  I s s u e  1

48

identity is no longer determined by the place, but by belonging to 
an ecclesial whole.

Bibliography

Avis, Paul. 2000. The Anglican Understanding of the Church—An Introduction. 
London: SPCK.

Bauer, Walter, et al. 1988. Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament Griechisch-
Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der 
frühchristlichen Literatur. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Booty, John, et al, eds. 1998. The Study of Anglicanism. 2nd ed. London: SPCK.
Butler, Perry. 1998. “From the Early Eighteenth Century to the Present Day.” 

In The Study of Anglicanism, edited by John Booty et al., 30–51. 2nd ed. 
London: SPCK.

Chapman, Mark. 2006. Anglicanism. Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford 
University Press.

Church of England. 2019. “Bishops’ Mission Orders.” Online. https://www.
churchofengland.org/more/parish-reorganisation-and-closed-church-
buildings/bishops-mission-orders.

———. 2016. “A Vision for Renewal and Reform.” Online. https://www.
churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/gs_2038_-_a_vision_
for_renewal_and_reform.pdf

Cray, Graham, et al. 2004. Mission-Shaped Church: Church Planting and Fresh 
Expressions of Church in a Changing Context. London: Church House.

Croft, Steven. 2006a. “Conclusion.” In The Future of the Parish System: Shaping 
the Church of England in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Steven Croft, 
178–82. 2nd ed. London: Church House.

Croft, Steven, ed. 2006b. The Future of the Parish System: Shaping the Church 
of England in the Twenty-First Century. 2nd ed. London: Church House.

Diocese of Liverpool. n.d. “Diocesan Profile.” Online. http://www.liverpool.
anglican.org/Diocesan-Profile.

Community of Protestant Churches in Europe (CPCE). 2018. 
“8. Vollversammlung der Gemeinschaft Evangelischer Kirchen in Europa 
(GEKE) in Basel, Schweiz, 13–18 September 2018.” Online. https://cpce-
assembly.eu/dokumente.

Harris, Patrick, et al. 1994. Breaking New Ground: Church Planting in the Church 
of England: A Report Commissioned by the House of Bishops of the General 
Synod of the Church of England. London: Church House.

Hatchett, Marion. 1998. “Prayer Books.” In The Study of Anglicanism, edited by 
John Booty et al., 131–43. 2nd ed. London: SPCK.

Hauschildt, Eberhard, and Uta Pohl-Patalong. 2013. Kirche. Gütersloh: 
Gütersloher Verlags-Haus.



Sabrina Müller—Towards the Acceptance of Diversity

49

Herbst, Michael. 2018. Aufbruch Im Umbruch: Beiträge Zu Aktuellen Fragen Der 
Kirchentheorie. Beiträge Zu Evangelisation Und Gemeindeentwicklung 
24. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Herbst, Michael, and Hans-Hermann Pompe. 2017. Regiolokale 
Kirchenentwicklung: Wie Gemeinden Vom Nebeneinander Zum 
Miteinander Kommen Können. Dortmund: ZMiR:klartext.

Lings, George. 2016. The Day of Small Things: An Analysis of Fresh Expressions 
of Church in Twenty-One Dioceses of the Church of England. Sheffield: 
Church Army. Online. https://www.churcharmy.org/Publisher/File.
aspx?ID=204265.

———. 2012. “A History of Fresh Expressions and Church Planting in the 
Church of England.” In Church Growth in Britain: 1980 to the Present, 
edited by David Goodhew, 161–78. Farnham: Ashgate.

Liverpool Cathedral. n.d. “Worship Here.” Online. http://www.
liverpoolcathedral.org.uk/home/worship-here.aspx.

Melanchthon, Philip. 1530. “Das Augsburger Bekenntnis.” Online. https://
www.velkd.de/theologie/augsburger-bekenntnis.php.

Moynagh, Michael. 2012. Church for Every Context: An Introduction to Theology 
and Practice. London: SCM.

Müller, Sabrina. 2016. Fresh Expressions of Church—Beobachtungen und 
Interpretationen Einer Neuen Kirchlichen Bewegung. Zürich: Theologischer 
Verlag.

———. 2019. Gelebte Theologie—Impulse Für Eine Pastoraltheologie Des 
Empowerments. Theologische Studien. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag.

———. 2015. “Mixed Economy of Church: Chancen und Risiken kirchlicher 
Biodiversität.” In Volkskirche und Kirchenvolk: Ein Zwischenhalt, edited 
by Matthias Krieg and Claudia Kohli Reichenbach, 99–107. Zürich: 
Theologischer Verlag.

Preul, Reiner. 1997. Kirchentheorie. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Protestantse Kerk. 2017. Fingers Crossed: Developments, Lessons Learnt, and 

Challenges After Eight Years of Pioneering. Utrecht: Dienstencentrum 
Protestantse Kerk. Online. https://www.lerenpionieren.nl/wp-content/
uploads/2017/01/Fingers-Crossed-fresh-expressions-in-the-Netherlands.
pdf.

Schlag, Thomas. 2012. Öffentliche Kirche: Grunddimensionen einer praktisch-
theologischen Kirchentheorie. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag.

Smith, Alan, et al. 2012. Fresh Expressions in the Mission of the Church: Report of 
an Anglican-Methodist Working Party. London: Church House.

Toney, Peter. 2004. A Measure for Measures: In Mission and Ministry: Report 
of the Review of the Dioceses, Pastoral, and Related Measures. London: 
Church House.


