









































1
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef19868

DOI: 10.54195/ef19868

A R T I C L E

Ecclesial Futures
2025

Implementation of the Mixed Ecology in 
Church of England Diocesan Strategies

Andrew Dunlop

Abstract
The mixed ecology is a term that has come to denote both traditional and new forms 
of church mutually flourishing alongside one another. Since 2021 it has been part of 
the vision and strategy of the Church of England. The extent to which mixed ecology 
thinking permeates diocesan strategy varies. Strategies which originally flowed from 
the separate streams of church planting and fresh expressions of church now exhibit 
similar qualities. I argue that diocesan strategies were converging towards those that 
could be described as “mixed ecology” even before the national strategy was adopted, 
and suggest that these strategies and the national vision play a vital role in amplifying 
good practice and creating the active partnership between groups that the mixed 
ecology requires to thrive. This article is based on a survey of diocesan strategies, vision 
statements, and publicly available documentation in Church of England dioceses.

Keywords: Mixed ecology, Church of England, Strategy, Vision, Church planting, Fresh 
expressions

In 2021, a new vision for Church of England was adopted. It was to become simpler 
in governance and structure, humbler in working with others, and bolder in its 
outworking and proclamation of what God has done through Christ, all shaped by 
the five marks of mission. These were to be enacted through three strategic priori-
ties: a church of missionary disciples, a church where the mixed ecology is the norm, 
and a church which is younger and more diverse (Cottrell 2021). The second of these 
was of particular interest to me as I have been following the development of fresh 
expressions of church and the mixed ecology throughout my ordained career – as 
curate, new-build pioneer, college lecturer, and now in a diocesan role. On the one 
hand, that the mixed ecology had become enshrined into Church of England vision 
was a declaration that this – and the variety of ecclesial forms that come with the 



2
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef19868

2

mixed ecology – was how the church should be. On the other hand, as this paper 
argues, it simply formalized in the vision what was happening in the dioceses anyway.

The language of “mixed ecology” is a development of the phrase “mixed 
economy”, describing areas where new and traditional forms of church and other 
missional ventures work together in an area to form a varied ecclesial landscape. 
“Mixed economy” was first coined by Rowan Williams while he was Archbishop of 
Wales, but gained wider traction whilst he was Archbishop of Canterbury through its 
inclusion in the Mission-shaped Church report (Church of England 2004). The report 
promoted church planting and fresh expressions of church – defined as contextual 
forms of church intended for those who did not previously attend church. More 
recently, the preference has been for an ecological rather than economic metaphor.1 
Whilst the phrase “mixed ecology” hasn’t been defined in detail, the work of recent 
writers all agree that a varied ecclesial landscape or ecosystem of new and tradi-
tional forms of church, fresh expressions, church plants, and missional activities is 
intended (Perrin and Olsworth-Peter 2021; Olsworth-Peter 2024; Foulger 2024).

In defining a mixed ecology, one could take a “lowest common denominator” 
approach which consists of different forms of church or missional communities 
simply co-existing near each other. This is not a good definition, and is arguably no 
different from how the church operated in any age. A preferable definition empha-
sizes a partnership (e.g. Church of England 2004: iv; Müller 2019: 252) between the 
new and traditional, for mutual learning, training, resourcing, networking, support, 
the sharing of good practice and ideas, and more.

Although the mixed ecology has attracted critique from some circles within the 
Church of England as undermining the parish system (Billings 2021; Milbank 2023), I 
contend, and argue elsewhere in a wider study of the mixed ecology in a local context 
(Dunlop 2025), that the mixed ecology at its best is a fulfilment of the parish system, 
not an undermining of it. There is no space to develop that here, so in this paper I 
argue that the convergence of diocesan visions towards the mixed ecology sets the 
landscape for an active partnership between the elements in the ecosystem to be 
created.

As part of this wider study, between 2018 and 2022 I undertook a survey of the 
vision and strategies of 40 of the 42 dioceses in the Church of England through their 

1 The preference for ecological over economic reflects Jesus’ use of metaphors and the sense 
of different aspects of an ecology existing together for the benefit of the whole, in contrast to 
fiscal/financial models. Those writing about the transition (e.g. Passmore 2020) usually fail to note 
the theological aspect to the word “economy” by writers that influenced Rowan Williams, such as 
Vladimir Lossky (1976).



3
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef19868

3

website data and publicly available documentation.2 I found that, despite a variety of 
language and approaches to mission and ministry, there was a general convergence 
towards strategies that could be described as mixed ecology with an intention to 
having a mutuality or active partnership between groups. This convergence high-
lights a complex relationship between diocesan and national vision, and the activity 
of practitioners on the ground. Money made available for mission and church 
planting ventures from the Church of England’s Strategic Development Fund (SDF) 
and its successor the Strategic Mission and Ministry Investment Board has undoubt-
edly enabled dioceses to be more proactive in setting an ecclesial landscape. In 2019, 
Sabrina Müller wrote:

The mixed economy has become one of the implicit ecclesiological self-understandings 
of the Church of England in the last 15 years. (Müller 2019: 252)

I argue in this paper that with diocesan visions converging to mixed ecology ways 
of operating, this ecclesiological self-understanding has now become explicit and 
is beneficial for the establishment of mutual partnerships of different churches, 
missional ventures, and worshipping communities.

This study should be read in conjunction with Will Foulger’s research from the 
Centre for Church Planting Theology in Durham, conducted after the national vision 
was announced (Foulger 2024). His consisted of reviewing the publicly facing mate-
rial in 11 dioceses alongside interviews with one key person in each diocese. He 
found that the language of “mixed ecology” was “ubiquitous” across the dioceses 
and that all were reluctant to use the word “church” to describe the “new things” that 
were being started, although there was much variation in what language to use. For 
the bulk of this paper, I examine the language and strategy before 2021.

An overview of the direction of travel before 2021
Before the national strategy, diocesan strategies fell into three general catego-
ries: those which clearly articulated a vision for the mixed ecology/economy and 
used language that had arisen from the fresh expressions discussion, those whose 
vision is clearly something else, and those who are promoting a variety of strategic 
approaches.

The most clearly articulated visions for a mixed ecology came from the dioceses 
of Carlisle, Chelmsford, Ely, Leicester, Oxford, Southwell and Nottingham, St Albans, 

2 Due to the nature of their geographies and their separation from the mainland, the dioceses of 
Europe and of Sodor and Man were discounted from this investigation.



4
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef19868

4

and Winchester. These dioceses unapologetically used language that emerged from 
the conversation around fresh expressions of church. There is not space to describe 
each in detail, so I limit this discussion to two. The first diocese to develop a mixed 
economy vision, including contextual forms of church, was Leicester, who began in 
2005:

A central part of our calling as a Diocese is to see as many growing and maturing 
fresh expressions (new) churches in 2030 as we have continuing (parish) ones, led by a 
network of over 600 licensed Pioneers. (Diocese of Leicester 2018b)

To this end, they appointed pioneer development workers for an initial five-year 
term (using an SDF grant) to promote and resource fresh expressions across the 
diocese, and to be deeply involved in one location. Further SDF funding of £5.34 
million supported the development of six resource churches – larger churches or 
church plants intended to plant again (Diocese of Leicester 2018a).

The Diocese of Carlisle established a shared strategy with Methodist and United 
Reformed Churches to create intentional mission communities (Diocese of Carlisle 
et al., 2014). Every church was to be part of one of these clusters, which were to 
contain at least one fresh expression alongside a network youth church. Their visual-
ization of such a community, discussed below, offers a practical outworking of mixed 
economy/ecology thinking.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Diocese of Chichester’s vision for mission 
did not include the mixed ecology or relate to it explicitly. There is no mention of 
fresh expressions, church planting, mixed ecology, or resource churches. This is 
not to say no vision for mission exists, simply that the mixed ecology of traditional 
and new forms of church working alongside each other is not a stated goal. Instead, 
they focus on the inherited church being ‘a Christian presence in every community’ 
(Diocese of Chichester 2020), which is a received mantra commonly used about 
Church of England parishes.3 References to ‘reimagining ministry’ in their strategy 
brochure and Bishop’s Charge refer to encouraging lay ministry and developing 
‘confidence in clergy,’ although, from the public documentation, it is ambiguous as 
to what this entails (Diocese of Chichester 2015; ‘Diocesan Vision For Growth’ 2016). 
They do, however, articulate the need for ‘apostolic partnerships’ in areas of new 
housing and deprivation, although little detail is given to the structure of these 

3 ‘A Christian presence in every community’ was at one time the main strapline on the Church of 
England website (see Foulger 2018, 12). It persists in recent years on websites, proposals, and 
academic articles (cf. Seeley 2019; Nye 2021; ‘The Church: A Christian Presence in Every Community’ 
n.d.; Diocese of Chelmsford n.d.).



5
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef19868

5

(Diocese of Chichester 2020). It is important to note that Chichester has a significant 
resource church in St Peter’s, Brighton which itself has planted multiple times, and 
has received SDF money directed at outreach, evangelism, social justice, and training 
(Diocese of Chichester 2021; ‘St Peter’s Brighton – Bright City’, n.d.). So, despite Chich-
ester’s vision and strategy being the least explicit in terms of articulating a mixed 
ecology, even theirs reveals a mixed approach to mission and ecclesiology within the 
diocese. Their strategy, therefore, might indicate a cautious response to the inten-
tions and perceived ecclesiology of the churches in the diocese, rather than a rejec-
tion of missional ecclesiological ventures.

All the other dioceses had a vision which, to a greater or lesser extent, included 
aspects relating to the mixed ecology, even if the language wasn’t employed. This 
could be through centrally funded creation of new worshipping communities, 
encouragement of parishes to innovate locally, or the planting of resource churches. 
The variety of language being used before 2021 gravitated towards ‘mixed ecology’ 
since then (see below). Only the diocese of Winchester still used language of the 
mixed economy in their vision statement as of 2023,4 whilst Ely diocese used multiple 
terms including “blended”‘, “mixed ecology” and “mixed economy”.5 The language of 
fresh expressions was known and used in many dioceses, albeit recognizing that it 
could be difficult for some (Diocese of Birmingham, n.d.).

Demonstrating convergence to the mixed ecology
There is a sense that each diocese was using the language and strategy that reflected 
the existing direction of travel of the churches in that diocese and perhaps, there-
fore, had the greatest pragmatic chance of success.6 It is discernible, however, that 
despite the multiplicity of approaches, a common convergence can be noted towards 
models that could be described as mixed ecology in some way. Although this conver-
gence is ecclesiological in nature and may result in a landscape of ecclesial communi-
ties across parishes or deaneries that bear some similarities to one another, it would 
be unwise to call this an ecclesiology as it encompasses multiple local ecclesiologies 

4 Their vision statement remained consistent from 2018 and was correct as of 7 August 2023 (Diocese 
of Winchester, n.d.). A few documents on their website did reference ecology in 2022 (Diocese of 
Winchester 2022a; 2022b) but these have since been removed. As of October 2024, there was no 
mention of either mixed economy or mixed ecology on their website. On the other hand, the Diocese 
of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich has had a consistent vision since 2016, yet their website vision pages 
did not mention mixed economy’ in 2020 but does in 2024 (Diocese of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich 
2020; 2024).

5 See, for example, Diocese of Ely 2019a; 2019b; 2021.
6 The question of what constitutes success is a pertinent one and is something I deal with in my earlier 

work (Dunlop 2018).



6
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef19868

6

and there is often a lack of theological articulation.7 The common convergence is 
most noticeable in pictorial representations that some dioceses have produced, but 
is also clear in proposals for some resourcing church projects, as discussed below.

Neither the Fresh Expressions organization nor the Mission-Shaped Church report 
offered a pictorial representation of what the mixed economy/ecology might look 
like. Mission-shaped Church simply summed up the mixed economy in the phrase:

…a variety of integrated missionary approaches is required. A mixed economy of 
parish church and network churches will be necessary, in an active partnership across 
a wider area, perhaps a deanery. (Church of England 2004, xi)8

There is much variation in how this phrase has come to be understood and depicted 
in individual diocesan approaches. Carlisle Diocese’s vision for mission communi-
ties indicated one possible outworking of mixed ecology thinking. Their proposal 
was ecumenical and operated across a deanery with several congregations existing 
alongside one another (see Fig. 1 for the fictionalized example of the Flockton Mission 
Community: Diocese of Carlisle, n.d.). Within this setup there were several estab-
lished congregations of different denominations alongside new contextual church 
communities and missional ventures. Some of these are connected to the traditional 
congregations, whilst others operate across a network or wider area. However, all 
were encouraged to remain connected to other local churches for mutual benefit. A 
2019 Church Army report into fresh expressions in Carlisle diocese stated:

While previously [fresh expressions of church] sought growing into ‘three-self’ respon-
sibility, self-reproduction, self-financing and self-governing, a healthy interdependence 
is now encouraged, with traditional parish churches and fresh expressions of church 
learning from and supporting each other. (Church Army Research Unit 2019, 7)

According to this report, based on quantitative research, this approach had some 
success in engaging with those who did not otherwise come to church, stating that 
one out of every four people who attend church in the diocese attend only a fresh 
expression of church (Church Army Research Unit 2019, 14).

7 Developing a single ecclesiology for the mixed ecology is unhelpful in an organisation such as the 
Church of England. In my doctoral work I proposed a framework of ecclesiological instincts, rather 
than an ecclesiology (Dunlop 2025). Discussion of this is beyond the scope of this paper.

8 More recently, Olsworth-Peter produced a diagram of the mixed ecology set upon an axis from 
attractional to contextual groups (Olsworth-Peter 2024, 29).



7
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef19868

7

Figure 1 The Diocese of Carlisle example mission community 
(Diocese of Carlisle, n.d.)

Likewise, the diocese of Liverpool put together an ambitious strategy to revitalize 
the church in the industrial town of Wigan. Transforming Wigan hoped to see 20,000 
people on the “journey” of faith by 2022, in both traditional and fresh expression 
congregations (‘Strategy: About Transforming Wigan’, n.d.). Twenty-nine parishes 
were reorganized to create seven new parish hubs, each with their own hub leader 
and associate, to support one another to plant five new worshipping communities 
each year (see churchwigan.org). The hubs were also connected to one another 
through the overarching project (see Fig. 2,9 where the triangles represent different 
forms of gathering within the hubs). Clergy were authorized to exercise their specific 
ministry gifts across the whole team. This vision was a distinct departure from 
the traditional parish system, despite the forming of new super-parishes. A mixed 
ecology vision (although the diocese tended not to use this term) of traditional and 
new congregations working alongside one another is evident in this strategy. The 

9 For the image source, see https://churchwigan.org/aboutTWIGstrategy.php.

http://churchwigan.org
https://churchwigan.org/aboutTWIGstrategy.php


8
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef19868

8

reorganization resulted in the creation of 63 new worshipping communities including 
29 “significant expressions of church” (Hutton 2023: 28–30), involving somewhere 
between 750 (Hutton 2023: iv) and 1500 (Diocese of Liverpool, n.d.) new regular 
attendees. However, parish churches, impacted by the pandemic, continued to see a 
steep decline in attendance and finances, resulting in closures (Hutton 2023: 31–2). 
In her apologetic for the parish system, Alison Milbank decries the Transforming 
Wigan project and offers anecdotal stories about the disgruntlement of some local 
clergy, the disengagement of the laity, and added bureaucracy limiting face-to-face 
time (Milbank 2023, 40–41). Whilst it should be noted that the pandemic certainly 
affected numbers (cf. Perrin and Olsworth-Peter 2021: 46–50), the Transforming 
Wigan results perhaps indicate that it is vital to attend to the mixed ecology ideals of 
creating “active partnership” for mutual benefit in developing such a project.

Figure 2 Transforming Wigan Hubs

Some dioceses were pursuing strategies prioritizing the establishing of resource 
churches – a church plant or revitalization, inspired by the Holy Trinity, Brompton 
(HTB) model, intended to plant again and resource the area around it (see Thorpe 
2021). Their visions also appeared to converge towards a mixed ecology of different 
church communities. During a training session with the Diocese of Sheffield, Thorpe 
presented a vision of what a traditional parish actively engaging with its community 
could look like (see Fig. 3; Thorpe 2018). Note that this is an image of what an engaged 
parish church could look like, not a resource church; but there are clear overtones of 
the mixed ecology in the variety of church communities in different places within the 
parish that are suggested. Such a church could become a resource church by having 
the distinct intention of planting and resourcing other parishes around it to do the 
same (see Fig. 4).



9
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef19868

9

There are many types of church plants – all are needed

Figure 3 A church-planting church: slide from Ric Thorpe’s presentation to the 
Diocese of Sheffield (Thorpe 2018)

Figure 4 A resource church: slide from Ric Thorpe’s presentation to the Diocese of 
Sheffield (Thorpe 2018)



10
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef19868

10

The implications of these images from Thorpe’s presentation are threefold. First, 
they affirm the integrity and importance of the parish church to be the Anglican 
centre for all those that live within the parish. The vicar still maintains the cure of 
souls of those who live in her parish. However, second, there is no indication that 
one service of worship in the church building is sufficient. The parish church is to 
be a missional church, serving all sections of society that happen to exist within 
its boundaries. Therefore, chaplaincy, planting, and new worshipping communi-
ties based outside of the church building will be required, creating a mixed ecology. 
Whilst this is far reaching within the parish, a third implication is the assertion that 
mission within the parish alone is not sufficient. Churches that can reach beyond the 
parish boundary to resource, encourage, or revitalize mission work in another area 
should do so, although Thorpe adds that this should be done in partnership with 
dioceses, as part of their wider strategy (Thorpe 2021: 9–10). Here, a mixed ecology 
of active partnership between churches and groups is seen as beneficial to mission 
within the parish and, in partnership with the diocese, for enabling missional work 
elsewhere.

A specific outworking of this resource church strategy could be seen in the Diocese 
of Truro through the Transforming Mission strategy (Diocese of Truro n.d.; 2018). 
The diocese covers the English county of Cornwall which is rural and coastal. The 
most populated town, Falmouth, is home to only 22,000 people, with a further 5000 
students based at nearby Penryn on the joint campus of Falmouth University and 
the University of Exeter.10 The mission strategy of the diocese, Transforming Mission, 
was made possible through SDF money and aimed to see six or seven new resource 
churches planted or designated across Cornwall over five years. Resourced through 
a new vicar who led the project, a pioneer minister, a student worker, a café manager, 
a worship pastor, and operations support, they aimed to reach families and students 
and see new congregations planted in cafés and on the student campus. There were 
different styles of church community across the hub including two existing parish 
churches (one in the Anglo-Catholic tradition – www.allsaintschurchfalmouth.co.uk), 
a new church plant (www.newstreetchurch.org), a pre-existing church-café commu-
nity, and further student outreach. By 2022, phase 2 was under way in Camborne, 
Truro, St Austell and Liskeard with similar aims (Diocese of Truro, n.d.). Again, the 
visualization of such a missional project leans towards a mixed ecology, with multiple 
churches, Christian communities and mission initiatives working together (see 
Fig. 5). Similar rural projects exist in other parts of the country, such as the Potting 
Shed resource church in the diocese of Southwell and Nottingham (https://www.
thepottingshedchurch.org/about-us). In these cases, some expectations and forms 

10 Data estimated in 2015 to exclude the outlying villages (Matthews 2017). University figures estimated 
from 2016 (https://www.fxplus.ac.uk/build).

http://www.allsaintschurchfalmouth.co.uk
http://www.newstreetchurch.org
https://www.thepottingshedchurch.org/about-us
https://www.thepottingshedchurch.org/about-us
https://www.fxplus.ac.uk/build


11
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef19868

11

of ministries were identified in advance. In Truro, the café and student campus were 
key. Other aspects of the ministry could be discerned contextually by the planting 
team/pioneers after the project has begun, giving a clear direction but leaving space 
for ecclesial imagination and missional responsiveness.

Figure 5 A visualization of the Transforming Mission Falmouth project (Diocese of 
Truro, 2018)

Convergence of pioneer and church planting 
approaches
Fresh expression thinking and traditional church planting, as evidenced in the 
HTB-style church plants or resource churches, are stereotypically understood 
to have different starting points. Fresh expressions are expected to arise from a 
context after a period of listening, through a process that is often referred to as the 



12
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef19868

12

serving-first journey (Moynagh 2017: 45). Because worship arises from the context, 
styles can vary and are sometimes creative or innovative. Those that engage contex-
tually to form fresh expressions of church are called pioneers. Traditional church 
plants, following what has been described as the worship-first journey (Moynagh 
2012: 206), usually start with a larger number of existing Christians gathering for 
worship in a new area, often replicating the style of the sending church. In the case of 
HTB church plants, this is usually evangelical-charismatic,. From this central service, 
momentum is built, and the congregation reaches out in mission to draw people 
into the church, and to faith. So, these demonstrate two seemingly different starting 
points to mission. I say “seemingly” here as there are clearly similarities between the 
two approaches too. Fresh expressions require a small group of committed Chris-
tians, usually with some links to what might be described as a “sending” church, 
to commit to engage contextually in an area. Likewise, although ‘worship-first’ 
church plants usually replicate a style of church, there are often contextual adap-
tations, particularly if these plants are in a differing socio-economic context to the 
sending church. Whilst describing the circumstances in which the models are used as 
“contrasting”, Moynagh notes the nuances and the over-generalizations of using any 
models to describe reality (2012: 206).

Diocesan strategies indicate a convergence of both these approaches into some-
thing resembling a mixed ecology encompassing many different forms of worshipping 
community operating supportively across an area. it is clearly discernible that Thor-
pe’s and Truro’s models have developed from traditional church-planting methods, 
rather than fresh expressions thinking. It is also clear that contextual methodolo-
gies influenced them too, hence I have likened them to mixed ecology approaches. 
In each case there is a central church (the resource church) out of which imaginative 
and pioneering ministries emerge. This marks a difference between these resource 
church models and the mixed ecology approaches of, say, Leicester or Carlisle 
dioceses or Transforming Wigan which are more fluid across an area. In practice, 
however, Thorpe’s resource church model does not deviate too far from the way in 
which most fresh expressions are started in relation to the missional ventures that 
happen within the parish. Only relatively few fresh expressions begin from diocesan 
initiatives external to the parish; most are started by a parish discerning a local need 
(Lings 2016: 191–2). Many fresh expressions continue to have a close relationship with 
the parish from which they sprang (Lings 2016: 101), some with the intention that they 
may never become entirely independent churches. Mixed ecology language is flex-
ible enough to encompass the variety of missional activity and worshipping commu-
nities that spring out of a central church such as through resource church models, 
as well as to include fresh expressions and traditional churches that find themselves 
co-existing in an area after a more pioneering “ground-up” starting point. From both 
these starting points, the convergence towards mixed ecology thinking can be seen, 



13
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef19868

13

and in many cases there is a central parish church that is either planted from or 
offers ongoing support to the new worshipping community.

What the national vision has done
Although there is clearly much more that can be said about the mixed ecology, I 
have limited myself in this article to demonstrating a convergence to a mixed ecology 
approaches over the last 10–15 years, before “mixed ecology” became part of the 
national Church of England strategy. To conclude, I will highlight three areas of rela-
tionship between the national vision, diocesan visions, and the general direction of 
travel, and why these are significant.

First, in terms of diocesan vision, Foulger points out that the language of ‘mixed 
ecology’ is now ‘universally accepted’ across the dioceses he surveyed, with the term 
being employed in the interviews he conducted (Foulger 2024: 34, 71). I am not going 
to contradict this, but I have found that the use of the phrase in vision statements, 
publicly facing documentation and websites is still relatively uncommon, even if 
the values or shape of the mixed ecology are clear. The phrase is being used more 
frequently, however, in descriptors of diocesan departments and in advertisements 
for key roles (e.g. Diocese of Carlisle 2024; Diocese of Oxford 2024). In this regard, 
the national vision has provided normative internal language for the dioceses in how 
they understand their visions and the direction of travel they are on, but, perhaps 
rightly, the language is not used in more public-facing material. In other words, the 
values of mixed ecology are becoming more pervasive due to the national vision.

Second, there has been a blurring of language and approach in terms of pioneer 
and planter. Pioneers, who started contextual fresh expressions, tended to be 
trained in contextual approaches (e.g. serving-first) locally or nationally through initi-
atives of the Fresh Expressions organization, or through lay or ordained pathways at 
theological colleges, whereas planters tended to be trained in the HTB planting style 
of “worship first”. Whilst my statements here are over-generalizations, my intent is 
to emphasise the contrasting contextual starting points, and different networks of 
support that the two groups had. Now, there is less of a distinction between the two 
as pioneers and planters are trained in both contextual and planting methods, and 
networks such as CCX include those innovating church in a variety of ways. Foulger, 
drawing on an independent review of SDF money, notes that dioceses tended to focus 
on plants in their funding bids, rather than fresh expressions (Strategic Investment 
Board 2022: 33; Foulger 2024: 71). The report makes recommendations on increasing 
the diversity of projects funded (Strategic Investment Board 2022: 9). Foulger rightly 
claims that mixed ecology language can help hold together the need for larger 
resourced church plants, with smaller fresh expressions or worshipping communi-
ties that often emerge from the work of a parish. Its inclusion in the national vision 



14
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef19868

14

emphasises the importance of a variety of new things to be started, including but not 
limited to large church plants. Both pioneers and planters fit into this as there is less 
distinction between the two ways of working.

My third aspect to note is that the relationship between the national, diocesan, 
and local visions and practice is and will always be complex. I have noted the direction 
of travel of the diocesan visions towards a mixed ecology way of thinking, but these 
visions would have been influenced by several factors. Innovative missional work 
by practitioners in the 1990s found its way into the Mission-shaped Church report, 
which further influenced national thinking, strategy, and structure through Bishop’s 
Mission Orders and the funding of the Fresh Expressions organization. This organiza-
tion, often supported by dioceses, amplified “fresh expressions” thinking by sharing 
stories, offering training, support, and points of connection to more would-be prac-
titioners, thus affecting local practice. Local practice influenced national concern 
which in turn further affected practice. Similarly, the church-planting initiatives of 
a relative few, notably HTB, in the 1980s and 90s then became part of the strategy 
for the Diocese of London which then overflowed into other dioceses. The designa-
tion of national funding for dioceses for new missional ventures also brought dioc-
esan strategy to the fore as it forced dioceses to ask missional questions of their 
strategy in order to be eligible for it. These strategies and funding then affected the 
ecclesial landscape on the ground. Moynagh rightly asserts that either top-down or 
bottom-up approaches alone would not have been sufficient for the mixed ecology to 
thrive. Diocesan intervention amplifies good practice, gives training and helps people 
see the possibility for local contextual missional ventures (Moynagh 2017: 99ff.).

The national mixed ecology vision also holds these things together; genuine 
contextual missional innovation still needs to come from the ground up, from those 
who know and work in their communities. The national vision and consequently dioc-
esan visions and strategies for the mixed ecology must recognise this complexity 
in relationship and seek to unearth the missional energy for localities to find and 
support the best course of action for a context. This may be by funding something 
big and new, but equally should be simply through local connection and training of 
people together to engage appropriately with their context. In this way, the initiative 
rests with the local practitioners, with diocesan support, and can give rise to truly 
contextual missional ventures. Diocesan strategy can have a role in amplifying these 
voices which, in turn, may then influence future diocesan vision or funding bids.

In the above, I have described a convergence to a mixed ecology landscape in 
the vision and strategies of the dioceses, and through a convergence of language 
and approach between fresh expression and church planting methods. The conver-
gence in the vision and strategies of dioceses was occurring even before the 2021 
national vision was agreed by synod. These took various forms, arose from both 
pioneering and resource church planting initiatives, and have been called a wide 
variety of things, but the general sense of direction was clear.



15
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef19868

15

I suggest that this convergence of diocesan visions towards the mixed ecology 
accentuates and encourages the connections or ‘active partnership’ vital to making 
it thrive. A mixed ecclesial landscape, whatever one may call it, is necessary to the 
mission and ministry of the church in contemporary society, and the active part-
nership is vital for mutual learning, resourcing, supporting, and growth. There-
fore, that dioceses are actively encouraging mixed ecology in a way that isn’t the 
lowest common denominator of different groups co-existing, leans towards creating 
resourcing, support, and structures for local connection as well as opportunities 
for wider training, connection, sharing of stories and support. This is the amplifica-
tion phase that Moynagh talks about in his innovation framework (Moynagh 2017: 
112–13). As stories are shared, innovation and creativity are fostered in others which, 
with the right support, leads to new things. Although the ideas need to be local and 
contextual, the diocese plays a role in shaping the structures that foster imagination. 
Therefore, the convergence of diocesan vision is important to the development of 
the mixed ecology – it emphasizes the active part both between the diocese and the 
new thing, and between different expressions of church in an area.

About the Author
Rev. Dr Andrew Dunlop is the Director of Mission and Ministry Development for the 
Diocese of Rochester in the Church of England. His previous roles include lecturing in 
Pioneer Ministry, Church Planting, Mixed Ecology, and Theological Reflection at Ridley 
Hall, Cambridge, and Cranmer Hall, Durham. He has had ministry experience in a city 
centre church in Plymouth, and as a pioneer minister in Northampton. Andrew’s 
research interests centre around the mixed ecology, how it is understood locally, 
and implemented at a diocesan and national level. He has recently completed a PhD 
on this subject, doing empirical research using Theological Action Research, through 
the University of Roehampton. Contact: andrew.dunlop@rochester.anglican.org

References
Billings, Alan. 2021. ‘What the C of E Can Learn from the Police’. Save the Parish (blog). 24 September. 

https://www.savetheparish.com/2021/09/25/what-the-c-of-e-can-learn-from-the-police/.
Church Army Research Unit. 2019. ‘An Audit of Fresh Expressions of Church: Diocese of Carlisle’. 

Sheffield: Church Army. https://www.godforall.org.uk/uploads/1/1/9/1/119134366/fresh_
expressions_in_the_diocese_of_carlise_copy.pdf.

Church of England. n.d. ‘The Church: A Christian Presence in Every Community’. n.d. Vocations 
Sunday | The Church of England. http://www.vocationsunday.org/.

———. 2004. Mission-Shaped Church: Church Planting and Fresh Expressions of Church in a Changing 
Context. Mission and Public Affairs. London: Church House Publishing.

Cottrell, Stephen. 2021. ‘GS2223 Simpler, Humbler, Bolder: A Church for the Whole Nation Which Is 
Christ Centred and Shaped by the Five Marks of Mission’, https://www.churchofengland.org/
sites/default/files/2021-06/GS%202223%20Vision%20and%20Strategy.pdf.

mailto:andrew.dunlop@rochester.anglican.org
https://www.savetheparish.com/2021/09/25/what-the-c-of-e-can-learn-from-the-police/
https://www.godforall.org.uk/uploads/1/1/9/1/119134366/fresh_expressions_in_the_diocese_of_carlise_copy.pdf
https://www.godforall.org.uk/uploads/1/1/9/1/119134366/fresh_expressions_in_the_diocese_of_carlise_copy.pdf
http://www.vocationsunday.org/
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/GS%202223%20Vision%20and%20Strategy.pdf
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/GS%202223%20Vision%20and%20Strategy.pdf


16
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef19868

16

Diocese of Birmingham. n.d. ‘Fresh Expressions’. https://www.cofebirmingham.com/info-for-par-
ishes/mission-learning-development/new-christian-communities/fresh-expressions/fresh-ex-
pressions.php.

Diocese of Carlisle. n.d. ‘The Flockton Mission Community: An Example Mission Community’. https://
slideplayer.com/slide/12842721/.

———, The United Reformed Church in Cumbria, and The Cumbria Methodist District. 2014. ‘A 
Strategy for Ministry in Cumbria’. https://www.carlislediocese.org.uk/uploads/932/Paper_Cii_A_
Strategy_for_Ministry_in_Cumbria.pdf.html.

Diocese of Chelmsford. n.d. ‘The Church of England – a Christian Presence in Every Community’. 
https://www.chelmsford.anglican.org/the-church-of-england-a-christian-presence-in-every-
community.

Diocese of Chichester. 2015. ‘Welcome Message: A Presence in Every Community’. Accessed 20 
December 2018. https://www.chichester.anglican.org/martin-cicestr-welcome-message/.

———. 2016. ‘Diocesan Vision For Growth’. https://www.chichester.anglican.org/documents/dioce-
san-booklets/diocesan-strategy-growth/.

———. 2020. ‘Vision for Growth 2020–2025’. https://cofechichester.contentfiles.net/media/docu-
ments/document/2020/01/NEW_Vision_Booklet_web.pdf.

———. 2021. ‘Diocese Awarded Significant Funds for City Projects’. 13 May. https://www.chichester.
anglican.org/glitter_news/2021/05/13/diocese-awarded-significant-funds-city-projects/.

Diocese of Ely. 2019a. ‘Fresh Expressions of Church’. 17 October. https://www.elydiocese.org/church-
in-action/fresh-expression-of-church/fresh-expression-of-church.php.

———. 2019b. ‘What Is a Development Officer?’ Diocese of Ely. 15 November. https://www.elydio-
cese.org/about/news-jobs-and-events/news-and-announcements/news/what-is-a-develop-
ment-officer.php.

———. 2021. ‘Living Ely2025 - a Summary’. 10 September. https://www.elydiocese.org/about/
strategy/living-ely2025/living-ely2025.php.

Diocese of Leicester. 2018a. ‘Church Commissioners Grant £5.34m to Fund Leicestershire’s 
Resourcing Churches’. Diocese of Leicester (blog). 11 July 2018. https://www.leicester.anglican.
org/church-commissioners-grant-5-34m-to-fund-leicestershires-resourcing-churches/.

Diocese of Leicester. 2018b. ‘Shaped by God’ (blog). 18 October. https://www.leicester.anglican.org/
about/shaped-by-god/.

Diocese of Liverpool. n.d. ‘Transforming Wigan’. https://www.liverpool.anglican.org/about-us/liver-
pool-dbf/sdf-projects/transforming-wigan/.

Diocese of Oxford. 2024. ‘Mission and Ministry’. 14 June. https://www.oxford.anglican.org/depart-
ments/mission-and-ministry/mission-and-ministry.

Diocese of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. 2020. ‘Webarchive: Our Vision’. 27 November. https://web.
archive.org/web/20201127074536/https://www.cofesuffolk.org/about-us/our-vision/.

———. 2024. ‘Our Vision - Diocese of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich’. 23 September. https://www.
cofesuffolk.org/about-us/our-vision/.

Diocese of Truro. 2018. ‘Transforming Mission: Equipping the Church to Reach the Missing Genera-
tions (Summer 2018 Update)’. https://www.trurodiocese.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/
DOT-Transforming-Mission-A5-June-2018-FINAL-006.pdf.

Diocese of Winchester. n.d. ‘Student Evangelism –Winchester’. https://www.winchester.anglican.
org/student-evangelism/.

———. n.d. ‘Who We Are’. https://winchester.anglican.org/who-we-are/.
Dunlop, Andrew. 2018. Out of Nothing: A Cross-Shaped Approach to Fresh Expressions. London: SCM 

Press.
———. 2025. ‘Catholicity and Connection: An Ecclesiological Framework for the Mixed Ecology 

Discerned through Research in an Anglican Team Ministry.’ PhD, University of Roehampton.
Foulger, William. 2018. ‘Present in Every Place: The Church of England and the Parish Principle’. 

Doctoral thesis, Durham University. http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/12856/.

https://www.cofebirmingham.com/info-for-parishes/mission-learning-development/new-christian-communities/fresh-expressions/fresh-expressions.php
https://www.cofebirmingham.com/info-for-parishes/mission-learning-development/new-christian-communities/fresh-expressions/fresh-expressions.php
https://www.cofebirmingham.com/info-for-parishes/mission-learning-development/new-christian-communities/fresh-expressions/fresh-expressions.php
https://slideplayer.com/slide/12842721/
https://slideplayer.com/slide/12842721/
https://www.carlislediocese.org.uk/uploads/932/Paper_Cii_A_Strategy_for_Ministry_in_Cumbria.pdf.html
https://www.carlislediocese.org.uk/uploads/932/Paper_Cii_A_Strategy_for_Ministry_in_Cumbria.pdf.html
https://www.chelmsford.anglican.org/the-church-of-england-a-christian-presence-in-every-community
https://www.chelmsford.anglican.org/the-church-of-england-a-christian-presence-in-every-community
https://www.chichester.anglican.org/martin-cicestr-welcome-message/
https://ajol.ateneo.edu/landas/articles/158/1783
https://cofechichester.contentfiles.net/media/documents/document/2020/01/NEW_Vision_Booklet_web.pdf
https://cofechichester.contentfiles.net/media/documents/document/2020/01/NEW_Vision_Booklet_web.pdf
https://www.chichester.anglican.org/glitter_news/2021/05/13/diocese-awarded-significant-funds-city-projects/
https://www.chichester.anglican.org/glitter_news/2021/05/13/diocese-awarded-significant-funds-city-projects/
https://www.elydiocese.org/church-in-action/fresh-expression-of-church/fresh-expression-of-church.php
https://www.elydiocese.org/church-in-action/fresh-expression-of-church/fresh-expression-of-church.php
https://www.elydiocese.org/about/news-jobs-and-events/news-and-announcements/news/what-is-a-development-officer.php
https://www.elydiocese.org/about/news-jobs-and-events/news-and-announcements/news/what-is-a-development-officer.php
https://www.elydiocese.org/about/news-jobs-and-events/news-and-announcements/news/what-is-a-development-officer.php
https://www.elydiocese.org/about/strategy/living-ely2025/living-ely2025.php
https://www.elydiocese.org/about/strategy/living-ely2025/living-ely2025.php
https://www.leicester.anglican.org/church-commissioners-grant-5-34m-to-fund-leicestershires-resourcing-churches/
https://www.leicester.anglican.org/church-commissioners-grant-5-34m-to-fund-leicestershires-resourcing-churches/
https://www.leicester.anglican.org/about/shaped-by-god/
https://www.leicester.anglican.org/about/shaped-by-god/
https://www.liverpool.anglican.org/about-us/liverpool-dbf/sdf-projects/transforming-wigan/
https://www.liverpool.anglican.org/about-us/liverpool-dbf/sdf-projects/transforming-wigan/
https://www.oxford.anglican.org/departments/mission-and-ministry/mission-and-ministry
https://www.oxford.anglican.org/departments/mission-and-ministry/mission-and-ministry
https://web.archive.org/web/20201127074536/https
https://web.archive.org/web/20201127074536/https
http://www.cofesuffolk.org/about-us/our-vision/
https://www.cofesuffolk.org/about-us/our-vision/
https://www.cofesuffolk.org/about-us/our-vision/
https://www.trurodiocese.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/DOT-Transforming-Mission-A5-June-2018-FINAL-006.pdf
https://www.trurodiocese.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/DOT-Transforming-Mission-A5-June-2018-FINAL-006.pdf
https://www.winchester.anglican.org/student-evangelism/
https://www.winchester.anglican.org/student-evangelism/
https://winchester.anglican.org/who-we-are/
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/12856/


17
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef19868

17

———. 2024. ‘New Things: A Theological Investigation into the Work of Starting New Churches 
across 11 Dioceses in the Church of England’. Centre for Church Planting Theology and Research, 
Cranmer Hall. https://www.cranmerhall.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/New-Things-Final-1.
pdf.

Hutton, Kate. 2023. ‘Evaluation of Transforming Wigan’. Diocese of Liverpool: Integras Consulting.
Lings, George. 2016. ‘The Day of Small Things: An Analysis of Fresh Expressions of Church in 21 

Dioceses of the Church of England’. Sheffield: Church Army Research Unit. https://www.chur-
charmy.org/Articles/516318/What_we_do/Research_Unit/Fresh_expressions_of.aspx.

Lossky, Vladimir. 1976. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Crestwood, NY : St. Vladimir’s 
Seminary Press. http://archive.org/details/mysticaltheology0000loss.

Matthews, Chris. 2017. ‘Which Town in Cornwall Has the Highest Population? The Answer Might 
Surprise You’. Cornwalllive. 26 January 2017. http://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/
town-cornwall-highest-population-answer-365330.

Milbank, Alison. 2023. The Once and Future Parish. London: SCM Press.
Moynagh, Michael. 2012. Church for Every Context: An Introduction to Theology and Practice. London: 

SCM Press.
———. 2017. Church in Life: Innovation, Mission and Ecclesiology. London: SCM Press.
Müller, Sabrina. 2019. ‘Fresh Expressions of Church and the Mixed Economy’. International Review of 

Mission 108 (2): 241–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/irom.12282.
Nye, William. 2021. ‘The Church of England: Some Personal Reflections on Structure and Mission’. Eccle-

siastical Law Journal 23 (2). https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ecclesiastical-law-journal/
article/abs/church-of-england-some-personal-reflections-on-structure-and-mission/8CD-
47119D591CB65DCFE0A2F0003E2C5.

Olsworth-Peter, Ed. 2024. Mixed Ecology: Inhabiting an Integrated Church. London: SPCK. https://spck-
publishing.co.uk/mixed-ecology.

‘Our Life in Christ: The Bishop’s Charge 2015’. 2015. Diocese of Chichester. https://www.chichester.
anglican.org/bishops-charge/.

Passmore, Richard. 2020. ‘Mixed Ecology a Language of Protest since 2011?’ Sunday Papers – The 
Supplement (blog). 8 October. http://www.sundaypapers.org.uk/?p=3992.

Perrin, Ruth, and Ed Olsworth-Peter. 2021. ‘The Mixed Ecologists: Experiences of Mixed Ecology 
Ministry in the Church of England’. Focussed Study 2. The Living Ministry Research Project. 
London: Church House. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2021-05/
Focussed%20Study%202%20-%20The%20Mixed%20Ecologists.pdf.

Seeley, Martin. 2019. ‘GS Misc 1224 Ministry for a Christian Presence in Every Community’. https://
www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/GS%20Misc%201224%20Ministry%20
for%20a%20Christian%20Presence.pdf.

‘St Peter’s Brighton – Bright City’. n.d. https://stpetersbrighton.org/bright-city/.
Strategic Investment Board. 2022. ‘Independent Review of Lowest Income Communities Funding and 

Strategic Development Funding’. Church of England. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/
default/files/2022-03/irls-final-report-2.pdf.

Thorpe, Ric. 2018. ‘Sheffield Diocesan Development Day: Church Growth, Church Planting and 
Resource Churches’. Sheffield, October 6. https://www.sheffield.anglican.org/strategy-launch.

———. 2021. Resource Churches: A Story of Church Planting and Revitalisation across the Nation. London: 
The Gregory Centre for Church Multiplication.

https://www.cranmerhall.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/New-Things-Final-1.pdf
https://www.cranmerhall.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/New-Things-Final-1.pdf
https://www.churcharmy.org/Articles/516318/What_we_do/Research_Unit/Fresh_expressions_of.aspx
https://www.churcharmy.org/Articles/516318/What_we_do/Research_Unit/Fresh_expressions_of.aspx
http://archive.org/details/mysticaltheology0000loss
http://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/town-cornwall-highest-population-answer-365330
http://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/town-cornwall-highest-population-answer-365330
https://doi.org/10.1111/irom.12282
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ecclesiastical-law-journal/article/abs/church-of-england-some-personal-reflections-on-structure-and-mission/8CD47119D591CB65DCFE0A2F0003E2C5
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ecclesiastical-law-journal/article/abs/church-of-england-some-personal-reflections-on-structure-and-mission/8CD47119D591CB65DCFE0A2F0003E2C5
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ecclesiastical-law-journal/article/abs/church-of-england-some-personal-reflections-on-structure-and-mission/8CD47119D591CB65DCFE0A2F0003E2C5
https://spckpublishing.co.uk/mixed-ecology
https://spckpublishing.co.uk/mixed-ecology
https://www.chichester.anglican.org/bishops-charge/
https://www.chichester.anglican.org/bishops-charge/
http://www.sundaypapers.org.uk/?p=3992
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2021-05/Focussed%20Study%202%20-%20The%20Mixed%20Ecologists.pdf
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2021-05/Focussed%20Study%202%20-%20The%20Mixed%20Ecologists.pdf
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/GS%20Misc%201224%20Ministry%20for%20a%20Christian%20Presence.pdf
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/GS%20Misc%201224%20Ministry%20for%20a%20Christian%20Presence.pdf
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/GS%20Misc%201224%20Ministry%20for%20a%20Christian%20Presence.pdf
https://stpetersbrighton.org/bright-city/
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/irls-final-report-2.pdf
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/irls-final-report-2.pdf
https://www.sheffield.anglican.org/strategy-launch

