






























Ecclesial Futures
2025 – Volume 6 – Issue 1

53
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22491

A R T I C L E

DOI: 10.54195/ef22491

How do new forms of Church emerge in 
mainline churches and what does it tell 
about patterns, dynamics and competition?

Thomas Schlegel

Abstract
This article deals with the conditions for the emergence of new forms of church, espe-
cially in the perspective of top-down dynamics: how do Bottom and Top relate to each 
other in the development of new churches? To do research in this realm can help church 
leaders in inititating new churches: Is it possible to control it in a more direct way – 
not only by establishing the right conditions? I focus in this paper on data collected 
from the “Erprobungsräume” (church start-ups) in the Evangelical Church of Central 
Germany. The results contradict in a way the powerful narrative that new churches 
emerge at the grassroots level far away from traditional institutions. There are basi-
cally four ways top and bottom interactt. It would be interesting to validate the results 
in other areas/churches.

Keywords: New forms of church, Church innovation, Pioneering, Church institutions, 
Movements, Top-down or bottom-up church change?

1 A German question
This article deals with the conditions for the emergence of new forms of church, 
especially in the perspective of top-down dynamics: Where does leadership foster 
what is growing at grassroots level? Where are initiatives thwarted (or initiated) – 
from above? How do bottom and top relate to each other in the development of new 
churches?

“Above” and “below” are understood in very German, very traditional terms. 
“Above” coincides here with the Volkskirche institution and its administration, juris-
diction and long history. And “below” should be understood here – a bit simpli-
fied – as movement, referring to the fluid and dynamic aspects that can be found in 
churches mostly between people, during gatherings, in relationships and networks.



54
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22491

54

My paper is therefore about the interplay of actors within the Volkskirche – and 
the logics for which they stand. My contribution refers to a concept of church theory 
that I would like to briefly outline for our international friends:

A concept of church theory was introduced by Eberhard Hauschildt, an emeritus 
practical theologian from Bonn. He compared our “Volkskirche” with a hybrid at an 
EKD synod in 2007. Different social forms and logics can be found everywhere and 
always effective. And instead of playing one off against the other or devaluing it as 
“not the real church”, he advises that all three social forms should always be taken 
into account in church activities (Hauschildt 2007).

He adopted this idea of a hybrid from sociologists who observed the hybrid 
nature of organizations (see Evers, Rauch and Stitz 2002). According to Hauschildt 
- and many others like him - this can also be observed in the German “Volkskirche”. 
Since then, this has been a popular heuristic tool for reflecting on processes in the 
Protestant church and understanding its actions.

An actual issue of practical theology is dedicated to new forms of church within 
the EKD context (Schlegel 2024). I was asked to look at the intereplay between innsti-
tution and movement in the emergence of new churches. Despite the German back-
ground, I think this question is also interesting from an international perspective. 
There is a powerful narrative circulating that new churches emerge at the grassroots 
level amongst people with a missionary enthusiasm, far away from traditional insti-
tutions. The journey to a Fresh X illustrates this widespread image (Moynagh 2012 
195–212). But is it the whole truth? Is it right that the institution does not play an 
active role in the emergence except in the qualification (Befähigung) of Christians? 
Could the institution promote new forms of church in a more direct way – through 
authorization (Bevollmächtigung) for example?

I try to answer this question by looking back at the developments here in Central 
Germany. A church innovation programme in one of the 20 EKD churches has tried 
since 2015 to organize financial support and stimulate new plantings – “Erprobungs-
räume” (experimental spaces). The Evangelical Church of Central Germany (EKM) 
was thus the first to introduce the idea of church planting or fresh expressions in the 
German context.

2 When church emerges
So how do new forms of church emerge? “New” forms of church emerge in the same 
way as “old” ones. The church is first and foremost the description of a calling and 
sending process: where “little sheep … hear the voice of their shepherd” (Dingel 
2014: 459, 22), where the Holy Spirit awakens faith through the Word and gathers 
people. Wherever the Church of Jesus Christ is to be found, it is an event, a process 
(cf. Barth 1953: 727–8), and in this sense the Church is always new and innovative, 



55
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22491

55

quite independently of the concrete social forms. This is obvious, but by no means 
banal: it makes sense of the invisible work of the Spirit making Church to be Church 
amidst fixed plans, formats and structures.

The second insight might be also obvious but by no means banal: “No man builds 
the church, but Christ alone” (Bonhoeffer 1984: 375–6). The subject of new forms 
of church is therefore neither the leaders “above” nor the basis “below”; it is Jesus 
Christ, as with all forms of church.

In a way, this is comparable with innovative processes. They are unavailable and 
contingent. They cannot simply be created. If you want something new to happen, 
you can create favourable framework conditions that make the occurrence more 
likely, but innovations cannot be guaranteed.1

Such framework conditions for innovation have been described again and again. 
The pioneers, entrepreneurs or heroes are of the greatest importance: people want 
to change something and infect people with their energy; teams and networks are 
formed; a sense of unity is created and a collective subject emerges. Soft factors, 
corresponding attitudes and mindsets make change tangible, but also fun for those 
involved: agility, openness, error-friendliness and perseverance are just a few exam-
ples. Tapping into resources, public relations work, good process and planning 
management are also among the factors without which it (usually) does not work. 
A certain amount of pressure to change, which creates a sense of urgency – and 
scope for playful experimentation – are also among the ingredients for getting a new 
project started (Schlegel 2016).

3 New congregations in the constitutional church: 
the structural interplay

So how do new congregations emerge in the German regional churches? There are 
basically four different ways.

First, there are the initiatives that come from Christians. Charismatic individuals 
or groups get things moving with their concerns: charitable activities in a neighbour-
hood, games for children, opportunities for bereaved people to meet or spiritual life 
at the train station. Sooner or later, structures are formed from these initiatives, they 
become associations, can raise funds and conclude agreements with the church.

The Christians involved are, to a greater or lesser extent, part of a congrega-
tion, but their joint initiative is not as such part of a church activity. It grows, meta-
phorically speaking, on a “greenfield site”. Such grassroots start-ups represent the 

1 “It is impossible to plan real innovation. . . . So, how does innovation take place? Only by not concen-
trating on results, but in the arrangement of stimulating processes.” (Paas 2012: 2).



56
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22491

56

bottom-up type of innovation, which can be found in various forms and is often 
regarded as a model for new forms of church. Of the 65 Erprobungsräume in the 
EKM, around 16 initiatives (25%) can be categorized as this type of development.2

But there are also such initiatives within church organizations. The approach is 
similar to that just described, but they are formed within their organizational unit or 
act as its representatives in public. A church community wants to develop an unused 
car park into a meeting centre. In a village, a parish council resists merging with 
its neighbours, expands the vicarage and starts a series of events. Or the teaching 
staff at a Protestant primary school form a group to establish a school church in a 
deprived area. In contrast to the previous type, a legal entity forms the umbrella 
under which this initiative can grow bottom-up. However, the initiative itself does 
not come about through a formal decision by the responsible committees; instead, it 
emerges based on the charisma and concerns of individuals. Of the 65 Erprobungs-
räume in the EKM, around 24 initiatives (37%) are of this type.

And finally, there is the other way round: parishes, church districts or congrega-
tions pass resolutions in the relevant committees, release suitable personnel and 
provide the necessary resources so that people can come together and a commu-
nity dynamic emerges. A church district rents a shop in a pedestrianized area, hires 
a pastor and offers him professional support. In order to rebuild churches in rural 
areas, a pastor – equipped with a bus, coffee and chairs – offers mobile pastoral 
care. An association which emerged from a grassroots movement, may go on to 
rent suitable rooms in socially deprived areas, sending staff and starting the same 
programme as in twelve other places in Germany. This approach, which reminds me 
of strategic church planting (Paas 2016: 31–49), is an indirect procedure because it 
gathers together the supposed ingredients of church innovations, but cannot ensure 
the actual emergence of a new church. This is true in social and theological terms: it 
remains uncertain whether movements will grow and whether the Holy Spirit will call 
people. What is certain, however, is the framework: legal clarity, financial resources 
and full-time support characterize the work right from the start. Of the 65 Erpro-
bungsräume in the EKM, 16 projects (25%) can be attributed to this third type.

Another variation is when the framework conditions are not created locally or 
for a specific project, but rather the aim is to bring about innovation through struc-
tural measures, educational initiatives or special incentives. Pastors in a region are 
relieved of administrative tasks so that they can initiate small missionary initiatives in 
congregations. In one church district, a start-up coaching programme is being estab-
lished; in another, an employee is specifically looking for Christians in the villages 
who can be called to take responsibility in local grassroots teams. Institutions are 

2 According to the “Masterliste Erprobungsräume (Stand November 2023)” and the application forms.



57
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22491

57

changing their culture and rules. In the EKM, nine programmes belong to this fourth 
type (14%), and the “Erprobungsräume” programme can also be categorized here.

4 “Above” and “below”: How they work together
Institution and movement are intertwined. Only the first type does not actually 
require the mainline Volkskirche. It only comes into play later, but does not have to. 
In types 3 and 4, the movement only comes into play later, but the whole thing does 
not work without it. Simply creating favourable conditions for new forms of being 
church does not guarantee that they will emerge. Nevertheless, the indirect path of 
types 3 and 4 is interesting for institutional players: their own control logic, which 
functions via committee work and financial allocations, hardly allows for any other 
path than the formal one.

Legally binding resolutions and procedural certainty offer emerging movements 
a level of security that should not be underestimated; they can offer reliable support 
in co-operation and exploratory travel. The institutional framework means that 
employment relationships are less precarious, cash flows are regulated, spaces can 
be utilized and external communication simplified: as a partner or part of a church 
body, you generally enjoy trust in society.

However, there is a fine line: security requirements, standards in administration 
and collective labour agreements can also be stifling. New forms of being church are 
quickly overwhelmed by the church’s regulatory system; they need it “lighter”. If an 
institution wants to promote movement, it will not be able to ignore its own rules or 
interpret them liberally, possibly on a local and temporary basis.

Emerging new churches require a willingness on the institutional side to engage 
and follow their logic. Conflicts are inevitable here, because the degree of accept-
ance cannot be formally determined, but must be negotiated individually. Commu-
nication and trust are essential.3 Where there is a lack of trust, even the weakest 
parish can slow down or prevent the strongest experimental space – because it has 
legal stability, is integrated into the church system and enjoys local trust.

To summarize: from an institutional point of view, there is less to do than to let 
things go: spaces must be kept open for inititiatives to arise. “The best approach 
we have been able to develop has removed obstacles rather than creating new 
templates or strategies.”4 These can be open spaces that have already been created 

3 “The biggest challenge for the Fresh Expressions in the UK came from not talking carefully enough” 
(Croft 2016: 19). 

4 Essential was the “careful relaxation of structures to give the new churches space and time to grow”, 
because “we need facilitation and creativity rather than regulation and risk exclusion.” (Croft 2016: 19).



58
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22491

58

by the withdrawal of infrastructure or that exist alongside the institution, or institu-
tional niches that are utilized by initiatives, through to the deliberate defining of a 
framework to establish a climate in which the emergence of new types of church is 
more likely.

This means that innovations will only occur where institutions consciously relin-
quish their control and allow, and in the best case even promote, other patterns. 
These are the critical edges from which renewal comes. As such, they are essential 
for inflexible, bureaucratic large institutions – all the more so in view of the current 
dynamics of change.

But do the incubators need the shelter of church institutions? They can develop 
their projects according to their own rules, so why do they need church habitats? 
It is important to differentiate here: if initiatives grow within church congregations 
or are initiated by church districts, they are already located in the church body and 
are usually dependent on a “top” in terms of legal or financial independence. So the 
questions do not arise here: they only enjoy the freedom that is granted to them. In 
return, they are offered a reliable level of security.

The situation is different for those that arise independently of church structures 
or are affiliated with other organizations. They exist outside the church hierarchy 
and are not structurally or legally dependent. Nevertheless, they seek contact with 
church representatives or are open to it.

An ecumenical initiative at the railway station in Erfurt would like a visit from the 
regional bishop and a project of a private foundation would like to be considered 
an Erprobungsraum of the EKM. Why? They did not apply for financial support. Is it 
because of the close ties of persons that have developed in the past? But free-church 
initiatives are usually also interested in the Protestant church. They like to be an 
Erprobungsraum. They might gain trust in society if they belong to the established 
church. It might be that their common desire to communicate the gospel in a secular 
context is a binding element. We need more research here.

The innovation programmes of the churches offer attractive financial support 
and an innovation network with inspiring educational opportunities and exchange 
between colleagues. Nevertheless, the connection usually remains loose and is 
organized on an equal footing as partners. Although they are bottom-up initiatives, 
they do not want to be seen as innovations somewhere down there.

Attempts to integrate them structurally into the system regularly fail. This may 
be sobering for the Protestant church because the new forms of church are not offi-
cially part of the organized church. Their visitors do not become members, either in 
the project or in the Protestant church. The connection to others can be described 
as a network based on shared content rather than formal ties. However, this may 



59
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22491

59

be precisely the innovation that is expected from these marginalized groups: they 
represent a form of church that belongs to the future.5

5 Institution versus movement?
There it tension between traditional parishes and other forms of church. There 
will be different patterns and values, different styles of piety, appropriate forms of 
communication and other self-presentations. Both vie for attention, resources and 
the authority to interpret how church really is.

Such competition can be seen in the innovation programmes of German churches 
(Pohl-Patalong 2022: 462) – as well as in the UK since the emergence of Fresh Expres-
sions. However, a careful analysis was able to dispel the concerns there: “Fears that 
the overflowing of parish boundaries was a creeping wave, rendering these markers 
meaningless and spreading unprincipled competition, have no more fuel for that 
view than before. Fears for the parish look exaggerated” (Church Army’s Research 
Unit 2013: 68). In Germany, new congregations often emerge within the church struc-
ture and, where they grow independently, they are generally interested in a fruitful 
relationship with the established church. They benefit from each other in terms of 
content, spirituality, style etc. and being together is usually attractive for both sides. 
“The pioneers need the church leaders to stay connected and to be supported in real-
ising new possibilities. The church leaders need the loyal radicals to keep engaged, 
challenged and refreshed by those at the very edges of the life of the church” (Croft 
2016: 20 (see fn. 9)).

Institution can handle movement and movement can handle institution. 
However, the intertwining also implies moving away from the preferred pattern. For 
church leaders, for example, there is a great temptation to “build a large internal 
church structure, a programme full of activities . . . or detailed guidelines”. But what 
is needed instead is “simplicity, open eyes, listening ears, time, prayer and open-
ness to the Holy Spirit” (Croft 2016: 19 (see fn. 9)). To get to the projects and listen 
to the pioneers fosters more innovation in the church than new laws or mission 
committees. Something similar, but vice versa, could be said about pioneers who 
start working in church committees or get involved in the synod. This kind of activity 
changes their own operating mode and points to a “special form of ‘hybrid figure’“ 
in church innovation programmes (Pohl-Patalong 2022: 458 (see fn. 14)). Of course, 

5 Richard Passmore (Diocese of Carlisle) appreciates especially those on the edge for the established 
system when he writes: “These were set up to be pathfinders, to constructively disrupt, to be innova-
tive, to playfully push the boundaries of orthodoxy and to embrace the heretical imperative of chal-
lenging the status quo” (Passmore 2018: 25).



60
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22491

60

intercultural competence is needed for both actors. At best, this deviation is a contri-
bution to their own future and thus increases adaptability and stability. Then the 
tense relationship should lead to fruitful cooperation.

About the Author
Thomas Schlegel, b. 1973 in Weimar, received his PhD with a dissertation on Karl 
Barth at Jena University and Princeton Theological Seminary. After a time as pastor 
in Munich and Biberschlag (Thür) he was associate at the Research Institute for Evan-
gelism and Church Development at the Greifswald University (2009–14) and later at 
the Centre for Empowerment Studies at the University of Halle (2023–25). Church 
innovation, secularity in Eastern Germany and the mechanisms of shrinking were his 
research interests. He was one of the designers and head of the “Erprobungsräume” 
(Experimental Spaces) – a process to foster new forms of being church. Since 2025 he 
has been Director of “midi” – the Think Tank of the Evangelical Church of Germany in 
Berlin. Contact: Thomas.Schlegel@theologie.uni-halle

References
Barth, Karl. 1953. Die kirchliche Dogmatik: Die Lehre von der Versöhnung, Band IV, 1. Zollikon-Zürich: 

Evangelischer Verlag AG.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. 1984. Predigten – Auslegungen – Meditationen: Vol. 1: 1925–1945 (ed. by Otto 

Dudzus). München: Christian Kaiser Verlag.
Church Army’s Research Unit. 2013. Church Growth Research Project: Report on Strand 3b: An anal-

ysis of fresh expressions of Church and church plants begun in the period 1992–2012. Available 
at https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/church_growth_research_
fresh_expressions_-_strand_3b_oct13_-_the_report.pdf (14.05.2025).

Croft, Steven. 2016. “Nine Lessons for a Mixed Economy Church” in Pompe, Hans-Hermann and 
Todjeras, Patrick and Witt, Carla (eds). 2016. Fresh X – Frisch.Neu.Innovativ: Und es ist Kirche. 
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag: 13–20.

Dingel, Irene (ed.). 2014. Die Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche. Quellen und Mate-
rialien. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Evers, Adalbert, Ulrich Rauch and Uta Stitz, 2002. Von öffentlichen Einrichtungen zu sozialen Unterne-
hmen Hybride Organisationsformen im Bereich sozialer Dienstleistungen. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Hauschildt, Eberhard. 2007. “Hybrid evangelische Großkirche vor einem Schub an Organisationswer-
dung: Anmerkungen zum Impulspapier »Kirche der Freiheit« des Rates der EKD und zur Zukunft 
der evangelischen Kirche zwischen Kongregationalisierung, Filialisierung und Regionalisierung, 
Pastoraltheologie 96 (1): 56–66.

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

Paas, Stefan. 2012. “Church Planting and Church Renewal”, Journal of Missional Practice Autumn 2012: 
2–11.

———. 2016. Church Planting in the Secular West: Learning from the European Experience. Grand Rapids, 
MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Passmore, Richard. 2018. “Transparent Operations: Real Relationships and Constructive Disruption”, 
ANVIL: Journal of Theology and Mission 34 (3): 24–8.

mailto:Thomas.Schlegel@theologie.uni-halle
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/church_growth_research_fresh_expressions_-_strand_3b_oct13_-_the_report.pdf
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/church_growth_research_fresh_expressions_-_strand_3b_oct13_-_the_report.pdf


61
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22491

61

Pohl-Patalong, Uta. 2022. “Kirche in neuen Formen: Ein kirchentheoretischer Kommentar zu den 
Erprobungsräumen”, in Schlegel, Thomas and Kleemann, Juliane (eds). 2022. Erprobungsräume: 
Andere Gemeindeformen in der Landeskirche,Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2nd ed.: 450–67.

Schlegel, Thomas. 2024. “Wie entstehen neue Formen von Kirche – im Wechselspiel der Ebenen und 
Logiken?” Praktische Theologie 59 (1): 146–52.

——— et al. 2016. “Die Anfangsphase sozial-missionarischer Innovationen oder: Wie hat alles 
begonnen?” In Kirchenamt der EKD (ed.). 2016. Freiraum und Innovationsdruck: Der Beitrag ländli-
cher Kirchenentwicklung in „peripheren Räumen“ zur Zukunft der evangelischen Kirche. Leipzig: Evan-
gelische Verlagsanstalt: 316–41.


	Thomas Schlegel
	How do new forms of Church emerge in mainline churches and what does it tell about patterns, dynamics and competition?

