The underlying motivation for the set-up of HARVEST was the desire to do church relationally. In the 1990’s Cell Church movements around the world were calling the church to re-discover the central importance of networks of small groups as the basic building blocks of church life. Not just traditional church with a small group add-on component, but a challenge to see the Cell as Church in its own right.

Our desire was to try this out, in practice. Initially, we wondered if it would be possible to do it with one of the Parish Church Congregations, while bringing in a Staff member to look after the more traditional needs of Parish life. After long and detailed consideration with the (then) senior leaders of Canterbury Diocese, it was concluded that would not be possible. If we wanted to try this, then the only option was to hand over the Parish, plant out, start from scratch. That was what happened!

One of the most significant features of the HARVEST experiment was that it would stay loyal to the denomination. We would not simply launch out on our own, as yet another group who felt that we had all the answers, and did not need the overseeing eyes of a parent body. Specifically, HARVEST would remain under Episcopal oversight. That meant that we would be in good relationship with our Bishop! Ultimately, if he said we could do it, we would, if he said we couldn’t then we wouldn’t, whatever “it” might be!

We had arrived at that decision via the Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888. This had been a nineteenth century attempt to define the bare essentials of Anglicanism. What would enable us to remain within the Church of England fold, but yet be truly freed from a mass of traditional expectations? The Quadrilateral had simply listed these four elements: The Scriptures, The Creeds, The Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, always with the use of the words of institution – “on the night that he was betrayed…”) and oversight by a Bishop. That was it. Nothing more. No special buildings, or robes, set prayers, or Councils. We could be Anglican and that was all it would take. The strength of that position was that we could be free, but kept accountable. We would be in relationship with a wider body, with a history and a wealth of experience. We could be radical, because someone else would cover our backs, meet the wider needs and cause us to reflect and learn at every step. We felt that we were being allowed to take risks, not just for ourselves, but so that the wider church could learn from how we got on, succeed or fail.

More