Category Archives: Zzzz … Old Stuff

Emerging church as a manifestation of our subcultures weakness PART 2

Posted on by
11

Often interpreted as a place of shelter and support for birds, the mustard seed of Jesus has indeed grown into a huge tree, but the birds are scavengers that have taken the seed of the word from the world, and are now a great evil harbouring in the branches of the church, that over time has corrupted it. The seed of the word has been genetically modified and what has been re-sown into the world is only a shadow of it’s former self.

A sweeping statement, and I know there are good and bad, but I wanted to start with this alternative interpretation of the Mustard seed, as I seek to re frame church in order to highlight and recognise the need for change.

Over time the corruption has led to a multi-faceted dualism, that splits worship between lifestyle or an activity, sees church as activity rather than a community, changed the inclusive kingdom of Jesus to an exclusive club, and reduced prayer to a time rather than a constant. So how do we progress if as in the last post, radical change is seen as inappropriate, and evolution is part of this trees sub cultural weakness. (Read yesterday’s post to see how this fits)

One thing we can take from the emerging church is the willingness to experiment, but we need to experiment from a different starting point. One that is different to the multi-faceted dualism, but which starts with defining Church in the light of the whole of the word, rather than one that focuses on style or a single activity. An emerging church that does not address mission, or is about a group of people coming together to worship in ways that they can relate to stemming from their cultural experience, cannot be church. Whilst I acknowledge the emerging churches would hope to develop a more holistic approach (and many have), there is still much to do.

We need to reconnect church with a life of worship (thus redeeming worship), reconnect church with prayer that never ceases (redeeming prayer) and by doing so to reconnect church with the life of faith and church the whole of our life.

Therefore a new definition of Church in the post- Christendom west that I would suggest is a way of being and living that is a series of chaotic but intentional encounters with God, one another, and the world, founded on the holistic teaching of Christ.

We need a community led approach to church that is inclusive of outsiders, and exhibits this chaotic but intentional way of being. I would advocate a valuing and engagement of all that each member of community brings, regardless of whether it is deemed as secular or sacred because through the redemptive process of reflection (see Outside In part 2) even that which seemed wrong or difficult can add to help us understand God, connect with one another and engage the world.

I will post what I think this can/may look like in practice tomorrow.

Emerging church as a manifestation of our subcultures weakness

Posted on by
8

Regular readers and people who know me may have guessed from the last few posts I have been mulling something over re the church thing. Annie has been looking at worship and Conrad makes a great response, outlining a positive wholistic approach to worship/life.

(Conrad in response to Annie) When Paul talks in Romans 12:1 about your whole life being an act of worship, he would be horrified if he thought the Christians were mistaking a life of faith for worship, as horrified as James, who said faith without works is dead, would be if Christians started taking that to mean social action was the same thing as faith.
Conrad goes on too ask
What’s my subculture’s weakness? If you’re in a place where you’re likely to neglect the actions, what the New Testament wants of you is not merely works, but a faith that isn’t lacking works. But if you’re in a place where everything has to be about us or the effects we have or the numbers we win — about what we get out of it or someone else gets out of it, then maybe it’s time to be told that there’s a time for prayer and worship that is about God and him only. The Christians’ true worship is more than this, but it isn’t less.

My initial response (in Annies comments) was around a wondering if there is something more in Conrads comments that stems from a confusion around the kingdom and church. I started arguing in Off the Beaten Track that they are far closer to each other than evangelicalism sees. Our current approach to church and worship is discontinuous with this kingdom perspective of wholeness and shalomness that we should be progressing and to me is what Conrad was on about in his first comment when he was balancing James (deeds) and Corinthians (worship) so brilliantly. I still think that we may need a paradigm jump in our definitions of church rather than the emerging shift that is going on which often seems to focus on style rather than definition, and so in the end may not move us that far forward.

On further reflection I wonder if our subculture’s weakness stems from a commitment to a paradigm of church and worship that is no longer relevant or biblical. We are using an old wineskin, and even our new wine-skins are irrelevant. Theology and culture is moving on, it is time to move onto wine bottles, but this kind of radical shift IS our subcultures weakness. Radical shift is deemed inappropriate or unbiblical, and this is again part of our subcultures weakness; a commitment to evolution rather than revolution. I would argue that Jesus was the embodiment of a radical shift and whilst people may cite philosophers who promote evolution (Marx, Camus) look what an evolutionary approach has done for socialism. Other voices for revolution are needed but take care as Herbert Marcuse wrote: “In every revolution, there seems to have been a historical moment when the struggle against domination might have been victorious…. but the moment passed.� So care is needed in the process but it is one that can see real change.

Years ago I felt we needed a new reformation but couldn’t quite put my finger on what was needed. The more I think about it the more convinced I am that it is our whole conception of church that needs reforming. Our thinking about what is church, and what is kingdom. A reformation of church that is far more about definition than style.

The current emerging model could be stemming from our subcultures weakness (surely it is a model that is more about evolution than revolution) and so will not achieve the shift required. Luther nailed definition to the doors and started a revolution. I value the conversational nature of the emerging church (and imagine something similar was going on in limited form in Luther’s time) and I value the emerging churches non combativeness, I think, the generous orthodoxy, has added much to the process. But we need to see the current emerging church stuff for what it is, a valuable early conversation that is bubbling away, but not a great hope for future change, and without care a possible hindrance to real change. Take heed of Marcuse and lets not allow this moment to pass.

Okay I recognise I have not offered an alternative definition of church, but I am working on it and hope to nail it the door soon.

Blog the whole

Posted on by
3

There has been quite a bit of discussion in blog-land on the Spirituality of blogging much of which was sparked off by TSK stuff from Greenbelt . Phil has looked at the holistic blogging. At the moment I have been thinking a lot about the old Christians mystics who would pray to rid themselves of the god they knew, for any god they knew could not be God as He is so much more (apologies for my crap paraphrase of an ancient spiritual truth). As I think of the mess of life and what it is to blog the whole, I was sparked by Frederick’s about the death of his father, to rethink the place I have come to in relation to my fathers death. My hope is that this blog is about blogging holistically but a kind of holisticism that moves me (and maybe others) on, to discover more of God and to loose sight of the god I know. So THANK-YOU to those who share the journey.

Part of the journey for me at the moment are the questions I posed here. Thanks Annie and Charlotte for the thoughts, more comments welcome

The Star Wars Fallacy

Posted on by
3

As we all know, the Star Wars epic is a story of a battle of good against evil, where the evil empire uses fatal force to ensure it’s dominance against the good rebel alliance who also use fatal force against the enemy to ensure their dominance.

Unfortunately for us, we are taken in by this idea that good can defeat evil using hate – the tool of evil – but we find it hard to accept that the tool of good is love, and that the only hope of defeating evil is with love. Jesus set an example of love and perhaps the hardest commandment was to ‘love your enemy’, which seems to entailing doing the same stuff to your enemies as you do to your friends!

For some reason we find it easier to accept the violence fallacy as being the ultimate power rather than the supremacy of the truth of love! Let’s not be fooled by the myths and legends of our culture, which present the idea that violence is the ultimate arbiter. Let’s accept Christ’s example on the cross and incorporate his message fully into our lives as we are changed by his love for us.

To lose someone close

Posted on by
4

Sorry, but it was a while since i posted.

The summer has been quite turbulent for me. My father died in the middle of June. First I reacted very strongly – but then it has been quite okey. But now the last couple of weeks the lost of my father has come over me again – in another way. I really miss our conversations and his presence.
My father was just 61 years old – its not that old I think. He had a lot of friends and I come to realize that he was appreciated of many in the town were he lived. One of the question after the funeral was – who gonna be standing at my grave and say that my life meant something for them – will it just be the same kind of people as I am or will it be – as in my fathers case – people who he gave dignity because of the way he treated them. My father always took the poor and disadvantage side.

I often understand my life through the texts of U2 so also in this case. In the lyrics of “You can’t always make it on your own” (a text which doesn’t explain the our relationship very well in every aspect) there is a passage which is something like – “can you here me when I sing – cause your the reason that I sing.” I came to understand due to these lyrics that I will miss that my father was proud of what I did. My be it sounds ridiculous – but it is the way it is. I am an academic, he wasn’t but he was proud over what I accomplished and tried to understand the paper I wrote. His life was more down to earth – and I hope I will learn from that.

Peace – “the swede”!

Travellers (and the) Rest

Posted on by
Reply

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1)… and gave it to oil barons, multinational mining corporations and property tycoons. No, seriously, it was not God’s intention that a powerful minority would control access to the earth’s natural resources – land and its natural deposits being the most obvious.

One example of sharing the land is that of nomadic tribes who do not recognise private ownership of land but see it as the inheritance of their society to be shared fairly. Another alternative pattern was laid out in the laws of Jubilee in the Old Testament (Lev. 25:10) where land was to return to the original family every fifty years.

We see today that it is the landless who are least able to lift themselves out of poverty. To merely exist they have to pay those who own the land. To work they have to use someone else’s land, either paying them rent or working for that other person on that other person’s land. I cannot imagine that many of you, the readers, have not had to pay someone (usually over a long period of time) for the land you live on. It is also likely that you work on either someone else’s land or land that you have paid for.

For some of us an inheritance in middle age is as close as we come to getting on a level playing field; a point in time where we can stop paying others for the privilege of merely existing.

Travellers are a continuation of the nomadic way of life and set of values, where access to land is a societal right. Those of us who participate in the system of property ownership (whether we are paying rent, paying off a mortgage or own our ‘patch’) find it easy to resent those who have managed to have access to land without paying for it. Perhaps we should question the nature of our land ownership and think about what we are doing to our children who find themselves landless and having to exchange their labour for someone else’s land.

Questions

Posted on by
3

I have been thinking about what it means if we are to Pray with out ceasing and to live our life as a life of worship, and what implications this has for our construction or paradigm of church? Does it mean our paradigm is way too small?

Do we need to re-frame to “live your life as life of church or church without ceasing?

I have been doing some thinking how/what this could look like but before I discuss this I wanted to do some more thinking hence the above questions so any thoughts appreciated.The Last Days of Disco movie

Greenbelt, cyclists, and seminars

Posted on by
4

Rob and Maz arrived about 10pm on Friday Night and were surprisingly relaxed and healthy. Seeing them around site over the last few days they looks refreshed and revived.

The festival was as good as ever. I went to two brilliant seminars Pete Rollins on The Third Mile arguing that Christ was opposed to ethics, 14 pages of notes in a hour, when I get the tape I will be re-listening for about a month; and Jonathan Bartlet on post Christendom politics and the church as a movement for anarchy, great stuff and is the follow up of Stuart Murry’s post Christendom books.

The Frontier Lecture with Bob and Annette Holman went well with over 150 people attending. One excellent point raised was the use of the word integration in the Green paper and that this was about structures rather than relationships and process. A challenge for use is to re read the paper replacing the word integration with the notion of shalom and see how this impacts our practice.