Category Archives: Theology

Blog something new?

Posted on by
2

In recentre I was wondering out loud if the new centre of culture or western meta-narrative was popular culture itself. PG

commented on how scary a thought this could be which in turn reminded me of the Thoreau quote below, that I use when doing stuff on spiritual disciplines.

“when our life ceases to be inward and private, conversation degenerates into mere gossip. We rarely meet a man who can tell us any news which he has not read in a newspaper or been told by a neighbour; and for the most part the only difference between us and our fellow is that he has seen the newspaper or been out to tea and we have not. In proportion as our inward life fails we go more constantly and desperately to the post office. You may depend on it that the poor fellow who walks away with the greatest number of letters proud of his extensive correspondence has not heard from himself in a long while.”
Henry Thoreau

I wondered about a rephrasing

“when our life ceases to be inward and private, conversation degenerates into mere gossip. We rarely meet a man who can tell us anything genuinely new about God or the world; and for the most part the only difference between us and our fellow is that he has been surfing blog-sphere and we have not. In proportion as our inward life fails we go more constantly and desperately to the computer. You may depend on it that the poor fellow who walks away with the longest blog roll, proud of his extensive list of links has not heard from himself in a long while.” (adapted from Henry Thoreau)

The mere act of rephrasing this is ironical and forces me back to re-look at my walk before God.

Rules Rule?

Posted on by
12

Structures, traditions and institutions are all examples of rules. Most of the church today appear to be very happy with rules, they appear to create a certain level of health in the church. You can even measure the results of programmes and see how well these structures perform – just the same as a well run business.

However, Pentecost and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was, in some way or another, an emergence of a new era of life in which the opportunity to have a renewed spirit that could drive a holy life. This was a step change away from the law, which could not bring life, but only death.

This was a move away from the inflexible law to flexible love, as demonstrated by Christ on, probably, many a Sabbath.

Laws, rules, routines, traditions and structures cannot provide the most optimised lives. A great example is the speed limit: Within a 30mph limit there are places where it would be unbelievable lunacy to travel through a give way junction, corner or a roundabout at 30mph, in other places, where there are no risks of the presence of unexpected other road users it seems to be an unnecessary task to do 30mph (please bear in mind that I am in no way promoting the breaking of the speed limit – we should obey the laws of the land unless God specifically calls us otherwise!). Similarly how can meeting on a Sunday at 10:30am week in, week out be an optimal solution? Why should a hymn sandwich reliably provide an intimate experience of God’s love? (or whatever it is supposed to provide)

What is great about rules is that they can embody hundreds or thousands of years of wisdom – that’s a whole lot more wisdom than your average Joe Bloggs. Because of this, society seems to flourish in the presence of a well developed system of law and social etiquette. To prove this general truth we note that in societies where law and order have broken down you tend to see a lot of injustice, poverty, violence etc.

Now, what scares the church about the idea of life without rules? Well, the same things as society really: injustice, exploitation, abuse, hurt, etc. You just have to see the evidence of antinomianism to ‘prove’ that laws and rules are an absolute necessity for the church.

…But hang on a minute, why does a lack of rules mean that we are going to descend into anarchic mayhem? What kind of tragic Christians descend into the pit of iniquity just because they lack a rule book? Aren’t Christians supposed to have love? Isn’t love supposed to be stronger than law? Aren’t we supposed to be able to resist the temptations that we are faced with? What kind of Christian believes that God inside isn’t enough to be a better person? Isn’t the community of the church going to moderate our beliefs and behaviours by mechanisms of accountability, discipling resulting from Holy Spirit lead lives?

Or am I missing something?…

Anthropomorphising The Church

Posted on by
17

Whilst the Bible illustrates the church as the Bride of Christ, we must recognise the metaphor and not put too many ‘person’ characteristics on the church. The church is not a person, we are not hive!

I keep hearing about:

  • The will of God for a local church.
  • The specific mission of a local church.
  • The purpose of a local church.
  • etc.

Whilst I cannot knock these things absolutely, I do wonder if they illustrate our institutionalisation of the church. Hand in hand with institutionalisation come many characteristics that would normally only be applied to a person – the institute begins to have a character, a vision, a purpose, not enough time, not enough resources…

My concern is that we aren’t individualistic enough!!! OK – cringe in horror BUT:

  • We have to ‘work out our own salvation’.
  • Each of us has the Holy Spirit.
  • We are each a priest.
  • We each have to take our own responsibility to be obedient to God.
  • etc.

If we institutionalise the church and treat it as an autonomous entity then:

  • It is easy to ignore our personal responsibility.
  • We end up putting expectations on the church – which actually means putting the individuals under pressure, and because ultimately we don’t treat the entity that is church with the same loving care and attention that we would give an individual – we are insensitive to the entity that is church and therefore insensitive to the people in it.
  • We form structures to pass the ‘will of the church’ down through to the people who we expect to do the work. These structures enable distance to open up and can negate the need for intimate relationships.
  • etc.

So, let’s assume that there is a need to de-anthropomorphise the church, to deconstruct it’s structs and to de-metaphor our over literalism!

Isn’t individualism a crime?!

Sure, individualism that is self seeking is – sure it is. But what about taking our individual responsibilities seriously, not putting too much pressure on others, not making the excuse that something is ‘their’ responsibility.

We see throughout the New Testament plenty of teaching. This teaching is aimed at the individual, it is talking about our responsibility as individuals, our relationship as individuals with a God who loves each of us, as individuals. New Testament teaching isn’t full of stuff about how to control others, it’s about how to control oneself… and submit to others.

The individualism that we see envisioned in the Bible is a personal love. A love that we gain as individuals from God’s action on our individual hearts. Out of that love we sacrifice ourselves, as individuals, on the cross of love. Love for others. We are united as church, not by control, but by love, love for God and love for others.

Let’s stop palming off our individual responsibilities on the church, let’s stop trying to control each other through the structure that church has become. Let’s look to the fundamental property of church, that it is a network of individuals, concerned for each other and having varying depths of relationship with each other, ranging from the intimate to an awareness of our brothers and sisters around the globe, whom we have never met.

Emerging church as a manifestation of our subcultures weakness PART 3 – A way forward

Posted on by
10

Please note this is a work in process and an offering but will be developing as I think more and get feedback, but first a bit more background to set the context.

Dulles identifies several models/aspects that are present in church, community, herald, servant, institution, sacrament, disciples, but as I pointed out in Off the Beaten Track, Dulles talks about church being a union with the divine, not fully intelligible to human minds “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.� This is a profound mystery – but I am talking about Christ and the Church.’(Eph 5 vs 31-32). Dulles suggests that this concept of mystery is closely linked to the mystery of Christ which is why the bible uses imagery when describing church, therefore it may be easier to define what the church is not (which we have discussed in earlier posts). He goes onto to say that images can suggest “attitude and a course of action� .

Therefore I would suggest that the attitude should one that redefined the theology of church as whole of the life balanced with the course of action that is about the process of chaotic and intentional being. (for more on the anarchistic God check out Gen 28 10-22, Exodus 3 or 2 Sam 7)

In my minds eye I see a group of people (some of whom are committed to exploring chaotic but intentional encounters with God, one another, and the world) coming together to engage in a process being together, doing together, reflecting together, doing together and so on. Each person regardless of age, status in the group or ability, suggests activities that the group engage with and so the process starts. Different people will bring their different passions and interests to the group, and as they engage together in this breadth of activities, and bring the breadth of their lives to the group, together they will start being church with the whole of our life.

The core group would have an understanding that this chaotic but intentional encounters was church AND that the encounters of life (when the group is not together) are part of or add to the shared chaotic experiences. It would be group facilitated rather than led. Implicit within this is the notion of process, recognising that we find God in the seeking and the ongoing nature of process. When Jesus says seek and you will find, doesn’t necessarily mean that you fill the God shaped whole in your life but that as the mystics would say any God we know cannot be god as God is always bigger etc, we are human becomings as Pip Wilson would say. http://www.sundaypapers.org.uk/?p=167

This approach would allow for a variety of things to be done, if I look at in my context with just one other family involved at the start, I could see people suggesting, going on a demo, eating together, visiting the local organic fair, colouring, computer games, the FaSt game, a party, an alternative worship event. All of which would be discussed and reflected on together, and create a sense of growing openness and a greater outwardness. It would change the way we approach childrens work as they could suggest stuff as equal members and their thoughts and opinions equally valued and acted on.

I know there is lots of tweaking needed and issues with this kind of openness, but a story from my friend Soren helps that came from conversation with a farmer in the Australian outback. When farming over such a vast area, Soren wondered how could they control the animals, maintaining the fences must take forever. The farmers response was “we don’t have fences we just have wells�. This redefining of church gives space for loosing the rules and regulations of what is or isn’t church and all the rules attached and replaces it with an open attitude that allows people to journey towards becoming more fully human whist the intentionally chaotic actions and activities add to the process acting as the wells that draw people together and to the source.

The key is a mindset change on what is church and then finding ways to act on this in life. I have offered one possible outlook, that is by no means whole, and for many will be in part what they are doing already and are drawn towards, but I think when the definition of church is changed/explored it becomes a liberating and validating process.

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.

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.

Outside in part 2

Posted on by
2

I guess the feeling that theological reflection has the ability to change what was an outwardly negative event to a positive inner event is that as we bring God into the situation we can start a redemptive process. One example could be the writings of Rita Nakashima Brock in Journeys by Heart – A Christology of Erotic power where some of the oppression suffered by women that stems from a male patriarchal view of the trinity is examined and challenged. She goes onto use feminist theology to “liberate” Christ from “the unholy trinity” calling for the heart of Christianity to be reinterpreted in non oppressive ways. Taking Jesus as the model of self giving, obedience, love and liberation, she describes two parts to the questions that this raises as we encounter situations. (I would call these theological reflection questions) Firstly there is the question what would Jesus do or have me do in this situation and secondly How do I and others feel right now – What can I do to lessen the suffering? The first is an external question and the second is a question of the heart that moves us towards self possession, a greater connection and an inner redemptive process.

Whilst Brock is addressing some pretty deep theological issues the identification of the two focuses of the questions demonstrates what can happen when we risk entering into theological reflection about any issue (positive or negative) and move beyond the questions of what could I have done differently to the internal questions that challenge our christlikeness and responsibilities for inner growth and change.

Make any sense Ben and Phil?

The Robe video

Communion 2

Posted on by
8

In response to Nikki’s questions I am not sure. Having a conversation recently reinforced the issue that the gospels were recorded after many of the letters. I was discussing inclusive communion and how Jesus included Judas in the meal even though he was about to betray him. Does this give us evidence that we can make communion inclusive? One response suggested was that as Judas subsequently hanged himself, that this was a result of taking communion in an unworthy manner. However this sits very uneasily as Jesus himself then set Judas up and the unworthy manner bit was not mentioned in the gospels but in letters. So I still think there could be a case for inclusive communion (perhaps the agape meal that Nikki distinguishes) but I struggle with these kind of semantics and denying people a communion regardless of where we think they are as it may give glimpse of God.

Money or Time?

Posted on by
Reply

What does God want the most – our money or our time?

I’m posing this question (to which I’m going to give my own personal response in a moment) because I regularly (but not too often) hear it said that ‘God needs rich people in the church for their money’ or ‘It is good to get rich because God needs the church to have money’.

Now, from what I can see the Bible doesn’t make any comments along these lines. Sure, it does show situations where the money of rich people are used – some of those wealthy people being followers of God. So don’t get me wrong – I’m not trying to say that God won’t use our wealth.

Other interesting Biblical accounts that relate to the subject include:

  • Job – where God allowed him to be stripped of his wealth and then given new wealth.
  • The coin in the fish – where Jesus took a coin from a fish to pay some tax.
  • and there must be loads of examples where God gives the wealth of unbelievers to his children

I reckon that God can get money however he wants, whenever he wants. His difficulty is getting our hearts, getting us to follow him, getting us to show his love to others.

Interestingly there are plenty of examples where God bypasses money completely:

  • The oil in the jars that wouldn’t run out.
  • Turning water into wine.
  • Feeding the 5,000.
  • Manna in the desert.

And tonnes of other examples. In fact God’s use of money is the exception! However, if we look at the role of the church we find that God chooses to show himself largely through the church – i.e. through the commitment, time and deeds of those who follow him. It is our time that he needs, more than anything else.

A problem with the idea of ‘earning money for God’ is this:
Many say that we are over consuming and that our exploitation of nature is highly excessive, that we can’t carry on in the way we are. Now, we know that consumption is matched by production (you can’t consume what is not produced!), so if we believe that God wants our production to be as high as possible then one would have to assume that he is cool with the idea of raping the earth…
…I’m not convinced!