One for the road...

Exploring the marks of deep church..

Is deep church I wonder, the way of cultivating an understanding that I expressed in my post on the kingdom of God being bigger than church? In other words if we accept that our individual churches are part of the kingdom but not the sum of the kingdom then maybe there is a healthier and less parochial way of participating together as christians in the kingdom of God?

What is deep church?

The term was first coined by C S Lewis who on Feb 8th 1952 wrote a letter to The Church Times standing-up for the supernatural basis of the Gospel which he felt strongly was being undermined by modernism:

‘To a layman,’ he said, ‘it seems obvious that what unites the Evangelical and the Anglo Catholic against the “Liberal” or “Modernist” is something very clear and momentous, namely, the fact that both are thoroughgoing supernaturalists, who believe in the Creation, the Fall, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Second Coming, and the … Last Things.  This unites them not only with one another but also with the Christian religion as understood ubique et ab omnibus. 

The point of view from which this agreement seems less important than their divisions … is to me unintelligible.  Perhaps the trouble is that as supernaturalists, whether “Low” or “High” Church, thus taken together they lack a name. May I suggest “Deep Church”, or if that fails in humility, Baxter’s “mere Christians”’.  (C.S. Lewis, Church Times 1952)

In other words christians have more in common than actually divides them - whether you want to call this mere christianity, a generous orthodoxy or deep church or something else it would seem that deep church represents a way that is above either judging the kingdom of God on one church or making our church/denomination the litmus paper of the kingdom.  Christians might differ in practice and emphasis but the vast majority hold to a common orthodoxy/practice/experience of the core tenants of what the christian faith is in/about.

As Professor Andrew Walker said:

"Deep Church, while it is open to ecumenical insight and ‘cross-over’ doctrines, is not about syncretism or absorbing the next fad in the endless search for liturgical novelty.  It is about the marriage between the ‘new thing’ God is always doing in our lives, and the ‘old things’ – the historic givens of the Faith - that he has already done which includes the means of Grace that he has provided for our spiritual nourishment. Deep Church, then, is not just about something old for something new (or the other way round). It is about anamnesia and re-imagining. It is about catholicity and a holy separation. It is about a re-collected history and writing a new chapter in the annals of faith.

The establishment of Deep Church is not merely overdue, it is a missiological imperative for we are entering a time of great testing in the western world: the Enlightenment era, which in so many ways has served humankind so well, has drawn to a close and with it the optimism of a glorious future has faded away.  We are now past the twilight of modernity but not yet in the dawn of a new age: in this transitional stage we are caught in an age of uncertainty poised between the forces of apocalypse and congenital boredom. "

Deep does not mean the same...

I am not advocating a homogeneous church,  as i expressed in my last post i think different forms and styles of church are a positive thing - it would be arrogant of me to assume that everyone needs to attend a church like mine and i need to realise that it will take lots of different churches with lots of different styles to reach and connect with lots of different people.

In one sense it is a question of space - the places that churches inhabit could be vast public gatherings or small house churches.  For some people it would be a nightmare going to church in someones front room but for other people it would feel natural.  For some people it would be a mare being in church in a big crowd but for some people it would feel natural.  I think i need to get beyond space/style and look at something more than that which is values...

Values or marks of deep church...

What do you think the marks or values of a deep church should be?  You might think i've pulled one step ahead of myself and should first ask the Q what is a church?  I've deliberately not gone there because i think the two are linked - i think deep church can be in any space, public, private, intimate and in any denomination, structure, leadership etc.  It can be with a crowd of hundreds or just within a handful.

Professor Walker  suggests that:

"one of the distinguishing marks of Deep Church is that as adopted brothers and sisters of the incarnate Son of God what holds true for Him is intended to be normative for us: if you want to be my disciples, says Jesus to the apostolic band, ‘take up your cross’.  This is a clear directive for us, especially in the present uncertainty, that there can be no resurrection without crucifixion, no legitimate charism of power, certainly no exousia, without exposing our vulnerability to the cruelties and exigencies of a fallen world and the evil of principalities and powers. And there can be no long-term renewal or spiritual awakening of the Church without sharing the deep wounds of the crucified Christ so that through them we too share in the pain of the world.  A  theologia glorie without a theologia crucis, Tom Smail has reminded us often enough, is a cock-eyed gospel and while it will always have  popular appeal, it has no place in the soteriology of Deep Church."

To start the ball rolling here are some of the things i think should be values/marks:

• generous orthodoxy - we are on the same side, in the same kingdom, following the same king - what can we learn from each other?
• generous orthopraxy i.e. co-operating/partnering practically with other churches [mission then is more than I win you lose but how can we work together so the area we inhabit experiences the kingdom of God].  Any other practical examples of how to do this?
• christians who embody the works, words and wounds of Christ and who as a body are prepared to be broken for the world
• local and global - the kingdom of God does not just stop at the edge of my town, postal district etc but is global
• believers who do/act good deeds in the kingdom not just have right beliefs
• ?
• ?
• ?
• ?

Ok, please suggest some more..?

polarised bare: thoughts on transcending the line inspired by chapter 6 of a New Kind of Christian

My way is the right way...

Maybe it is merely a human characteristic, to have THE right way/means/action/thought/expression  rather than just A way/means/action/thought/expression... maybe there is differening degrees of it that reflect not so much our philosphy but more our personality or social position, meaning some of us will insist on being right louder than others or have the means to be heard/listened too...

Post-modernity is meant to rejects this polarity, having lost confidence in THE next big idea/answer that will cure the worlds ills, delusioned by the fall of political systems, of social princples, of science and religion, now no one is believed to have the truth - like the boy who cried wolf, anyone who does may well be tolerated but one quick listen will hear many voices calling out their own version...

Life thru polorised lens

In that sense maybe even post-modernity is a polarised reaction, the idea that it is against something, that you can draw a line marked 'Truth' and have a sliding scale from it is possible to possess/know/have full truth on one end [maybe modernity in brackets] and lots of valid truths/impossible to fully know truth on the other [call it post-modernity].

Per wiki, in communications and psychology, polarization is the process whereby a social or political group is divided into two opposing sub-groups with fewer and fewer members of the group remaining neutral or holding an intermediate position.

So in the religious sense we may have...

catholics {pope}__________protestants {all popes}

conservatives____________liberals

church_________________post[no] church

est church______________emerging church

personal piety___________social action

paid clergy______________all clergy/voluntary

Faith__________________ works

etc...etc...etc :)

In fact the more i think about it the less christians disagree with what they believe is the core of faith and more about how it should be practiced, what it should look/sound like, the relative importance of different aspects/doctrines etc etc.  In other words we dig in somewhere on the line of an issue and that makes us for some things which are good but also sets us against other things which we might otherwise be for/fine with. 

Transcending the line...

For example, in chapter 6 of a New Kind of Christan, Brian McLaren talks about conservatives - who have done an excellent job to be faithful to the ancient traditions of the bible but have have failed to really translate it into 21st century and liberals who have done well on the translation part but often by forgetting the ancient of the bible where it makes such translation difficult.  Ignoring the crude stereotypes both sides of the line are doing something right but also both are doing something that is not helpful.  Brian talks about transceding the line and the character Neo draws a diagram a bit like this...

The line with the blue circles respresents a position that we choose to take on a particular issue, thus digging in/defining ourselves on/by what we are for and against.... or as the character Neo explains:

"Now, almost all debate in the church takes place on the line. The issue is where the right point on the line is.  So people pick and defend their points.  Each person's point becomes THE point in his or her mind.  Here's what I am suggesting: what if the point-defending approach is pointless.  What if the position God wants to take isn't on the line at all but somewhere up here? [the line with the green circle].

Dan then responds...

"So you are saying that we need to transcend the normal level of discourse.  That makes sense to me.  I mean, Jesus did that sort of thing all the time.  Like with the woman at the well  in John 4.  The big debate is over where people should worship, on this mountain or on that mountain.  Jesus doesn't choose one point or the other; he says that the answer is on this higher level, that what God wants is for us to worship him in spirit and truth, where ever we are.  Both mountains are good places to worship, so in that way both sides are right.  But where you worship isn't the point at all, so in that way both sides are wrong..."

Back to the will/wish of God

In that sense many things don't matter, as my bro said recently to me, most things in christianity just seem to be about pointless arguements that miss the point - Jesus.  He's a wise man! 

How often am I caught up in the scribbles about my way better when when what I should be doing is just being/doing/searching/seeking God's will - which may mean i needto spend less time on digging into my points and more time being generous, gracious and loving to those who I may disagree with.  It becomes less about my church ideal and more about an apprecition of deep church, of the whole body in all its many diverse expressions.  It becomes about thinking the best of people, of limiting my freedoms to help others and to reach out to those who are in need, not of THE answer but of an invitation that they are loved, valued and have a purpose and life beyond anything i can imagine for them...

And that excites me, an invitation to follow Jesus in the big picture of the good news story, both personal and public, both faith and works, both in the culture of my faith community and in all the communities i find myself in is worth a lil pain in weaning myself off my polarised, i'm right ways...

Soundtrack/playlist for this chapter

This week 2 REM choices:

• Near wild heaven
• Dragging the line

An emerging epiphany..?

Traditionally the church celebrates the feast of Epiphany on 6 January - you might know that as 12th night (or time to take the decorations down!).  The feast celebrates  "the 'shining forth' or revelation of God to mankind in human form, in the person of Jesus..." and includes the birth of Jesus and the visit of the wise men/magi (and indeed all of Jesus childhood in the Eastern tradition)...  it is a time to reflect and remember on how Godhead  has/is/will  shone/shine forth and how we as his church can be light this coming year as well as a good old feast (isn't it cool that these church calendar things weren't just remembered with a church service but a full on party!!)...

Epiphany of course has another meaning which is the feeling of a "sudden realisation or comprehension of the essence or meaning of something", not necessarily seeing the full picture but "new information or experience, often insignificant by itself, that illuminates a deeper or numinous foundational frame of reference".

In bringing these 2 epiphanies together I have been reflecting on my own hope for me as part of the emerging church, the dream of how this little part of the church can shine forth and be light to the world as it is it is indwelt with the light and love of God.  What follows is 6 pairs (or 12) reflections/hints/feelings/hunches of the marks of light that we can be about - and then please do let me know your thoughts...

Generosity and grace

I have the opportunity to model generosity, whether it is in expressing a generous orthodoxy or in being communities where people can belong before they believe.  We have another year of being able to practice this discipline both on-line and in real life and it is one where I am always so grateful for people who model it to me.

I am feeling called to be generous particularly to two groups:

firstly the critics of the emerging church and indeed of the church as a whole (to whom we all look the same),  I think there is much to learn from this critique and opportunities to open up dialogue rather than close down doors. 

secondly,  I feel called to be generous with is those other emerging/new church groups who I may not feel comfortable with, e.g. Godmen.  In fact I see parallels in that I am now stepping into the shoes of my critics, maybe therefore I should reserve making pronouncements until I have talked with these people, attended their meetings, had an opportunity to see how they are growing/impacting the lives of the people who attend - in short everything that I would like to see critics of the emerging church do.

I am inspired by the generosity of God and the calling of his people not to hoard his blessings and gifts but to actively use them to help make this wold a better place.

Not least as we as christians have a powerful message of God's grace, his forgiveness/love rather than the experience of karma/pay back/revenge/getting what we deserve.  In a world which insists in getting even before getting on, in laws that determine that there is equal reaction to every action we can be communities that model something radically, powerfully, world changingly good...

Communities  of both the immediacy and the mediation of God

As I seek to follow Jesus I am not doing so alone.  I am part of a local faith community which in turn is part of  something bigger again the collective faith communities around the world and even more bigger in the commune of the saints, living and dead who have gone before.  I therefore need to open and humble before God in doing new things in old ways or the old things in in new ways. 

It is easy to write off the past history of the church and say that what is happening now is how it should be, or is getting back to how it was originally but to do so something that says more about me and what I like than a historical valid comment on Christ's church.  Whilst the church is continually reformed and being reformed it means that there is always the temptation to polarise, to pick the now or sometime in the church past as the ideal.  I think I need to move above that line and ask what is the will of God, how am I showing/expressing the ancient themes of mercy, love, grace, justice, humility, right living - am I prepared to join Christ as both king and as suffering servant, sharing in both his reflected glory but also is pain, hurt and dying to self in reaching out in love to our hurting world?

Missional and mere christianity

I know the emerging church talks a lot about being missional but I wonder if I still see it in terms of my living my life to my preference on the one hand so hanging out with people like me or trying to make my faith community the one of choice [cos we're so right?]. 

I guess the challenge I feel about being missional is to value faith communities and see it as not wanting to be a competitor - mission should not be my church wins at the expense of your church, but how as the body of Christ in an area can we work together. Recognition that between our different traditions we have more in common that divides us and that we have something to rally around, being hope, love, light, action in a world.

In that sense I think it is something communal and not just about something that is about who I like to hang out with.  Yes being missional is cultural/contextual but it is something formed/breathed by the creator/spirit/Word - our faith is not just about souls but about the resurrection of the physical body and therefore being missional also involves as concern/care about the material world and material beings that inhabit it...

The c0-missional church is about reaching outwards to help the world we live in but it is also one that  holds to the ancient creeds and traditions of the faith - where possible we should seek to build on the common ground that we share, to be focused on the mission of God and be moved by the compassion of Christ as suffering servants we reach out with/through/in him to heal this planet. 

To that end I think I need to embrace deep church (or mere christianity as Lewis called it in the end) - to be positive about the church in all its forms and traditions, whether ancient, medieval, modern or post-modern.  More than that I need to welcome its diversity and celebrate its different forms of which I am only one part and not a very significant one either and yet we share a common tradition and heritage where we have much more in common than we have differences.

Intentionally incarnational and icons

One of the challenges in being missional is the where/when/whom - I am wired in a certain way that makes me able to connect with some more than others - so where can I be intentional about being incarnational and embodying Jesus? There are some very obvious places that I forget sometimes like in my marriage, with my kids and in work and there are others that I have had the privilege of connecting on various blogs and resulting conversations... I am excited where a whole new year will take me.

I think it is also great to be able to provide the communities that we interact in not only a visible apologetic within our own lives but within the images/icons of God that we can connect them too, show them, let them experience. An icon after all is a visible image that helps people connect/worship God so I am also challenged about what I do as an individual and as a community to create icons that connect with people and let them encounter Jesus where it is through works of love/service to art/creativity. I am not talking about worshipping the icon but allowing the icon to act as a sign and a place of encounter, common ground that can become holy ground. It is good to remember that the holy spirit is active in both us and in the world and we are creatively made in God's own image - it is he who breathes life into creation and inhabits/indwells and we share the joy in providing space for him to walk through the room...

Questioning and questing

I am on a quest to seek the kingdom of God first, to live out the wish/will of God of seeing this done on earth like it is in heaven.  It is an adventure and a slog, to quote dickens: "it is the best of times and it was the worst of times."  I will experience suffering, hardship,pain, frustration and failure as much as we encounter joy, companionship, support, love and care.  We get to see each other at our best and our worst and try to love each other in both states. 

This year I am challenged in my quest to love God with my mind - to read my bible more but also to study, to explore faith thinking  - a thinking faith that asks questions and seeks to find the answers to them as part of a community of God's people.  It maybe that I do not find comfortable answers for all my questions but to me I would rather have a live searching wrestling faith that is chasing after God - whether it is in the thinking/inspiration of those who have gone before, those who are in the now or wrestling with questions/thoughts that are still to come - than one which accepts the script of my faith as final and fully revealed.

I think to that end I need to continue to be honest, to expose myself, to make myself transparent and open to encouragement, spurring on and critique - to explore with the wider community of faith both past and present, to listen and converse.   I am inspired by enough of my past of being wrong about so much that I am no doubt going to be wrong about a lot - but that is one of the most exciting things, the fact that I know so little but am part of a faith community that is so rich in both thought and deed.  So that more that just intellectual ascent I am able to apply my faith to my life, to learn and practice together as a community knowing that we need God to help make this a reality, that there is a living connection which is life empowering and transforming.

So I am looking forward to getting things wrong and learning how to apologise, how to listen more and to have a faith that allows me to do so...

Justice and judgement (of self)

One of the reasons I am on this quest and asking questions is because I want to be engaged in social/economic/environmental/political justice - whilst I am all to aware of my own focus on my morality it is often that of focusing on "private" faith and "private" sins.  Indeed when I do sin it is often something about focusing it on me and my failures when sometimes it is appropriate to talk about the failure/sin of the environment I am in.  That may sound like trying to get me off the hook but I think there is something in that of escaping from the focus of MY and asking wider questions about the systems that I am consciously or unconsciously apart of and the effects it has on people?  Clearly there are obvious ones in terms of economic and environmental issues for instance where I can make ethical choices about my consumption which seek to make the world better but will cost me more to do so.

It is in my need to become God aware which means I should apply any judgement I make to myself first - search me oh God and show me where I am blocking out the light from someone else and help me change the systems I am in - maybe by becoming aware of them - to those of the kingdom of God.

I think it is therefore for me important to be in a confessional community that does not only confess to each other but then is involved in healing action - both internally and externally, that focuses not only on the private sins but also on those that are public and institutional within our western culture...

Your own epiphany?

Those are some of my hopes/dreams/mini epiphanies...so how about you?

My theological worldview... probably!

HT to Fernando for highlighting this quizz on theological worldview.  Fernando's pleasant surprise at finding himself in agreement with its outcome persuaded me to give it a whirl... and well these are my results...

Emergent/Postmodern 75% Neo orthodox 71% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 64% Roman Catholic 61% Charismatic/Pentecostal 39% Reformed Evangelical 39% Modern Liberal 39% Classical Liberal 25% Fundamentalist 18% What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

I top scored as Emergent/Postmodern... "You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this."

Now I agree with most of that description, except I don't feel alienated from older forms of church and I feel that many do connect with modern culture... which of course will explain the high % connection with evangelical holiness and Roman Catholic (maybe that also explains why I am such a fan of deep church!).

My no. 2 was neo-orthodox described (from Fernando's as)... "rejecting the human-centredness and scepticism of liberal theology, but neither do you go to the other extreme and make the Bible the central issue for faith. You believe that Christ is God’s most important revelation to humanity, and the Trinity is hugely important in your theology. The Bible is also important because it points us to the revelation of Christ. You are influenced by Karl Barth and P T Forsyth.”  which is also very true and I agree with that as well...

At the end of the scale I am not at all very fundamentalist (maybe that comes from having been one and found to be wrong so often) nor very classically  liberal  - with a 3-way tie for the rest (modern liberal/evengelical and charismatic/pentecostal)...

If you take the test do let me know what you think and whether you agree with it or not?

Emerging church critique or stereotyping by a radio star?

John MacArthur is an American christian with a significant radio ministry, 'Grace to you'.  He is currently critiquing the emergent church and you can see part 1 and part 2 here.  I have mentioned before that I think christians should welcome critique from within and without but it does raise some Qs as to how to respond when the feeling that the critique is more like criticism, which is unsubstantiated/un-evidenced/unexperienced/general in nature etc...

Dan Kimball, responds very graciously to some of the points raised by MacArthur in this post: Please don't stereotype the emerging church

When I read John's comments I think here is someone who is trying to be helpful in good intentioned but bad researched ways - seriously I think this dude is trying to help, is probably confused, puzzled, worried that these emergent types are drifting off from theirmoorings or busy dismantling their foundations (from reading part 1 it would seem he has similar concerns with those who don't agree to inerrancy, charismatics and seeker services). 

The former conservative in me knows that one of the callings/charge almost of anyone with any authority in the modern conservative church is to stop people straying from the heard, to keep on the straight, narrow and true and that means agreement with structures/forms/theology that has arisen during modernity.  To move away from these forms can therefore look distinctly like a move away from God, the faith etc, afterall if these forms are now symbolic of our christian identity to change them is I guess in his eyes, maybe, like renouncing them. 

I also think there is a problem in terms of language, mystery for instance is the room for me to admit that God is God and I don't understand, know all the answers etc.  That to someone else can look fundamentally flawed, heh we've got the bible, it tells us the answers, or at least the answers that we see through the interpretation grid we use.  Language therefore becomes something of a problem, not just the words but the understanding of those words.

Now I don't want to make this about polarisation, I am not saying modern bad, post-modern good, mystery good, insight/answers bad... cos that would be just dumb - major HT to neo conservative evangelicals and their whole engagement with apologetics for instance, what a great model of really trying to engage with the philosophicals at the time using the grid they had to use...

So what I guess is my response:

1) avoid fighting ire with ire - can we be loving to this guy, let's not start up any new divisions, any fresh attacks on personalities, grumbles about how we're better etc - let's just say some of what he says is probably true to some degree for some of us at some times in some places.  I liked Dan's post, it was not about attacking John but trying to deal with some of the issues he raised and provide evidence/examples from his own experience of emerging church.

2) an excuse to engage in dialogue - we could all drop John a line, say heh thanks for your thoughts, i appreciate you caring but this is my good experience and these are some of my worries about EC.  In other words we have some common ground in that we have no doubt at some stage thought/wondered about EC, the good, the bad and the fluff :).

3) examine ourselves - just what our those EC flaws /blindspots- we ain't perfect so this is a good chance for us to examine ourselves and say, for example, hmmm maybe we just aren't very good explaining ourselves (perception is reality)?  Maybe we are too enamoured with x but not with y, maybe we grumble hear about this or react against that instead of learning/building/reconstructing?  It might be a faulty critique but it doesn't stop us asking with the Psalm writer for God to search us, God to shine in his light and reveal darkness within us, mistakes we are making, etc

4) practice forgiveness - some people will i am sure fine this critique hurtful/personal/annoying etc.  It would be easy to dislike/disassociate ourselves from this person and grumble about dinosaurs/dictators/dipsticks and why they should shut up or ship out to their own religion... or we could recognise that we are all brothers and sisters in christ, all pretty dumb and as part of this great big God family are called to bare the marks of suffering servanthood, love and compassion.  That might mean forgiving people who don't know what they are doing, even if they haven't asked for it and are infact trying to kill us off...

5) Deeper church not just broad church - as Dan suggested here is a chance to live beyond our fears and invite each other to share our spaces - we need a deep church, one that encompasses ancient, medieval, modern and post-modern, we need to practice differences within a common. tradition not conformity.  As God does new things we should not forget the old things, we need both doctrines of immediacy and mediation.

Your thoughts...

That's what I think, but I'd love to hear from you..?

New Kind of Christian chapters 4 & 5: At the turn of the tides...

I have been summarising the chapters of Brian McLaren's book 'A new kind of Christian' which we are reading and discussing in the midweek home gathering that I belong too.  Here are my thoughts on chapters 4 & 5...

Chapters 4 & 5 are best read together and cover a lecture that Neo gives to some evangelical college students (chapter 4) and their Qs (chapter 5).

The crux of Neo’s lecture is that as with the change from the medieval period into the modern one that there are significant cultural, social, political, scientific and economic changes in both the 15th and 20th centuries that means the tide has changed in the west and a new phase of cultural identity is breaking upon us. 

As with the tide I would say  that we cannot be Canute’s and order it to turn back, nor on the other hand should we be swept out to sea, lost in the currents of societal change and transition.  We need to learn not only how to swim but to know the shore line, understand the new ocean and that can only come from transformation by the Spirit from within and his navigation without.

For one excellent discussion on area raised with regard to chapter four may I recommend to this post and discussion by my friend and fellow small group member, Mark.

Practical Qs explored...

Are focus on chapter 5 was to move away from the theoretical for a moment and ask the question what does this mean for us and for our church…

Post modern - like learning a new language?

I suggested the metaphor of a learning a new language –we often read it as modernity and anti-modernity instead of post-modernity. Post doesn’t mean bad but what comes after and of course that means its built on a foundation of modernity.

I think we need to discover the joys of being bilingual - our children can do it I am sure but I think we struggle at the moment to be fluent in postmodernity - we keep switching back to modernity, translating it and then putting into a postmodernity style.

My wife who is a better linguist than I am tells me that you know you are fluent in another language when you can think in it without translating it back to your first tongue, so I have a long way to go.

I think it is why we react against modernity sometimes and yet struggle with postmodernity - the language of modernity is not adequate and yet we are not fluent enough to express what we mean in a postmodern context either…

lol, it’s is exciting but also frustrating at the same time, why structure and imagination are both good things - after all a language without a structure of how to write it called grammar would be a mare but without dreams, ideas, engagement to express using that language it would be very dull and technical… or in other words we read a great story and are inspired but we hardly notice the structure that allows us to enter in and participate across the pages…

What is cultural vineyard and what is post-modern about Vineyard Church Sutton?

This was an interesting discussion, in part having a perspective of experiencing a modern UK vineyard church and a more post modern one (thinking of the faith community that we belong to, Sutton Vineyard), a different experience from some folk who had come from a more traditional evangelical denomination.  I have put some musings below, which are my own rather than anything official/binding (click on table for larger image):

 

Passing on the story

One concern that was raised was about whether we miss out on something by not have a more expository style of preaching – are we in other words bible-lite and suffering for it in terms of not being shaped by the God of the book as the community of the book.  One thing I find fascinating about Jason is that he is super theologically minded (doctorate and all) but that his sermons are in the vineyard tradition of staring where people are in life rather than starting with a bible text.  To listen to Jason’s teaching, I think, when you are aware of the story of the book is to here it echoed, explained and put into a context we can not only understand but also apply, even when we don’t realise how often it is filtered through and steeped in the bible (for example see my thoughts on Jase's brill kingdom of God series). 

I have also reacted to the thought that we need more bible preached is often by those who know the bible well themselves and have experienced that style and enjoy that form of engagement – I am not sure we need more bible preached in the classic sense of the word but maybe more bible lived, internalising its truths and reproducing them in thought, word and deed.  One of the hard things about the modern approach to bible preaching for me is that we have used it judge the world rather than letting the God of the book judge us – so we wonder about the few remaining taboo areas like gays where we are hyper critical and all for a bible based bashing whereas we are super uncritical of issues equally destructive like gossip or holding a grudge against our brother/sister.

One thing that struck me though as we forge forward into a post-modern world is how do we communicate the stories of the bible to our children?  We who were shaped by systematic Sunday school classes and then systematic preaching had this laid out for us – church was designed to equip us with knowledge and to that end it succeeded well.  The post-modern milieu would seem to be allowing us to be generous/gracious but to maybe not so deeply immersed in the stories of the book and connecting that with our ongoing story today.

Playlist for chapters 4 & 5

1. What if  (Coldplay)
2. Comes a time (Nada Surf)
3. Desire (Ryan Adams)
4. Lost souls (Doves)
5. City of blinding lights (U2)

Hat tip to my critics: why as Christians I think we need to welcome/offer critique

I said in my post yesterday on the march on mars hill that I would look at the whole topic of critique/criticism further, so here are my musings...

Why the emerging church needs critique and so do I

Jason Clark posted a powerful critique of the emergent church, which as thinker and leader of emergent UK carries a lot of weight as well as common sense to it.  I think one of his strongest points for me was the need for us as Christians (of whatever stripe) but here in the context of emergent to both be open and respond to critique from within and without.  To me the most constructive form of critique is a conversation and the most destructive a rant of generalisations from a position of assumed superiority.

I’d like to reflect on a couple of recent examples of critique from with Christian circles (voices from within) and from outside (voices from without) and consider some possible responses in the face of these critiques.

Voices from within…critiquing christians and being critiqued by them

One of the recent storms in a tea cup that continues to rumble on in some parts is that of Mark Driscoll’s comments in the wake of the Ted Haggard affair and indeed some of his critics would say comments that he has been making for awhile now that seem critical of those who not share his complimentarian reading of the bible (to put his words into context it was a conversation that was primarily aimed at those who share his position rather which anyone is welcome to read if they so choose).

For a range of his critics you may wish to read the following posts/discussions in the comments: Andrew's commentary; Rose's open letter; coveration on the edge's critique on Mark and women and Blog against fundamentalism (who have chosen Mark as their first 'fundamentalist to march on...'

I find Mark’s response to his critics, entitled ‘thank you critics’ to a very encouraging one.  In his concluding paragraph he writes:

“Lastly, I want to thank my critics, especially the most vocal. They have helped me to understand that more than just pastors are following what I am saying. Subsequently, they are helping me to learn how to more clearly articulate what I am trying to communicate. In that way, they have been of great assistance to me as I seek to pastor most effectively for Jesus. I have waited some time to post this clarification because in times past I have gotten angry and responded with a tone that was defensive, prideful, and not helpful. I am learning that critics in some ways are also friends because there is often some truth in what they are pointing out. Subsequently, God is using my critics to teach me and is asking me to be willing to listen.”

I think Mark articulates a powerful sentiment that critics can be friends but that often are reaction is to feel got at rather than to listen.  I also find it interesting what the response of the critics are, some that I have read see Mark’s words as unacceptable as he did not apologise and want to continue to push for this outcome whereas others I think welcome the door opening on constructive dialogue and would rather be invited in then risk hammering on it in case it slams shut. 

I think this also highlights something about us as critics – are we being critical or are we instead asking someone to simply agree with our view instead?  As those who receive criticism are we teachable and able to appreciate the feedback loop from what people hear/perceive?  I think as critics we need to realise that our main role is to offer helpful encouragement and suggestions for change, tone, content that are offered up in the spirit of mutuality and love. 

In its most constructive sense that offers up the possibility of conversation where we do not agree but at least we engage rather than a conflict where no one is prepared to accept they might be wrong.  To give you an example from my own life, when Debs offers me some constructive criticism my first response is to say ‘well you do it too’ or ‘well you do this’ and turn it around – I am not prepared to change unless she changes/acknowledges the need for change.  Constructive criticism then I think should be a mutually vulnerable, humbling experience – if it is not and is just something to appease our hurt, to claim another notch on the think my way bedpost, to feel big correcting someone else’s faulty thinking whilst keeping our own protected – is conquest not criticism.

Constructiveor destructive voices?

Can we find a shared common ground? can we look and see how much we agree on rather than how much we differ?  Can we allow diverse voices even when we don’t agree with them?  Can we offer up encouragement and engagement?  Can we model our alternative views and celebrate them together?  Can we focus on ideas rather than personalities?  Can we look at our own faults and think I am likely to be wrong rather than I am likely to be right?  Ultimately as people who are meant to be marked by love can we love someone who we don’t agree with – can we include them rather than seek to exclude, draw them within rather than choose to push them without?  Can we model a generous orthodoxy of many colours, flavours or do we need to have one mono-coloured one?  As I think Nouwen suggested ‘a people who gather together and agree on everything is not a community – it is a clique.’

Voices from without - critique by the world

Jason has been doing a series of critiques under the title ‘is Christianity irredeemably…’ so far he has opened up with sexist and speciest and I hope he will also include homophobic and militaristic (any more suggestions??).  I’ve included the latter topics as I think that Jason has covered in his posts two of the biggest movements of the world in recent years – feminism and animal rights/environmentalism and the other 2 are the anti-war (Iraq and CND before that) movement and gay rights.  I think all four of these movements provide a welcome critique that Christians need to consider, particularly aspects of justice. 

God’s Spirit can speak to us from without but I also I think the Christians as a community of faith filled with the spirit from within and as people of the book can critique the culture of world  e.g. consumerism (e.g. here and here).

The points that I made about constructive criticism in the voices within section apply here – even more so with I think we as Christians needing to demonstrate that we have applied our own critique to ourselves and that we actively welcome the critique of the world – it’s not world bad/Christian good but spirit of God good and speaking to us from the world in ways that are consistent with the Word of God (Jesus) and the words of God that we have in the bible.

A case study – the critique by new atheism

As a recent example of one way of engaging in constructive criticism with the world I would like to highlight the critique being provided by ‘new atheism.’  As John explains in his post on new flavours of fundamentalism…

"Article author Gary Wolf says, "The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking."

The most prominent evangelist of New Atheism is Richard Dawkins. In the article he says, "I'm quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism." He continues elsewhere, "Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists."

Here are some Qs and my thoughts on my resposne...

Do I/we as Christians (and other faiths) reject this critique out of hand…?

Ok, this is just me but I'd like to hold my hand up and say that there have been a lot of evil done in the name of God by the people who claim to represent him - I don't think we can whitewash that out of our history so I for one hold up my hand and apologise - heck I've been a fundamentalist and bashed people around and taken bashings myself so i might not have done massive evil but I have certainly done a lot of things that were evil in miniature and also provoked reactions which could be considered evil.

I might well have missed the point back then, love was the velvet glove that I wrapped the iron bar of truth in to give people a good verbal bashing to - love my enemies oh yes in a kapow! sense...

Thanking, thinking and being challenged by the critics…?

I welcome this critique, instead of reacting against Mr Dawkins I should be thanking him. He rightly says is religion making the world a better place - ok what evidence have I got to contradict him? How is me following Christ allaying his concerns and not encouraging them? If anything his words make me start back at home base and make me look at all the blessing I want for myself and the very little blessing I want to give to anyone else - seriously i love the idea of it but do I actually deliver?

Finding common ground/perspective with my critics…?

I actually view Mr Dawkins as someone who actually I have a lot of common with - we are both people who have a position of faith - I can't prove ultimately there is a God; I need to make a step of faith, altho not a blind one I like to think. Likewise, Mr Dawkins cannot prove that there is no God and therefore chooses to make a step of faith albeit not a blind one (unless it’s a watchmaker) he likes to think.

So here we are both people of faith, both asking do our respective beliefs make the world a better place? In my case I admit I should be doing a lot more than just asking the question...

Questing after God…a response to critique

I think it is vital that criticism sends us not into a defensive reactionary spin or denial but on a quest to seek after God – as Jason has done in his irredeemable series to go back to the bible and the traditions of the church and seek to critique ourselves.  To open ourselves up to the possibility that we have got it wrong and to seek after God to inform and transform us, ultimately if we are to transform the world we need to be in the process of being transformed ourselves and one of the key shaping is our understanding and application of the teachings/interactions of the God of the bible and the work of his Spirit in our lives.   I think that our questing should therefore involve:

• confession – Scott McKnight posts here on a call for a confessional church and  I think it is a call that applies in response to critique – we need to listen to the voice of the Spirit from within and without, be honest rather than right, to admit where we have sinned in thought/word/action, to seek God and how his Kingdom is being shaped by this critique, rethink and if necessary move to where Jesus is rather than staying where we have been entrenched…
• authenticity: Jason has a recent great post here on this - to be authentic I think is not just transmitting/admitting our faults but also about telling the ongoing and enfolding story of our transforming as part of the community of God and the community of his people.  I think being authentic involves actions – its not enough to just having right ethics/morals but to actually embody/live those ethics/morals.  If I am honest that is not something I can do alone but in the community of God and his people I do not have to – I am a growing person who is being transformed – it is the story of my life and my experience and the more open I am, the more critique I have the more I can see where I need help to grow…

• growth: I think this is an organic not linear process, a lumpy process, a dirty/messy process, it involves achy knees, sore backs, long hours, mystery, prayer, hope, listening to advice and a dependence both within and without for the help I need – it is not just a solo experience, if it was I would still be trying to invent the wheel let alone the wheelbarrow…

Well that's me done... in the spirit of constructive criticism and conversation, what do you think?

Help please - have you encountered emerging Jesus (or Christology in the conversation)?

I am beginning to do some thinking building  on McLaren's concept of seven Jesuses (i.e. Jesus in the context of a generous orthodox) about how the emerging church conversation views/interacts/encounters/and is shaped with/by Jesus...

So I'd really really like to hear your thoughts on:

• what emphasis do you think the emerging church conversation places on Jesus - how does he shape/influence/impact the conversation? 
• what events/teachings/charateristics of Jesus are key thought shaping passages in the emerging church conversation?
• how do you think it has affected action/character/theology of the conversation?
• what strengths do you think the emerging church brings/draws out in their view of Jesus - what problems/blindspots do you think are being addressed?
• conversely what weaknesses/limitations/blindspots do you see in the emerging church conversation?
• any good books/resources/links that you have encountered on Jesus?
• any questions you'd like to ask about the emerging church conversation/Jesus?
• anything else that occurs to you?

Thank you very much - I look forward to hearing from you...

No longer seeing the words for the trees...

Well I am all edited out so have sent off my submission for the magazine piece on emerging church and my faith journey - for final copy (with fuller footnotes) see here.

In doing my footnotes I came across this similar alternative journey complete with funky face pictures- although perhaps it has more of a sunset happy ending?! :)

A leaf that never knew it was part of a tree: a personal reflection about emergent/emerging church and my faith journey... (parts I-III)

I have collated my recent trilogy of  posts for my article into a Word doc (Download a_leaf_that_never_knew_it_was_part_of_a_tree.doc ) for those who prefer this medium... comments still very welcome.  Next stage will be a re-read next week and some re-editing of my own.  Now done so I have updated the document to its final submitted form.

Book and film rights still very much up for sale :)