malcolm chamberlain

This blog was set up over five years ago, just ahead of me beginning fieldwork in researching for an MPhil thesis. The original post and explanation is 'here' and I can't quite believe it was so long ago! Well, it's all over - the thesis has finally been written, examined, corrected (I was asked to make minor modifications following the viva), and has been passed! This morning I've sent the final version off to the printers to be printed and bound (not a cheap exercise!) and then it's all done!! The picture (left) is the title page - hopefully it's not as dull as it sounds! In fact, my examiners were really encouraging and enthusiastic about it, claiming it is an excellent piece of work and should be published - we'll see!!!

Labels: emerging church, mission, musings

Not sure if anyone is still out there (given how quiet I've been on this blog recently) but I thought it was worth directing anyone interested to a good paper written by Kevin Ward for the online New Zealand journal 'Stimulus' entitled It might be emerging, but is it church?

Labels: emerging church

In this month's Next-Wave online journal, publisher Charles Wear writes a short article entitled 'What Should Pastors Think About the Emerging Church?', in which he addresses some of the concerns that have been raised by evangelical writers such as D A Carson amongst others. His closing gambit is worth quoting in full...

Labels: emerging church

Greenbelt begins at the end of this week - I can't quite believe how quickly it's come round (did I say that last year?) but I'm really looking forward to it again. This year there's a pretty good music line-up too with Athlete heading the bill on Monday night. The new Greenbelt iPhone app has really helped in trying to work out which things I'm going to try to go to - I've got loads of stuff on my 'favourites' page, though I know realistically I won't get to half of it!!

Labels: churchless faith, emerging church, Greenbelt

I've been asked to write something about sacraments for some pioneer ministers in Liverpool to comment on as part of their networked learning, but I’m keen to open the discussion out more widely, so feel to comment whoever and wherever you are! Be warned, this is quite a lengthy post for this blog!

I’ve blogged before about Eucharist 'here', following a conversation I had with my Bishop about what policy I practiced in admitting people to Communion who have not been baptised, let alone confirmed. I remember feeling a bit uncomfortable with the question until he assured me that he wasn't trying to catch me out! He went on to recommend a book by Timothy Gorringe called 'The Sign of Love' and lent me the book, which I reviewed 'here'. The gist of Gorringe's argument is that the Last Supper was, for Jesus, a continuation of the table fellowship that had so characterised his ministry, and through which he had included those often considered outsiders by the religion and culture of his day. Gorringe sets out a clear case for Jesus using table fellowship redemptively, which culminates in the Last Supper. Therefore, he suggests, Communion should be offered widely and becomes, for many, the means of connecting with God's grace and the community of faith. Rather than admission to Communion following on from baptism, Gorringe argues that the Eucharist should be offered unconditionally to all, and may itself become a significant part of a person's story leading them to a fuller identification with the community of faith.

For some time I've been unsatisfied with the Evangelical Anglican fudge concerning invitation to receive the Eucharist! I used to trip off the standard "if you love the Lord and know him as your saviour then you are welcome to receive", thinking I was being radically inclusive by not demanding that participants be confirmed. But I've become dissatisfied with this because it is still surrounding Jesus' unconditional table fellowship with certain requirements, those being ‘loving Jesus’ and ‘knowing him as saviour’, so why not go the whole hog and demand the traditional Anglican line of confirmation?! Nowadays, in my parish ministry as well as in pioneer ministry, the invitation I give is totally open – something like "if you'd like to come and receive you are welcome to do so - this is not my table or the church's table, but Jesus', and he welcomes all." I'm not sure how this would go down at a Bishop's team meeting, but given the fact that Eucharistic ministry seems to be so central to emerging churches because, in its mystery and non-cerebral engagement, it is missionally attractive, it seems that the Spirit is leading us to step down from our hierarchical protectionism regarding gifts of God's grace and get back to the Jesus way of offering hospitality to all.

In a similar way, my position on baptism has changed over the years too! I used to want to put baptismal candidates (or the parents and godparents of children being baptised) through a thorough course to ensure that they properly understood ‘the gospel’ (or, at least, my version of it) before going ahead with baptism. Now, as with Communion, I have a much more open approach. There is a significant difference with baptism, however, and that is that the candidates or their sponsors are making some public statements of belief and intention regarding life direction (turning away from all that is against God and turning to Christ). For this reason, I like to meet up with parents and godparents to go through the words of the service, so that they know in advance what is being asked of them, and try to answer any questions they might have, offering in the process alternative arrangements (such as thanksgiving or dedication services) if they felt unable to make these statements with integrity. But that said, I don’t see it as my role to ‘judge’ whether they are taking the rite seriously or being completely honest with me. If they say they are ok with all this and that they want to go ahead then that’s good enough for me – after all, baptism too is a visible sign of God’s grace, so who am I to ring-fence it or deny access to people? Surely it is between them and God, and the sacraments are God’s initiative and invitation, not ours.

In pioneering mission all of this takes on a sharper significance in that we want members of the new emerging community, who may not yet have owned faith personally, to be fully included in all aspects of community life and worship. What do we do if we are involved in taking a baptism and someone else in the community shouts out, “I’d like to do that too”? Do we insist on a future baptism after some instruction or do we simply baptise them there and then? It seems that the way of John the Baptist, and Jesus following him, would have been to simply get on with it!

And what about the words we use? At Dream we often write our own Eucharistic prayers, rooted contextually in the community and the occasion, but that has gotten us into trouble in the past! Should pioneer communities be restricted to the authorised form of words that the Church of England (or whatever sponsoring body) has decreed acceptable or should there be liberty to reframe sacramental worship in the culture of the host community? And I haven’t even touched on the ‘lay’ or ‘ordained’ question! When it’s a recognised and often stated fact that many ‘fresh expressions’ are lay-led (surely a cause for celebration!), what is gained by shipping in an ordained person from outside the new and fragile community just so that the community can experience the grace of Jesus’ table fellowship? If the Eucharist is a visible demonstration of the physicality of God – God incarnate, flesh and blood, bread and wine – why can’t we allow it to be fully incarnate in a community that has no ordained person present?

This is a splurge of thoughts and I’m looking forward to the comments, but just to finish it’s worth mentioning that I am seeing people beginning to identify with Christian community and own faith for themselves through their experience of the sacraments, be it in emerging church or conventional church communities. Being welcomed into the mystery of the Eucharist, or being trusted to take on the promises of baptism without a faith grilling, has enabled people to feel included and a sense of belonging - that they are a part of what God is doing, that they matter. My fear is that our past (and still current) attempts to ‘uphold the integrity’ of the sacraments, by building walls around them, have only served to undermine their integrity as tangible vehicles of God’s grace and unconditional love.

Labels: community, emerging church, mission, musings, theology, worship

Mark's in the news again!! This is a pretty interesting article from the BBC, looking at how the church in Telford is engaging (or not) with what it calls the 'spiritual-but-not religious brigade'. It features 'Safe Space' and even a quote from 'emerging church guru' Ian Mobsby (is that a title that he's been officially given?!)

Read the article and then go to Mark's blog to read his reflections on it...

Labels: emerging church, popular culture, religion, spirituality

'This' is a fascinating post offering some reflections on Alternative Worship and Emerging Church from Kevin Corcoran, an 'outsider' (not my description) who spent time with various practitioners and communities. There's a lot in his description that rings true with my own experience and, on the whole, I think he paints a very fair and accurate portrait.

I've been thinking particularly about one of the features he identifies...

"emerging Christians tend to be theologically pluralistic and quite suspicious of tidy theological boxes. They believe that God is bigger than any theology and that God is first and foremost a story-teller, not a dispenser of theological doctrine and factoids. Theology for them, therefore, is conceived as an ongoing and provisional conversation. Emerging Christians are also allergic to thinking which fixates on who is going to heaven and who is going to hell, or on who’s on the inside and who’s on the outside. They stress the importance of right-living (orthopraxy) over right-believing (orthodoxy). What’s important, they often say, is whether you engage in God-love and neighbor-love. Or as one of our conversation partners put it, “We’re more interested in doing truth than believing ‘truths’.”"

As I read this I identified completely with it and yet on a second reading I'm left slightly uneasy! I, for one, don't want to be fixated on who's in and who's out or on neatly tying up following Jesus into a predefined theological and doctrinal package. For this reason, I am 100% behind the emerging church project (as some have described it). However, I guess my unease kicks in when I think about the parameters for Christ-led discipleship. Are there any? Is it really a journey without any givens? Is theology really provisional? If so, how do we prevent this journey of discipleship from being a completely subjective experience, once again playing into the hands of modern Western individualism - "who are you to tell me where my journey with Jesus should be going?"?!

I guess this is why the notion of community is so important to 'emerging Christians', such that "a premium is placed on togetherness, journeying with and alongside others" (Corcoran's words). But even in this community experience (and perhaps, especially in it) are there any givens or norms? Is it a case of anything goes or are there beliefs and values that define the community?

In the emerging churches I've experienced there are often very clear values and/or beliefs underpinning them. Indeed, to say that there are no theological givens is in itself a theological given! I'm convinced, given my reading of the gospels, that orthopraxy is, at least, as important as orthodoxy, but this doesn't render orthodoxy unimportant... does it?

Labels: alternative worship, emerging church, musings, theology

In January 2006 Dream featured as one of Steve Taylor's 'Emerging Church Postcards'. For the third consecutive year Steve is running the series again with new 'postcards'. To find out more about the series and how to get your community featured visit here!

Labels: emerging church

warning... long post!!

I've recently been in email correspondence with someone, concerning Fowlers' stages of Faith development and how faith stage transition impacts the church. With his permission, I thought I'd post the first two email (one each) that started the discussion, to see if anyone else wants to join in and add their perspective!

It started here...

Hi Malcolm,

Following your recommendation I've been reading Fowler (Stages of Faith) and also found your blog today. You mentioned some reservations that went with your recommendation of Fowler - I'd be interested in hearing them sometime.

One thing I found was your reference to Fowler's Stage 5 & emerging church..

(see post on Wednesday, August 02, 2006)

Fowler also writes : "Stage 5 also sees, however, that the relativity of religious traditions that matters is not their relativity to each other but their relativity - their relate-ivity - to the reality to which they mediate relation. [..] Conjunctive faith's radical openness to the truth of the other stems precisely from its confidence in the reality mediated by its own tradition and in the awareness that that reality overspills its mediation" (Stages of Faith, chapter 20).

My own experience in transition from stage 3 to stage 4/5 faith involved discussions in which I was accused of eclecticism, which I regarded as miles from reality, but it is interesting to note that it was perceived as such by someone in stage 3. Looking back on that period, I realize the extent to which what I inevitably found myself saying was both misunderstood and generated a fearful response.

Is it possible that some of the criticism of emergent church might in reality lie in a frightened response to the challenge to conventional stage 3 faith by those in conjunctive stage 5 faith? If so, then how does emergent church dialogue with those at conventional levels of faith?

Is there not a greater danger than "slipping into an epistemology without any convictions" inherent in "building authentic faith communities for people operating at Fowler's stage 5 - 'Conjunctive Faith'" that this merely becomes, for some at least, a continued search for an idealized church community of the like-minded, one in which people selfishly fail to engage rightly with those at earlier stages of faith.

(Although Fowler does not shy away from averring that his stages of faith represent advancement, I see this in a very limited sense - there's absolutely no room for pride or even complacency here - a stage 3er can be considerably more faithful in his or her stage 3 than a stage 5er in his).

For Fowler also states of stage 5 :

"And with the seriousness that can arise when life is more than half over, this stage is ready to spend and be spent for the cause of conserving and cultivating the possibility of others' generating identity and meaning" (ibid, chapter 20).

Does not a stage 5 faith demand an unselfish, selfless commitment to those in earlier stages of faith? Is there not also a requirement to be part of and contributing to "a faith community that provides for the nurture of ongoing adult development in faith (which) will create a climate of developmental expectation" (ibid, chapter 24)?

How can emergent church realize this if it consists solely of "people operating at Fowler's stage 5"?

Colin

--------

Colin

thanks for this - excellent questions that you ask. I think you're right when you say "Does not a stage 5 faith demand an unselfish, selfless commitment to those in earlier stages of faith?" and I would reply 'yes it does!' The problem is not so much relating stage 5ers with stage 3ers, but more relating those in transition from stage 3 to 4 to 5 with those in stage 3. What tends to happen, especially in more evangelical churches, is that those in transition are seen as 'backsliders' questioning the great unquestionables of evangelical faith, so making it next to impossible for those in transition to remain. This turns things on their head a bit from what you point out in that it's not those who are moving beyond a stage 3 faith who separate themselves off from stage 3 churches, as much as them feeling pushed out or excluded from those churches. Evidence shows that many churches who operate at stage 3 (and most do) are unable to accommodate those who are in transition beyond this. And the more 'certain' the faith being held in the church (for this you could read 'the more theologically conservative the church is') the greater this problem seems to be. What the emerging church and Spirited Exchanges type groups have provided for such people is a place to process faith safely - a place to de-construct and reconstruct faith if you like.

What often happens is that when a person has made this journey and owns a more conjunctive faith (I say 'a more...' because, like Fowler, I doubt that many of us actually get to that point) they often find that they want to re-engage in a community of faith with a more varied 'congregation', i.e. a 'normal' church, though interestingly it may not be of the same 'flavour' as the church they left in the first place.

I think it needs to be stated, though, that the emerging church (to use a label) is not only functioning in this way - in Dream, for example, we do have people who are in faith stage transition but we also have engaged (and do engage) people who are exploring faith, people who still belong to other (more structural) churches and so on. If the emerging church were only a processing space for faith stage transition I wouldn't be advocating it as a missional response to postmodernity in the same way, and its raison detre would be very different - more akin to Spirited Exchanges groups that are, by definition, more temporary places of belonging.

Maybe if we could find a way of being church that allows for faith processing and deconstruction alongside a framework that positively supports and teaches those in stage 3, without judgements being made in either direction, then there wouldn't be a problem!

I don't know if this helps at all - keep your ideas coming and let me know if you want me to open up this discussion on the blog!! (he did!!)

Cheers
Malcolm

Labels: church, churchless faith, emerging church

After my last post linking to three very 'wordy' (though equally helpful) articles engaging with the term 'missional', Emerging Grace has a refreshing pictorial take on emerging church terms 'here'. I think this one is my favourite of the bunch because it resonates with my own phrase of the year, 'get real'! There are several others worthy of a look though!

hat tip... TSK

Labels: emerging church

David Hayward posts 'here' about the vulnerability of the early church, in which he writes...

"Read the gospel of John, The Revelation and the three epistles and you pretty much witness the erosion of church communities. I don’t think because they didn’t have church growth or maintenance skills, but because there’s a gene present in any biblical community that prevents it from growing into some kind of tower of Babel. I think the healthiest communities do not have the guarantee of permanence."

Over the last few years I've been involved in numerous conversations regarding the 'maturing' of the emerging church - questions of when does an emerging church community 'grow up' (so to speak)? For some, the issue is financial, and I guess there is something valuable in a community being able to pay its own way and not be financially dependent on another institution. But the response that gets me most nervous is the 'sustainability' one - the view that a mature church, and by implication a 'successful' church, must be sustainable long-term. I suppose I get nervous about this, not because I don't think it's a good thing for a community to have a long life, but because once the 'sustainable' goal becomes the primary focus, a community is in danger of crossing the line between mission and maintenance. Not that I want to set up a false dichotomy here - effective mission may well lead to community growth and so 'maintain' its life for longer. The shift that I'm nervous of, though, is a subtle but potentially damaging one - it's when the primary motive for any activity becomes 'ensuring the future survival of the community', such that mission becomes a means to that end rather than about Kingdom ministry.

The Dream network, of which I'm a part, has been going for more than 5 years now, but along the way we've seen networked communities come and go. Some existed for a short time (less than a year) and engaged a small number of people for that time, and others have been going for the full 5 years. All of them have always been, and still are, vulnerable - if you were to ask me which Dream communities will still be going in 2 years time, I'm not sure I could give an answer (I could guess but I'd probably be proved wrong!) What's important to notice though is that some of the groups that are no more have still reached and helped people along the journey of faith, some of whom are now involved in other Dream groups or church communities. None of the time was wasted; none of the communities, no matter how transient, were pointless. And maybe the key to realising this is to recognise that each group is part of something bigger (the Dream network), which is itself part of something bigger (the 'Church'), which is itself part of something bigger (the Kingdom of God) - it's this final 'bigger' that we're truly members of and it's this that will surely endure without any need for a sustainability strategy!

The words from David's post that most resonate with me are, "there’s a gene present in any biblical community that prevents it from growing into some kind of tower of Babel. I think the healthiest communities do not have the guarantee of permanence." Maybe this is to enable us to keep our focus on the Kingdom of God and on God's mission of which we're a part, rather than getting caught up in maintenance strategies or empire building.

Labels: church, emerging church, mission, musings

"In the Church of England, the biggest most positive focus is the project that we call Fresh Expressions, an initiative for networking and resourcing church planting across the country."

These are the words of Archbishop Rowan Williams in response to the question, "With so many things on your plate, what do you think are the most critical things you need to focus on as Archbishop in the short term?"

It's good to see that, with all the destructive debates going on in the Anglican Communion, our Archbishop at least is continuing to focus on what really matters.

Read the whole interview 'here'

hat tip... Paul Fromont

Labels: church, emerging church, mission

Holidays are wonderful things - change of scenery, plenty of rest, new food (I tried snails for the first time!) and quality family time... and then you come home! Actually, it's great to be home and getting back into the swing of things, it's just that I've found the mountain of emails (over 400 - and, yes, I know that's not many for some of you out there, but it's more than enough for me!) a bit draining to say the least. Some have been very welcome though, especially those from friends I've not heard from in a while. I'm also trying to catch up on over 300 blog posts that my Bloglines reader has stored up for me - I dare say I'll comment on one or two of them in the days to come.

So, with all those words of wisdom to catch up on, it's not easy to find time to post myself! But, I promised that I would today so for the one or two of you that might visit to see, here goes...

A few days before leaving for France, I had a meeting with my bishop and we had a great discussion about the place of the Eucharist in the emerging church (in fact, this seems to be a constantly recurring theme in a whole range of discussions over the last month or so, but that's for another post). This particular conversation with the bishop began with us talking about Dream and its development over the last few months.

He then asked if we'd had any baptisms or weddings connected to the Dream communities which led into a general discussion about sacraments (you can see how it could can't you?!) I spoke a bit about how the Eucharist was a key part of the worshipping life for several of the Dream communities, and then came the question... "what is your policy for admitting people to communion before they have publicly professed faith in baptism?" (or words to that effect).

Remember, the question came from my diocesan bishop and I must have looked slightly uncomfortable as I was desperately trying to formulate my response, because he quickly followed it up by saying... "don't worry, I'm not trying to catch you out, I'm just interested in how a community reaching unchurched people offers sacramental worship." He went on (and this is all paraphrased from memory but I'm confident I've got the gist right)... "I've been reading this book recently in which the author argues for a generous open policy on communion as a way into Christian community." He's lent me the book and I've just started reading it; it's called The Sign of Love by Timothy Gorringe. I'll post about it when I've finished it!

It was a great conversation because it carried a definite air of permission on the part of my bishop, which is always a welcome thing! His question is, of course, a very important one if we're serious about building open and inclusive community. My own church background and theological training led me to be quite protective of baptism and Eucharist, wanting to make sure that recipients had jumped through the various hoops of doctrine and belief before allowing them to receive, but in recent years I've become much more open and generous (some would say 'liberal') in my attitude. If, as I now think, the sacraments are gifts of God's grace and signs of heaven present in the ordinary and 'earthly', seen in the use of very 'earthly' things (water, wine, bread) conveying deeply spiritual mysteries, then who are we to withhold such grace? Who made us the gatekeepers of God's extravagant love, such that we deem some people able to receive and some not. Surely, the decision as to whether or not someone should be in receipt of God's grace is God's and God's alone, and as God's already so abundantly and openly offered it to us, that leaves the decision as to whether I partake of it mine and mine alone - no-one can withhold God from me, nor can I withhold God from anyone else.

So, in answer to the bishop's question, we never enquire of a person's faith or ask to see their baptismal certificate before 'allowing' them communion at Dream - we simply make the invitation to all and allow individuals to decide for themselves as to whether they want to join in at that time or not - some do and some don't.

Labels: alternative worship, Dream, emerging church, musings, theology, worship

Last night was the Dream network's 5th birthday celebration service in Liverpool cathedral. The high points for me were the prayer stations, which were brought by members of the different Dream groups including two new groups that are soon to launch, and the celebration of Communion with champagne!

There were 60+ people there and there was a great atmosphere. We had a photographer present taking pics, so watch this space and I'll post some as soon as I get them! The new-look Dream website is also live now, so take a look if you haven't already done so and let us know what you think!

Labels: alternative worship, Dream, emerging church

a special network service (open to anyone) to celebrate the fifth birthday of Dream...
Sunday 29th April, 8pm, Liverpool Anglican Cathedral

P.S. check out the new-look (under construction) Dream website!!

Labels: alternative worship, Dream, emerging church, worship

I've just finished reading James K A Smith's Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church, and would say that it's essential reading for anyone who is engaged in the emerging church 'conversation' or is concerned about being missional in the culture(s) of postmodernity. Smith takes a fresh look at what he refers to as the 'bumper sticker' quotes of Derrida ("There is nothing outside the text"), Lyotard ("incredulity towards metanarratives") and Foucault ("power is knowledge"), arguing that by pulling these popular quotes out of the context from which they originate (the original texts of the respective writers) we have largely misunderstood the authors' intentions. As such, these insights, and those of postmodernism as a whole, far from being opposed to Christian theology, may act as timely catalysts for the Church to rediscover in practise what it means to be the church.

Smith resists popular calls for the Church to be 'relevant' and non-confessional, seeing such trends as merely extensions of the modernist world view. Instead, he argues that in order to be fully post-modern we must reclaim pre-modern practices and insights (especially those of Augustine and Aquinas) and take up the invitation, given by postmodernism, to articulate a robust confessional theology (the unapologetic telling of our 'story'). Further, he envisions a postmodern church that is rooted in history and tradition, and which fully affirms the physical body, temporal space and place, and the community, all of which have been sidelined or neglected by modernity (and, consequently, the evangelical church). At the heart of all of this, he argues, is the centrality of the Incarnation.

Smith writes in a pacey and thoroughly accessible style, drawing on the stories of recent movies to illustrate the points being made by postmodern philosophers. He is clearly sympathetic of the emerging church, but also raises a useful critique asking if even the emerging church is still unwittingly too tied to modernity. As you might expect of such a book, there is no shortage of quotable passages, but here's one illustrating how incarnation shapes ecclesiology, which has certain resonances with current trends in alternative worship and the emerging church...

"The story of God-become-flesh is best rendered by the poetry and painting of affective worship rather than the narrowly cognitive didacticism of Power-Pointed "messages." Properly postmodern worship resists such reductionism by reclaiming the holistic, full-orbed materiality of liturgical worship that activates all the senses: hearing (not just "messages" but the poetry of the preached Word), sight (with a renewed appreciation for the visual arts, iconicity, and the architectural space of worship), touch (in communal engagement, but also toughing the bread that is Christ's body), taste (the body and blood), and even smell (of wine in the cup of the new covenant but also the fragrance of worship in candles and incense). God's taking on a human body also takes up our bodies into worship and participation in the divine." (p140)

Labels: emerging church, popular culture, post-modernity, spirituality, theology, worship

Kester Brewin has posted a series of reflections ([1], [2], [3], [4]) comparing Jesus with Judas and Paul, and arguing that the latter two fall into the trap of power play and strategy whereas Jesus subverted this agenda by, for example, remaining quiet at his trial and refusing to enter the power struggle. Kester wonders "whether Christ's passion is in some way 'the end of strategy'." The question he poses for the emerging church is whether it too can resist the pull towards strategy and power play.

I'm personally involved in the emerging church through Dream, but also have a foot firmly in the institutional church by virtue of my job. The struggle I often face is with the institutional pressure to strategise for the emerging church. In response, I constantly raise concerns about this and keep arguing that by imposing a strategy we may end up killing genuine emergence. However, in the comments to Kester's third post of his series, Jonny Baker writes "so your strategy is not to have a strategy ?!" My guess is that Jonny had his tongue firmly in his cheek when typing this, but it does push the issue... is not having a strategy still a strategy?!

I can imagine some of my colleagues arguing against Kester's posts by saying that the actions of Jesus are incredibly strategic in order to subvert the status quo and promote the values of the Kingdom; and what's more, if they did I'd have to concede that they may have a point! Maybe we can't avoid strategy at all! The important consideration must instead be what underpins or roots our strategy - is our strategy aimed at gaining power and empire building, or is it focussed on working towards the kingdom as Jesus described and modelled it?

Labels: emerging church, musings, theology

I've just finished reading Ian Mobsby's book 'Emerging and Fresh Expressions of Church - how are they authentically Church and Anglican?' It's a book form of Ian's academic research into 4 emerging churches (3 in UK and 1 in USA) that have links with the Anglican Communion, and is unique in the fact that it focusses on ecclesiology and, in particular, Anglican ecclesiology, whereas most other published books on the emerging church tend to focus on missiology. In short, it does exactly what it says on the tin (well, in the title anyway).

It's a well written and researched book which, refreshingly, is as aware of its own shortcomings as it is of its findings. It's definitely worth reading as it goes a long way towards addressing many of the theological issues that 'Mission-shaped Church' overlooked. Ian's analysis of contemporary culture is also informative, going beyond discussions of postmodernity alone to look at the impacts of consumerism and information technology on the spiritual landscape of the West.

Ian's book can be ordered direct from Moot, or from SPCK or Amazon if you prefer! It's worth stating that all the money raised from the sale of this book goes towards Moot, the community Ian is a part of, so in buying the book you'll be helping to fund a growing emerging church!

Labels: church, emerging church, theology

It's a real shame that 'this' is only an April fool prank (or should I say, "thank God this is only an April fool prank"?)! It made me laugh anyway, especially this bit...

"The show is set to replace 'Songs of Praise' - the long running BBC Christian show which media bosses have long thought promotes an outdated view of church culture. The new show will have the same prime-time Sunday evening spot in the TV schedules but instead of a church filled with 100+ worshippers, viewers will tune in to see a dozen 30-something Christians play with tealights and data projectors whilst debating the impact of postmodernism on the core beliefs of Christianity."

Great article (and hoax) Adrian - I presume it was you! Go read...

Labels: emerging church, fun

Mark Berry writes...

"I'm feeling stirred to ask some questions... what is our sense of communitas? where is our sense of shared liminality and spirit? how can we abandon the need for "huddle and cuddle" and truly embrace the dangerous journey? For me this means that we shouldn't be expending our energy creating gatherings to which the needy will be drawn, this isn't about creating safe spaces in our places but is about creating safe space between me and another... safe not because it is risk free, but safe because it is open and honest, safe because ALL are vulnerable not because none are."

There's a lot of talk about communitas in the emerging church, and a lot of discussion about how Victor Turner's findings and theories can inform and shape missional communities in liminal (post-modern) culture. There is a danger, however, that all this can become simply a conversation about semantics - 'let's call it communitas instead of community' - rather than praxis. I think Mark hits on an essential insight here... what distinguishes communitas from structured community is the 'space' in which it occurs - the 'dangerous journey' as Mark refers to it. Communitas is, by definition, organic and undefined; it is built around relationships and assumed roles, rather than programs and structured hierarchies. It may also, as Turner strongly argues, be temporary, and inevitably give way to structure at some point (and this tendency is evident in some more established emerging church communities currently grappling with questions of leadership, pastoral support structures, etc).

Communitas or not, I'm drawn to Mark's comment that I've highlighted in bold. In my own journey I've valued the 'spaces' (by that I mean relational spaces as much as physical spaces) where I can be real and honest about my faith and my struggles, and that hasn't always been possible in church communities. Mark calls for a space that is safe not "because it is risk free, but safe because it is open and honest, safe because ALL are vulnerable not because none are." I couldn't agree more Mark!

Labels: community, emerging church, mission