it is finished...
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
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!!!I thought I'd post again to kind of bring this blog to some kind of closure (yes, it has been very quiet recently) now that the initial reason for setting it up has passed. I'm not going to close it down because I want to keep the archive of discussions to look back on and, who knows, I may even post something from time to time! If you've been a part of the conversations on this blog over the last five years, a big thank you. I've really enjoyed engaging with others over some of the stuff I've been thinking about and working on.
The thesis may be finished, but the mission continues - cheers!
Labels: emerging church, mission, musings
defending the sacred...
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Further to my last post, I received another email this morning, part of which reads...
"It all started at Shanty Nagar, Punjab, then the Christian community fell victim of Islamic extremism in Shangla Hills, the Christian community of Kasoor was attacked by the miscreants, and now a massive attack on a large number of Christians in Korian and Gojra.
In all the incidents Christian community and / or individuals have been falsely accused of desecrating the Holy Quran, thus once again the discriminatory BLASPHEMY LAWS have been misused against the peaceful Pakistani Christians in their own country, Pakistan.
According to News Reports thousands of Muslims, spurred by banned militant group, attacked a Christian neighbourhood in Gojra, on Saturday, burning more than hundred houses, and 7 people which include 2 minor children were also burnt alive, after report surfaced that some Christians had desecrated the Holy Quran."
I know I'm on sensitive ground here but I can't help but comment on this, having lived in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan and witnessed first-hand how Christians live in almost constant fear of such attacks. The Pakistan Christian community has strongly denied the charges of desecrating the Holy Quran, which led to the events of the last week, and this seems to have fallen on deaf ears with no due process.
I'm not a Moslem myself, and therefore have a limited understanding of Islam from my own experience, reading and Moslem friends. But, even so, I confess to finding it difficult to reconcile such actions of extremists with the writings in the Quran they claim to follow. Every Surah (chapter) in the Quran begins, "In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful" - the fundamental tenet of Islamic faith. My struggle is that even if people had desecrated the Holy Quran (again, it's worth stating that this is strongly denied) how could a Most Gracious and Merciful God sanction the indiscriminate burning of entire villages and murder of innocent people as a just response? Surely God's grace and mercy far exceeds the importance of a book, even one as sacred as the Quran (or Bible for that matter).
Interestingly, in the same week that these awful events have been taking place, an art installation involving the Bible caused controversy in Scotland. Naturally, there were complaints from people who were offended by this apparent defacing of Scripture (personally, I didn't really have a problem with it but can see why it could have offended others), but I didn't read of any villages being burned to the ground in response.
Once again, I know I'm on sensitive ground, but when we are faced with such injustices and such extreme persecution of innocent people surely it isn't good enough to brush it under the carpet without comment for fear of offending the guilty. The church in Pakistan has condemned these attacks and we ought to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them in doing the same. I'm equally convinced that many Moslems feel just as sickened by the events of the last week in Pakistan and would want to distance themselves from these ugly forms of extremism.
As a comment on my previous post pointed out, the challenge for the Christian community is to avoid the temptation to retaliate, and we must pray for the strength to forgive and, by doing so, demonstrate the gospel in action. That's my prayer for the Christian community in Pakistan; but I'm also praying for their safety and for the Most Gracious and Merciful God to convict those who would cause such suffering in the name of religion and supposedly defending the sacred.
open tables...
Thursday, April 23, 2009
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.
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
is the Old Testament Christian?...
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
I've just finished reading 2 Samuel, and have once again been struggling with the apparently bloodthirsty God found in its pages, and how we understand this portrayal of God as followers of the Prince of Peace. And then I came across this interesting post by Matt Stone at Glocal Christianity, which explores how, as Christians, we must read the Old Testament through the reframing lense of the New Testament. Matt argues that we cannot see the Old Testament in and of itself as a 'Christian text', since it is clearly Jewish and is upheld by other faiths as Scripture even though they might come to differing conclusions about God. If we follow this line, the Old Testament becomes a 'Christian text' when it is reframed by the New, such that we reinterpret what we find there. Matt writes:
"I find the movie Sixth Sense provides a good analogy. If you have seen that movie, starring Bruce Willis, then you’d know that the ending of the movie has a killer twist. In the final moments Bruce Willis’ character has a revelation that reframes everything that was going on up to that moment.... The realization affects his identity and transforms his entire story.... For Christians the coming of Christ is, similarly, a killer twist. Jesus transforms our understanding of God, and hence, our understanding of the Old Testament and how we read it. Reading the Old Testament in isolation from the New Testament is like watching Sixth Sense but walking out fifteen minutes before the climax. You’ll never understand Christianity by viewing it that way, and you’ll never truly understand the Old Testament by reading it that way."
If I understand Matt correctly, the New Testament is the Christian's 'text' (in a Derrida sense) - our interpretive framework through which we see the world, including the Old Testament. Of course, Matt makes a huge leap in the final line of the above quote as other faiths would certainly argue against needing the New Testament in order to "truly understand the Old Testament", but as a Christian believer myself I'm happy to go along with him here!
The question remains though... what do we do with the Old Testament narratives of the boodthirsty God and the faithfulness of his people being seen in their willingness to comit mass slaughter? Do we simply reject such texts as ancient misconceptions of God, based on the new understanding arising from the teaching and sacrificial example of Jesus, or is there a more subtle way to reframe the Old Testament?
Read Matt's whole post here
"I find the movie Sixth Sense provides a good analogy. If you have seen that movie, starring Bruce Willis, then you’d know that the ending of the movie has a killer twist. In the final moments Bruce Willis’ character has a revelation that reframes everything that was going on up to that moment.... The realization affects his identity and transforms his entire story.... For Christians the coming of Christ is, similarly, a killer twist. Jesus transforms our understanding of God, and hence, our understanding of the Old Testament and how we read it. Reading the Old Testament in isolation from the New Testament is like watching Sixth Sense but walking out fifteen minutes before the climax. You’ll never understand Christianity by viewing it that way, and you’ll never truly understand the Old Testament by reading it that way."
If I understand Matt correctly, the New Testament is the Christian's 'text' (in a Derrida sense) - our interpretive framework through which we see the world, including the Old Testament. Of course, Matt makes a huge leap in the final line of the above quote as other faiths would certainly argue against needing the New Testament in order to "truly understand the Old Testament", but as a Christian believer myself I'm happy to go along with him here!
The question remains though... what do we do with the Old Testament narratives of the boodthirsty God and the faithfulness of his people being seen in their willingness to comit mass slaughter? Do we simply reject such texts as ancient misconceptions of God, based on the new understanding arising from the teaching and sacrificial example of Jesus, or is there a more subtle way to reframe the Old Testament?
Read Matt's whole post here
Labels: musings, post-modernity, theology
the christian thought police...
Friday, January 30, 2009
Once again Jon Birch comes up trumps! If you get a chance, check out the brief conversation arising from my Tuesday post, and add to the discussion.
the opposite of faith revisited...
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
What I love about blogging is that no matter how quiet you might be (and, let's face it... this blog has been pretty quiet of late!), there's always a chance that someone new will visit your blog, pick up on a previous post and continue the conversation. And so, I was grateful to get a notification of someone adding a new comment to 'this post' that I originally wrote 2 years & 2 months ago (to the day!)
If you want to read the original post and conversation, including the new contribution 'click here', but I thought I'd post my latest response for those who are short of time...
'Anonymous', please don't think that I was suggesting that the pursuit of knowledge is a bad thing - in fact, quite the opposite. What I was challenging in this post is the viewpoint held by some that they already have 'The Truth', and so leave no room for God to disrupt their faith with fresh revelation, or, indeed, to have their 'knowledge' challenged and possibly changed by another person's 'knowledge'.
It seems from reading Scripture that God is often in the business of disrupting and even subverting people's 'knowledge' about him. One such clear example is Peter's vision in Acts 10 in which God seems to be telling Peter to disobey the Word of God (or, at the very least, Peter's understanding of it) concerning what is clean and unclean.
Of course we must study and be learners as followers of Jesus, and seek to understand more and more as we journey with Christ and one another. However, surely a religious viewpoint that leaves no room for surprise and fresh perspective is one that has given up on learning, believing it has already arrived at 'The Truth'. It seems to me that such a viewpoint has also jettisoned the very essence of faith.
What do you think?...
If you want to read the original post and conversation, including the new contribution 'click here', but I thought I'd post my latest response for those who are short of time...
'Anonymous', please don't think that I was suggesting that the pursuit of knowledge is a bad thing - in fact, quite the opposite. What I was challenging in this post is the viewpoint held by some that they already have 'The Truth', and so leave no room for God to disrupt their faith with fresh revelation, or, indeed, to have their 'knowledge' challenged and possibly changed by another person's 'knowledge'.
It seems from reading Scripture that God is often in the business of disrupting and even subverting people's 'knowledge' about him. One such clear example is Peter's vision in Acts 10 in which God seems to be telling Peter to disobey the Word of God (or, at the very least, Peter's understanding of it) concerning what is clean and unclean.
Of course we must study and be learners as followers of Jesus, and seek to understand more and more as we journey with Christ and one another. However, surely a religious viewpoint that leaves no room for surprise and fresh perspective is one that has given up on learning, believing it has already arrived at 'The Truth'. It seems to me that such a viewpoint has also jettisoned the very essence of faith.
What do you think?...
worship...
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Jonny has posted some really helpful and challenging posts about worship, arising out of a symposium he was involved in at London School of Theology. He makes some pertinent points (and echoes those of others) about fully contextualised worship grown "in the soil of your local culture". Read his posts here, here and here.
Labels: alternative worship, church, musings, popular culture, worship
what would Jesus construct?...
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
This is a good thought-provoking post from Richard Sudworth. Maybe with his 'IS, NOT and BUT' statements, Richard has made some profound (and not always comfortable, depending on where you're coming from) observations. Inclusion, community and equality are concepts I warm to, and I love Richard's appeal to 'the story' which transcends narrow doctrinal prescriptions and, at the same time, embodies certain themes which are to be embraced in remaining faithful to and journeying in the Christian tradition.
Labels: churchless faith, musings, theology
did Jesus deconstruct?...
Monday, July 21, 2008
just trying out an idea here...
I was in a discussion earlier today in which we were comparing Jesus' non-directional teaching and non-hierarchical 'church' structure to that which we find in Paul's letters. Where Jesus seemed intent on rejecting status (see Matthew 23:8-12) and on asking more questions than he gave answers, Paul seems equally intent on introducing structure, firming up theological convictions and making requirements of 'leaders' that set them apart from the rest (e.g. Titus 1:5-9, assuming Paul wrote Titus which I'm happy to accept). This cursory reading of both Jesus and Paul has led many people to set them up against each other and plump for the teaching of one as their 'key texts'.
As we were discussing this I started wondering if it could be argued that Jesus was engaged in deconstructing the inherited religious patterns, by his teaching and example, subverting the status positions found in his society and the powerplay of directive teaching. If so, can we argue that Jesus was intentionally engaging in encouraging people's faith journeys on from a stage 3 inherited faith (using Fowler's model) towards stage 4 and beyond?
Following this through, we could then argue that Paul was merely beginning the process of reconstruction, trying to make sense of his own religious heritage, the teaching and practice of Jesus and the social context(s) in which he found himself. At times Paul can seem a bit confused with himself - not surprising for someone moving through a stage 4 towards a stage 5 faith!
If this were the case, we could draw a couple of interesting implications...
This is clearly not a thought through theory, just something I'm mulling over! Any comments?...
I was in a discussion earlier today in which we were comparing Jesus' non-directional teaching and non-hierarchical 'church' structure to that which we find in Paul's letters. Where Jesus seemed intent on rejecting status (see Matthew 23:8-12) and on asking more questions than he gave answers, Paul seems equally intent on introducing structure, firming up theological convictions and making requirements of 'leaders' that set them apart from the rest (e.g. Titus 1:5-9, assuming Paul wrote Titus which I'm happy to accept). This cursory reading of both Jesus and Paul has led many people to set them up against each other and plump for the teaching of one as their 'key texts'.
As we were discussing this I started wondering if it could be argued that Jesus was engaged in deconstructing the inherited religious patterns, by his teaching and example, subverting the status positions found in his society and the powerplay of directive teaching. If so, can we argue that Jesus was intentionally engaging in encouraging people's faith journeys on from a stage 3 inherited faith (using Fowler's model) towards stage 4 and beyond?
Following this through, we could then argue that Paul was merely beginning the process of reconstruction, trying to make sense of his own religious heritage, the teaching and practice of Jesus and the social context(s) in which he found himself. At times Paul can seem a bit confused with himself - not surprising for someone moving through a stage 4 towards a stage 5 faith!
If this were the case, we could draw a couple of interesting implications...
- Paul's project was not contra to that of Jesus, but was a development of Jesus' own ministry. It is desireable (or is it?) that deconstruction leads to a reconstruction where the latter takes account of the journey and the changed perspectives and so may look very different from the pattern held prior to deconstruction, whilst having some similarities. Compare Paul's church structure and pattern for leadership with that of 1st century Judaism - similarities and radical differences.
- Paul, in reconstructing faith and community structure was doing so for the 1st century world(s) in which he lived and travelled. He wasn't necessarilly setting a definitive pattern that has to be adhered to by all people of all nations in all times.
This is clearly not a thought through theory, just something I'm mulling over! Any comments?...
risking the best...
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
I can't believe how busy life is at the moment and am annoyed at the things I'm having to neglect as a result... such as this blog! So, just to post something and break the long silence, here's a short thing I wrote for our latest church magazine...
I was having a conversation with someone last night who was commenting on how unimpressive France had been in their opening fixture of the European Championships and I replied, “isn’t it great to be able to criticise other European teams, knowing that it won’t rebound on you in a few days time?” It’s true to say that I’ve not been as relaxed at the beginning of a major international football tournament since… well, since the World Cup in 1994 – anyone notice the connection?!
But, of course, the reason for being relaxed is also a source of disappointment and regret – there’s no community atmosphere surrounding these championships, no cars flying the England flag, no empty streets on the all-important match days. If the truth be known, Euro 2008 is all a bit of a letdown, despite the BBC’s ‘who will you support’ efforts at raising public interest!
By England not qualifying, and so not taking part in the competition, we might avoid the stress and near-inevitable heartache, but we also miss so much more besides. If I were honest, I’d rather have the stress, despite what I said in my conversation last night.
And this has got me thinking about the journey of faith! The easiest way to avoid trouble or potential suffering is to keep your head down and not get involved. But this is also the surest way to miss out on so much of what Jesus wants us to enjoy. Jesus likened following him to travelling on a narrow road that only a few manage to find (Mt 7:13-14); he warned that being aligned to him may well divide families (Lk 12:52-53); he spoke of his followers suffering and being persecuted because of him (Mt 5:11-12); and he sent his disciples out as ‘sheep among wolves’ (Mt 10:16). It would have been far less stressful, far safer and far less likely to end in tears for those disciples if they had ignored Jesus’ call to follow and simply carried on fishing, collecting taxes or worshipping in the temple.
But, and it’s a big but, there was something so compelling about this man Jesus that they simply had to move out of their comfort zones and follow him, come what may, and in doing so they changed the world – the easy option is not always the best! The same compelling Jesus calls us to follow too, with the same warnings and the same opportunities. Like England’s football adventures, it may bring grief at times but surely it’s better to be involved!
I was having a conversation with someone last night who was commenting on how unimpressive France had been in their opening fixture of the European Championships and I replied, “isn’t it great to be able to criticise other European teams, knowing that it won’t rebound on you in a few days time?” It’s true to say that I’ve not been as relaxed at the beginning of a major international football tournament since… well, since the World Cup in 1994 – anyone notice the connection?!
But, of course, the reason for being relaxed is also a source of disappointment and regret – there’s no community atmosphere surrounding these championships, no cars flying the England flag, no empty streets on the all-important match days. If the truth be known, Euro 2008 is all a bit of a letdown, despite the BBC’s ‘who will you support’ efforts at raising public interest!
By England not qualifying, and so not taking part in the competition, we might avoid the stress and near-inevitable heartache, but we also miss so much more besides. If I were honest, I’d rather have the stress, despite what I said in my conversation last night.
And this has got me thinking about the journey of faith! The easiest way to avoid trouble or potential suffering is to keep your head down and not get involved. But this is also the surest way to miss out on so much of what Jesus wants us to enjoy. Jesus likened following him to travelling on a narrow road that only a few manage to find (Mt 7:13-14); he warned that being aligned to him may well divide families (Lk 12:52-53); he spoke of his followers suffering and being persecuted because of him (Mt 5:11-12); and he sent his disciples out as ‘sheep among wolves’ (Mt 10:16). It would have been far less stressful, far safer and far less likely to end in tears for those disciples if they had ignored Jesus’ call to follow and simply carried on fishing, collecting taxes or worshipping in the temple.
But, and it’s a big but, there was something so compelling about this man Jesus that they simply had to move out of their comfort zones and follow him, come what may, and in doing so they changed the world – the easy option is not always the best! The same compelling Jesus calls us to follow too, with the same warnings and the same opportunities. Like England’s football adventures, it may bring grief at times but surely it’s better to be involved!
doing and believing...
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
'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?
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
for a new beginning...
Friday, January 11, 2008
Every now and then you read something that could have been written specifically for you at the current stage in your life. A few days ago I came across the following blessing from John O'Donohue's Benedictus: A Book of Blessings. Given the changes in my life at the moment, it has really spoken to me and given me courage as I step out into new beginnings. John sadly died on January 3rd, so it seems fitting to post this as an illustration of one more life touched by his work...
hat tip... Paul Fromont
For a New Beginning (John O'Donohue)
In out-of-the-way places of the heart,
Where your thoughts never think to wander,
This beginning has been quietly forming,
Waiting until you were ready to emerge.
For a long time it has watched your desire,
Feeling the emptiness grow inside you,
Noticing how you willed yourself on,
Still unable to leave what you had outgrown.
It watched you play with the seduction of safety
And the grey promises that sameness whispered,
Heard the waves of turmoil rise and relent,
Wondered would you always live like this.
Then the delight, when your courage kindled,
And out you stepped onto new ground,
Your eyes young again with energy and dream,
A path of plentitude opening before you.
Though your destination is not clear
You can trust the promise of this opening;
Unfurl yourself into the grace of beginning
That is at one with your life’s desire.
Awaken your spirit to adventure;
Hold nothing back, learn to find ease in risk;
Soon you will be home in a new rhythm
For your soul senses the world that awaits you.
In out-of-the-way places of the heart,
Where your thoughts never think to wander,
This beginning has been quietly forming,
Waiting until you were ready to emerge.
For a long time it has watched your desire,
Feeling the emptiness grow inside you,
Noticing how you willed yourself on,
Still unable to leave what you had outgrown.
It watched you play with the seduction of safety
And the grey promises that sameness whispered,
Heard the waves of turmoil rise and relent,
Wondered would you always live like this.
Then the delight, when your courage kindled,
And out you stepped onto new ground,
Your eyes young again with energy and dream,
A path of plentitude opening before you.
Though your destination is not clear
You can trust the promise of this opening;
Unfurl yourself into the grace of beginning
That is at one with your life’s desire.
Awaken your spirit to adventure;
Hold nothing back, learn to find ease in risk;
Soon you will be home in a new rhythm
For your soul senses the world that awaits you.
hat tip... Paul Fromont
Labels: art, musings, spirituality
new year... new horizons...
Monday, January 07, 2008
So 2008 is underway and it's a year of changes and new challenges for me! Just before Christmas I signed off on over 8 years of University chaplaincy to take up a new dual post at the end of January. It's a move that takes me back into parish church ministry, becoming 'priest in charge' (a term I really don't like!) of St Mary's, Wavertree in Liverpool. As has become my pattern since 1999, this is only one half of a dual post! For the other half I'll be the deanery pioneer minister for the Toxteth and Wavertree deanery, enabling and encouraging emerging church communities and fresh expressions of church in the area. This will keep me connected with the Dream network, in particular Dream in Liverpool City which meets in the Deanery, as well as giving me opportunity to hook up with some other exciting initiatives (such as this one) and joining others in dreaming up new approaches to mission in the area.
It's both exciting and daunting but it feels like a good move! The people of St Mary's are very friendly and welcoming - it's a church with a long and rich history that doesn't want to remain rooted in the past but wants to build on it in meeting the needs of its community today. I'm also really impressed by their commitment to fair trade and social justice, and look forward to belonging to this community. Watch this space to read reflections and news over the course of time!!
It's both exciting and daunting but it feels like a good move! The people of St Mary's are very friendly and welcoming - it's a church with a long and rich history that doesn't want to remain rooted in the past but wants to build on it in meeting the needs of its community today. I'm also really impressed by their commitment to fair trade and social justice, and look forward to belonging to this community. Watch this space to read reflections and news over the course of time!!
the ideal and the reality...
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
A conversation I was engaged in last night has got me thinking some more about missional church commmunities. It was a fascinating discussion in which we voiced the tension between the 'ideal' Christian community and the 'reality'. The ideal community is one where members are so committed to one another and to journeying together in relationship with Christ that they are able to put up with one another, 'warts and all', tolerating and even embracing differences. Furthermore, the 'warts and all' are not hidden behind the facade of false 'Christian smiles' and utterances of 'everything is ok', but are public and worked through in an environment of honesty and unconditional acceptance. And so, the ideal Christian community will be multi-generational and multi-cultural, where everyone is open to learn from and engage with the people and things they don't particularly like (music, traditions, beliefs, etc), as well as those they do.
The reality of course is always different to this - generally people belong to their particular faith community because it best expresses the kind of things they do like, and includes the kind of people they can relate to. And woe betide anyone who comes in and tries to change this balance too radically to a different way of doing things. Generally we don't put up with 'warts and all' because we tend to keep them hidden, and when they do rise to the surface we simply resort to criticisms usually behind the backs of the people concerned!
So how do we move from the reality to the ideal... is it even possible? It dawned on me (rightly or wrongly) during our discussion that to try to 'create' the ideal is always doomed to failure. It's not good enough to expect people to put up with stuff they don't like or people they don't get on with, and to judge them as not committed enough if they don't. Our Western culture is fragmented, in the sense that it encompasses countless sub-cultures within it, but one uniting facet is consumerism. Christians often start talking about consumerism very critically as if we've managed to escape it, but the truth is that we are all consumers, me included! It follows that in a fragmented consumerist society people will tend to only engage in voluntary activities that they want to be a part of, activities that they enjoy or get something from. We generally don't chose to do things that we don't enjoy unless we're paid to or have to.
If then, we want community to be missional - if we want to encourage people to identify with and belong to faith communities, these communities have to, first and foremost, be ones that people can relate to and so want to belong to. Gone are the days (thank God) of people rolling up to church because someone says they ought to, and enduring it because they have no choice in the matter.
It's true that at work or when shopping (two examples raised in last night's discussion) we may encounter and tolerate annoying people, but at work we are paid and have no choice but to get on with the job regardless (apart from resigning that is), and when shopping we're either shopping for essentials and so have to put up with the inconveniences, or our desire to shop in that particular store outweighs the inconvenience so we simply try to avoid the nuisance. Work and shopping for essentials are not really voluntary activities and the leisure shopping we do because we enjoy it - if we didn't we'd likely stop shopping in the places where the annoying people were.
In the case of church we have a very different dynamic - it's generally a community where we can't avoid people (except in very large congregations) and where we have to put up the things that annoy us. My (educated) guess is that many people simply vote with their feet when they encounter uncomfortable differences, thinking 'why should I go to church to put up with stuff and people I don't get on with?' Of course, in all this we must still hold on to the ideal, but we can't engineer it and if we only operate in that model we're unlikely to engage anyone new, especially people with no previous church background. The level of selflessness needed to be committed to a community 'warts and all' is probably a fair distance down the discipleship path for most people - indeed many people who have been 'going to church' for decades have still not reached that point and hold out for what they prefer above any missional concerns. So why insist that people newly engaging with a community should be at that point immediately, and should 'shut up and put up' if they're serious about following Jesus.
So maybe this becomes an apologetic for culture specific communities, at least as a place of first connection with followers of Jesus. I guess the introduction of 'clusters' in some church models (e.g. "here') is an attempt to provide such spaces of belonging. These are not intended as end points with respect to engagement in Christian community, and are certainly not seen as exclusive 'clubs'. The intention is to allow the organic growth of safe and attractive community in which people can engage in the journey of discipleship with others, because they actually want to be there. At some point on the journey they may well begin to realise that they do actually need the 'warts and all' after all.
The reality of course is always different to this - generally people belong to their particular faith community because it best expresses the kind of things they do like, and includes the kind of people they can relate to. And woe betide anyone who comes in and tries to change this balance too radically to a different way of doing things. Generally we don't put up with 'warts and all' because we tend to keep them hidden, and when they do rise to the surface we simply resort to criticisms usually behind the backs of the people concerned!
So how do we move from the reality to the ideal... is it even possible? It dawned on me (rightly or wrongly) during our discussion that to try to 'create' the ideal is always doomed to failure. It's not good enough to expect people to put up with stuff they don't like or people they don't get on with, and to judge them as not committed enough if they don't. Our Western culture is fragmented, in the sense that it encompasses countless sub-cultures within it, but one uniting facet is consumerism. Christians often start talking about consumerism very critically as if we've managed to escape it, but the truth is that we are all consumers, me included! It follows that in a fragmented consumerist society people will tend to only engage in voluntary activities that they want to be a part of, activities that they enjoy or get something from. We generally don't chose to do things that we don't enjoy unless we're paid to or have to.
If then, we want community to be missional - if we want to encourage people to identify with and belong to faith communities, these communities have to, first and foremost, be ones that people can relate to and so want to belong to. Gone are the days (thank God) of people rolling up to church because someone says they ought to, and enduring it because they have no choice in the matter.
It's true that at work or when shopping (two examples raised in last night's discussion) we may encounter and tolerate annoying people, but at work we are paid and have no choice but to get on with the job regardless (apart from resigning that is), and when shopping we're either shopping for essentials and so have to put up with the inconveniences, or our desire to shop in that particular store outweighs the inconvenience so we simply try to avoid the nuisance. Work and shopping for essentials are not really voluntary activities and the leisure shopping we do because we enjoy it - if we didn't we'd likely stop shopping in the places where the annoying people were.
In the case of church we have a very different dynamic - it's generally a community where we can't avoid people (except in very large congregations) and where we have to put up the things that annoy us. My (educated) guess is that many people simply vote with their feet when they encounter uncomfortable differences, thinking 'why should I go to church to put up with stuff and people I don't get on with?' Of course, in all this we must still hold on to the ideal, but we can't engineer it and if we only operate in that model we're unlikely to engage anyone new, especially people with no previous church background. The level of selflessness needed to be committed to a community 'warts and all' is probably a fair distance down the discipleship path for most people - indeed many people who have been 'going to church' for decades have still not reached that point and hold out for what they prefer above any missional concerns. So why insist that people newly engaging with a community should be at that point immediately, and should 'shut up and put up' if they're serious about following Jesus.
So maybe this becomes an apologetic for culture specific communities, at least as a place of first connection with followers of Jesus. I guess the introduction of 'clusters' in some church models (e.g. "here') is an attempt to provide such spaces of belonging. These are not intended as end points with respect to engagement in Christian community, and are certainly not seen as exclusive 'clubs'. The intention is to allow the organic growth of safe and attractive community in which people can engage in the journey of discipleship with others, because they actually want to be there. At some point on the journey they may well begin to realise that they do actually need the 'warts and all' after all.
truth and status...
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Here are links to two excellent posts that relate (in different ways) to my Tuesday post 'changing our minds'...
Paul Fromont (on 'Prodigal Kiwi(s)' blog) - Fullness of Truth
Richard White (on the Dream blog) - Jesus never spoke to prostitutes
Paul Fromont (on 'Prodigal Kiwi(s)' blog) - Fullness of Truth
Richard White (on the Dream blog) - Jesus never spoke to prostitutes
changing our minds...
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
A key part of the ethos of Spirited Exchanges is that it's ok to change your mind, even during a discussion! If we're all journeying in our relationship with Christ, growing to know him better, then it's likely... no, it's inevitable... that at times we will discover that what we previously thought to be the truth is either incomplete and less than the truth or is actually wrong. It's at these times that we need to be able to swallow our pride and concede the argument - to say, "actually, I was wrong on that, now I think this"!The trouble is, that we Christians (or whatever we call ourselves) are not very good at this! We tend to see changing our minds as a sign of weakness rather than a point of growth - the beginning of a slippery slope towards losing faith! Paul Fromont posts 'here' a link to a paper by Canon Joseph Cassidy, of St Chad's college Durham, in which he writes, "…Spiritual freedom is rather a measure of whether I'd be willing to change my mind if God required it of me. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, urged his companions to aim for 'indifference': though it is a bit of a misnomer, in his terms indifference is a quest for equilibrium, a desire to be inclined to one option or another solely because it is closer to God's will for us. In other words it is a desire to be swayed by nothing other than God's will."
This reminds me of a conversation I was having with a friend last week in which we discussed the problem of power and intransigence in the church and compared it to the frequent cases in the Bible of God jumping out of the boxes that people had put him in. Perhaps the most classic case of this is Peter's vision in Acts 10, where God essentially instructs Peter to disobey the Word of God (not an easy one to reconcile with any notion of scriptural infallibility). Peter's obedience to God's will in this case opened up the good news of Jesus to the Gentiles for the first time.
And so, I wonder... what does the Church need to change it's mind over in order to be obedient to God's will and the missio dei in today's world? What do I have to change my mind over? What boxes have we constructed that we still only expect God to work in and through? Would we be willing to entertain the possibility that this is God's activity if it didn't fit those particular frameworks. I guess Peter could have easily concluded that his vision was 'demonic' once he 'weighed it' against his scriptures. Thank God he didn't!
Another friend of mine once told me that he felt 'called' by God to be a Bishop in the church, but not remotely called to be a vicar (or equivalent). Is he wrong? Is he power mad? Or is our system wrong that sets bishops in some kind of hierarchical arrangement? After all, isn't a bishop simply a member of the community of faith (the Church) with a specific ministry - no more important and no less important than any other member of this community? Why can't someone be called to this specific ministry without a call to other ministries first?
Don't get me wrong... I'm not overly hung up on this one. I guess it just may illustrate one such example of a box we may have put God in that he needs to spring up from and out of. I'm sure there are many more. Suggestions on a blog comment to....
three from elsewhere...
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Life just seems to be so manic at the moment that there's hardly time to read the wisdom of other bloggers let alone come up with something worth posting myself! Here are three posts well worth visiting though...
- Ben Edson's provocative post that challenges our insecurities when it comes to faith and spirituality - not sure what I think though I'm hugely grateful for people like Ben who push the boundaries and make us think. Also see his follow up post 'here'
- A refreshing and inspiring (for personal reasons that I'll post about when I get time!) post from Paul Fromont considering leadership, prayer and priesthood.
- Another wonderfully creative piece of mission from friends in New Zealand.
Labels: mission, musings, spirituality, worship
consuming spiritual experiences...
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
I really enjoyed being at the Mind Body Spirit Northern Festival over the weekend. I spent much of my time talking to people about their spiritual experiences and searching, praying for people and explaining how we continue this tradition because we believe that Jesus the healer lives on and is with us by his Spirit, and (a new experience for me) giving readings from the Jesus Deck (a contextually appropriate form of applied Bible reading really!)I think what struck me about the whole experience is how genuinely open people are to engage with 'the divine' and look beyond themselves in order to better know themselves. It's not stretching the point to say that I found a greater sense of openness to 'God' at this festival than I often find in many churches. In fact, people are so open that they are prepared to try all sorts of things and pay quite large amounts of money in the process (though we charged nothing at Dekhomai). I met and prayed with one young man who had already been to the Reiki healers and had his Aura read (at the modest cost of £25). It was the latter experience that was now concerning him as the 'reading' was not very positive. As we talked and prayed he expressed how he had felt a weight lifting from him - maybe a genuine activity of God.
I guess my overall reflection on the experience (and I'm sure it's overly simplistic) is that festivals such as this are in many ways an indictment on the Church, rather than an external expression of 'evil' competing with the Church. Many people I met had been raised through church or had some church experience in their background. For a whole range of reasons they were now continuing their spiritual journey detached from the Church. These people largely responded positively to Dekhomia because Jesus remained central to their spirituality, even though they had openly rejected the Church.
Which all raised a series of questions for me... what led these people to give up on the Church in their spiritual exploration? (I may have some handles on this one though!) More importantly, how do we (is it even possible to) enable people to freely journey in their own spiritual exploration within church communities, even if their present understanding is, in places, at odds with orthodox Christian doctrine and theology? Can we provide the space for such a journey centred on Jesus which will, potentially at least, negate the need that many feel to plough so much of their hard-earned money into Mind Body Spirit festivals? I'm reminded of an elderly lady who was a member of the first church I was a minister at who was greatly loved by everyone in the church and seen as a pillar of the church community. She had a strong belief in reincarnation... was it right that the church still counted her as 'one of us'?! Right or wrong (I'm not really into dogmatics) at least she was able to develop her relationship with Jesus alongside others who would challenge and encourage, rather than being cast into the void at the mercy of the multitude of confusing and contradicting messages.
But I say 'is it even possible to' because maybe consumerism has seduced our lives so fully that even spirituality and the search for God has been made an essentially individually 'purchased' thing. Many people I met over the weekend had 'consumed' several spiritual experiences through what was on offer at the festival and were still floating around, with little or no anchor points, looking for the next experience to 'buy'. If this is the case, then surely the Church has been complicit to some extent in this individualising of faith and spirituality, and must now find ways of being both contextually rooted (speaking the right language) and yet also counter cultural if we are to stem the tide and help people to (re)discover Jesus. I guess in some small way this is what Dekhomai and the stand at the festival was and is trying to do.
Labels: musings, post-christendom, spirituality
ssshhh...
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Last Thursday's Dream in Liverpool City is well worth blogging about! It was led by one of the community members, Danielle, and was given the title 'ssshhh' - I knew that it was about the place of silence but didn't really know what to expect.
When we entered the worship space there was a simple set up - the room was dark, lit only by a projector-lamp, that lit up one of the walls with a slowly changing bubble pattern, and a candle in one corner of the room. There were cushions on the floor of the main space to sit on, and three smaller spaces - one with sheets of paper and pens, one with play-dough, and the other with candles to light - were set out at one end of the room.
We were told at the start that the entire service would be in silence - no background music at all (a bit of a departure for Dream!) At 5 minute intervals there were some passages (many written by Nenri Nouwen) projected on to a wall for us to reflect on - each collection of passages began with a screen stating how many minutes remained (i.e. "30 minutes left"... "25 minutes left"...). We were invited to use the space and quiet however we wanted, and to make use of the three set-out spaces as we felt appropriate (if at all). The service was to be 45 minutes long... 45 minutes of complete silence!
Now, I don't really do silence very well, so the thought of 45 minutes in complete silence was not a wholly welcome one. At first I wondered how I would use the time - should I go and play with the play-dough or draw pictures on the paper, or should I just sit still and read the projected passages when they came up? I resisted the temptation to move for a while and began to relax allowing my thoughts to be led by what I was reading on the screen... and time began to speed up! Sure, I made use of one or two of the spaces during the 45 minutes, but definitely not to fill the time - it all seemed to flow together (for me at least) as I engaged with God in a way that I seldom do when rushing from one thing to another.
Having struggled in the past with silent retreats, extended prayer times and the like, I came away from Dream last week thinking that maybe Henri Nouwen and others like him were on to something. Maybe silence is not such a bad idea after all! Thanks Danielle for taking a risk and departing from our norm, if indeed we have one!
When we entered the worship space there was a simple set up - the room was dark, lit only by a projector-lamp, that lit up one of the walls with a slowly changing bubble pattern, and a candle in one corner of the room. There were cushions on the floor of the main space to sit on, and three smaller spaces - one with sheets of paper and pens, one with play-dough, and the other with candles to light - were set out at one end of the room.
We were told at the start that the entire service would be in silence - no background music at all (a bit of a departure for Dream!) At 5 minute intervals there were some passages (many written by Nenri Nouwen) projected on to a wall for us to reflect on - each collection of passages began with a screen stating how many minutes remained (i.e. "30 minutes left"... "25 minutes left"...). We were invited to use the space and quiet however we wanted, and to make use of the three set-out spaces as we felt appropriate (if at all). The service was to be 45 minutes long... 45 minutes of complete silence!
Now, I don't really do silence very well, so the thought of 45 minutes in complete silence was not a wholly welcome one. At first I wondered how I would use the time - should I go and play with the play-dough or draw pictures on the paper, or should I just sit still and read the projected passages when they came up? I resisted the temptation to move for a while and began to relax allowing my thoughts to be led by what I was reading on the screen... and time began to speed up! Sure, I made use of one or two of the spaces during the 45 minutes, but definitely not to fill the time - it all seemed to flow together (for me at least) as I engaged with God in a way that I seldom do when rushing from one thing to another.
Having struggled in the past with silent retreats, extended prayer times and the like, I came away from Dream last week thinking that maybe Henri Nouwen and others like him were on to something. Maybe silence is not such a bad idea after all! Thanks Danielle for taking a risk and departing from our norm, if indeed we have one!
On Silence
by Henri Nouwen
"Silence requires the discipline to recognize the urge to get up and go again as a temptation to look elsewhere for what is close at hand. It offers the freedom to stroll in your own inner yard, and to rake up the leaves there and clear the paths so you can easily find the way to your heart. Perhaps there will be much fear and uncertainty when you first come upon the "unfamiliar terrain", but slowly and surely you will discover an order and familiarity which deepens your longing to stay home....... whenever you come upon this silence, it seems as though you have received a gift, one which is "promising" in the true sense of the word. It promises new life. It is the silence of peace and prayer, because it brings you back to the One who is leading you."
by Henri Nouwen
"Silence requires the discipline to recognize the urge to get up and go again as a temptation to look elsewhere for what is close at hand. It offers the freedom to stroll in your own inner yard, and to rake up the leaves there and clear the paths so you can easily find the way to your heart. Perhaps there will be much fear and uncertainty when you first come upon the "unfamiliar terrain", but slowly and surely you will discover an order and familiarity which deepens your longing to stay home....... whenever you come upon this silence, it seems as though you have received a gift, one which is "promising" in the true sense of the word. It promises new life. It is the silence of peace and prayer, because it brings you back to the One who is leading you."
Labels: alternative worship, Dream, musings, spirituality, worship
graven images...
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
"The trouble with image-based perceptions of God and worship is that you're only one step away from idolatry" - so spoke a friend of mine who is also a pastor of a free Reformed church.His comment came as part of a conversation we were having on Sunday, in which I was describing how Dream tended to engage people who felt that their artistic and creative gifts had more often then not been sidelined in worship they had experienced at other churches. I tried to explain how songs and words were often seen as 'central' to the act of worship while artistic expressions (painting, sculpting, modelling, fabric work, etc) were seen as peripheral. People who expressed themselves better through art consequently often felt themselves sidelined in worship. Dream (and other so-called 'altworship' groups like it) was attempting to redress the balance and see art as equally central to the act of worship.
And then came the comment... the implication: art can lead to idolatry! My friend's point was that in art we attempt to 'picture' God and so violate the second Commandment. My response was that in words we equally attempt to 'picture' God and so are equally likely to break the second Commandment. Plenty of 'graven images' have been constructed linguistically and presented as THE correct description of God - surely that's just as idolatrous as an icon or a statue (if not more so because of the intent - very few people regard an icon as THE correct description of God)!
The real issue here is how we deal with the images of God that we construct - be they visually, through art, or linguistically, through words. In word or picture we attempt to encapsulate God, and as soon as we have done so what we have encapsulated is, by definition, less than God. God is so much greater than any of our images or descriptions of God, and so whatever we can come up with is, at best, only a partial depiction of God.
And so word and image are equally useful tools and equally 'dangerous' (if you want to follow my friend's line of argument) tools in trying to get a handle on the Divine. Maybe this is why Jesus taught so much about humility and used so many parables to disrupt people's perceptions and teach new things about God and the kingdom (incidentally, what are the parables if they are not attempts by Jesus to 'paint pictures' in people's minds?)
So I, for one, will continue the artistic and creative quest in worship event though I am naturally more disposed to words! After all, didn't Jesus say "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul..." as well as "with all your mind"?
the above image is from poosk
Labels: alternative worship, musings, theology, worship
I'm Malcolm Chamberlain
from Liverpool, United Kingdom
. I'm married with two young children and, in addition to Liverpool, have lived in Leicester (for the first 18 years of my life), York, Peshawar (Pakistan), Oxford and Walsall. I've been actively involved in the emerging church since 2001, as a founding member of Dream in Liverpool City, and coordinator of the Dream network. I'm currently engaged in research into emerging missional communities, and work as a parish priest and pioneer minister.
