hermeneutical humility...
Monday, November 02, 2009
I love this t-shirt slogan - a whole lot more honest perhaps than the famous "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" one. Get it from 'here'!
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?...
the story in sand...
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
surprise!...
Monday, November 17, 2008
brilliant...
Thursday, October 02, 2008
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
blah manchester - Tom Sine...
Monday, September 01, 2008
Sadly I won't be able to go to this, but hopefully I'm doing my bit by giving it a plug!...
We are excited to announce that Tom Sine will be coming to Manchester this Autumn. He’ll be spending 24hrs with us where we’ll be exploring his recently published book ‘The New Conspirators’, discovering more about him and learning about the hopeful mustard seeds that are being sown here in Manchester.
This non residential conference will take place at the Nazarene college in Manchester (Dene Road, Didsbury, M20 2GU) from 30th Sept until 1st October. There will be three sessions during our time together plus plenty of time for networking and discovering more about what God is doing in the North West.
30th September, 15:00 - 17:00. Session 1: Travelling in Turbulent Times with the New Conspirators.
30th September, 19:00 - 21:00: Session 2: Taking Turbulent Times Seriously.
1st October, 10:00 - 12:30: Session 3: The imagination of the Future.
For more information about the sessions click 'here'
Book online 'here'
Alternatively send a cheque made payable to CMS to: Alice Morgan, CMS, Watlington Road, Oxford, OX4 6BZ and include a covering note stating that the cheque is for the Tom Sine event in Manchester.
This event is hosted in partnership between Blah...manchester and Network Manchester/EA
‘The New Conspirators’ with Tom Sine.
We are excited to announce that Tom Sine will be coming to Manchester this Autumn. He’ll be spending 24hrs with us where we’ll be exploring his recently published book ‘The New Conspirators’, discovering more about him and learning about the hopeful mustard seeds that are being sown here in Manchester.
This non residential conference will take place at the Nazarene college in Manchester (Dene Road, Didsbury, M20 2GU) from 30th Sept until 1st October. There will be three sessions during our time together plus plenty of time for networking and discovering more about what God is doing in the North West.
30th September, 15:00 - 17:00. Session 1: Travelling in Turbulent Times with the New Conspirators.
30th September, 19:00 - 21:00: Session 2: Taking Turbulent Times Seriously.
1st October, 10:00 - 12:30: Session 3: The imagination of the Future.
For more information about the sessions click 'here'
Book online 'here'
Alternatively send a cheque made payable to CMS to: Alice Morgan, CMS, Watlington Road, Oxford, OX4 6BZ and include a covering note stating that the cheque is for the Tom Sine event in Manchester.
This event is hosted in partnership between Blah...manchester and Network Manchester/EA
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?...
boxes...
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
here's something I wrote recently for our church magazine...
For us as a family the dominating item over the last few weeks has been the dreaded box! On the Tuesday after Easter the Pickford’s team arrived at our then home in Aigburth and began packing all our worldly goods into boxes – nearly 200 of them! Then, two days later, they delivered those boxes, along with our furniture, to the Rectory opposite St Mary’s – and so began for us the lengthy (and still ongoing) process of unpacking boxes and finding new homes for all our stuff (minus the things we’ve bravely thrown out!)
And all this has got me thinking about how our lives are so often characterised by ‘boxes’ of sorts. We all have our preferred ways of doing things and understanding things. And, of course, there’s nothing wrong in having those ‘boxes’ – they generally offer stability and security, our own little known world in the sometimes frightening and often-unstable big world. The problems arise when I think that my box is the only valid box or, more specifically, that God only functions and dwells in my box because he only approves of my box. Sadly, churches can be masters at trying to box God up like this – whether it’s in terms of tradition, musical style, doctrine, what is considered ‘reverent’, or a myriad of other ways.
The gospel writers tell us that as Jesus breathed his last, hanging on a cross on that hot dusty Friday afternoon, the curtain in the temple was torn in two. This ‘curtain’ was not some flimsy fabric, but a formidable screen that had previously separated the perceived place of God’s dwelling from ordinary people. In this dramatic action it was as if God was visibly breaking out of the box that religion had tried to put him in. The implication… God cannot be contained or, as C S Lewis’ Mr Tumnus says in the first Narnia film, “Aslan is not a tame Lion”! It became clear at Pentecost that this ‘breaking out of God’ was so that he could relate personally, through his Spirit, to all people. No longer can we presume to ‘house’ God in any one specific place – God is making his home in countless places, in countless lives.
As I write, we’re still finding new homes for the things we’re taking out of boxes at the Rectory. I wonder what new homes God may find in this season of Easter? Will he find a new home in someone’s life, maybe even yours? Will he find a new home in your conversations and relationships? Take courage and allow God to break free from the boxes you’ve, maybe unwittingly, attempted to contain him in – you never know, you may just be pleasantly surprised!
For us as a family the dominating item over the last few weeks has been the dreaded box! On the Tuesday after Easter the Pickford’s team arrived at our then home in Aigburth and began packing all our worldly goods into boxes – nearly 200 of them! Then, two days later, they delivered those boxes, along with our furniture, to the Rectory opposite St Mary’s – and so began for us the lengthy (and still ongoing) process of unpacking boxes and finding new homes for all our stuff (minus the things we’ve bravely thrown out!)
And all this has got me thinking about how our lives are so often characterised by ‘boxes’ of sorts. We all have our preferred ways of doing things and understanding things. And, of course, there’s nothing wrong in having those ‘boxes’ – they generally offer stability and security, our own little known world in the sometimes frightening and often-unstable big world. The problems arise when I think that my box is the only valid box or, more specifically, that God only functions and dwells in my box because he only approves of my box. Sadly, churches can be masters at trying to box God up like this – whether it’s in terms of tradition, musical style, doctrine, what is considered ‘reverent’, or a myriad of other ways.
The gospel writers tell us that as Jesus breathed his last, hanging on a cross on that hot dusty Friday afternoon, the curtain in the temple was torn in two. This ‘curtain’ was not some flimsy fabric, but a formidable screen that had previously separated the perceived place of God’s dwelling from ordinary people. In this dramatic action it was as if God was visibly breaking out of the box that religion had tried to put him in. The implication… God cannot be contained or, as C S Lewis’ Mr Tumnus says in the first Narnia film, “Aslan is not a tame Lion”! It became clear at Pentecost that this ‘breaking out of God’ was so that he could relate personally, through his Spirit, to all people. No longer can we presume to ‘house’ God in any one specific place – God is making his home in countless places, in countless lives.
As I write, we’re still finding new homes for the things we’re taking out of boxes at the Rectory. I wonder what new homes God may find in this season of Easter? Will he find a new home in someone’s life, maybe even yours? Will he find a new home in your conversations and relationships? Take courage and allow God to break free from the boxes you’ve, maybe unwittingly, attempted to contain him in – you never know, you may just be pleasantly surprised!
Labels: religion, spirituality, theology
missio dei and the church...
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Last night I began teaching a twelve session course, Mission in Britain Today, for the SNWTP; a partnership of the Anglican, Methodist, Baptist and United Reformed churches across Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Chester, training people for church ministry and leadership. I had a great time with the group I'm teaching and we began a fascinating discussion which is likely to continue throughout the course. I'm blogging about it here because I'm interested in your response too!By way of introduction to the theme of mission, and as a basis for understanding mission, we looked at the concept of missio dei and discussed the implications of believing in a God who is constantly engaged in his (please note that I'm using the masculine pronoun here to personalise, not to genderise (sic), God) mission in and beyond the structures of the organised Christian Church.
As part of this discussion, I sketched the two well documented alternatives regarding the implication of the missio dei for the Church. The first (put forward by such as A.T. Van Leeuwen and J.C. Hoekendiijk) is the suggestion that the Church is pretty much incidental to the success of the mission of God. The argument goes that, since God is engaged in mission and uses various agents to bring about his purposes of justice and salvation, it makes little difference to the success of this mission whether the Church has got its act together or not - God will achieve his purposes with or without the Church. Nor is it significant to the overall mission of God as to whether the Church is growing or not - God's mission is beyond, though it does include, the Church.
The second alternative to understanding the implications of the missio dei for the Church is that argued by such as Andrew Kirk and Wilbert Schenk. They emphasise the belief that, although God is indeed active beyond the Church and although the ultimate purpose of the divine mission is the Kingdom and not the Church, nevertheless the Church, as the community of those who have entered consciously into relationship with God, is central to God’s way of working in mission. The Church, they argue, is both an embodied sign of the Kingdom and a foretaste or sacrament of the Kingdom, and, furthermore, it is the only intentional agent of the Kingdom. Therefore, it does matter whether the Church has got its act together or not - although God is not restricted to working only through the Church, he has established and called the Church as the primary agent and visible sign in the missio dei, and so the mission of God will suffer if the Church is not fulfilling its calling. Likewise, Church growth is evidence of the success of the missio dei.
Of course, the proviso for this second alternative has to be what we understand by 'the Church'. Church growth does not simply mean more bums on seats in organised churches. But it does surely refer to the community(ies) who consciously identify themselves as followers of Christ engaged in the mission of God, rather than some vague and undefined concept. Indeed, it's this conscious identification that differentiates the Church from the wider Kingdom, of which it is a part.
So that was the gist of last night's discussion. Over to you... is the Church incidental and inconsequential to the missio dei, or is it the central agent through which God choses to work his purposes? Does it matter whether the Church has got its act together or not?
visual theology...
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
'This' is great - I love the artwork and the reflection that follows... "Where do we "put the camera" when we read a particular story in the gospels? " is a brilliant question. Thanks Richard!
landing the plane...
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
'This' is an interesting reflection from Tony Jones, that relates to the question I was posing in my last post. Go read...
Labels: post-modernity, theology
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
lost on the way...
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
"There are two kinds of spiritual journeys or two ways to "be on the way" as Caputo would put it, the first (which is all too familiar to many of us evangelicals) is to know the way ahead of time and then just try your hardest to get there, the second is to be on a trek to find the way but all the while being a bit lost. The postmodern person understands that being lost and at the same time being "on the way" are entirely compatible. Far from falling into the black abyss of relativity that some critics might fear, this kind of a spiritual journey boasts a healthy Christian understanding of the via negativa."The above quote, which I find really helpful, comes from a post by Charlie Lyons Pardue engaging with John Caputo's What Would Jesus Deconstruct? Read the whole post 'here'.
Labels: post-modernity, spirituality, theology
Jesus blogs here...
Friday, January 11, 2008
Jesus' Musings is well worth checking out - make sure you read the comments for each post to get it. It's wonderful satire that gets right to the point!See also 'Weblog of Jesus Stirs Controversy Among Faithful' for more 'comments'. My favourite of the bunch has to be the one (supposedly) written by Christian tract publisher Edward Muehler... "I prefer a gospel that is streamlined, one that fits in a little pamphlet... I know that Jesus has a lot to say about things like poverty and peace, but these things distract from the true nature of the Gospel: freedom
from personal sin and hope for the afterlife."
hat tip... Ben Sternke
unpacking suitcases...
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Bishop Tom Wright has a wonderful way with words, as can be seen in this recent interview with the Wittenburg Door's Becky Garrison..."In Christian theology, such phrases [as "the authority of Scripture"] regularly act as “portable stories”—that is, ways of packing up longer narratives about God, Jesus, the Church and the world, folding them away into convenient suitcases, and then carrying them about with us. Shorthands enable us to pick up lots of complicated things and carry them around all together. But we should never forget that the point in doing so, like the point of carrying belongings in a suitcase, is that what has been packed away can then be unpacked and put to use in the new location. Too much debate about scriptural authority has had the form of people hitting one another with locked suitcases. It is time to unpack our shorthand doctrines, to lay them out and inspect them. Long years in a suitcase may have made some of the contents go moldy. They will benefit from fresh air, and perhaps a hot iron."
Go and read the full interview!
hat tip... Paul Fromont
stories and propositions...
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
'This' is a helpful and thought provoking post from Ben Sternke warning of the dangers of erring too exclusively towards either propositional or narrative interpretations of the Bible. Ben argues that we need to hold both approaches together. He writes...
"Think about the way you talk about someone you love or admire. Do you tell stories about them or make propositional statements about them? I do both, as I assume most of us do. I'll say "She's one of the most genuine people I know" (propositional statement), but I might also tell a story about her genuineness.
Stories enliven the propositions, and propositions chasten the stories. The truth of the gospel is more than a proposition, but it is also more than a story."
go read...
"Think about the way you talk about someone you love or admire. Do you tell stories about them or make propositional statements about them? I do both, as I assume most of us do. I'll say "She's one of the most genuine people I know" (propositional statement), but I might also tell a story about her genuineness.
Stories enliven the propositions, and propositions chasten the stories. The truth of the gospel is more than a proposition, but it is also more than a story."
go read...
Labels: theology
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.
