Tag Archives: emerging church

Church in the margins- gender and leadership…

Posted on by
1

There has been some discussion over on Jonny’s blog about that old issue of gender in leadership. It seemed to rage over two different book reviews- here and here– both of which were on new forms of church, and both of which were overwhelmingly male in authorship and involvement.

Some of the comments have been very pointed and it is quite likely that some people have been left feeling sore by the whole thing. I know that blogging can easily result in these kind of ego rattling discussions, but to be honest, I have never liked them. It is like watching a slowly unfolding car accident- compelling, but at the same time unpleasant.

Not that the issues do not need to be aired.

Particularly when it concerns the marginalisation of female voices within the discussions about what church is becoming. The kind of marginalisation that stands in a long line of similar suppression of female voices throughout church history.

I have my own particular perspective on these issues, as we all do. Our small group has no leaders- in the formal sense that is. Different people take (or are given) control at different times however. I also meet with another Bible study/prayer group, in which I am usually the only man.

In both of these gatherings, leadership, as far as it exists, is best understood in terms of hospitality. And in this, we do have a leader- and she is the one who organises, invites, disseminates information, provides tea and a listening ear. This kind of leadership is so much more than being the host of a dinner party- it is faciliative, releasing and creative in the way that it makes people feel safe, included and part of something. It is both the object and the means by which we become church.

Perhaps you could say that this is what female leadership looks like. And if so, it seems to me to be the kind of leadership that is needed within our new forms of church more than any other.

Women might be better at this kind of leadership than men (or rather some women might be better than some men, with the percentage balance towards the women) but let us be honest- we can all get it so wrong.  And this is often revealed in how we use personal power as much as how we display public leadership.

I am no longer easily ‘led’ by anyone- male or female- but I hope I am an easy companion as we walk side by side. And when I see power being used to overcome, overwhelm, overpower- particularly when this is done callously and with scant regard to the damage being done- then our ways will diverge.

So for me, the new forms of church that are emerging have an opportunity to correct some of the public leadership gender imbalance- and this seems to me to be a great thing. But despite the fact that I am a straight, white male, I am going to risk saying this-

There are more important things.

Banksy- ‘Exit through the gift shop’…

Posted on by
Reply

We have just watched this film.

Telling the story of a ‘film maker’ Thierry Guetta, who seeks out street artist and international man of mystery- Banksy. He starts out obsessively videotaping the embryonic graffiti/street art movement, as it moves from the fringe into the studios and art galleries. Then decides he want a piece of the action, reinventing himself as Mr Brainwash, and staging a hugely successful art show in Los Angeles.

That is- he might have done.

Because as you watch the film, you find yourself asking again and again ‘Is this for real?’

Or is this film a statement of how a counter cultural art movement became adopted by the mainstream, commercialised and then loses its authenticity? A ‘prankumentary’?

How it sold out, just like Punk and Pop Art had done before it?

And given all the parallels between installation art and emerging/alternative worship (check out Jonny Baker’s book ‘Curating Worship‘) I found myself thinking about how movements erupt, flow, channel and then cool to carvable, portable stone.

And how the early proponents of the movement- pioneers and radicals as they are- become disenchanted and there is talk of ‘pirates’ and the end of it all.

But as Banksy says about Mr Brain Wash- ‘I felt that he was not playing by the rules, but then, there were no rules.’

So- exit through the gift shop.

Or perhaps change the game.

Because it is truth that will set you free, and the media is NOT the message.

Or is it?

The State of Emergence, 2011…

Posted on by
1

Just read this post by Jonathan Brink the Emergent Village website.

I hesitated to repost it here- although this thing called ’emerging church’ continues to be a vital one for me- and the theme of many previous posts. The hesitation was because the blogosphere has been over populated with emerging church obituaries. Some of them have been provocative, others gleefull. Most have been premature, and driven by a particular agenda.

Some too have been a natural consequence of the cooling of pioneer activism, and the breaking apart of fragile allegiances between some of the early adopters in the USA. These relationships were always likely to be tested, given the characteristics of prophetic pioneers.

But having said all that, Emergent Village- and it is always worth remembering that they are not, and have never claimed to be the voice of ’emerging church’- provides an important, if USA centric, perspective on the conversation.

I liked some of what Brink had to say- firstly on community-

If 2010 marked anything, it was the growing awareness that following in the footsteps of Jesus and gathering together in community is hard. People were tired of talking about it and just wanted to do it. Bradley pins the death of the emerging church to this awareness. Rob Bell, arguably one of the more important but undeclared voices in the emerging church recognized that he had become that big Mega-church. What was once cool had now become mainstream. And in losing its luster, the real work of ministry began to emerge.

And finally- on love-

The emerging church isn’t dead. It’s just finally wrestled with the angel and won. It’s shedding it old image, the one that got people so riled up in the first place. The conversations won’t ever go away because in the end, we’re looking for what it means to be human. We’re looking to discover the reality that Jesus was trying to present, one of infinite grace and beauty, stark reality of the kingdom of God in our midst, and a renewed sense of possibility for the restoration of the world.

Here’s to 2011 and a renewed sense of faith, hope and love. Because the greatest of these is love.

When it is all said and done, the labels are meaningless, unless they become a conduit for the Spirit.

For me, this conversation has been just that.

But man can not live on conversation alone- there are also the dishes to be done and the dirty business of learning to live out lives of love…

Sex, sin and the emerging church…

Posted on by
5

A deliberately provocative title, which I hope you will forgive me for.

I have been thinking about sin. This was brought home to me recently when watching the BBC programme ‘The Big Silence’, in which this statement was made-

If you have not got a pure heart, you can not see/hear God.

There is a debate as to whether this is true, and whether any of us can ever lay claim to purity of heart- but the issue has nagged at me a little, and I have learnt to listen to this kind of nagging.

Because in all the discussions, books and  blogs about emerging church (in the broader sense of the term,) you do not see the word ‘sin’ used very much. Sure, it is there or there abouts in the debates about atonement and the nature of sexuality in particular, but the concept of holiness and purity as goals for life have largely been left behind. They belong to a different church movement, and between ‘them’ and ‘us’ is a respectful distance at best.

Perhaps this is because the emerging church discussion has largely started out as a reaction to the excesses of a certain kind of spirituality- it is in part revisionist and reformist, despite having sweeping influence in so many areas of church. So in rejecting fixed inflexible positions and seeking to open up possibilities for new encounters with God, and new connections with culture, the debates often assumed that participants had a common starting position- Evangelical, orthodox Christianity- with all it’s assumptions and fixed world view.

So, most of us were probably well versed in an awareness of our sinfulness, and the price paid, in terms of substitutionary atonement of Jesus. And also of how the process of maturity was one of becoming more holy- measured in terms of personal, private behaviour.

Evangelical Christianity regarded ‘the problem of sin’ as the centre of everything- and the mission of Church was to save people from the consequences of this sin. To be honest, in my experience, what happened when you had been ‘saved’ was a little more mixed. We assumed that we Christians will then be on a journey towards purity and holiness, where sins are ‘dealt with’ and we become more like Jesus.

Between you and me, this was not my experience- neither subjective nor observational. Church often became a place where external measures of maturity- such as length of time ‘on the road’ and ‘gifting’- was at odds with our real, private selves.

There was also the fact that we overemphasised the private, personal aspects of sin as opposed to other vital parts of the life of faith- serving others, working for peace and justice, living in community.

And finally there was the problem of sin-definition. Sex was right up there- particularly homosexual sex (incidentally, did anyone see this Jewish take on the issue that is causing such controversy? HT Graham Peacock) This kind of sin, along with others, depended on a particular view of Biblical authority, which has come under considerable challenge.

My contention is that as a result of these issues, the debates around what is emerging have tended to leave the issue of ‘sin’ to one side.

Anyway- back to the point of this piece. Any reading of the words of Jesus will have to acknowledge the centrality of the call to holiness- by which I mean an honest process of coming to terms with all the things within out motivations, our behaviour and our lifestyles that are not compatible with the life of Jesus within us.

And, in the old language, this sin becomes a wall separating us from God- in terms of our ability to hear from God, and to live in the flow of the Spirit in our lives. Sin does spiritual damage.

Given too that sin is a source of actual damage in our lives- to our external relationships with people and the world as well as to our inner development, then I wonder if we have let slip some important principles for life.

Our call it to be a holy nation (not a Holy Nation- if you get my drift.) In order to do this, we Christians walk a path with and towards and encounter with the Living God. And there is accountability for the way that we do this.

And if (like mine) your lives are cluttered with all sorts of things that you know they should not be- then this ought to be an issue for us all. It ought to be an issue for church- even Emerging church.

I have been thinking about how we might bring the issue of sin into the new context, and made a list of principles that made sense to me-

Focus on yourself– not other people.

Categorising other groups as sinful is a bad idea- for what ever reason.

Let those who are without sin throw stones- the rest is up to the voice of God in the life of individuals. Concentrate on listening to God, and for the rhythms of grace. Some people may need direction, but let them seek that for themselves when prompted by the Spirit.

Excluding people from your group because of sin is dangerous, and should only be an absolute last resort- where the alternative is damage to other individuals in the group, or to the group itself.

People are more important than policies.

Collective sin is possible- but again, apply this to your own group in humility.

I do not think God requires purity before he engages with us- rather he requires a contrite heart, and a desire to turn away from the stuff that we know it wrong.

Process is important- and ritual. The old practices of confession and deliberate corporate repentance.

Watch for the things that you hold secret. There may come a time to bring them into the open- in a trusted quiet place. But this requires great trust and security- and this is special, rather than ordinary.

Watch for the things that are tolerated in your community- the lessons of history teach us that in our collectives we easily accommodate to things that individually we might despise.

 

Ways of reading the Bible…

Posted on by
9

Some time ago, I posted some questions about how we understand and encounter the Bible. Someone asked me to post some answers to my questions, so I had a go at this here.

It has been quite a journey for me over the last few years- trying to come to terms with a faith that I no longer had faith in, and then discovering along the way that I was not alone, and that there were different ways to approach an understanding of God, and in particular, different ways to approach our primary source material on the life of faith- the Bible.

This process has been painful, and at times I have wondered whether my faith will survive. But the outcome has been one of renewal. The Spirit of God was once again stirring the waters…

The process of change has involved a period deconstruction- a doubting and shaking loose things that had previously seemed unassailable and absolute. This is the painful bit- when everything seems to go into freefall.

The ’emerging church conversation’- carried out largely through blogs and websites- seemed to me to be comfortable with unanswered questions. In fact after every truth and every tenet, we added a question mark.

But then there comes a time when something new starts to emerge and it is time to construct again. It feels to me that this is where we currently stand. We do not need bombastic pronunciations or new religious structures- rather it feels that our heads have come out of the clouds, and we can see further.

Along the way, I have found Brian McLaren’s writing to be a life giving. I know others have a different experience- for some his style can drag, for others his aim is too low brow, as the are more used to the theological arguments than I am- but he has taken me places that I had not dared to go alone.

(Photo taken in a semi-ruined abandoned croft house on the island of Bernera, off Lewis, Western isles. A family bible left open above an empty fire place…)

In reading his new book (slowly and in small chunks) I came across a study guide he had written, which focussed on different ways of reading scripture, and found it so helpful that I wanted to give it a plug.

You can download it here.

But here are a few highlights-

We have been shaken loose from our previous ways of reading the Bible- the ‘modern’ way- which seemed to be all about using the text as a blueprint so that we can categorise and systematise faith. McLaren compares this to the ways that the Americans use their constitution- where each word is given equal legal weight, and is enforceable in a way divorced from emotion or wider ethical considerations.

But having shaken loose- what other ways of reading the Bible are left?

McLaren lists 14 possible ways of encountering Scripture-

  1. Narrative reading- where we get into the story, the context and history from which the words emerge from.

  2. Converstional reading- where we engage with the different conversations across the generations embraced in the Bible- for example Jesus with the religious powers of his day, the Priests and the Prophets, the Jews and the Gentiles.

  3. Missional reading- in which we ask we ask, in each passage of Scripture, how is God extending God’s overarching mission of blessing all nations through a called and commissioned community of people.

  4. Political/Economic reading- the skew of God’s attention towards those who suffer injustice at the hands of earthly empire involving money, sexuality, power, violence, and law.

  5. Rhetorical reading- in which we look for what the text it trying to do, rather than just what it is saying.

  6. Literal reading- “…when readers of the Bible develop sensitivity to the ways poets, protesters, storytellers, activists, priests and mystics use language, the Bible is liberated from its constitutional captivity to be the wild, inspired, and impassioned collection of literary artifacts that it is.” McLaren suggests that people who say they are taking the words literally often are doing the very opposite- approaching the test through a very narrow hermeneutic.

  7. Close reading- better readings of scripture will fit in with the small details of the narrative- the bits that we easily miss that the writer chose to include in the text, which is rich in culture and traditions that we easily miss.

  8. Communal reading- the Bible is complex and hard, and the only way we can really engage with it is through the broader community- firstly in terms of “the community of the dead” where we listen respectfully to how previous generations have understood scripture, whilst understanding their skew towards a western, wealthy, white, male perspective. Secondly we look for the voices of minorities- those who have been forced to the margins. It is not ONE perspective, but rather both/and.

  9. Recursive reading- understanding of the Bible, and emphases within it change, ebb and flow across generations, and within lifetimes. This might be one of the ways that the Holy Spirit brings renewal.

  10. Ethical reading- text applied without ethics have allowed our faith to justify slavery, genocide, anti-Semitism, oppression of women and gay people- therefore we have to accept that interpretation is a MORAL ACT, so we should test an interpretation by reason and scholarship,using our rational intelligence, and a sense of justice and ethics. How might I treat people if I follow this interpretation? Whom might I harm? What unintended socialconsequences can we predict if this interpretation is widely embraced? Could people be vilified, harmed, or even killed because of this interpretation? McLaren points to those in Scripture who have wrestled with God in the face of his seeming injustice… Job, Moses, Abraham.

  11. Personal reading- “the reader is himself or herself in the predicament the text addresses. So faithful readings are habitually humble, expectant, open, and hungry and thirsty to encounter the Living God. Even the “professional” reader and teacher of the Bible must remain forever an “amateur” too …”

  12. Mystical reading- we must “…develop the habit of mystical openness, receptivity not only to understanding from the text but to enlightenment from the Holy Spirit, not only to interpretation but to revelation, not only to intelligent engagement with the text but also to personal abduction by its message.”

.

Finally McLaren points to one further reading, and makes clear that he believes this one to be the most controversial of his readings.

It is the one that might make people worry about the undermining of Biblical authority

Christo-focal reading

McLaren proposes that we no longer approach the Bible as a collection of words of equal weight- but rather that we approach all other words through those of Jesus.

He suggests we need to leave behind three old ways of reading the Bible that have perhaps dominated-

  1. Flat reading- where we see all Jesus’ life and words pressed down and flattened to the same level as those of Abraham, Moses,David, Isaiah, Paul, and Jude. This results in the raising of the Bible above Christ- which is a kind of idolatry. For example, it might be biblical to commit genocide by quoting Deuteronomy 7, but one could never claim it is Christ-like.
  2. Descending reading- where we start with an ideal state in Genesis, and then it all goes wrong, leading to a time when God is going to destroy everything, and Jesus is but a lifeboat for a few. Or the other decent comes from the fall too- “the problem is sin and the solution is law-keeping, with sacrifice-making as a back-up plan. The rest of the story descends from this high point, so that the life and ministry of Jesus have value to the degree that they solve the problem.”
  3. Ascending reading- “Moses’ teaching was good, David’s perspectives were better, Isaiah rosehigher still, John the Baptist ascended even higher, and Jesus was really wonderful andunique, but the crowning revelation comes with Paul and his writings.”

What McLaren proposes is something more radical- “When Jesus is the focal point of the story, he is the climax, the hero, the summit, the surprise, the shock, the revelation that gives all that precedes and all that follows profound and ultimate meaning. If we follow this approach, we’ll speak less about the Bible as the supreme Word of God and more about Jesus as the supreme Word of God. We’ll let the person of Jesus –including and integrating his birth, life, teachings, miracles, death, resurrection, abiding presence, and ongoing mission through the Holy Spirit – become the light in which all interpretations are evaluated, the key in which all interpretations are played, the leader behind which all interpretations arrange themselves as followers, and the meaning in which all interpretations have meaning.”

If we start to apply these ways of reading the Bible, how might our understandings change?

This my friends, is our work-in-progress…

Fresh expressions, medieval stylee…

Posted on by
Reply

Saw this and it made me chuckle. I think I have tried all of these options for revitalising church- before more or less settling on the last.

But lest I kid myself that I am cutting edge, lets remember that they were probably doing the same sorts of things 500 years ago.

When this video was made.
Vodpod videos no longer available.

Scottish emerging church 2010- a view from the west…

Posted on by
2

Here it is again- the old EC term. Given one more airing…

I was a little sad about the demise of Stewart’s ‘Emerging Scotland’ Ning site-

And so I thought that it might be time to consider again where we are up to North of the border, and throw out a bit of a challenge to others in Scotland who have used the term to do the same…

In many ways this is a continuation of thoughts begun here.

I think we up here were a bit slower to use the term than elsewhere, but there is no doubt that the ‘conversation’ has been transformative in many ways. The questions however remains as to how this might have played out in the specific Scottish context- as opposed to down south.

I will divide my response into two different parts- firstly my personal experience, and then my imperfect impressions of the wider context.

The latter comes with a warning- I am not a professional minister, nor at the centre of faith based organisations in Scotland. I do feel slightly qualified to express an opinion however as I have been thinking, talking, reading and seeking connections on these issues for several years now. I have met a lot of wonderful people, and felt an equal measure of hope and pessimism for the future of our churches. What I offer then, is the view of a knowledgeable and sympathetic outsider.

Firstly then, my own experience.

I arrived in Scotland in 2002, eager and enthusiastic to belong to a church up here, and to continue to find worshipful expression through music and community. My background previously was Evangelical/charismatic left-of-centre traditional church. I joined a local church, but increasingly found it difficult to stay in that context. I will not tell that story here, but it will be a familiar experience to many of you.

In an attempt to break out of the narrow spaces I found myself in and to seek a way of living out my faith that offered a real connection to my context and an honest engagement with my faith, I left formal church in 2006. This was not an easy decision- rather it was taken over a long period, with much pain and many sleepless nights.

So, with some friends, Michaela and I set out on something new. We started a housegroup, and Aoradh grew and changed- initially it was a group of people who wanted to do evangelism through art, but increasingly became less driven by grand plans to win converts, instead seeking partnerships and creating spaces to contain our own worship, and to host others.

In all this, I had discovered the ’emerging church conversation’. My theology was first destroyed, then renewed and lit up by new questions and new/old perspectives of God. I felt again a thrill about the life that Jesus calls us to for the first time in years.

But our little group was isolated and desperate for connection, mentoring and encouragement, so I spent some time looking around for similar things in Scotland- things we could learn from and lend support to. And I found very little. Sure the language of emergence was being used by some of the institutions- the Church of Scotland, and the International Christian College for example, but this did not seem to be converting to any kind of grass roots activism, or mutual support that we could plug into.

Neither did the established churches seem to have resources or energy that they could apply to supporting the embryonic groups that may have been emerging. They were caught up in a survival battle of their own.

In the absence of other networks sympathetic to the new ground we now found ourselves treading, I started a Facebook group, which very quickly picked up around 100 members. I also set up a couple of meets in Glasgow, and was keen to ask questions about whether people wanted more and closer contacts. Stewart then started the Ning site, and some meets took place in other places too.

The on line stuff flared up then died down like most on line networking. It has a short shelf life, easily becomes contentious and repetitive and the theological arguments become wearing very quickly.

I was still hungry for more- a network of people who were prepared to stand with one another- share resources and ideas, encourage fragile new developments and be committed to the kind of openness and generosity that is supposed to be the watchword of church.

I have made some good contacts, and still hope that out of these, more of the above may yet flow, but there is still no formal, or even less formal network in Scotland through which new groups can find encouragement and support. Our group has less need of this perhaps now- partly because we are further down the road, and have made a lot of our mistakes already, but also because we have made more connections with English based organisations.

What is left to me, is a desire to live an authentic, open, generous Christian life- looking outwards, not inwards, and seeking relationship and partnership with other individuals and groups wherever possible. Sometimes I think I am walking this path. Other times I feel lost in a tartan wilderness.

I have stumbled into conflict along the way too. I do not like conflict, and do not always handle it well. It tends to make me retreat and localise- which becomes then an obstacle for the very networking I believe is called for…

Along the way it has been difficult not to constantly make evaluations and judgements about the wider Scottish context. This is not easy, as we first need to ask whether there is ONE context. Our West of Scotland semi rural small town Highland context is very different to Glasgow, which is different from Edinburgh or Inverness.

However, I am committed to using a broad brush with careless abandon, so at risk of causing offence, here are my impressions-

  • ‘Emerging Church’ are words used in Scotland in the academy and the conference/general assembly. They have less relevance at the grass roots here than they do elsewhere.
  • Churches who use the language of emergence are driven most by desperation. They are looking for a new way to evangelise- to fill the pews and mend the leaking roofs.
  • The sectarian nature of religious development in Scotland still imposes rigid walls of suspicion between different faith groupings- not just the Catholic/Protestant divide, but between Protestant groupings too. This means that finding commonality through which ideas and support can be channelled is that bit more difficult up here.
  • No denomination has stepped forward to deliberately offer support emerging fledgling para church groups, as the C of E (and others) have done in England.
  • And the English stuff stops short of the border, as there is still this weary anti English stuff even in the church where we really should know better.
  • The dominant activism in Scottish church looks towards American models of Evangelism and as such is still fighting the old truth wars. This is a regressive force in our faith- the pressure this thinking brings to our ways of doing church is to call our dwindling population to greater fervour, purer understanding of the Bible and to pray for Revival in order to shake the population from their wicked ways, and some how take us back to the 1950’s.
  • Distances are greater, and population numbers and low density tends to make finding peers and like minds more difficult.
  • There are some new developments- Solas festival for example. But these do not yet seem to me to be associated with the fostering and development of new forms of church. Rather they are a new things done by people who are part of existing institutions. They are none the worst for that of course and it is early days for Solas (the first festival was this year) but perhaps this could be described as new wine skins for old wine. We need the fine old wine, but we also need sparkling new stuff, and new wine skins.
  • Then there is the class issue. Working class, underclass, middle class. Inner cities with huge problems with worklessness and addiction. Places where theological debate has no relevance, unless it stimulates action. Action not from the outside- parachuted missionaries- but more from the faith that finds new relevance in the broken places. Emerging church conversations have not shown themselves to be well equipped for this in Scotland.

Finally then- the challenge.

I have been quite negative above. And this is not fair, because I do not feel negative about the future of the people of faith in Scotland.

But I do feel that we have an opportunity that might just slip away.

An opportunity to forge an underground railway, along which we pass down the agents of the New Kingdom.

The challenge is to ask those of you who have a more complete view than me where my blind spots are. What am I not seeing? Where do my generalisations miss things that are happening? Where are the networks of support that transcend the old boundaries and carry genuine new hope?

And if I am more or less right, what should we do about this?

Another one of those discussions about church…

Posted on by
4

I shared lunch with some friends today- I meet with three other blokes to pray every couple of weeks. It is a really good mix of folks as each of us are very different, but share a desire for honesty, friendship and to create a safe space to share faith and life.

Today we spoke about church.

It is a familiar theme. I am the only one of the group who is no longer attending a regular Sunday morning service in a church building. All of my friends are still hanging on in there- just.

It is not that any of us do not appreciate the value of meeting and worshipping communally- it is just that the baggage that comes with this seems to have a high price- and also that the activities through which communal worship is celebrated can just be so suffocatingly irrelevant- for us, let alone for our kids or our friends and neighbours.

The question of what might be possible as an alternative has exercised much discussion, including on this blog.

In particular, today we asked a local version of this question…

A couple of days ago, in response to a comment on this piece by Aileen, I wrote this-

I wonder  if  we were ‘over sold’ some of the ideas about what it means to be a Christian. We have been told repeatedly that people are of two sorts-
Saved and unsaved
Good and ‘of the world’(or even ‘evil)
Transformed and untransformed
Enlightened and deceived by the devil
We have the Holy Spirit who will sort us out- they don’t.

This dualism allows us to then suggest that Christians are elevated above all other people- more holy, more loving, living better lives. And then when we discover (as we inevitably do) that Christians are often just as screwed up and damaged /damaging as the next person, we are exposed to a great disappointment- and what the Americans would call a ‘disconnect’ between our rhetoric and reality.

I have come to believe that the Kingdom of God at loose on the earth is NOT the same thing as ‘the church’. Rather “God plays in ten thousand places, from the father to the features of mens faces, lovely in limbs and hands not his”

The question is, if this is true, what the POINT of the church is? If Christians are untransformed by encountering Jesus- what is the point?

I think I would reply that we are not untransformed- the very fact that you and I are asking these questions is proof of that. Rather what we come to is an awareness that we can reach higher, and deeper- and expect an encounter with the divine as we do this that is so much more than a one directional intellectual exchange of religious ideas/doctrine. But also that we are called to walk humbly- and to hold ourselves in awareness of our sinful state- not other peoples sinful state, but our own.

Perhaps then the purpose of the church is to be a sprinkling of salt, bringing out flavours of the world, and a source of light that illuminates good and beautiful things. This kind of church I can belong to!

I have no desire to start a new church though- in the sense of a new institution, or a new exclusive gathering of people who try to sell their ‘product’ and their version of truth to everyone on the outside.

But what began to emerge today in our discussion was the possibility of a more regular celebration event, in partnership with others where possible.

In many ways this might compliment some of the more intimate small group church things that I love.

Who knows what might emerge, but I have a feeling that it might be time to make some noise again…

The reformulation of ’emerging’ Church?

Posted on by
1

I have been watching another little internet spat rumbling on over the past few weeks about this thing called ’emerging church.’ I resisted posting anything myself because I was not entirely sure what my own thoughts were- and to be honest the arguments about EC are wearing very thin.

Not that I do not still think the term is useful- for me it is still something that has meaning. But more as a description of process, not of destination.

It was always inevitable that this rather formless, leaderless movement, gathered together through blogs and podcasts more than in books and buildings, would ebb and flow, splinter and reform. This is what seems to be happening. The early adopters of the label have mostly moved on- radicals tend to have short attention spans, and perhaps to0 easily offend or take offence.

The latest discussion/disruption began with this post by Kester Brewin– who was reflecting on his impression of the return of a lot of early pioneer leaders seemed to be returning to the institutions that they left.

TSK kind of agreed.

‘Romantic tosh’ said Jonny Baker. He pointed out that it had never been an either-or situation, but a both-and. A lot of the new forms of Church had been actively fostered and supported by traditional church forms- particularly by the C of E in England. Here is Jonny talking about this very thing back in 2008 (perhaps it is a sign of how much things have changed recently that this seems a long time ago?)-

So- for my two penny worth, here is the view from up north.

U here the influence of the ’emerging conversation’ has been strong, if a few years behind the English experience. However despite the use of the term within some of our big religious institutions (the Church of Scotland here for example) there has been little physical development, or signs of significant innovation around new forms of Church- unless I am missing something.

Perhaps this is in part because the sectarian entrenchment, both between Catholic and Protestant, and between embattled protestant groups (who still tend to be more interested in fighting dogmatic truth wars) has been so pervasive up here. The influence of American style fundamentalism via satellite TV  is also a constant irritation to me.

My small group often feels isolated. We have sought to make friendships and partnerships wherever we can, and to network ourselves to others with whom we can share activities and stories. Up here, the issue is not whether emerging church is retreating back to institutions, but rather a question of where those of us who are seeking to find new ways of doing church will find any kind of mutual support and mentoring.

All movements need leadership. Those of us that have been inoculated against ‘modern’ leadership (by our experience of Church) tend to eschew the forms of church that are led like large industrial-military organisations.  For this reason, the leadership required by us is of a very particular kind- I have written about this before- here.

But I simply do not care whether these leaders are part of a large institution or not.

Although my impression is that the generosity and tolerance seen in the old C of E perhaps makes it well suited to the task…

I wonder where we will be in 5 years? We live in interesting times.

Emerging church and the new Charismatic-Mystics…

Posted on by
2

I came across a post on on the Emergent Village blog that really resonated with me. This was a piece by Dave Brown, who speaks really well about his background in the Charismatic movement. His ambivalence towards this background is very familiar- a combination of cringe and affection that I have spoken about before- here for example.

He talks about a new emergent kind of Charismatic movement, typified by the tripped out whacky stuff that surrounds John Crowder- Check this out!

Scary?

Hilarious?

Or just totally baffling?

My reaction is no surprise to me. Mostly I just recoil. But I have been in environments like this- usually hiding behind a guitar, but enough to feel a slight yearning for the uninhibited emotional and spiritual outpouring that such encounters provide- even the slightly more buttoned-down British version of them.

And talking of the British version, Dave makes mention in his article of Sloshfest- and other festivals in Wales, associated with familiar names (to us here in Aoradh anyway) like Godfrey Birtill. (We invited him to Dunoon once, and it was a bit of a road accident- but that is another story!)

Check out this site too- by the ‘Drunk Monk’.

What of all this then? Those of us who have escaped environments like these have common stories- of the oppression and madness that comes when you overheat and over sell ecstatic experience, leading to all sorts of leadership excesses and psychological damage. But we will also remember the freedom, then joy, the sense of release and belonging. Lots of good, mixed in with some really bad. I am happy to leave most of it behind…

But fringe movements like this are emerging at the same time as our own. People are forging a new frontier of faith, because the old one is whithering- and as Dave points out in his article our direction has been too often into the intellect- we have congratulated and celebrated deconstruction and theological debate. And we have eschewed emotion, and joy, and outward celebration.

And to be honest, I have simply never liked ambient chilled out music. I like music that engages, rather than simply providing a blank wallpaper.

I liked what Dave had to say here-

None of us on the fringes want to be held down by spiritual tyranny. That’s why we’ve voluntarily exiled ourselves to the desert of edge-pushing spirituality. And that was one of the things that attracted people like my parents to the Charismatic movement. They wanted more than establishment-friendly religion. And while Charismania has frequently (and often rightly) been criticized as all emotion and no substance, I think it’s unwise to adhere to the opposite extreme of all head and no heart. More specifically, I think we all could handle a little more emotion in our spiritual regimen. It’s okay to cry or laugh in church. It’s okay to express our passion with boisterous antics…or weepy, knees-on-floor reverence.

It’s okay to come out from behind the mask of objective distance. Because sometimes life sucks and we need to share the burden with somebody. And sometimes God has worked a miracle and we need to shout it from the rooftops. Sometimes we’re pissed off and it does more harm to hold it in. And sometimes we’ve experienced a hit of holy joy and freedom that we can’t explain, and we should share these things because that’s what community is for.

I don’t want this precious movement of the emerging church to end up as just another dry, debate-filled clique that gradually becomes the empire it set out to avoid. But I have enormous hope that that will never be the case. Because we are all part of a bigger story that will continue to evolve. Even as we sometimes try to distance ourselves from the label, we on the fringes are still an integral part of the larger Christian movement that’s been rolling on for millennia, and it always will be bigger than any one empire that tries to lay claim to it.

Amen brother (as I used to say)

Amen.