Prodigal Kiwi(s) Blog

The Consequences of Sound

Paul writes – Radio New Zealand had a fascinating interview last week with Julian Treasure. Treasure is the chair of the Sound Agency, a firm that advises worldwide businesses -- offices, retailers, hotels -- on how to use sound. He challenges us to pay attention to the sounds that surround us. How do they make us feel: productive, stressed, energized, and acquisitive?

 

It’s a really interesting interview and anyone with an interest in meditation etc will benefit from listening to it. At the very least you’ll come away with some sense of how sound affects us, and the importance of silence.

 

You can find an Mp3 of the interview here by scrolling down to the 27^th January 2010. You’ll also find his TED talk on Youtube. TIME carried a little article on him in 2007. You can find it here.

Howard Zehr's "Restorative justice three's"

Paul writes – I valued this summary of Restorative Justice. Always useful to bear in mind when restoration, healing and peacemaking is being sought – as distinct from say, “retribution”.

To summarize restorative justice as a way of addressing wrongdoing, we might put it in a series of “threes:”

3 assumptions underlie restorative justice:

When people and relationships are harmed, needs are created;
The needs created by harms lead to obligations;
The obligation is to heal and “put right” the harms; this is a just response.

3 principles of restorative justice reflect these assumptions: A just response…

• acknowledges and repairs the harm caused by, and revealed by, wrongdoing (restoration);
• encourages appropriate responsibility for addressing needs and repairing the harm (accountability);
• involves those impacted, including the community, in the resolution (engagement).
  

3 underlying values provide the foundation:

• Respect
• Responsibility
• Relationship

3 questions are central to restorative justice:

• Who has been hurt?
• What are their needs?
• Who has the obligation to address the needs, to put right the harms, to restore relationships? (As opposed to: What rules were broken? Who did it? What do they deserve?)

3 stakeholder groups should be considered and/or involved:

• Those who have been harmed, and their families
• those who have caused harm, and their families
  Community 

3 aspirations guide restorative justice: the desire to live in right relationship…

• With one another;
• with the creation;
• with the Creator.

For more detail, go here.

The Formational Power of Film…?

Paul writes – Mike Riddell reflects on Quentin Tarantino’s latest film Inglourious Basterds – a film I’ve seen twice. It’s been a Tarantino week for me, having watched Kill Bill 1 and Kill Bill 2, and the accompanying interviews on the Inglourious Basterds and Kill Bill 2 DVD’s.  In part I’ve been I’ve been watching them for the sheer enjoyment of watching them, while in another way I’ve been trying to reflect on movies more generally and the ways in which they support Jean Calvin’s (1509 – 1564) assertion that: “Without knowledge of self there is no knowledge of God; without knowledge of God there is no knowledge of self.” In other words I’m reflecting on something Mike, in effect, says below: “Do movies humanize or dehumanize us?” “Do they assist in or detract from our formation as persons “created to image God?” “Do they assist in a growing knowledge of self, and does that knowledge result, thus, in a greater knowledge of God revealed in Jesus Christ?” And, “do movies assist in our spiritual formation – in our becoming more human, whole, alive, and free?”

So – bottom line I’m asking, “What is a particular film’s affect (used in a very Ignatian sense) on us, and how might the process of imaginatively engaging with a particular film shape and form us in ways that are consistent with the work of the Spirit and congruent with the Christian Narrative, the rhythms of that narrative, it values and practices, and those (good) contemporary liturgical practices that serve in our formation and counterformation (in the face of the liturgies that (unhelpfully) form and shape us as part of the wider cultural and societal contexts that we find ourselves a part of)?  Is a film like Inglourious Basterd’s capable of affecting us in ways that participate in the larger redemptive process? 

I’m of the view, to quote John Pungente SJ & Monty Williams SJ, that “…when we watch a film attentively, we participate in a form of contemplation that allows us t o experience the imagination fully engaged in creating. We are not accustomed to thinking about it this way, but it is prayer…” [Italics, mine]. It joins with grace and is formational. Yesterday’s post on this blog is another contribution to this reflective process. 

Here’s an excerpt from Mike’s post, which you can read in full here.

“…The big question is, of course, do filmmakers have any moral responsibility whatsoever? After all, they’re not preachers or lawmakers. They’re story-tellers, and they offer their stories in a contestable cultural arena. Surely it is simply up to the audiences to make what they will of those stories, and a great number of people have enjoyed and admired Inglourious Basterds. But I feel strongly that the stories we tell ourselves do actually have an effect on the cultures we forge. To live out of a story of vengeance or fear looks quite different from living out of a story of grace and compassion. As a friend of mine said yesterday, there’s the question of whether humanity is enhanced or detracted from in our artistic output. I for one wish to devote my abilities to projects, which promote the former. As Arthur may have said, it’s enough that we live in a world with “Everyone living like there’s no such thing as right or wrong, like it doesn’t matter how you treat people”…”

Story-telling and Screenwriting

Paul writes – I came across the following quote recently:

 

“If the root of art is storytelling, then the taproots are longings. Longings for such things as truth, beauty, romance, adventure. We long to find the true north that will guide us through this life and into the next. We long to see some vestige of Paradise that hasn’t been spoiled by sin. We long to love and be loved, truly, purely, romantically. We long for something noble inside us to be awakened, rousing the hero within us to answer the call of adventure. A screenwriter takes these abstract longings and turns them into a series of concrete images…”[i]

 

---

[i] Quoted in Lessons from Reel Life: Movies, Meaning and Myth-Making by Michael Frost & Robert Banks, p. iii.

Luke Bretherton on Graham Ward’s “The Politics of Discipleship.”

Paul writes - Luke Bretherton has provided the second of two reviews of Graham Ward’s The Politics of Discipleship (I mentioned the first one here – by Ronald Kuipers). Graham Ward’s response should be on this site (Tuesday / Wednesday (NZ-time). I’ve also previously linked with Barry Taylor’s reviews (here).

Jamie Smith, in his series foreword for Ward’s book, had written:

 “What do we do now? This might be the first question of discipleship. It is the question asked by the disciples at the foot of the cross: The Messiah is dead. What do we do now? It is the question asked by the same disciples after the resurrection: He’s alive! What do we do now? And it is the question asked by these same Jesus followers after the ascension: The King has left us.

 

What do we do now? If this is the first question of discipleship, it is also a perennial question of discipleship…”

What struck me about Bretherton’s very good review was the following; call it a summary statement:

 “…One can read this book and have a excellent overview of various debates about metaphysics, enjoy fascinating and insightful ruminations on such cultural phenomena as Harry Potter and American Psycho, and be edified by profound meditations on Scripture, but still have little idea of what in practice a politics of discipleship might involve or demand.  Given the stated aim at the outset of the book is not just to interpret the world but to change it (p. 16) and the emphasis throughout on the importance of embodiment and the threat of dehumanization and dematerialisation this is a serious flaw.  It is a flaw that raises a question about what kind of theology is being done in the book.  Is it a theology that has any use for real people and their performances of church in the contemporary context?  There can be no doubt that Ward is deeply concerned with ‘real existing’ disciples and their faithful practice of politics; however, without any clear engagement with forms of public action it is difficult to see how the ‘theological imaginary’ Ward hopes to develop can in any meaningful way ‘transform aspects of the civic imaginary’ (p. 17)…” [bold text, mine – Paul] 

 

Now, I haven’t read the book (and indirectly the reasons for that will be made clear below), but I have had a very very good look through it. And I need to say; I have a huge amount of sympathy for Bretherton’s conclusion. I had expected more from Ward’s book than I believe it delivers. I’ve been delighted by the series, of which Ward’s The Politics of Discipleship, is a part. Jamie Smith’s was the brilliant first in the series – Who’s Afraid of Postmodernity? (2006) It came in at 156 pages (including the index). Merold Westphal’s excellent Who’s Community, Which Interpretation? (2009) came in at 160-pages (including the index). Ward’s The Politics of Discipleship comes in at whopping 317-pages, by comparison. And therein, for me lies one of the problems (note to editor). It’s too big and it’s too dense for this series. 

An Appreciation and Reflection

Paul writes – Jane Stranz is was born and brought up in Britain and is an ordained minister of the United Reformed Church, which is a small non-conformist church. For over 10 years she worked as a minister in local parishes of the Eglise Réformée de France in Dunkerque, Chambéry and Ferney-Voltaire (you can read more of her bio on her own very good blog). She lives in my ancestral homeland – France! 

Jane has been a reader and commenter on this blog for a while, and I’ve appreciated that. 

I appreciated too this recent post in which she included this sentence :

“Prodigal Kiwis are a great read and a good reality check for clergy like myself. There are many, many people out there who love God, are fascinated by theology but really cannot hack the church at all ... a real challenge for those like me who work for the institution…” 

Being a friendly “outsider” (in relation to church belonging) I appreciate and value what she’s affirming. It’s not always easy being an isolated (in a physical sense) individual trying to sustain and grow a spiritual dimension to ones life; trying to become more fully human, and trying to ensure that there is a religious reality underpinning and nourishing who I am, how I am, and what I do.

In my case, while reading widely across religious and denominational traditions, I remain firmly rooted in the Christian tradition but have had to leave church-belonging in order to do that. What do I miss about not going to church? Eucharist, and an experience of community (centered on following Jesus of Nazareth). But, ironically, the more and further afield I explore, the harder it is to return to the kinds of churches I’ve left. The ways I want to express my faith; my understanding of church and mission etc, spiritual formation, and the diverse sources I draw from (e.g. both Protestant and Catholic) have all grown and changed and as I didn’t “fit” before I left the last church I was at, I definitely won’t fit now.

So, meantime, without wanting to create a substantial distinction between the so-called “inside” and “outside”, I want to talk and interact from the outside(in) and quietly argue for change, the kinds of “ancient-future” changes that will be both missional (in the sense of engaging and bringing into conversation the gospel and contemporary Western / Kiwi culture) and (trans)formational (in the sense of humanizing and enabling people to become and to live more humanly etc) – the kinds of changes and new approaches that might allow friendly insiders to belong and actively participate again. 

Much to do about James K. A. Smith

Paul writes – I want today to draw attention to a recent post by James K. A. Smith. The post draws attention to a number of links – interviews and reviews of his latest book: Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview and Cultural Formation

You can find the post here. Most interesting were Trevin Wax’s interview of Jaime, and the review-response (by Smith)-final comment by Matthew Anderson. There are a number of audio links, though the only one I could see was a downloadable Mp3 was the one at Centred Radio online. I’ll be listening to this on my way into work this morning. 

Naming Mission in Changing Cultural Contexts

Paul writes – I picked up the following post via Tallskinny Kiwi. In it Stuart Murray Williams describes the phrases we’ve used to talk about the challenges of mission in a changing culture. 

Stuart writes: 

“In the 1990s lots of people were talking about church planting – and some of us were actually planting churches! Today, many of us are suspicious of the phrase ‘church planting’ (doesn’t it imply church growth oriented, programmatic, goals-obsessed cloning?) and prefer ‘fresh expressions’ or, cooler still, ‘emerging church’. 

But before we discard a term that has been used for many years and is familiar across the world and in many Christian traditions (and even has a Latin tag – plantatio ecclesiae), maybe we need to ask what these alternatives actually mean and how long they will last. 
 

Actually, in the past twenty years or so we have used or coined various phrases as we have wrestled with the challenges of mission in a changing culture:

Missionary congregations
-  Church planting
-  Missional church
-  New ways of being church
-  Emerging church
-  Emergent church
-  Mission-shaped church
-  Fresh Expressions

Some of these terms are associated with particular denominations. Some are familiar in some countries but unknown elsewhere. Some carry quite a bit of theological or cultural freight. Some started out as generic terms but have narrowed their meaning.

Maybe some historical perspective will be helpful: 

• In the late 1980s Anglicans (and then others) started talking about missionary congregations. By this they meant that churches needed to stop concentrating on maintenance and put mission back at the heart of church life. 
• In the early1990s many people started talking about church planting, arguing that many churches could not make this shift, so new churches were needed to reverse the trend of decline and to be genuine missionary congregations.
• By the mid-1990s church planting was stalling – for several reasons: most of the easier plants had already happened; growth was slower than expected; recovery times were longer than expected; there was a dearth of suitable leadership; many plants had failed or were struggling; and not all plants were actually missionary congregations. 
• Some denominations paused for reflection and began to ask two questions: what kinds of churches should we be planting (rather than how many), and how can we make sure they are focused on mission? 
• The language of missional church became more popular – imported from the US and used to emphasise church DNA or mindset or ethos, rather than activities. New churches and existing churches were encouraged to be missional.
• At the same time some began to use the phrase new ways of being church to talk about experiments that were taking place around the margins of church life. This was not church planting in the usual sense: it was more tentative, quieter and reflected the culture of the people involved or the place where they lived.
•  But there were problems with this language: it seemed dismissive of ‘old ways’; it got confused with the ‘New Churches’ (as the House Church Movement was now known); and some groups were remixing old elements.
• By about 2000 the language of emerging church had became more popular to describe the increasing number of new churches that were springing up. This had significant advantages: it was a dynamic and developmental term; it was tentative and humble; it reflected the reality that this was disparate, not a coordinated movement; it linked with the idea of ‘emerging culture’. However, some people found it rather passive and wondered if it was truly missional.
• A variant on emerging church was emergent – a more coordinated movement in the US with some similarities to other developments in western culture but also with significant differences.
• In 2004 the Anglicans produced the Mission-shaped Church report. This started as an update on their church planting report (‘Breaking New Ground’) in 1994 but grew into a survey of many different forms of church. The title of the report underlined a concern that mission should come before church and shape what emerged. Emerging church quite suddenly became hot news!
• However, the report preferred the term fresh expressions of church, for reasons it explains. A new organisation, Fresh Expressions, was set up to map, resource and reflect on what was happening. And Rowan Williams endorsed a ‘mixed economy’ church.
• Meanwhile, church planting was back on the agenda, with more church planting underway than for several years – somewhat chastened but purposeful and gaining momentum. 

So where are we now?

The Challenges and Opportunities of Interpretation

Paul writes - Christopher Benson has just published, Christian Scholars Review, a comprehensive review of Merold Westphal's very fine Whose Community? Which Interpretation? Available here (PDF / 2.48MB).

Here are a couple of excerpts from the review to whet your appetite:

“...Who’s Community? Which Interpretation? belongs to a series by Baker Academic called “The Church and Postmodern Culture." The editor, James K. A. Smith, provides the rationale for reading Merold Westphal's contribution: "For 'peoples of the Book whose way of life is shaped by texts, matters of interpretation are, in a way, matters of life and death"

Based on "To Read or Not to Read," a 2007 report from the National Endowment of the Arts, we are living in a post-literate or sub-literate culture where, it is safe to conjecture, the biblical text plays a diminutive role in the formation of Christian identity. Friedrich Nietzsche's once controversial claim – "there are no facts, only interpretations" – seems irrelevant in the absence of a text to interpret...

...Regarding "the church as a communal conversation of interpretation" (120), Gadamerian hermeneutics helps Christians recognize – at the descriptive level – that we always read the Bible from somewhere as opposed to nowhere, thus we cannot escape "hermeneutical circularity" (129). At the prescriptive level, we should practice "epistemic humility" (129) when interpreting the Bible by listening to the instruction of the Holy Spirit through the resources of other traditions, thereby befriending Christians with whom "we may find our disagreements are more like family quarrels than all-out warfare" (129).

Scripture, Westphal reminds us, is a mirror at once capable of showing us an honest reflection, if we obey the truth (James 1:22-25), and a dishonest reflection, if we "suppress the truth" (Rom. 1:18). Masterfully appropriating the insights of postmodern hermeneuticists, Westphal brings greater honesty to the interpretive practice of Christians by robustly acknowledging how "the divine nature of Scripture lives in dialectical tension not only with its own human origins but also with its ongoing human interpretation" (149). Only fear would suppress this dialectical tension, and what makes Whose Community? Which Interpretation? a gift to the church is precisely its fearlessness. Westphal is a philosopher who has heeded the command of Jesus, "Do not be afraid"...”

In times like ours, and particularly within Anglican circles, I love to see this book read and engaged widely by both lay and clergy. It’s a very fine and useful body of work. And could I just add; the whole series is well worth investing in if one is inclined to bring theology, philosophy, and culture into conversation for the sake of faithfulness, contextualisation and mission.  

Haiti and the Lebanon

 

Paul writes – We had some good of friends over for a BBQ last night, at least two of whom knew Barry Taylor, and one of them mentioned a cartoon (reproduced above) on Barry's Blog Site, so I checked it out and thought it was brilliant, especially as I’d read (via Jason Goroncy - thanks Jason) Slavoj Žižek’s inciteful (and poignant in the light of Haiti’s devastating earthquake) August 2008 review of Peter Hallward’s 2008 book Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide and the Politics of Containment. I knew nothing of Haiti’s history and would have loved to have been able to read Hallward’s book – but funds and not a lot of time to read make that unlikely – a shame really, as it sounds like a fascinating read. Žižek’s review essay will have to suffice. I commend it to anyone who wants a little insight into Haiti's troubled history, and the way The West (US and France in particular) have been significant and damaging players in it's history.

Also (finally) got a chance to watch the award winning movie Waltz with Bashir. It's a fabulous and politically / psychologically insightful film. The animation and music score are wonderful. Both reinforce why film is such a significant way to tell a story! I felt it useful to read the wikipedia site and get some historical background. As I was watching it on my laptop I paused it 70% of the way through to get the backstory. It was useful to do that.