Prodigal Kiwi(s) Blog

Is seeing where God was at work in the world and jumping in to help etc, the last gasp of a Church that still believes itself to be at the Centre rather than Marginal in its Existence?

Paul writes – I’ve recently finished reading an essay by Robert W. Jenson, What is a Post-Christian (included in this interesting collection of essays) in which he argues that in a post-Church / post-Christian (I’d say “post-Christendom”) context the invitation of the Church is to uphold and embody its distinctive beliefs. In many ways his argument is not dissimilar from the likes of Stanley Hauerwas. 

Jenson writes:

“We … need to face [the] fact often spoken of but rarely acted upon: that the West is now a mission field. We can no longer count on the culture doing half our work for us. On a mission field, the church has to do its own work, and that means first of all that it has to know what is not … in the culture, that it hopes to bring to it. Which is to say: it must know and cultivate its difference from that culture. All that talk a few years ago about the world setting the agenda, about seeing where God was at work in the world and jumping in to help etc, was the last gasp of the church’s establishment in the West, of its erstwhile ability to suppose that what the culture nurtured as good had to be congruent with the good the church had to bring…” (Pp. 29-30).

The first thing that strikes me in this quote is what on the surface seems like a critique of a popular definition of mission which goes like this: “mission is discerning what it is that God is doing and joining in”; it’s a way of talking about mission that prioriterises what God is doing and its an invitation to partnership and collaboration.  Is this what Jenson is critiquing? A reading of the preceding and following paragraphs doesn’t really help!

Emerging from the collapse of the Christendom mindset

Paul writes – Andrew Perriman, is the author of the very engaging Re:Mission – Biblical Mission for a Post-Biblical Church (I really appreciate it’s willingness to engage and enter into the Biblical narrative – too much so-called “emerging” or “missional” literature functions at the level of strategy, cultural engagement , and the sociological / philosophical discussion (no in themselves bad things) and any engagement with the Biblical narrative and specific biblical texts is incidental and peripheral. I highly recommend it Re:Mission). 

Anyway, Andrew is interviewed by Darren King for Precipice Magazine.com. It has in view one of Andrew’s earlier books. Re:Missionwas published in late 2007.  Here’s an excerpt from the interview:   

“…One of the hallmarks of the Emerging Church is its desire, it commitment, to move beyond traditionalism, to examine various aspects of Christian faith with an openness to new answers- and new questions. While critics often (unfairly) accuse the movement of "rejecting the Bible", the reality is that those immersed within the EC conversation are often willing to embrace the complexities of the Bible in ways that are unfamiliar to others. And embracing the Bible means entering into the story, understanding the journey as it was for the earliest believers, as part of the process in receiving it as our own…

…I think that a new way of understanding ourselves as church is emerging from the collapse of the Christendom mindset. Whether or not we refer to that as the ‘emerging church’ or imagine that it amounts to a well-defined movement, it needs a congruent theology; and I believe that that theology needs to be confidently and consistently biblical. What we mean by ‘biblical’, of course, is another matter – that’s the third part.

… I think that the basic ‘theological’ challenge we face is, on the one hand, to disentangle our minds from the dilapidated mental infrastructure of Christendom, and on the other, to design for ourselves a new post-Christendom infrastructure. It’s as though the house in which we have lived for the last 1600 years has collapsed – it was too badly built to withstand the storms of rationalism and floods of postmodernism. So we are currently homeless and somewhat bewildered and frightened. Most of us are living in makeshift shelters constructed from stuff we have salvaged from the wreckage. We need to build a new worldview, a new plausibility structure, a new theological paradigm, within which to be a meaningful and sustainable missional community. That will be a long and difficult task.

… I think we need to grasp again how scripture engages realistically with the experience in time of a historical community. Scripture is the work of a people making sense of its past, present and future at different stages in a narrative; and if we fail to take into account either the historical experience of the community or the narrative structure of its self-understanding, we are bound to misinterpret.

You can read the whole interview here.

“New Edge Spirituality” in a Digital Era

Paul writes – Jonny Baker also picks up on what I think is a very good little interview with Barry Taylor. The interviewer is Ian Mobsby (who wants to come to NZ in November 2008 – provided Cambridge is included, is there anyone who’d want to share the costs?) whose latest book (The Becoming of G-d) looks really interesting, though I have yet to get it off my bookshelf and read it. Barry’s latest book is Entertainment Theology: New Edge Spirituality in a Digital Democracy .It’s on its way to me, and from what I’ve seen it’s going to be a very useful read especially for those of us in post-Church contexts wondering about the relationship between gospel, Spirit, cultural engagement and the everyday, what it means to be “church”, and the absence of a meaningful and humble Christian voice (and presence) in the public arena, whether that be in the workplace, in leadership, in our local communities, neighborhoods etc

Here’s an excerpt from the interview:

“…As you know, some research published in the last 5 years has suggested that there is no residual spirituality within contemporary culture. This research draws on interviews of younger people leaving a nightclub. They argue that what is needed is not an engagement with new/old forms of mysticism, but more of a proclamation of Christianity ­ does your research have something to say to this research which has been quite influential in some places in the UK?

Yeah, I read a lot about that--Unfortunately, I think the research was a bit weak, or at least a bit myopic. For one thing, I think they were asking the wrong questions. There is no easy way to say this--the questions were too loaded and 'too Christian'--I don't mean to attack the validity of the project as much as to challenge the approach--the spirituality that exists in digital culture tends not to look familiar to some who orient their lives in more formal or traditional understandings of spirituality, or who enter situations with pre-conceived ideas about what is going on--I think we have entered, or are entering, a new phase of religious/spiritual self-understanding and what is emerging doesn't look like what has gone before. As many others have noted, the return to God--the re-enchantment of the West, as some term it, that has occurred over the past few years, is not necessarily a return to old ways or old gods or concepts of God.

The Importance of a Local Congregation

Paul writes – Stanley Hauerwas has a wonderful turn of phrase, “… the way the gospel is known is by one person being for another person the story of Jesus.” He reminds us that “our responsibility is to be faithful to the task God has given us. The result [of that task] is God’s doing.”

Missionally speaking, the local church (and thus individual Jesus-followers too) is an important locus for the gospel. Lesslie Newbigin reminds us that this locus has two important dimensions, both of which, if they’re not present, undermine the proclamation of “good news” in the public arena. This focus on the local congregation is one important reason why I involve myself in Allelon’s Mission in Western Culture Project (see also here) 

The first dimension is that the local congregation needs to be known in its own context as the place (and people) in which, and amongst which good news is distinctively, authentically, lovingly and joyfully embodied. The only way that people get to see and experience the significance of the Jesus-story is by means of a local congregation (gathered and dispersed) that believes it and lives it. A local congregation and its members embody the significance of the story of Jesus, and it is as a consequence of this embodying that they are able to see “to challenge public life with the gospel.”  Jesus “did not write a book but formed a community.”

The second dimension is that the good news must be enacted and worked out. It must flow outwards. The local congregation enacts Jesus’ priesthood in the life of the world. It is in the ordinary and everyday contexts of the members of a local congregation that the mighty power of Spirit and gospel “is released into the world”. It is in the “sacrifices of love” and “obedience offered to God” that “the work of Christ is to be manifested.” 

The local churches “members will be advocates for human liberation by being themselves liberated. Its actions for [reconciliation], justice and peace will be, and will be seen to be, the overflow of a life in Christ, where God’s [reconciliation], justice…and peace are already and experienced [reality in their communal life together].”

Newbigin again reminds us that “It will only be by movements that begin with the local congregation in which the reality of the new creation is present, known, and experienced, and from which [all ages] will go into every sector of public life to claim it for Christ [by being present as the story of Jesus]. [It is the local congregation dispersed that will] unmask the illusions which have remained hidden and [will] expose all areas of public life to the illumination of the gospel.” “But,” Newbigin adds, this “will only happen as and when local congregations renounce an introverted concern for their own life, and recognise that they exist for the sake of those who are not members, as sign, instrument, and foretaste of God’s redeeming grace for the whole life of society.” (Any emphasis in quotes is mine).  For another very useful take on the importance of a congregational hermeneutic, see this 2006 post and this one by Steve Taylor. The insights are still as important today; perhaps more so, than they were in 2006.          

Cultural Accommodation…?

Paul writes – Nice little quote from blogging friend Jason Clark:

“…A great deal of academic theology and thought explains how the modern church has lost touch with culture due to the influence of postmodernity, and it’s enculturation to modernity. In other words the modern church [on the ground] mistakes some of what is thinks as biblical and theological, for cultural accommodations, as has been the case with every other form of church in history. And when culture changes, the church is left disconnected from people…”

Link, here…

The Paradox of the Missional Life being nothing special

Paul writes – I was struck, at a number of levels by the following few paragraphs from Parker J. Palmer.

“…When Thomas Merton was a novice master at the Abbey of Gethsemane…He started off one class by speaking [the following] words to the earnest and pious would-be monks who’d been placed in his care: “Men, before you have a spiritual life, you’ve got to have a life!”

I [Parker Palmer] treasure that line because it sheds the light of humor on one of the big problems of religion and spirituality: the assumption that the spiritual life is a life set apart from the “secular” life – which is to say, from the life one is living.

… Merton’s point, of course, is that we will find our spiritual lives in [the mess of our lives themselves], in [their] earthly realities, unpredictable challenges, surprising resources, [and] creative dynamics…

…If we stand in the middle of the mess assuming that the spiritual life will be orderly and pristine, linear and logical without complexity or contradiction, we will pray… for an extreme makeover, [and] of course, the ultimate extreme makeover is an embalmed and well-accessorized corpse, which is what we become in life when we try to defy [and reduce] the wideness and wildness of God…”

Palmer’s thoughts, absolutely valid in relation to the Christian life, also shed some light, I think, on the missional challenge as well (not that I’m suggesting the “Christian life” is one that is distinct from the “missional”).

A life that is missionally orientated and engaged is a life lived, not in the head or removed to academia, but rather is a life, a way of living humanly, a way of listening, and a way of living into and out of the biblical text in the midst of the mess, ordinariness, brokenness, and lovelessness of the ordinary and the everyday. It’s a life lived. It’s Scripture being creatively and imaginatively engaged with and embodied by ordinary people trying to live more authentically and more freely. And so communities like Northumbria can say that mission is what their members are doing as they go about their lives.

To engage with life missionally is to “…recognize, identify, and lift up those moments, those acts, those people, [and] those stories that contradict the ways in which the world says no to life…” (Parker J. Palmer)

The missional life is not a life removed from the ordinary. The missional life is nothing special, it’s just embodying and giving expression to “gospel”, gospel centered on Jesus’ life lived in all the everyday contexts and circumstances we find yourselves in, and “yes” most especially in the mess and inadequacy of our own lives being lived in those places – the places of doubt, brokenness, failure, sickness, vulnerability, and powerlessness – in other words, in our simply being human! In our simply being alive and being about life as living persons, not as the “living dead”. This is the spiritual life. This is the missional way. This is the Jesus-way.

The Spirit and the Rise of “New-Edge” Spiritualities

Paul writes – I was recently struck by the following quote:

“…There is increasing evidence that the locus of contemporary religion is not found in the churches or synagogues or mosques, which give little credence to it, or in the largely materialist culture in which we all find ourselves, but it is found in the lives of those who are fashioning vibrant, new permutations of religious belief and practice in our time, in spite of what seem to be tough obstacles to such a dynamic.

There are tremendous implications of all this on the future of Christian faith. Like other ancient faiths, Christianity has shown itself able to stand the test of time and has proven itself to be a viable contribution to the ongoing human search for God. While I am positive about Christianity’s ability to meet the changing cultural contexts of the past, I am concerned that at the present moment Christian faith is losing ground. The Church of England’s report issued in 2004, titled “The Mission-Shaped Church,” notes that people do not come to church because they consider it “peripheral, obscure, confusing or irrelevant.” If this perception is not changed, the gap between a burgeoning spiritual culture and the potential for missional engagement will continue to widen…” Barry Taylor

The emergence of “New Spiritualities” (or what some are calling “new-edge spirituality”) opens up new missiological and ecclesiological opportunities.

Where is the liberating and life-giving Spirit at work, blowing inside and outside of the lives of people who call Cambridge

home?

Going as a ‘Stranger’ to Welcome Strangers

Paul writes – I’ve had a little time to read and reflect on a paper that Steve Taylor posted a link to last week. The paper was titled: Hospitality and Justice towards ‘Strangers’. A Theological Reflection and was a lecture delivered by Graham Ward. I was struck by the Abraham story of Genesis 11, and a number of comments made by Ward around “going”. Again, as I read, I read in conversation, as did Steve, by Luke 10:1-12. I reflected on “going”, “dependency”, “vulnerability”, and “discovery.”

“By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place, which he would afterwards receive as an inheritance.

And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for a city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God… Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born as many as the stars of the sky in multitude – innumerable as the sand, which is by the seashore. These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, they were assured of them, embraced them, and confessed themselves strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland… that is a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them (Gen. 11.8-16).

The following are direct or (slightly) amended quotes from Ward’s paper:

“…The wandering always involves a searching and a desiring – for refuge, for the Promised land, for Jerusalem, for the heavenly city, for the kingdom of God…”

“…In entering into Abraham’s story, “we are stretched out towards a future hope in faith.” We are “…given over to the grace of God in a radical dependency… It is in “the experience of radical dependency …that God would meet [us] – as he meets Abraham…”

“…To set out not knowing where you will end up, for a place which will be received only retrospectively: that is not easy. But I suggest nevertheless that that is our human condition as God has graciously fashioned it…”

“…[One does not easily leave behind]… the internalised maps that have organised one’s life…”

“…But the God of Abraham… always takes us beyond ourselves, to places we cannot name, into experiences we cannot easily discern the goodness of, the justice of, the beauty of, the truth of…”

“…The [one who goes] has to learn how to be a guest; because of danger of being always a foreigner and a wanderer is that you become ever more self-reliant. You become wrapped up with your own survival; encircled in the self-pitying thoughts of your own dispossession. You become a fortress against the ever-expected assaults of the enemy. This is, as Edward Said, himself a Palestinian exile [has commented, an] exile [that is] is marked “by the sheer fact of isolation and displacement, which produces the kind of narcissistic masochism that resists all efforts at amelioration, acculturation and community. At this extreme the exile can make a fetish of exile, a practice that distances him or her from all connections and commitments…”

Avoiding the Missional “Go”…?

Paul writes – Matt Stone has an interesting post in which he (in conversation with Stuart Murray) wonders if the emerging church is getting bogged down in structural, methodological and internally focused conversations. It’s worth a read, particularly if you’ve read or are reading excellent books like John Drane’s Do Christians Know How to be Spiritual? And, his After McDonaldization. I think Drane and Murray engage the missiological challenges and questions in similarly helpful and needful ways. Both are important conversation partners. Both are significant waymarkers in the 78 I list here. 

Here’s one of Matt’s chosen Stuart Murray quotes:

“…Concern about the internal structure and shape of the church may not only distract the church from mission. It may also hinder the church from addressing the important issues of its role in society. The New Testament seems quite relaxed about whether churches are run by elders and deacons (1 Timothy and Titus, prophets and teachers (Acts 13, 1 Corinthians) or nondescript leaders (Hebrews). But there is considerable interest in the relationship between the church and the state (Luke-Acts, Romans, 1 Peter, Revelation); in how the churches deal with family and work relationships, with issues of race and class, with poverty and slavery (1 & 2 Corinthians). The ethos of the church, its attitudes towards non-members and its social involvement are at least as important as its shape and structure. Those concerned to plant “New Testament churches” might do well to give greater attention to these issues. It is not that the shape of the church is unimportant, but that there are more fundamental matters which, if ignored, will consign any reshaping of the church to strategic insignificance…”

Thanks Matt. I wonder if part of the problem is that the structural, methodological and internal (or “in-house”) are often easier options (i.e. don’t carry us out of our comfort zones) than say the “flipside” of each of Murray’s “three perennial tendencies”. Certainly I notice my own tendency toward those things which mean I don’t have to “go” (in a Luke 10:1-16 sense):

“Three perennial tendencies can be detected in church planting movements: concentration on structural issues, rather than relational or spiritual issues; concern about internal arrangements, rather than the role of the church in society; and interest in the attempts of the early churches to follow the teaching of Jesus, rather than in the teaching of Jesus himself.”

Read Matt’s full post here. The book Murray’s quotes are presumably from is this one.

Pete Rollins - Betraying Community…?

Paul writes – I found Ian Mobsby’s interview of Pete Rollins fascinating. Pete isn’t a particularly easy read, but is worth re~reading a few times in order to get at what he’s saying – typically provocative and very thought provoking. I was particularly struck by his reflection on “community” and the motives for “betraying” what it has often come to mean in practice for churches and ways of being church. I found it useful to keep Luke 10:1-16 in mind as I read the following sections in particular.  What if I sat at table with nothing, even, and maybe especially, my own needs…?

Here are excerpts:

Ian Mobsby – How does your book impact the vision of emerging churches exploring contextual forms of worship mission and community?   

Pete Rollins – I suppose I would have to say that it does this by questioning the very ideas of "Worship", "Mission" and "Community". To take one example I think that emergent groups ask really interesting questions about what it means to be community and whether we should ever try to be a community. I mean the phrase, "whether we should ever try to be a community" very precisely insomuch as I am not saying that these groups won't end up being community, just that they shouldn't necessarily try to be one. For instance, as soon a group begins to identify itself as a community people begin to have pastoral expectations. The result can be an unreasonable pressure on those who organise the meetings, the slow formation of hierarchical leadership structures (in order to meet those needs) and the danger that the group can become a psychological crutch for many who attend. However, if a group refuses to offer pastoral care and makes it clear that it is not a community, rather just a collective of disparate people exploring faith and life, the fewer expectations are generated among people. This direct denial of community can turn out to be the most fertile soil for real community to develop indirectly. For if there is no 'group' who cares about the person sitting beside me then there is more need for me to care about that person. If there is no pastoral support team in place then I need to be the pastoral support. The refusal to offer pastoral support thus generates a potential place where pastoral care is distributed among everyone. As Dostoyevsky once said, 'we are all responsible for each other, but I am more responsible than all others'.