One of the great themes of the Reformation was that the scriptures - and worship - should be in a language understood by the people. In England, that meant that Cranmer's prayer book replaced the Latin Mass. [It's interesting to see how Roman Catholic opinion on this sways around somewhat, with something of a recent reinstatement of the Tridentine Mass, but I digress.] This was, clearly, a Good Thing (apologies to Sellar and Yateman).
But are our modern churches in danger of doing something similar?: not by using a foreign language, but by using a dialect entirely unfamiliar to the population at large. More importantly, too many sermons are couched in a language of theology which is entirely alien to many of the hearers: I know full well that it is possible to say one thing from the pulpit, and have people hear something different. They may even greet you afterwards and thank you for some point - a point which you actually, consciously, did not make. You could put this down to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, but more often, I fear, it is just a failure to communicate.
Theology bothers me. If we cannot rightly divide the Word without recourse to several commentaries, why are people enjoined to daily devotional bibile reading? If people have the impression that only the preacher can interpret the scripture, then where is the priesthood of all believers? [I know that there are counter-arguments, too: we cannot just pick up a 2000-year-old text (still less a 3000-year-old one) and expect to know - in translation - what it meant to those who wrote it. And we can finesse that argument too, and ask whether that matters, and so on. And yes, some have a gift of teaching: but what will they teach, and how? Bear with me.]
In the pre-reformation days, the stories of scripture were brought to the people's attention through pictures and stained glass; freezes, and all manner of other art forms. Worship becomes highly theatrical, as liturgical colours and vestments carry particular meanins. The reformation swept most of that away, and worked on the assumption that vernacular worship and bible teaching would engage the population at large. Well, the people of Calvin's Geneva may have comprehended his Institutes, but I can't help feeling that we - in my country at least - don't necessarily have a general standard of education suitable for most people to engage with most of the literature, most of the time.
I know this isn't an original thought. I suspect that others have articulated it better than I. There is no point congratulating ourselves that our worship is not in Latin, if what we say and do is almost as excluding - to believers and others in our present generation.
I know that many fellowships have experimented with much greater creativity in worship. Some, too, I guess, are working on truly involving the people at large in the interpretation of the word: not to do away with the bible teacher, but to make the most of everything we know about teaching and learning in the 21st century. Above all, let's not over-intellectualize [ooh; I hate words with more than four syllables] faith.
2007/12/22
2007/12/19
Anger and Fear
A post by Glenn Hager took me off to youtube to see a very funny Nooma parody. It was witty, very well-observed, and well put together. You should watch it, if you have seen the Noomas. They do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The production of the Noomas is full of all manner of subtleties, and many of these have been faithfully ripped off in Burito here. Is there a spiritual point to this? Not really, only a very cheesy one. Perhaps it's a gentle way of saying that Rob Bell sometimes comes across as a little self-important: but on balance, I think it's just a bit of fun.
But oh dear, oh dear. You can't go to youtube and watch just one clip, can you? There's always something else to catch your eye. Oh, so there are lots more Nooma parodies. Some are in the same vein, just not as good as this one. But some ... are oh so barbed.
My attention was drawn to Bullwhip. (I can't bring myself to make a link to that). It's a parody of Bullhorn, and also very well-observed and put together. Its purpose is far from mere entertaining distraction, though. The original has images of Rob Bell cut in with the journey of a street evangelist, preparing leaflets and going out to shout at people through a megaphone (Bullhorn, in American, it seems). Bell gently argues that this doesn't seem to be working in 21st Century Michigan, and that maybe a more relational approach to sharing Christ might be more suitable. The parody has a Rob Bell-alike cut in with images of Jesus going to the temple taking a bullwhip, shouting and overturning tables. Rob Bell-alike 'argues' that Jesus should stop being so shouty, and do some more relational stuff, with lots of love, instead.
The analogy fails on so many levels. That's not what interests me. What I'm fascinated by is the way that so much effort has been invested to making this video, deliberately and in a calculated way to undermine the ministry of another. And, too, the number of comments attached to Bullwhip of the "yea, you tell'em" variety. Where is the light? Where is the grace? Where is the gentle correction?
I've blogged before about the amount of anger which seems to accompany the reaction of many to the emerging church. I've seen it in other blogs, too; Josh Brown's tussles with Ken Silva, for example. I really want to work out what's going on there.
If the emerging people (and it's far from clear who those are, and whether or not they include Bell, for example) are spreading a terrible heresy, then isn't the correct New Testament response simply to dissociate from them, and have nothing to do with them? Is there a hint of fear in the background here? Fear that cherished beliefs might be wrong, and need changing? Fear that the emergers are "successful" in dominating the agenda, and that others might be side-lined ("not that we measure by numbers..."). Or is it that the general standard of education in America (and the UK) is such that people are simply not understanding the rhetorical style employed by Bell and others? I must say that some people really wilfully seem to miss the point, and fixate on a minor side-issue: well, either they are wilful, or they really are, er, stupid. It's as if the spirit in which they approach things is to look for error, rather than to look for truth. That's damaging and corrosive.
As for me, well my mind isn't made up. But I know we are to judge by the fruits we see. And I know that the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. And I know that the fruit of the sinful nature includes hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, and envy. And I know which the Bullwhip people put me in mind of. But maybe I'm wrong.
But oh dear, oh dear. You can't go to youtube and watch just one clip, can you? There's always something else to catch your eye. Oh, so there are lots more Nooma parodies. Some are in the same vein, just not as good as this one. But some ... are oh so barbed.
My attention was drawn to Bullwhip. (I can't bring myself to make a link to that). It's a parody of Bullhorn, and also very well-observed and put together. Its purpose is far from mere entertaining distraction, though. The original has images of Rob Bell cut in with the journey of a street evangelist, preparing leaflets and going out to shout at people through a megaphone (Bullhorn, in American, it seems). Bell gently argues that this doesn't seem to be working in 21st Century Michigan, and that maybe a more relational approach to sharing Christ might be more suitable. The parody has a Rob Bell-alike cut in with images of Jesus going to the temple taking a bullwhip, shouting and overturning tables. Rob Bell-alike 'argues' that Jesus should stop being so shouty, and do some more relational stuff, with lots of love, instead.
The analogy fails on so many levels. That's not what interests me. What I'm fascinated by is the way that so much effort has been invested to making this video, deliberately and in a calculated way to undermine the ministry of another. And, too, the number of comments attached to Bullwhip of the "yea, you tell'em" variety. Where is the light? Where is the grace? Where is the gentle correction?
I've blogged before about the amount of anger which seems to accompany the reaction of many to the emerging church. I've seen it in other blogs, too; Josh Brown's tussles with Ken Silva, for example. I really want to work out what's going on there.
If the emerging people (and it's far from clear who those are, and whether or not they include Bell, for example) are spreading a terrible heresy, then isn't the correct New Testament response simply to dissociate from them, and have nothing to do with them? Is there a hint of fear in the background here? Fear that cherished beliefs might be wrong, and need changing? Fear that the emergers are "successful" in dominating the agenda, and that others might be side-lined ("not that we measure by numbers..."). Or is it that the general standard of education in America (and the UK) is such that people are simply not understanding the rhetorical style employed by Bell and others? I must say that some people really wilfully seem to miss the point, and fixate on a minor side-issue: well, either they are wilful, or they really are, er, stupid. It's as if the spirit in which they approach things is to look for error, rather than to look for truth. That's damaging and corrosive.
As for me, well my mind isn't made up. But I know we are to judge by the fruits we see. And I know that the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. And I know that the fruit of the sinful nature includes hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, and envy. And I know which the Bullwhip people put me in mind of. But maybe I'm wrong.
2007/12/15
What it's all about
A member of my church home bible study group died today. I think, though I'm not yet certain, that J. died peacefully in his own bed. He was in his late eighties.
Was J. a long-standing member, a pillar of the church? No: though in his childhood he had some church contact, he was really a life-long non-church-goer. He started coming to our church about five years ago, some time after his wife died (she had been a member of the women's fellowship).
It was obvious that J. was desparately lonely. He joined everything there was going - even the Women's Fellopwship, which had to change its name. He used to tell us that he wished God would take him away too. Without his wife, life was empty and pointless.
But J. started to make friends at the church. Among the young, more so than the old, actually. He started to get out of himself a bit more. But it wasn't just the friendships which meant he stopped saying that he wished he was dead. There was work going on in his spirit, too. It wasn't just that he attended a lot of Alpha courses (he must hold some sort of record there). It wasn't just that he took to reading the bible from cover to cover several times over. It was that, through all those things - relationships, teaching, and reading - God changed him.
A good example was just a couple of years ago. We studied forgiveness in our bible study. We agreed that where there is deep hurt, forgiveness takes a lot of time, and effort, and will. It's a process, not an event. But J. said, more than once, that he had seen such terrible things in the Second World War, he could never forgive the Germans. But God had other ideas. Over the next few months, he was able to change that around. And that was so obviously a burden let go. It changed that little corner of his memories, and there was a little bit of extra peace brought to his life.
J. was frail character: there were so many things wrong with his health, we thought we'd lost him many times. The highlight of this past year was when J. was baptized. He went though with full immersion: almost literally a heart-stopping moment. Could he have succinctly explained "the gospel"? I doubt it very much. But there was a heartfelt confession of faith there.
I'm glad I knew J. I was hopeless at really connecting with him: he and I used to joke about the fact that I never seemed to have time to go and visit. But several others did. And that made a real difference in his life. Not just because it made him less lonely, but because through those relationships he so obviously gained a new perspective on life, and God, and much else beside. And it seems to me that that's what church is all about.
Was J. a long-standing member, a pillar of the church? No: though in his childhood he had some church contact, he was really a life-long non-church-goer. He started coming to our church about five years ago, some time after his wife died (she had been a member of the women's fellowship).
It was obvious that J. was desparately lonely. He joined everything there was going - even the Women's Fellopwship, which had to change its name. He used to tell us that he wished God would take him away too. Without his wife, life was empty and pointless.
But J. started to make friends at the church. Among the young, more so than the old, actually. He started to get out of himself a bit more. But it wasn't just the friendships which meant he stopped saying that he wished he was dead. There was work going on in his spirit, too. It wasn't just that he attended a lot of Alpha courses (he must hold some sort of record there). It wasn't just that he took to reading the bible from cover to cover several times over. It was that, through all those things - relationships, teaching, and reading - God changed him.
A good example was just a couple of years ago. We studied forgiveness in our bible study. We agreed that where there is deep hurt, forgiveness takes a lot of time, and effort, and will. It's a process, not an event. But J. said, more than once, that he had seen such terrible things in the Second World War, he could never forgive the Germans. But God had other ideas. Over the next few months, he was able to change that around. And that was so obviously a burden let go. It changed that little corner of his memories, and there was a little bit of extra peace brought to his life.
J. was frail character: there were so many things wrong with his health, we thought we'd lost him many times. The highlight of this past year was when J. was baptized. He went though with full immersion: almost literally a heart-stopping moment. Could he have succinctly explained "the gospel"? I doubt it very much. But there was a heartfelt confession of faith there.
I'm glad I knew J. I was hopeless at really connecting with him: he and I used to joke about the fact that I never seemed to have time to go and visit. But several others did. And that made a real difference in his life. Not just because it made him less lonely, but because through those relationships he so obviously gained a new perspective on life, and God, and much else beside. And it seems to me that that's what church is all about.
2007/12/10
I feel dirty
I've spent all day on a course about Mobile Social Networking. I do technical stuff normally. I knew this would be more business-oriented. But I had little idea how low everyone would stoop.
There's a site which has (or had, when the stats were collected) 80,000 subscribers: www.flirtomatic.com. The name kind-of suggests what it's all about. Those 80,000 subscribers have between them purchased 3.5m virtual roses. At a cost of something like 40c each.
American folks may not realise how comprehensive mobile phone (cellphone) reach is in the rest of the world. There are 3.3bn active subscribers in the world. But get this, market penetration in several countries (in Asia, and in Europe) is approaching 150% of the population. Yes, that's right, including infants and the very old. So a high proportion of the adult population has two mobile phone accounts. And there are a whole slew of products just coming onto the market for the under-12s.
Evidently a lot of people want a slice of that sort of action. I don't know what to think.
Leaving aside the profligacy of equipping everyone with an advanced instant communication device, the sheer balls of the marketing people who then want to relieve users of their hard-earned cash to buy virtual consumer goods is staggering. On one level, that's not consumptive - it uses very few resources - but boy, oh boy, it plays on people's deepest fears of failing to be at the heart of their social network. Studies have shown that SMS texting is as addictive as smoking - and that people deprived of their phones show classic symptoms of withdrawl.
Has our culture come to this? Yes, indeed. And, europhiles, look where all that exploitative marketing is coming from. Caring, sharing Europe.
There's a site which has (or had, when the stats were collected) 80,000 subscribers: www.flirtomatic.com. The name kind-of suggests what it's all about. Those 80,000 subscribers have between them purchased 3.5m virtual roses. At a cost of something like 40c each.
American folks may not realise how comprehensive mobile phone (cellphone) reach is in the rest of the world. There are 3.3bn active subscribers in the world. But get this, market penetration in several countries (in Asia, and in Europe) is approaching 150% of the population. Yes, that's right, including infants and the very old. So a high proportion of the adult population has two mobile phone accounts. And there are a whole slew of products just coming onto the market for the under-12s.
Evidently a lot of people want a slice of that sort of action. I don't know what to think.
Leaving aside the profligacy of equipping everyone with an advanced instant communication device, the sheer balls of the marketing people who then want to relieve users of their hard-earned cash to buy virtual consumer goods is staggering. On one level, that's not consumptive - it uses very few resources - but boy, oh boy, it plays on people's deepest fears of failing to be at the heart of their social network. Studies have shown that SMS texting is as addictive as smoking - and that people deprived of their phones show classic symptoms of withdrawl.
Has our culture come to this? Yes, indeed. And, europhiles, look where all that exploitative marketing is coming from. Caring, sharing Europe.
2007/12/09
Conflicted: update
So I think I managed to speak without perjuring myself, and without offending anyone. People can be so polite, so you never really know. My former sunday-school teacher made a comment I didn't understand - it could have been a criticism, I'm not sure.
Maybe comparing our approach to prophecy to the way that some read Nostradamus was a bit recherché. But prophecy is a challenging topic. Old Testament texts which may mean many things, but appear to be fulfilled in New Testament events certainly make you pause. The way Matthew, say, quotes Isaiah 7 serves to underline that he really really wasn't a Modern writer, and we can't read the bible simply with a Modern mind-set.
Then there's the prophecies yet to be fulfilled. The second coming and all that. One reason why I'm confident that we don't have all that sewn up (notwithstanding that diagram Nick posted this week) is that the folks in Jesus' time were so mistaken in what they were looking for. Are we likely to be any better?
Maybe comparing our approach to prophecy to the way that some read Nostradamus was a bit recherché. But prophecy is a challenging topic. Old Testament texts which may mean many things, but appear to be fulfilled in New Testament events certainly make you pause. The way Matthew, say, quotes Isaiah 7 serves to underline that he really really wasn't a Modern writer, and we can't read the bible simply with a Modern mind-set.
Then there's the prophecies yet to be fulfilled. The second coming and all that. One reason why I'm confident that we don't have all that sewn up (notwithstanding that diagram Nick posted this week) is that the folks in Jesus' time were so mistaken in what they were looking for. Are we likely to be any better?
2007/12/07
An incomplete thought
Here's a development of something I've been thinking about for a while.
Most of us realise that the way we (Evangelicals, free church people , whatever) "do church" today owes most to the heady days of the reformation, with some pre-reformation thinking, and a few modifications in more recent years. But those days were very different from now. Music has changed - but most of us have at least reflected that a little. Communication has changed. Teaching has changed. Lectures were never a very good way of delivering ideas and promoting thought: they are quickly disappearing from our Universities - at least in the one-way, non-interactive sense. I'm not just thinking about using Powerpoint [how did that Microsoft product become a generic term?]. I'm thinking that there's no good reason why people should sit down and listen to me preach a second-rate sermon, when we could watch a video together (or a live feed) of someone really gifted. And for some of us, live music is perhaps over-rated, too. I'm not saying that we need to throw everything out, just that we can mix it up some more.
But a blog post answering people who try to explain "Why I don't go to church" got me thinking (I can't remember, to be honest, how newattitude got onto my blog roll, but I digress). Let us assume, for a moment, that the New Testament Church is the thing to emulate. Suppose that it is the closest picture we have of what God had in mind for a Christian community. What is it about that community that matters? Is it gathering by the river? Or in an over-warm upper room? What does gathering together mean in any case?
People tried, through the 20th century, to do elements of "church" via TV and radio. But they couldn't replace the real thing, because there was no relationship there. Sure, we had telephones, and the combination of TV and phone has been a life-line for some house-bound people. But it could never be the relational community you get by sitting down together.
But the last two decades have given us a genuine novelty: multi-party multi-way communication, relationship, mediated entirely by electronic means. There have been a few, possibly lame attempts at "on-line churches", but that rather seems to miss the point. The church is about people and their relationships. It's about corporate action in the world which shows people Jesus. Today you genuinely can have meaningful, supportive relationships without ever meeting people, can't you? The theology of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church implies a single Church Militant, yet the expression we have been stuck with for two millennia has been a collection of local congregations, and we've always had a certain ambivilance (outside of the Roman Catholics, at least) about the relationship of the local with the universal. We are now on the verge of being able to have a single global community. How cool is that?
I know that throwing off the local expression of church isn't fully an original idea. Indeed, I hang out on the blogs of some people who have done just that. But I wonder how far we can or should press the idea. For me, for now, I'm still persuaded that church is an important category, a crucial part of my life. But I wonder how different it could be, and yet still be church.
Most of us realise that the way we (Evangelicals, free church people , whatever) "do church" today owes most to the heady days of the reformation, with some pre-reformation thinking, and a few modifications in more recent years. But those days were very different from now. Music has changed - but most of us have at least reflected that a little. Communication has changed. Teaching has changed. Lectures were never a very good way of delivering ideas and promoting thought: they are quickly disappearing from our Universities - at least in the one-way, non-interactive sense. I'm not just thinking about using Powerpoint [how did that Microsoft product become a generic term?]. I'm thinking that there's no good reason why people should sit down and listen to me preach a second-rate sermon, when we could watch a video together (or a live feed) of someone really gifted. And for some of us, live music is perhaps over-rated, too. I'm not saying that we need to throw everything out, just that we can mix it up some more.
But a blog post answering people who try to explain "Why I don't go to church" got me thinking (I can't remember, to be honest, how newattitude got onto my blog roll, but I digress). Let us assume, for a moment, that the New Testament Church is the thing to emulate. Suppose that it is the closest picture we have of what God had in mind for a Christian community. What is it about that community that matters? Is it gathering by the river? Or in an over-warm upper room? What does gathering together mean in any case?
People tried, through the 20th century, to do elements of "church" via TV and radio. But they couldn't replace the real thing, because there was no relationship there. Sure, we had telephones, and the combination of TV and phone has been a life-line for some house-bound people. But it could never be the relational community you get by sitting down together.
But the last two decades have given us a genuine novelty: multi-party multi-way communication, relationship, mediated entirely by electronic means. There have been a few, possibly lame attempts at "on-line churches", but that rather seems to miss the point. The church is about people and their relationships. It's about corporate action in the world which shows people Jesus. Today you genuinely can have meaningful, supportive relationships without ever meeting people, can't you? The theology of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church implies a single Church Militant, yet the expression we have been stuck with for two millennia has been a collection of local congregations, and we've always had a certain ambivilance (outside of the Roman Catholics, at least) about the relationship of the local with the universal. We are now on the verge of being able to have a single global community. How cool is that?
I know that throwing off the local expression of church isn't fully an original idea. Indeed, I hang out on the blogs of some people who have done just that. But I wonder how far we can or should press the idea. For me, for now, I'm still persuaded that church is an important category, a crucial part of my life. But I wonder how different it could be, and yet still be church.
2007/12/05
Emerging politics
So here's what I don't get. At all.
The whole emerging conversation seems to be broadly aligned with the left of politics. I realise that's a loose alignment. I realise, too, that most of my reading has been from USA writers, and is therefore influenced by American political thinking. And I realise that for some decades now, USA Evangelicals have generally been associated with the right of politics. And I realise that there is something of a sea-change afoot in American politics which sees the Democratic party resurgent (in House and Senate, as well as likely presidency). And I realise that the emerging conversation is to some extent a protest movement, and it is therefore trendy to be associated with the sea-change going on in American politics. I realise that everything I have written is a gross over-simplification.
I bring a broadly right-wing persuasion to the table. In British politics right now, the church tends to be mostly associated with the left. So my own form of protest is to look to the right. But I always was a bit of a rebel.
And then there's the politics of climate change, which sometimes looks like a religion in its own right. Notwithstanding the fact that my name is on a Nature paper on the subject, I'm far from convinced. And even less convinced about all the hand-wringing and switching off of lights as a sensible response. But that certainly doesn't leave me in the camp which says we have a divine mandate to rape and pillage the earth's resources as quickly as we possibly can. Reduce--Reuse--Recycle is a great credo to be sure. But I'm probably beyond the pale in the eyes of many readers by now (if there are many readers, that is. I wish blogger told me that).
The point of this post? Much of the emerging conversation resonates for me as something which fits my thinking. The political bits really, really, don't. Is that a different continent--different politics thing, or does it go deeper?
The whole emerging conversation seems to be broadly aligned with the left of politics. I realise that's a loose alignment. I realise, too, that most of my reading has been from USA writers, and is therefore influenced by American political thinking. And I realise that for some decades now, USA Evangelicals have generally been associated with the right of politics. And I realise that there is something of a sea-change afoot in American politics which sees the Democratic party resurgent (in House and Senate, as well as likely presidency). And I realise that the emerging conversation is to some extent a protest movement, and it is therefore trendy to be associated with the sea-change going on in American politics. I realise that everything I have written is a gross over-simplification.
I bring a broadly right-wing persuasion to the table. In British politics right now, the church tends to be mostly associated with the left. So my own form of protest is to look to the right. But I always was a bit of a rebel.
And then there's the politics of climate change, which sometimes looks like a religion in its own right. Notwithstanding the fact that my name is on a Nature paper on the subject, I'm far from convinced. And even less convinced about all the hand-wringing and switching off of lights as a sensible response. But that certainly doesn't leave me in the camp which says we have a divine mandate to rape and pillage the earth's resources as quickly as we possibly can. Reduce--Reuse--Recycle is a great credo to be sure. But I'm probably beyond the pale in the eyes of many readers by now (if there are many readers, that is. I wish blogger told me that).
The point of this post? Much of the emerging conversation resonates for me as something which fits my thinking. The political bits really, really, don't. Is that a different continent--different politics thing, or does it go deeper?
2007/12/04
Conflicted
Life's complex sometimes. Often, actually. I think that's one of the many things I'm learning through my present programme of reading and reflecting. Evangelical certainty is a fine ideal, but it often doesn't seem to stack up well with reality, or, really, with the things we've previously taken as foundational - scripture, in particular.
Thinking this way is simultaneously liberating and disturbing, of course. Liberating to find people who want to ask questions, like I have lately wanted to, and are not willing to settle for simple answers. Some principles of hermeneutics are just, well, silly. Some commonplace exegesis is, frankly, incredible, implausible, even. Why does it have to feel daring to say so? There's something disturbing about letting go of some of the things you've held onto for years - even if doing so involved rather a lot of doublethink.
Why conflicted heart-searching today? Well, I have to preach a sermon this coming Sunday, at my parents' church. And the allocated topic is "the prophetic preparation for Jesus' birth". That's scary enough at the best of times. Right now, it's downright confusing.
I have ideas. I just wonder if they'll ever talk to me again, afterwards.
Thinking this way is simultaneously liberating and disturbing, of course. Liberating to find people who want to ask questions, like I have lately wanted to, and are not willing to settle for simple answers. Some principles of hermeneutics are just, well, silly. Some commonplace exegesis is, frankly, incredible, implausible, even. Why does it have to feel daring to say so? There's something disturbing about letting go of some of the things you've held onto for years - even if doing so involved rather a lot of doublethink.
Why conflicted heart-searching today? Well, I have to preach a sermon this coming Sunday, at my parents' church. And the allocated topic is "the prophetic preparation for Jesus' birth". That's scary enough at the best of times. Right now, it's downright confusing.
I have ideas. I just wonder if they'll ever talk to me again, afterwards.
2007/12/01
Review: They Like Jesus but not the Church
Anyone would think I'm not really trying. These blog posts are too sporadic. I'll try to catch up with comments on stuff I read a while ago ... but meanwhile, I've just finished reading They Like Jesus but not the Church by Dan Kimball. And here's what I think.
I like Dan. I have to read more of his stuff. He's very circumspect at the beginning: he explains he's addressing an American audience; that America is becoming de-churched, as it were, just like Europe did about a generation ago. I myself think the comparison is more complex than that - and I think his book has something to say to the English church, at least, as well as the American one. But I admire the modesty of his position.
Though, having said that, he does rather bend over backwards to avoid being a stumbling block to the reader. The chapter about the church being seen as sexist is very careful not to take a view on 'women's ministry' - even though it's pretty obvious where Dan stands. I'd say: Dan, you don't need to be quite so winsome. You have a good story to tell; nail your colours up there.
The book seems to revolve around conversations Dan has whilst getting his hair cut and styled. When you see the pictures, you can imagine why he has quite a few such conversations. I exaggerate: he also hangs out in coffee shops a lot, it seems, describing himself as quite reluctant to get in to conversation, yet managing to summon lots of excellent pithy quotes from hair stylists, baristas, and other members of the emerging generation.
For this is how he seems to use the E word: I don't recall it being applied particularly to a group of Christians anywhere in the book, but rather to a generation which is in its late 20s and early 30s now. I'm not sure whether that is supposed to be a stage-of-life characterization (like 'teenagers') or a particular generation which will keep its label as it ages (like the baby boomers, or Generation X). As a mid-Generation-X-er, I'm disappointed to find that the action is now with the younger folks, but that's life I suppose.
The book is an easy read, and has displaced for a while Exiles: Living Missionally in a Post-Christian Culture, which also seems good, but is proving heavy going. I found it most thought-provoking: it's good to be reminded that it matters not just what we believe, but how we believe it, and how others see us putting faith into practice.
2007/11/08
Deja Vu all over again?
I've remarked to a few people that what I have been reading about the emerging church tends to put me in mind of the Christian Brethren. This blog is about that impression.
Do read the disclaimer at the end. I'm emphatically not saying "this is that", nor would I dream of making predictions, or offering warnings.
The Brethren have their origins in the early decades of the 1800s, in various places in England and Ireland, most famously Plymouth. Though they attracted people from various backgrounds, the bulk were from the Anglican (Church of England) tradition: they were disaffected with the lack of real spiritual life they found there, and wanted something more. The same malaise in the Church of England is also what gave rise to the Oxford Movement - the Anglo-Catholic Wing of the Church.
These men (and women: it must be said they only got a background part) did their best to throw off all the trappings of the Church. Their principle act of worship together was a "meeting" (never a "service"), where everyone met together (in a "room" or a "hall", never a "church"), without any pre-planned order of events. Everyone (well, ok, every man) was free to speak, pray, read the bible, begin a song/hymn, or, well, whatever, really. The climax was sharing communion - bread and wine - together.
Well, that's the typical pattern, anyway. Each local gathering (which was often called "the assembly", or "the meeting") was entirely autonomous, so all kinds of local patterns grew up. Some were led by a group of "elders", others, simply by having another open meeting to discuss the plans and life of the community. Paid, full-time leaders were very rare - though some would serve the church, and rely on gifts (and God's provision) for their subsistence.
Most assemblies would also hold mid-week meetings for prayer and bible study. There was a strong sense of community life here, and also much openness - itinerant speakers from other like-minded fellowships would visit, and, at least in some places, there would be cordial links with other local Christians. There never has been any Brethren "denomination": some have taken it upon themselves to publish directories of like-minded fellowships; in the hey-day there were several magazines appealing to the constituency, and there have been a number of mission agencies dominated by Brethren ideals.
Indeed, these groups have been characterized by a very high commitment to mission. Most would hold a regular "gospel meeting"; engage with the needs of the whole person in a variety of ways (Muller and Banardo did huge amounts of good work with orphans, for example), and most notably be very involved in overseas educational and medical missions. Proportionately, the Brethren are reckoned to be among the most mission-sending denominations (if they were a denomination).
There's a rosy picture. I wonder if it strikes any chords. How did it pan out?
Well, rather early on, there was a big split. I forget what the original split was over, but those with a more purist approach left, to form a more exclusive group. These "Exclusive Brethren" continued to split and fight among themselves, eventually becoming sect-like in quite a few ways. These days, one thing which characterizes the few remaining Exclusives is an unwillingness to use computers, for example.
The majority, "open Brethren", thrived and developed - with all sorts of patterns of activity arising in many places. The mission work has given rise to like-minded meetings in many countries, all of them autonomous communities, and almost without exception with shared leadership - though some will have paid full- or part-time staff these days.
The Brethren have not tended to be terribly prescriptive when it comes to theology. There is a common point of view, but an openness to differences of emphasis. I've belonged to three Brethren meetings, I don't think any of them has a doctrinal statement or basis of faith. Yet the Open Brethren have tended to be mercifully free of perambulations into paths of heresy.
Indeed, perhaps the biggest problem the Brethren have had has proven to be an unwillingness to change. Proceeding by consensus, and bearing with each other in love, often tends to discourage us from big initiatives. Without some initiative-takers, we have a danger of being stuck in the good ideas of the 1840s. Quite a number of the dwindling meetings are using a staggeringly ancient hymn-book, full of the most atrocious Victorian poetry.
"Dwindling" is probably an accurate term. Many are now disappearing. Some have seen a pattern at work throughout history: God by his Spirit does something new and mould-breaking. It has an enormous energy for a while, and then things ossify and fossilize. Then they decay. That's quite an indictment of our fallen nature.
Final note: as I said at the beginning, I wouldn't presume to say "this is that", nor to offer predictions or warnings. Emerging Church puts me in mind of the Brethren, and that thrills me, because I think some of the Brethren ideas are awesome ones whose time has come. If a new generation is discovering them (with a different spin, with other ideas thrown in), that's great.
Do read the disclaimer at the end. I'm emphatically not saying "this is that", nor would I dream of making predictions, or offering warnings.
The Brethren have their origins in the early decades of the 1800s, in various places in England and Ireland, most famously Plymouth. Though they attracted people from various backgrounds, the bulk were from the Anglican (Church of England) tradition: they were disaffected with the lack of real spiritual life they found there, and wanted something more. The same malaise in the Church of England is also what gave rise to the Oxford Movement - the Anglo-Catholic Wing of the Church.
These men (and women: it must be said they only got a background part) did their best to throw off all the trappings of the Church. Their principle act of worship together was a "meeting" (never a "service"), where everyone met together (in a "room" or a "hall", never a "church"), without any pre-planned order of events. Everyone (well, ok, every man) was free to speak, pray, read the bible, begin a song/hymn, or, well, whatever, really. The climax was sharing communion - bread and wine - together.
Well, that's the typical pattern, anyway. Each local gathering (which was often called "the assembly", or "the meeting") was entirely autonomous, so all kinds of local patterns grew up. Some were led by a group of "elders", others, simply by having another open meeting to discuss the plans and life of the community. Paid, full-time leaders were very rare - though some would serve the church, and rely on gifts (and God's provision) for their subsistence.
Most assemblies would also hold mid-week meetings for prayer and bible study. There was a strong sense of community life here, and also much openness - itinerant speakers from other like-minded fellowships would visit, and, at least in some places, there would be cordial links with other local Christians. There never has been any Brethren "denomination": some have taken it upon themselves to publish directories of like-minded fellowships; in the hey-day there were several magazines appealing to the constituency, and there have been a number of mission agencies dominated by Brethren ideals.
Indeed, these groups have been characterized by a very high commitment to mission. Most would hold a regular "gospel meeting"; engage with the needs of the whole person in a variety of ways (Muller and Banardo did huge amounts of good work with orphans, for example), and most notably be very involved in overseas educational and medical missions. Proportionately, the Brethren are reckoned to be among the most mission-sending denominations (if they were a denomination).
There's a rosy picture. I wonder if it strikes any chords. How did it pan out?
Well, rather early on, there was a big split. I forget what the original split was over, but those with a more purist approach left, to form a more exclusive group. These "Exclusive Brethren" continued to split and fight among themselves, eventually becoming sect-like in quite a few ways. These days, one thing which characterizes the few remaining Exclusives is an unwillingness to use computers, for example.
The majority, "open Brethren", thrived and developed - with all sorts of patterns of activity arising in many places. The mission work has given rise to like-minded meetings in many countries, all of them autonomous communities, and almost without exception with shared leadership - though some will have paid full- or part-time staff these days.
The Brethren have not tended to be terribly prescriptive when it comes to theology. There is a common point of view, but an openness to differences of emphasis. I've belonged to three Brethren meetings, I don't think any of them has a doctrinal statement or basis of faith. Yet the Open Brethren have tended to be mercifully free of perambulations into paths of heresy.
Indeed, perhaps the biggest problem the Brethren have had has proven to be an unwillingness to change. Proceeding by consensus, and bearing with each other in love, often tends to discourage us from big initiatives. Without some initiative-takers, we have a danger of being stuck in the good ideas of the 1840s. Quite a number of the dwindling meetings are using a staggeringly ancient hymn-book, full of the most atrocious Victorian poetry.
"Dwindling" is probably an accurate term. Many are now disappearing. Some have seen a pattern at work throughout history: God by his Spirit does something new and mould-breaking. It has an enormous energy for a while, and then things ossify and fossilize. Then they decay. That's quite an indictment of our fallen nature.
Final note: as I said at the beginning, I wouldn't presume to say "this is that", nor to offer predictions or warnings. Emerging Church puts me in mind of the Brethren, and that thrills me, because I think some of the Brethren ideas are awesome ones whose time has come. If a new generation is discovering them (with a different spin, with other ideas thrown in), that's great.
2007/11/03
Time for a review: Nooma
Thank you to people who have left comments here: it's a little scary to find I have a blog with readers. So, here goes with more of a proper review.
My introduction to this kind of thinking was the Nooma videos, featuring Rob Bell. I'm still not sure about whether he would describe himself - and his church - as part of the emerging church phenomenon or not, but that doesn't matter here. Nooma is a series of short films, styling itself "the new format". Presented on DVD, most are about 10 minutes of Rob speaking to camera, in a variety of settings, with music and film cut in.
I think it's fair to say that the Noomas have very high production values. In fact, I'm not sure I have ever come across Christian media of higher quality. It's stylish and up-to-date. And very non-cringeworthy. There's so much I encounter in the Christian community which I wouldn't dream of sharing with those outside. But Nooma is an exception.
The topics of the talks are varied. They are some very Christian themes, by and large. The first one, for example, is about God's love for us, and his longing for us to live in relationship with him. It's the sort of stuff which can be thought-provoking for Christians, but by no means inaccessible to those who aren't so sure. It's certainly not a classical presentation of "the gospel", nor, in any sense, some kind of apologetics. But for a less head-on discussion (something I'm inclined to think is very timely), here are some really good thoughts to kick around.
Despite some criticisms for his rhetorical style (leading some to dismiss him as a denier of the truth), my own impression of Bell is of someone who loves and teaches the historical Christian message - in a relevant and current way. He draws on the bible, on his life experience, and many other sources. He's clearly studied Jewish thinking at some length, and draws on rabbinical insights to discuss how Jesus' first hearers would have understood his teaching.
Each Nooma comes with a booklet - again exquisite and stylish - with quotes from the videos, and many open-ended questions. We've used a few of the Noomas in our home study group. Even the ones which seemed to have quite a straightforward conventional message have been followed by good, long-lasting open discussion which seems to push the boundaries rather well, facilitated by the booklet questions.
You might have formed the impression that I'm quite taken with these things. What are the drawbacks? Well, they retail for $10 in the USA and £10 in the UK (that's $20 !). $10 seems fine, but I take exception to the latter for a 12 minute DVD. The booklet presentation doesn't lend itself to giving each group participant a copy, which is a shame. And the whole thing is a bit, er, American: the vocabulary doesn't bother me, but in just about every one we've watched as a group, there's been something I've had to explain to those less-travelled. And I still don't really know what a kickball is.
My introduction to this kind of thinking was the Nooma videos, featuring Rob Bell. I'm still not sure about whether he would describe himself - and his church - as part of the emerging church phenomenon or not, but that doesn't matter here. Nooma is a series of short films, styling itself "the new format". Presented on DVD, most are about 10 minutes of Rob speaking to camera, in a variety of settings, with music and film cut in.
I think it's fair to say that the Noomas have very high production values. In fact, I'm not sure I have ever come across Christian media of higher quality. It's stylish and up-to-date. And very non-cringeworthy. There's so much I encounter in the Christian community which I wouldn't dream of sharing with those outside. But Nooma is an exception.
The topics of the talks are varied. They are some very Christian themes, by and large. The first one, for example, is about God's love for us, and his longing for us to live in relationship with him. It's the sort of stuff which can be thought-provoking for Christians, but by no means inaccessible to those who aren't so sure. It's certainly not a classical presentation of "the gospel", nor, in any sense, some kind of apologetics. But for a less head-on discussion (something I'm inclined to think is very timely), here are some really good thoughts to kick around.
Despite some criticisms for his rhetorical style (leading some to dismiss him as a denier of the truth), my own impression of Bell is of someone who loves and teaches the historical Christian message - in a relevant and current way. He draws on the bible, on his life experience, and many other sources. He's clearly studied Jewish thinking at some length, and draws on rabbinical insights to discuss how Jesus' first hearers would have understood his teaching.
Each Nooma comes with a booklet - again exquisite and stylish - with quotes from the videos, and many open-ended questions. We've used a few of the Noomas in our home study group. Even the ones which seemed to have quite a straightforward conventional message have been followed by good, long-lasting open discussion which seems to push the boundaries rather well, facilitated by the booklet questions.
You might have formed the impression that I'm quite taken with these things. What are the drawbacks? Well, they retail for $10 in the USA and £10 in the UK (that's $20 !). $10 seems fine, but I take exception to the latter for a 12 minute DVD. The booklet presentation doesn't lend itself to giving each group participant a copy, which is a shame. And the whole thing is a bit, er, American: the vocabulary doesn't bother me, but in just about every one we've watched as a group, there's been something I've had to explain to those less-travelled. And I still don't really know what a kickball is.
2007/10/28
The blogsphere is not postmodernism
Part the problem, I think, is the way that the stuff of "emerging" has been equated with postmodernism, and that itself has been equated with the phenomenon which is the world-wide-web, and more particularly, Web 2.0 and the interactive world-wide conversation.
But these are all different things. Postmodernism, strictly. is a rather academic notion, some would say something of a spent force, a self-limiting somewhat over-ironic commentary on 20th century self-importance. Now, I tend to see some of its themes impacting on wider society: the lack of a privileged metanarrative; the preoccupation with the medium as much as the message; an aggressive kind of relativism, and so on. Whether these are properly described as postmodern is perhaps moot. Undoubtedly, society is undergoing (or has undergone) some profound changes: but how far-reaching are they? I don't think anyone can say.
On the other hand, I think there is a consensus that the creation of the web is on a par with the invention of the printing press. The effect on society, in the long run, is probably as profound. And it is a truly global phenomenon, though it has to be admitted that language barriers (and to some extent, cultural barriers) mean that much of the interaction is actually limited to a collection of largely non-overlapping (albeit very large, in some cases) online communities.
What does all this have to do with the emerging church? Well, it's evident that there is an emerging, community, web 2.0, kind-of spirituality (if not theology). And it's easy to make over-blown claims about the stuff you are at the centre of. But does it add up to a whole heap of beans?
But these are all different things. Postmodernism, strictly. is a rather academic notion, some would say something of a spent force, a self-limiting somewhat over-ironic commentary on 20th century self-importance. Now, I tend to see some of its themes impacting on wider society: the lack of a privileged metanarrative; the preoccupation with the medium as much as the message; an aggressive kind of relativism, and so on. Whether these are properly described as postmodern is perhaps moot. Undoubtedly, society is undergoing (or has undergone) some profound changes: but how far-reaching are they? I don't think anyone can say.
On the other hand, I think there is a consensus that the creation of the web is on a par with the invention of the printing press. The effect on society, in the long run, is probably as profound. And it is a truly global phenomenon, though it has to be admitted that language barriers (and to some extent, cultural barriers) mean that much of the interaction is actually limited to a collection of largely non-overlapping (albeit very large, in some cases) online communities.
What does all this have to do with the emerging church? Well, it's evident that there is an emerging, community, web 2.0, kind-of spirituality (if not theology). And it's easy to make over-blown claims about the stuff you are at the centre of. But does it add up to a whole heap of beans?
2007/10/27
Emerging hubris
So, I've been trying to make sense of what people mean by "emerging" and "emergent"; what my Anglican friends call "new expressions of church", whether post-modernity has anything interesting to say to faith, whether post-evangelical is a category, and so on.
I guess it's often hard to see, from the middle of a sea-change, the impact and repercussions of the changes taking place. Are we looking at a 1-in-30-year movement, on a par with the Charismatic movement at its height in the 70s and 80s? Are we looking at a 1-in-100-year movement, like the rise of modern evangelicalism to be a dominant force in the British church? Are we looking at a 1-in-400-year movement, on a par with the Reformation or the Great Schism?
My first reaction - egged on by reading the likes of Maclaren - was the latter. Or if not 400 years, then certainly something on a par with the rise of the Enlightenment, at least. But,
Being part of something new and radical is exciting. And Christian faith desperately needs to reconnect with western society - and, all the more, with Jesus' way of life. And that means re-thinking a lot of things that too many have taken for granted.
But how much, and how important it all is ... I'm just not sure yet.
I have more reading to do.
I guess it's often hard to see, from the middle of a sea-change, the impact and repercussions of the changes taking place. Are we looking at a 1-in-30-year movement, on a par with the Charismatic movement at its height in the 70s and 80s? Are we looking at a 1-in-100-year movement, like the rise of modern evangelicalism to be a dominant force in the British church? Are we looking at a 1-in-400-year movement, on a par with the Reformation or the Great Schism?
My first reaction - egged on by reading the likes of Maclaren - was the latter. Or if not 400 years, then certainly something on a par with the rise of the Enlightenment, at least. But,
- perhaps because MacLaren and Rollins are really "out there",
- because there is a real lack of coherency within the big tent called "emerging", and
- because I keep reading stuff about how we need to rediscover the joy of being a Christian community uncluttered by man-made structures - which all sounds so reminiscent of the Brethren movement (1840 and afterwards),
Being part of something new and radical is exciting. And Christian faith desperately needs to reconnect with western society - and, all the more, with Jesus' way of life. And that means re-thinking a lot of things that too many have taken for granted.
But how much, and how important it all is ... I'm just not sure yet.
I have more reading to do.
2007/10/20
Random Thought
I've heard it said that Richard Dawkins would like to see the University stop teaching theology. On the grounds that it's the study of made-up stuff. I'd have to agree with the idea - but not the reason - since academic theology has always struck me as amiss. It seems to lead in entirely the wrong direction.
Motivation
Hmm. Long time since the last blog. It's all about getting started, isn'it. Probably no one knows this blog is here. But that's partly good. I get to practice writing blogs without pressure. But it's bad, too, because it makes me lazy about recording my thoughts. And the point of this blog was definitely to post some thoughts about emerging things.
So, note to self: time to post comments on the books you claimed to read on holiday, Andrew.
Don Carson : Becoming conversant with the emerging church.
I can see why this upset a lot of people. It's more about Don than about the emerging church.
Donald Miller Blue like Jazz Awesome book. A kind of Christian Generation-X. Must read more Miller.
Steve Chalke The lost message of Jesus. What's controversial about that (other than that there's a lot of living up to it to be done)?
Peter Rollins How (not) to speak of God. Wow. Really out there.
Douglas Coupland Jpod. Very very odd mix of postmodern genius and clawing cuteness. Having Coupland appear as a character in the story could have worked, but didn't.
Proper reviews must follow.
So, note to self: time to post comments on the books you claimed to read on holiday, Andrew.
Don Carson : Becoming conversant with the emerging church.
I can see why this upset a lot of people. It's more about Don than about the emerging church.
Donald Miller Blue like Jazz Awesome book. A kind of Christian Generation-X. Must read more Miller.
Steve Chalke The lost message of Jesus. What's controversial about that (other than that there's a lot of living up to it to be done)?
Peter Rollins How (not) to speak of God. Wow. Really out there.
Douglas Coupland Jpod. Very very odd mix of postmodern genius and clawing cuteness. Having Coupland appear as a character in the story could have worked, but didn't.
Proper reviews must follow.
2007/08/09
Such vitriol!
Something else that strikes me forcibly is that those who take the adjectives postmodern, emerging, or emergent, seem to have raised the ire of an awful lot of people. A huge amount of energy seems to have gone into denouncing those people.
Perhaps the feeling is mutual. But it seems kind-of one sided. I'm preparing a talk this week on believing in Christ and becoming like him. I'm dwelling on 1 John 5, though it won't be a traditional exposition of the passage. I Googled
thinking I might find some helpful commentary/discussion. Instead I found link after link of bile and denouncement (is that a word?).
Oh, and the other thing that amazes me is how many of those people seem to want to 'resist' postmodernism. Like you can outrun an express train which is about to catch your arse.
Perhaps the feeling is mutual. But it seems kind-of one sided. I'm preparing a talk this week on believing in Christ and becoming like him. I'm dwelling on 1 John 5, though it won't be a traditional exposition of the passage. I Googled
"1 John 5" emergent
thinking I might find some helpful commentary/discussion. Instead I found link after link of bile and denouncement (is that a word?).
Oh, and the other thing that amazes me is how many of those people seem to want to 'resist' postmodernism. Like you can outrun an express train which is about to catch your arse.
2007/08/07
Provocative
One thing that's very striking is that here is a generation of writers not afraid to be rather provocative. And in a way that implies doubt in "core beliefs", or indeed in a way redolent of heretics of bygone eras. [Is theology like war? The victors get to write history in the latter case, and arbitrate on orthodoxy in the former. Does truth work like that?]
Very often, that is just a modern rhetorical style, and serves just to pep up some actually quite mainstream beliefs. Rob Bell caught a lot of flack for his "what if Jesus had an earthly father named Larry" line. But his whole book seems quite orthodox to me, if well-expressed in a Gen-X sort of way.
But for others, it really is that they are expressing something heterodox. Of course, that's valuable too: if what we believe isn't robust enough to be questioned and subjected to searching analysis, then it's really quite weedy. But are those who turn out to be expressing something quite different from what I believe also my fellow-travellers in the journey of faith?
I don't know, but if I'm going to look upon those who hold an `inerrant' view of scripture, or hold with creationism, as part of the family, then the tent is going to have to be pretty big. So there's probably room for some people with way-out whacky perspectives that head in other directions, too.
Very often, that is just a modern rhetorical style, and serves just to pep up some actually quite mainstream beliefs. Rob Bell caught a lot of flack for his "what if Jesus had an earthly father named Larry" line. But his whole book seems quite orthodox to me, if well-expressed in a Gen-X sort of way.
But for others, it really is that they are expressing something heterodox. Of course, that's valuable too: if what we believe isn't robust enough to be questioned and subjected to searching analysis, then it's really quite weedy. But are those who turn out to be expressing something quite different from what I believe also my fellow-travellers in the journey of faith?
I don't know, but if I'm going to look upon those who hold an `inerrant' view of scripture, or hold with creationism, as part of the family, then the tent is going to have to be pretty big. So there's probably room for some people with way-out whacky perspectives that head in other directions, too.
2007/08/06
Trying to make sense of the emerging church
It feels as if I have lost touch with the world of Christian literature. Somehow, the entire Emerging Church thing (if it deserves capital letters?) passed me by over the last decade or so. This is my blog, as I try to catch up.
I'm nearly 40, raised in a loving Evangelical family and church community, baptised as a believer, aged 15; saved by the grace of God! I've always seen my gifts and ministry more in support than up-front leadership, but as I have grown up and moved around the world, have found myself progressively more and more involved: in music, in various help and administration, in leading worship, in preaching. I've just joined the leadership team of the church I've belonged to for 7+ years. For a job, I'm a lecturer in Software Engineering - in American-speak that would be Associate Professor.
Where did all this emerging stuff come from? A little over a year ago someone - Dad, actually - showed me a Nooma; Rob Bell's Bullhorn, to be precise. I was intrigued. I started clicking around on the web, and the parcels from Amazon started to arrive.
So I'm starting to form a picture. And, as you may guess from my thirst to find out more, there's something here which resonates for me. Quite a lot, actually. I had reached a point where a nagging voice was starting to say "do you really believe all this stuff which has been the main normative influence on your life?" God, in his grace, stepped in and pointed me at all this ... random, unorganised stuff written by people who seemed to believe things a bit like I did.
So this blog is likely to be a mix of personal reflections, and reviews of books and media I encounter in my attempt to catch up with what's going on out there. The list of unread books keeps growing: but a holiday is coming up, when I plan to read lots. If I get time between now and then, maybe I'll write up some comments about Velvet Elvis, or A generous orthodoxy, or A new kind of Christian, or even the Ryan and Bolger book.
I'm nearly 40, raised in a loving Evangelical family and church community, baptised as a believer, aged 15; saved by the grace of God! I've always seen my gifts and ministry more in support than up-front leadership, but as I have grown up and moved around the world, have found myself progressively more and more involved: in music, in various help and administration, in leading worship, in preaching. I've just joined the leadership team of the church I've belonged to for 7+ years. For a job, I'm a lecturer in Software Engineering - in American-speak that would be Associate Professor.
Where did all this emerging stuff come from? A little over a year ago someone - Dad, actually - showed me a Nooma; Rob Bell's Bullhorn, to be precise. I was intrigued. I started clicking around on the web, and the parcels from Amazon started to arrive.
So I'm starting to form a picture. And, as you may guess from my thirst to find out more, there's something here which resonates for me. Quite a lot, actually. I had reached a point where a nagging voice was starting to say "do you really believe all this stuff which has been the main normative influence on your life?" God, in his grace, stepped in and pointed me at all this ... random, unorganised stuff written by people who seemed to believe things a bit like I did.
So this blog is likely to be a mix of personal reflections, and reviews of books and media I encounter in my attempt to catch up with what's going on out there. The list of unread books keeps growing: but a holiday is coming up, when I plan to read lots. If I get time between now and then, maybe I'll write up some comments about Velvet Elvis, or A generous orthodoxy, or A new kind of Christian, or even the Ryan and Bolger book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)