I love Peter Rollins' methodology, and his willingness to ask hard questions from new perspectives, but often I confess that I have absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
http://peterrollins.net/blog/?p=1570
2011/01/27
2011/01/09
here I stand? reflection
I'm in the middle of a series trying to set out where I've reached in my thinking about how to describe my faith today. The previous parts are these:
here I stand ? the introduction
This post is just a reflective aside.
In writing this blog - and particularly this series - I'm often painfully aware that I'm not a theologian. I'm reasonably well-read; I have a reasonable mind-map of the relevant topics, but I'm not well acquainted with how to contribute in a way that meets the norms of the discipline. That much will be evident to the reader.
That's a curious tension: I've always distrusted professional theology because it seems to take the faith which belongs to all believers and turn it in to an academic discourse in which only the best-educated can participate. And yet, trust it or not, I am aware afresh how hard it is to join in.
I have lots of questions. This little "here I stand" series reflects that. Though there are some things I just don't believe any more (and there are a few new things that I believe perhaps) far more of this is about how I believe rather than what I believe. Asking questions seems a fair thing to do: but I realise that the more I question the less I am in the middle of the mainstream.
This series was prompted by a question from James encouraging me nail what my issues and problems are. Am I still an Evangelical? Well of all I have read so far, I have most sympathy for - indeed, tend to agree with - McLaren, Jones, and Tomlinson. They have done more than ruffle a few feathers in the Evangelical world, so if they are exiting that label, then so, I guess, am I. And they're more eloquent than me, too.
here I stand ? the introduction
- here I stand? part 2: scripture
- here I stand? part 3: gospel and salvation
- here I stand? part 4: mission
This post is just a reflective aside.
In writing this blog - and particularly this series - I'm often painfully aware that I'm not a theologian. I'm reasonably well-read; I have a reasonable mind-map of the relevant topics, but I'm not well acquainted with how to contribute in a way that meets the norms of the discipline. That much will be evident to the reader.
That's a curious tension: I've always distrusted professional theology because it seems to take the faith which belongs to all believers and turn it in to an academic discourse in which only the best-educated can participate. And yet, trust it or not, I am aware afresh how hard it is to join in.
I have lots of questions. This little "here I stand" series reflects that. Though there are some things I just don't believe any more (and there are a few new things that I believe perhaps) far more of this is about how I believe rather than what I believe. Asking questions seems a fair thing to do: but I realise that the more I question the less I am in the middle of the mainstream.
This series was prompted by a question from James encouraging me nail what my issues and problems are. Am I still an Evangelical? Well of all I have read so far, I have most sympathy for - indeed, tend to agree with - McLaren, Jones, and Tomlinson. They have done more than ruffle a few feathers in the Evangelical world, so if they are exiting that label, then so, I guess, am I. And they're more eloquent than me, too.
here I stand? part 5: spiritual formation
After a break, I'm returning to my series trying to set out where I've reached in my thinking about how to describe my faith today. The previous parts are these:
here I stand ? the introduction
Now I want to think about spiritual formation.
How does one develop as a Christian? The Evangelical answer would have something about personal 'quiet times' with daily bible reading and prayer - coupled with weekly attendance at a service of worship, and preferably some kind of small group for bible study, prayer, and mutual encouragement (or, just possibly, mutual accountability). Other sections of the Christian church would have different mixes of mostly similar things. Some would speak of word and sacrament, for example.
Some of the spiritual practices adopted by some of those with the 'emerging' label - and those who have transcended the label, no doubt - are quite a departure from this. Frost's book told me of a "church" which consists of a group who go water-skiing each Sunday. Others meet with like-minded people in coffee shops ("neutral third spaces" for those who can afford the coffee!). Blogging and tweeting and commenting replace earlier forms of study. Action involves practical aid, or promoting ethical investments through Kiva, and so on.
The GenerationX response to the open-ended "small group" commitment has been the rise of the church-run, limited term course. Alpha is the example par excellence, of course, but there are plenty of others, not just for "new Christians", but to develop all kinds of skills, spiritual understanding, or practical abilities. Alpha has always bothered me slightly, but in my new questioning mode, I'm not sure I can handle a presentation which assumes there are simple right answers to questions - and assumes some naive apologetics along the way. I confess to being more interested in Rollins' idea of an Omega course: un-learning the things that should never have bound us in the first place.
What happens - and what should happen - when Christian people gather together. Should a pattern established in the sixteenth century guide us? Should we be bound up with the music and poetry of the nineteenth century, or be attempting to mimic the slickest of contemporary television - whether that's Ophra, or The X-Factor or something else? Is simplicity better? Is less more? Where does the idea come from that singing some songs and listening to a (too-often rambling, in my own case) preacher is "divine service"? With all the media available to us today, is a live third-rate speaker really preferable to a video watched in my own home anyway? There are many cultural expectations of what church is all about, but are they to be indulged or rejected? Some want to recover the practice of the first-century New Testament church. Is that possible? Even if it is, is it desirable?
Those outside the Christian community find their beliefs, morals, practices, shaped by all kinds of media which some believers may seldom touch - and certainly don't have a theology for. How can the Christian understanding of - and theology of - formation be essentially unchanged from centuries past? No wonder Christians often seem out of touch. I exaggerate for effect, of course, but I think that too easily we fail to grow up because we fail to engage with how people live today, we fail to make the most of the insights brought us by psychology, we mis-represent what living as a Christian is all about.
here I stand ? the introduction
- here I stand? part 2: scripture
- here I stand? part 3: gospel and salvation
- here I stand? part 4: mission
How does one develop as a Christian? The Evangelical answer would have something about personal 'quiet times' with daily bible reading and prayer - coupled with weekly attendance at a service of worship, and preferably some kind of small group for bible study, prayer, and mutual encouragement (or, just possibly, mutual accountability). Other sections of the Christian church would have different mixes of mostly similar things. Some would speak of word and sacrament, for example.
Some of the spiritual practices adopted by some of those with the 'emerging' label - and those who have transcended the label, no doubt - are quite a departure from this. Frost's book told me of a "church" which consists of a group who go water-skiing each Sunday. Others meet with like-minded people in coffee shops ("neutral third spaces" for those who can afford the coffee!). Blogging and tweeting and commenting replace earlier forms of study. Action involves practical aid, or promoting ethical investments through Kiva, and so on.
The GenerationX response to the open-ended "small group" commitment has been the rise of the church-run, limited term course. Alpha is the example par excellence, of course, but there are plenty of others, not just for "new Christians", but to develop all kinds of skills, spiritual understanding, or practical abilities. Alpha has always bothered me slightly, but in my new questioning mode, I'm not sure I can handle a presentation which assumes there are simple right answers to questions - and assumes some naive apologetics along the way. I confess to being more interested in Rollins' idea of an Omega course: un-learning the things that should never have bound us in the first place.
What happens - and what should happen - when Christian people gather together. Should a pattern established in the sixteenth century guide us? Should we be bound up with the music and poetry of the nineteenth century, or be attempting to mimic the slickest of contemporary television - whether that's Ophra, or The X-Factor or something else? Is simplicity better? Is less more? Where does the idea come from that singing some songs and listening to a (too-often rambling, in my own case) preacher is "divine service"? With all the media available to us today, is a live third-rate speaker really preferable to a video watched in my own home anyway? There are many cultural expectations of what church is all about, but are they to be indulged or rejected? Some want to recover the practice of the first-century New Testament church. Is that possible? Even if it is, is it desirable?
Those outside the Christian community find their beliefs, morals, practices, shaped by all kinds of media which some believers may seldom touch - and certainly don't have a theology for. How can the Christian understanding of - and theology of - formation be essentially unchanged from centuries past? No wonder Christians often seem out of touch. I exaggerate for effect, of course, but I think that too easily we fail to grow up because we fail to engage with how people live today, we fail to make the most of the insights brought us by psychology, we mis-represent what living as a Christian is all about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)