reflections on institutionalised religion

i wrote the following about 4 years ago following a visit to an anglican church in the suburbs of london. i think that even after all that time, it still sums up where my heart is.

My reflections

The church seems to have an underlying, and perhaps unconscious theology of pastoral care and maintenance, which doesn’t find creative, risky, thoughtful, and proactive ways of getting the congregation to engage with the local community.

It is good at having social clubs, is very welcoming to new people who come, and is probably characterised by a ‘belonging before believing’ approach. This does seem to produce some fruit.

The high church ritual is done well, and so is attractive to people who want that sort of worship. The teaching was very short, unimaginative, thin on content, and designed for an encouraging feel-good factor - more along the line of moralising, and of how to live a good life than grappling with the alternative vision of the Kingdom of God here on earth now, as it is in heaven.

I felt that the church was very much stuck in the Christendom paradigm – particularly around the idea that ‘being a good Christian means being a good citizen.’ So in their context, church was a place to come to be encouraged and confirmed in maintaining the treadmill of their middle-class mediocrity. There didn’t seem to be an inherent theology of mission at the heart of the church.

I couldn’t stand it.

In reflecting on what that experience means for my own future ministry, I could only pray that I don’t end up in that kind of situation. It looked like a treadmill that would slowly grind me to death.

It confirmed to me that I’m interested in exploring non-traditional forms of ministry, though I’m not sure I can adequately articulate what that might look like in practice.

What I do know, is that at base level there must be at least 3 core values:
1. a theology of mission that actively engages in creative, organic, and contextually meaningful praxis;
2. a prophetic heart that is willing to speak of the Kingdom of God to both church and world;
3. an active pursuit of spirituality that is given time and space to explore my relationship with God at a mystic level (without wanting to sound pretentious).

I want to find a community of people who are willing to explore these values and who encourage one another in their exploration of ‘life in all its fullness’.

I know that I’m good at conducting the ‘hatch, match, and despatch’ ceremonies that non-religious people want the religious community to perform for them. I know from what people say, that they sense God when I shepherd them through those times.

But I don’t want to walk on a treadmill.

I know that in church my teaching and preaching is able to articulate for people the joys and pains of life, and my stories connect with their story so that they are unsettled, comforted, challenged, and intrigued enough to want their lives shaped by the Jesus I speak of.

I love to administer the sacraments, and watch the ancient story come to life in people’s responses as they partake in God’s goodness to them.

I enjoy the exploration of new and different forms of living the story; of working with others who are different and far more creative than me; of seeing the untamed wildness of God in people when they realise that being who they are is what freedom actually means; of listening to the poetry and art of those who seek God outside of the forms of mediocrity which says, ‘but this is the way its always been done.’

I want to live in commune with the rhythms of nature’s seasons, and feel the movement of the ancient Christian story as it swells and ebbs with its own seasons. I want to see people’s lives shaped and re-shaped year by year as they connect their life story to the Jesus story, and allow their own lives to be moulded by his.

But I don’t want to walk on a treadmill.

I want to be involved in the unstoppable mega-swell of the ocean of God’s change, and be swept up in the waves that will sweep the beach clean of the edifices humanity has erected, leaving only driftwood, pebbles, sea-weed, and sand…and children to play in the gently lapping wavelets under an early morning sun.

I don’t want those children to be oppressed by the weight of faceless committees, to be denied the fruits of their forefathers’ stewardship, to be abandoned like unwanted babies by a mother who knows she is dying but who lives in self-centred denial. So I want to be in a position where I can help the children acquire the resources they need and which are their rightful inheritance.

I want to listen to the children as they speak of God, and watch how they play as his Spirit bubbles up in them. I want to speak into the halls of power to ensure that the children have the resources of their inheritance that their Spirit-bubbling requires. And I want them to feel the freedom and encouragement from a changed mother to explore new forms of living the gospel.

So I can’t walk on a treadmill. My heart is restless, yet aches for rest. My history shows that I am constantly moving, yet I yearn to settle and put down roots.

I live in the tension of the ‘here, but not yet.’

I am a traveller.

Inspiration for the Week

Eric Prydz Vs Floyd 'Proper Education'
a great vid that turns the idea of little urban rats into little urban agents for positive environmental change.
how would christian youthworkers inspire their kids into radical acts of subversion done in the name of god?
thanks to sanctus1 for the tip.

romereo, an advent prayer

thanks to me old mates geoff and sherry at the ashram for pointing to this fabulous prayer from the late archbishop oscar romero. its a prayer worth taking 15 minutes at least once a week in advent to contemplate:

It helps, now and then, to step back and take a long view.

The kingdom is not only beyond our efforts, it is even beyond our vision.

We accomplish in our lifetime only a tiny fraction of the magnificent enterprise that is God's work.
Nothing we do is complete, which is a way of saying that the kingdom always lies beyond us.
No statement says all that could be said.
No prayer fully expresses our faith.
No confession brings perfection.
No pastoral visit brings wholeness.
No program accomplishes the church's mission.
No set of goals and objectives includes everything.

This is what we are about.
We plant the seeds that one day will grow.
We water seeds already planted, knowing that they hold future promise.

We lay foundations that will need further development.
We provide yeast that produces far beyond our capabilities.

We cannot do everything, and there is a sense of liberation in realizing that.

This enables us to do something, and to do it very well. It may be incomplete, but it is a beginning, a step along the way, an opportunity for the Lord's grace to enter and do the rest.

We may never see the end results, but that is the difference between the master builder and the worker.

We are workers, not master builders; ministers, not messiahs.
We are prophets of a future not our own.
Amen

more new links

in the side bar, you'll see some more new links.

al hirsch, on missional development and projects.
onmovements, on building spiritual movements.
caffeist, on the sheer delight of that most wonderful substance, coffee.

al hirsch is the co-author of the shaping of things to come, a very solid book on the church rediscovering its missional dna. his new book, the forgotten ways, will be out in the next couple of months. i've had the heads up that it will be a very significant book on missional development. have put my order in at amazon.

happy reading.

new online world

excellent post from jonny baker about the whole new web 2.0 phenomenon. he points to a hefty and well-written article in the guardian today about it.
i resonate a lot with the sentiment of the article, and as a boomer am only just hanging on to the coat-tails of the internet-based network world that is becoming more of the norm for the current crop of teenagers.
its little wonder that people born in the late 1950s and earlier have trouble engaging with the networked generation born after 1980 (or even 1990).
the reimagination questions jonny asks are both uncomfortable and necessary if the church is to engage with its theology of incarnation and mission. i have a hunch that most people in most denominational churches have little idea of how to engage with this web-based world.
but their kids will....

blah and new monasticsm

New Monasticism with Roy Searle, Gareth Powell & Sue Wallace.
25th November, 10am-4.30pm. The day includes lunch and drinks and is being hosted by moot, at St Matthew's Westminster.

There has been a resurgence of interest in the monastic way of life recently and many groups have been considering developing their own 'way of life'. So should we all swear to 'poverty, chastity and obedience'? Or is there another way or rhythm that would suit our context?

So come and hear from Roy a founder of the Northumbria community; Sue who is the UK's original abbess and Gareth who is helping moot to think in urban monastic ways.

Book a place here. Places for each of these days are limited and if you book online you get a 20% discount so get in there quick.

Maybe we should get a group together to go. Let me know if you're interested.

and who is my neighbour? (part 2)

The stories I gave in the last post are simple examples of our church communities trying to discover natural ways of demonstrating expressions of Kingdom principles. The focus is around promoting a practical commitment to neighbourliness, which is rooted in the sake of a commitment to neighbourliness itself – rather than neighbourliness as an aperitif for a main course of more self-conscious (and often up-tight) evangelism. This is justice and hospitality etc. for justice and hospitality’s etc. sake. In the process of doing neighbourliness, principles of building God’s Kingdom here on earth (now) are employed. These principles subvert a more traditional and obvious approach to mission. It’s about developing models of mission for people who don’t do mission, church for people who don’t go to church.

When Jesus was asked by a smart-alec lawyer, “And who is my neighbour?” (Luke 10:29), he was really asking, “Where, within the boundaries of those with whom I naturally have something to do, does my responsibility end?” So, he was actually trying to get a theoretical and technical definition that would absolve him from having to do anything with people who fell outside of the definition of ‘neighbour’. But Jesus was ruthless with him by telling the parable of the Samaritan (note that nowhere in the text is the Samaritan referred to as ‘good’). And a Jewish lawyer hated nobody with as much venom as he hated a Samaritan. At the end of Jesus’ parable, in verse 36, he asks the lawyer, “Which….do you think was a neighbour…?” The lawyer must concede that the neighbour was the Samaritan because of what he did. Jesus challenges the lawyer to, “Go and do likewise”. In other words, be like the Samaritan, a doer of God’s word, not just a theoretician about God’s word.

So, who is my neighbour? Neighbours are doers of God’s word. They should of course, include those of us who say that we are followers of Jesus, committed to living fully alive, shalom-like ways that bring resonances of heaven here on earth. But they can also include the most unlikely ones who, by their concrete actions in everyday life, demonstrate the principles of the Kingdom of God. Let me encourage you to be a good neighbour for the sake of our community – a community that God loves.

blog behaviour and the creation of moral virtual communities (original)

doug pagitt has expressed his discontent with blog behaviour, and maggi dawn has also picked up on it. ben witherington, also in the usa, has some good thoughts on the subject.

the prospect of bad behaviour was one of the main reasons i didn't take up blogging when jonny baker started - i still remember the conversation with him outside a coffee shop in london. the virtual community is quite different in culture to what we normally experience in the flesh and blood.

there is a theological challenge for the church to engage with virtual culture, and the incarnation brings a good critique. below is something i wrote a few years ago when at college that i offer to put into the pot:

Virtual culture, virtual community, virtual humans: ergo, virtual God?
Is it possible to have a virtual society with virtual humans who create a virtual culture? Almost ten years ago, a thesis was produced by Tim North, which looked at these issues in the wider context of an anthropological study of the Internet and its users. Underlying his thesis was the primary research question of whether the users of the Internet and Usenet global computer networks form a society that has a distinct culture of its own. After discussing whether it is possible for a society to have more than one culture, North concludes that, ‘It seems reasonable…to assume that the members of a particular society all share the same culture.’ However, he goes on to argue that the nature of the Internet is such that it spans the globe, and that if it were to conform to the classical anthropological understandings of society and culture then its users would need to be from the one society. This obviously cannot be the case, and so he resolves the issue by creating a new term for the Internet’s societal structure, which he calls the pan-societal superstructure. So, a new way of thinking about society is created with the Internet. This pan-societal superstructure frees the Internet from some of the responsibilities of ordinary society such as providing food and shelter for its inhabitants, because its members are also members of societies that already provide those things.

This new way of thinking about society, virtual community and culture, (which sounds like an oxymoron) has nevertheless been taken seriously by the private sector as it engages with globalisation. For example, Sandia, a major research and development agency in USA is doing work in conjunction with BT in this country in developing virtual culture in cyberspace so that Internet communication becomes more like a ‘real’ place. One of Sandia’s developers, Elaine Raybourn says, ‘Designers of collaborative virtual communities now have the opportunity and responsibility to consider the impact of the underlying dynamics of culture and intercultural interactions such as identity, negotiation, conflict, power, equity, and trust on virtual spaces and collaborative communities.’

Some of the work they are doing incorporates the use of ‘avatars’ – human-shaped figures that can be generically representative, or fairly sophisticated 3D representations of an individual which include skin texture, hair and eye colour, all faithfully reproduced on the screen. Raybourn says, ‘The avatar is you in cyberspace… your avatar might ‘walk’ on the computer screen and ‘sit down’ at a table with others in virtual meeting space. It’s your persona on the Internet.’ Essentially, it’s a more sophisticated form of a ‘chat room’.

So, to some extent, a virtual human exists in cyberspace. But what effect does cyberspace have on valuing a human being? And where does cyberspace’s valuing of human beings lead in the discussion about humanity’s relationship to, and valuing by, God?

We do not live alone as individuals in the Universe. Historically, we are creatures of community. The social sciences are in general agreement that we are products of the shaping of our communities, and that we in turn shape others who encounter us. So if a person’s community is predominantly virtual (e.g. being an only child of absentee parents, who is brought up with massive TV and computer input, lacking in social skills, who is home-tutored for schooling, who gets a job as a computer operator working from home), will that person’s self-image correspond to a virtual self-image, and only be able to conceive of a virtual God?

Embodying the Trinity in the Incarnation
From a Christian perspective, it seems quite weird to think of humanity being able to be valued if it is ‘disembodied’ in cyberspace. There is no biblical understanding of humans existing without being body and soul. The apostle Paul also sees no separation of being, either physical or spiritual, as he talks about the body being the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19-20). At an essence level, we cannot be who or what we are not. Later in that letter, he speaks of the resurrection of Christ, the dead, and our resurrection bodies. Paul insists that what will be for us will be as it was for Christ: transformed bodies for a transformed existence. But the reality of that eschatological transformation is not reserved for that ‘pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die’ sense, rather, it provides the Christian with a hope that must also be grounded and lived out in the real world in the present (1 Cor 15:58).

Of course, Paul’s context was very different to our current context from a technological perspective. But does that necessarily mean the hermeneutic for valuing human beings will need to be wildly different? In the words of that great old song, ‘…it ain’t necessarily so’.

One of the basic tenets of social Trinitarianism is that human beings are only fully human in their imaging of God when they are in living relationship with one another. Their individuality is only ever fully realised as they encounter the ‘other’. This is because God is a ‘community’ of three persons who are fully individual only in their relationship with one another. This ‘relationality’ has been a great insight from post-modernity about identity formation, and the nature of the Trinity. So perhaps the hermeneutical critique of relationality needs to be brought to the new context of cyberspace.

So, let us try to put these thoughts together. God is love in the fellowship of the Trinity. The Trinity is something we cannot see (and so could be loosely argued that it itself is in some kind of analogy to cyberspace). If the Trinity is something we think of as being encounter-able when we die and are resurrected, but we also bring Paul’s critique of the eschatological transformation of our bodies which means something very real to us in the present, then we cannot escape the obvious implication of the invisible (disembodied?) God taking physical human form in the Incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth. So if the Ultimate Reality of the God of the Universe finds it necessary to show Ultimate Love and Value to humanity and the rest of creation in physical human form, then anything less is also bound to be something less than fully human, and subject to being treated in ways that are less than how we have been treated by the Trinitarian, Incarnational love of God.

Cyberspace needs the critique of the Trinity and the Incarnation if it is to be a place where humanity can be truly valued as we enter the new world before us.

As humanity finds itself in a shifting, transforming context through post-modernity and has to learn to live with itself and the world in new ways, it seems to me that the valuing of humanity is not something to be done in abstraction, or any disconnection from real flesh and blood interaction.

I think there are many implications that will need to be grasped and interacted with by the Church if it is to meaningfully engage with the rapidly changing context of western civilisation. Some of these implications could be:

1.If missiological anthropologists tell us that God speaks to us in ways we can understand, then how does God speak into a virtual world inhabited by virtual humans who are participating in life in hitherto unknown ways?
2. How do we create moral virtual communities?
3. How will the Church be a foretaste of the new humanity in relationship with God as expressed in cyberspace?
4. How will eschatology and incarnation need to be addressed in cyberspace?
5. If only a small, but very powerful minority of the world have access to this form of virtual reality, will that minority exercise its power over the rest of humanity by insisting that virtual reality has precedence over normal reality?
6. How will the various humanities express their love to each other, and how will they value one another’s humanity?

The Church must take up the issue in this new millennium.

Tags: blog, virtual morality, incarnation, trinity, behaviour