‘Emerging’ Church

The first thing to say is that McLaren doesn’t like the term Emerging for all kinds of reasons.  But with no other word to replace it I’ll use it as a catch all definition of new developments on the fringe of church.  He spent some time unpacking where we are and where we might be heading.

Trees

Trees grow taller by accident.  They really grow fatter and that’s how we measure their growth.  So instead of thinking about the emerging church as a slice of a pie, think instead of the new ring of growth on the outside of a tree.  People on the outside, in this new place may have more in common with the others in that ring than with people from their tradition towards the centre.  This ring of new growth reflects how the church has responded to the current climate.  Like a tree, some years will see more development than others given the prevailing climate and nutrients.

3 Worlds - Pre-modern, Modern and Postmodern

Theology is framed by modernity.  It’s language and world view are informed by the modern world, the world of the industrial revolution, colonisation, empire and domination.

We don’t all live in that world now.  There is a move towards a new era but the problem felt is that the people making that move first are very dissatisfied with those who don’t want to move yet.  The point of movement has lots of tension and friction, between the established church and the new models and expressions of church. (This had a useful diagram to explain it… not that I can reproduce it at the moment but I’ll have a go later and add it in.)

The challenge for the early movers/adopters is to imagine the new world and describe it to those they are trying to convince to move.  It’s no use shouting at someone, telling them there is a better way if you can’t describe, or better show, how it can be.

Downward Pressure

McLaren used another diagram to show the downward movement from ‘high church’ through the reformation to ‘lower’ expressions.  This showed:

Orthodox

Roman Catholic

Anglican

Lutheran

Presbyterian

Methodist

Pentecostal

Charismatic

with new expressions at the bottom.  This describes the movement from control to shared responsibility, from high to low and from structure to network and micro-church.

So, is McLaren right?  Does this downward pressure explain church development?  And if it does, what drives the downward pressure?  Are you on the fringe?  An early adopter?  Do you shout or convince?  Complain or paint pictures of how it could be?

Neal has some good links to other bloggers who’ve heard McLaren over the weekend.

Last night I went to hear author and pastor Brian McLaren speak at Vertigo in Strathclyde Uni’s Student Union.  These are my notes and some attempt to make some sense of them.

Jesus didn’t come to start a religion.  He came to start something else which he called the ‘Kingdom of God’.  But would Jesus use that term now given that the world is not organised in what we would know and understand as kingdoms?

If Jesus wouldn’t use ‘kingdom of God’, what would he use?

The Dream of God?

What is God’s dream for the world?  What does God hope for his creation?  How can we help to achieve that?  By working at what we think is important or by finding out what God is doing and joining in?

The Peace Revolution of God

Violence met with violence legitimises violence.  Peacemakers are blessed.  How can we actively make peace?  Not just abstain from violence but work for peace and reconciliation?

The Mission of God

What is God up to?  Is there a difference between the ‘evacuation gospel’ which says that this world is doomed so salvation is a ticket to somewhere better and the gospel that says God sent Jesus to redeem the world, so we should join in that work and make the world a better place now.

The Party of God

Like it sounds.  Jesus seemed to hang out and have a good time.  Is life for living and enjoying?

Or what would the political party of God look like?  Instead of pointing out why the ‘opposition’ is wrong might it highlight good ideas, areas of co-operation and opportunities for reconciliation?

Network of God

Like an online network.  A coalition of radicals joined in a common cause

Dance of God

Some of the early church fathers described the Trinity as a never ending dance where the Father is poured into the Spirit who is poured into the Son who is poured into the Father…

Ecosystem of God

Or the never ending dance of creation (it got a bit Circle of Life here)

God’s New Planet

A redeemed and restored world.  I had an interesting conversation today about whether the second coming would be at the end of the 6th age on the day of Restoration, the Sabbath.  A time of healing and renewal.

Beloved Community

Not just the people we live near but a world where we truly love our neighbours.  All of them.

God’s Economy

Can we imagine a world where economic growth is not measured in consumption but in how much we give back?

Or how about the Unterror Network of God?  Little cells of people meeting in secret, intent on doing good.  Planning guerrilla acts of kindness.

This reimagining of terminology may seem a little flippant or pointless but it points to some wider thinking about what the ‘kingdom of God’ is.  If the terms above describe the Kingdom then the question which follows is ‘How do we live in the Kingdom?’

Peter Johnston and Scott Rennie have the first part of a fascinating conversation about the book ‘Why Liberal Churches Are Growing’.  Listen HERE to their discussion about the challenges facing the ‘progressive’ church, creating community, the church and young people and much more.

I’ve just finished reading Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell.  I know it’s taken me a while to get round to this but I’m kind of glad I waited because I think I’m probably in a place now where it makes more sense to me that it might have when it came out a couple of years ago.

The book is full of gems.  For me, Bell’s engagement with the Jewish Jesus is illuminating and helpful but the line that struck me most was:

If it’s not good news for everybody then it’s not good news for anybody.

His explanation is that if person X starts to follow Christ that should be good news for the Muslim next door or the Hindu across the road because person x will be a better neighbour.

I’ve asked the question ‘What difference does it make to the world that we follow Christ?’ in a few sermons over the past months.  I think Rob Bell’s observation gives at least a place to start looking for an answer.  The Good News isn’t just Good News for us.  It should be Good News for the people we live with, the people we work with, the people we share our street with, the people we meet and all the people we come into contact with.

The lectionary for this week is Matthew 25: 31-46 (the sheep and the goats/i was naked, hungy, sick, in prison) and in his Chocolate teapot for 28 Nov Roddy Hamilton has posted some thoughts:

There is no way Jesus intended to start a church. Nothing he did was designed to grow a great institution that has fought over how many angels you can get on a pin head, the colour of cups in the cupboards and who should be allowed to use them, should the minister raise three fingers representing the Trinity during the benediction, should we stand for the bible, what should be the balance of hymns between traditional and contemporary etc, etc, etc. You can add to the list as you feel the need.

All Jesus did was tell folk there are forgotten folk in the world and there ought not to be, there are people who starve and there shouldn’t be, there are folk imprisoned in memories and pain and guilt and marriages and illness who should rather be free to life fully, there are people who can’t afford clothes for their own backs let alone their children’s backs and that is a shocking thing to let happen. Sort it.

The principle is dead straight forward. This is quite simply all there is to do as a church, a nation, a company of people, an individual. Here, and rarely anywhere else will you find Jesus. He never said he’d be found among those who wanted pews or those who didn’t, those who wanted everything sung with the organ or the piano, those who wanted Moody and Sankey or those who wanted John Bell.

But he did say, if you want to find me, look among the poor.

Which bit did the church fail to understand?

My answer? All of it.

We, the church, the supposed people of God, the followers of Christ, have forgotten that the Good News should be Good News for everyone.  If it’s not Good News for everyone then it’s not the Good News Jesus was talking about.

Any thoughts?

Ramble Alert! OK. I’m not sure where this post is going but stick with me and hopefully it will get somewhere…

I’m working on some aims and objectives for my job. I tell everyone I train to do it so it’s practice what you preach time.

The thing is… I can write down the stuff I do/will do/can do standing on my head OR I can do all that and try to do something that will make a difference. We have been talking a lot in our little Synod Team about ‘Culture Carrying’. That discussion has grown from a feeling that we have to do better than maintaining the church. To do that we need to embody something else. We need to be culture carriers.

So my quandary is twofold:

Does any of the stuff I do make a difference? And if it does, who or what does it make a difference to? And are those the right people?

What culture should I be carrying? I start where I always do. Asking for thoughts and ideas.

Headphonaught suggests I keep being me. I’m not sure I can be anything else, or that I can write that down on my forward plan!

1. Be me.

2. see 1

I think he’s right though. I need to be authentic. And so does the church. If it’s not about life and living it then what’s the point?

Avril asked me what difference the church can make to the lives of people in and out of it? I don’t really know the answer to that question. I’m sure it makes a bigger difference than we might at first think because the ‘organisation’ isn’t the be all and end all of being church thank God. The people live and move in the world, loving, caring, helping and supporting as they go. But then so do lots of others who have no involvement in church.

My thing is children and young people and the adults that work with them. At least that’s what my job is. My problem is that sometimes I have no idea what to do with that. (is that something I should be admitting?) I sometimes wonder if the church as it exists is anyplace for our children and young people? In some cases yes and in some no.

What I have noticed is that the churches that are willing to invest some time, money and most of all themselves are the ones that do well with children and young people. And yet few of our churches are growing significantly. That isn’t because they are not good places full of good people. I would recommend a number of them to anyone.

I wonder if it is because we don’t advertise our existence? Is that a confidence thing? Are we silent because we don’t know who we are or what we are for?

I wrote a chapter in a book called Inside Verdict which I began with the words “This isn’t working anymore.” Well, is it any better now? Of course some of it is. The Together@MCT project I’ve been working with people on perhaps sheds some light. Engaging worship. Discussion with no pressure. Hopefully some community building. But I’m not sure we have gotten our heads around who it is for and how we should move forward yet. We need to keep the bigger picture before us. That will come though.

The pervasive themes of personalisation and participation return to my thinking again and again. The world, my world, seems to value both of these. How does that fit with community? It seems to in the world of facebook and bebo. I can be me. I can have my personal page but I belong to the community and can participate and add and contribute. How does/could/should that work in church?

Media that targets you but doesn’t include you may not be worth sitting still for.

Clay Shirky

So just a few questions to answer. I’ll get back to my aims and objectives now and see if any or all of those thoughts make it onto the page.

Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Really. They would.

Church can be an odd place, full of odd people.  What sometimes makes it odder is that these odd people think that other people are odd.  Despite Jesus’ ‘great commandment’ to love each other as He loved us we shy away from strangers, we are fearful of difference and we gravitate towards people who are like us and who do like us.

This week’s lectionary Gospel reading is that odd story of  the Emmaus Road where two disciples walk with a stranger who asks them about what has happened over easter.  They tell him and the stranger starts to talk scripture with them, reminding them of all the things Jesus had said.  Still they don’t recognise him.

Why?  Why can’t they see Him for who he is?  It’s not until he breaks the bread that they really see him.

I wonder if it was because they didn’t expect to see Jesus?  They just weren’t looking.

I wonder how often we miss Jesus because we aren’t looking?  How often we just don’t see?

When The Song of Angels Is Stilled -  Howard Thurman

When the song of the angels is stilled,
When the star in the sky is gone,
When the kings and the princes are home,
When the shepherds are back with their flocks,
The work of Christmas begins:

To find the lost,
To heal the broken,
To feed the hungry,
To release the prisoner,
To rebuild the nations,
To bring peace among people,
To make music in the heart.

HT Sue

I had Ethics class today at Uni.  A quick spin through feminist and postmodern ethics.  It was hard work but fascinating.  One of the many thoughts that struck me was that these ethical theories explain clearly the differences in Traditional Church and Emerging Church.  I’ll try to explain.  For me the main differences in the two forms of church would seem to be something like this:

Traditional Church
Meta narrative, justice, generalisation, rules, preaching, structure, right and wrong, telling, creeds, liturgy

Emerging Church
personalisation, discovery, engagement, how does that work for me?, collective decisions, creative.

I wondered if it was about taste, preference, what you are used to.  People say that old people like church as it is because they are comfortable with it.  I don’t disagree, but why do they engage more easily with traditional church and why are there exceptions?

I think it’s all about ethics.  Traditional church was born out of the Enlightenment.  It is big on Reason and Knowledge.  On experts and rules that apply to everyone (10 commandments and stuff).  It is all based on the ethics of Kant.  His ethics of Justice that apparently us men like.  Rules, fair play and justice.

The thing is our postmodern society with its feminist critique would suggest that we have moved away from Kant’s rigid ethical framework to a world which is much more willing to say that knowledge is contextual, rules are not universal but depend on the place and circumstances of their application.  There are no experts, at least none that know more than me about my life.  Perhaps an Ethic of Care is where we find ourselves with more consideration given to how our decissions and actions affect people around us and around the world.

So, back to where I started this ramble, the church.  Is the church for telling us how it is?  Enforcing the rules?  Telling us what to believe and how to believe it?  Or is it about giving us the tools to make good decisions?  To share our stories, our experiences of God in our lives and to make a difference to the lives of others?  I know which I’m more comfortable with, but I think I maybe understand a little better why other people might want the other kind of church, and that’s ok.

For another illustration of what I’m talking about click HERE to read Jonny Baker’s comparison of traditional church concerns and his emergent community.