the santa fe trail

Obama

2007-02-19T09:21:00.000Z

Hopeful things happening across the pond with the arrival of Barack Obama on the scene. The cynic in me says he doesn't have the cash to see this early enthusiasm through to the end, but you never know - perhaps the US is ready for him? I'll be watching his campaign with interest. Genevieve sent me this quote from his book, The Audacity of Hope, which I think I'll be reading sometime soon.

"I was drawn to the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change. [...] In the history of these struggles, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; rather, it was an active, palpable agent in the world. [...] It was because of these newfound understandings–that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved–that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth."

Shame I don't get a vote...

The "Inbetween Place"

2007-01-22T16:59:00.000Z

I'm continuing to prepare my sermon on "Being a Welcoming Church" for this Sunday. I'm using John 4 as a text, where Jesus meets a Samaritan woman at Jacob's Well, and doing some digging into the history of that encounter is proving fascinating.

Here's a sneak peak direct from my sermon notes (comments welcome!):

Being a welcomer means “going to them” (or, for that matter, not even thinking about “us” and “them”). We value their questions, their journey with God, wherever they are. It's about not drawing boundary lines. When Jesus does this to the Samaritans they realise their questions are important and valued, and they their journey with God is affirmed. In other words they feel welcome.

Jacob’s Well is situated at a point of great historical significance for Christians, Jews and Muslims, as well as for followers of Samaritarianism, which still exists as an unpopular minority. It lies between two mountains – Ebal and Gerizim, the latter being the Samaritan place of worship to this day. It’s still a point of intense conflict between Israel and Palestine, and to many Israelis the nearby modern city of Nablus (where most modern Samaritans lived until recently) is considered the infrastructure centre of Palestinian terrorism. The areas is still politically “untouchable”.

In Deuteronomy Ch. 27, God commands half the people to stand on Ebal and pronounce curses, while the other half stands on Gerizim to pronounce blessings. Imagine it – two groups shouting opposing viewpoints, each from their own mountain. Does that sound familiar?

In John 4, Jesus goes to the “inbetween place”. He goes to the place between curses and blessings - where there is division and where people draw boundary lines, and there he calls us all to worship in spirit and truth. He goes into the valley, and takes us to a higher plane.

This is more than geography. Just as you can go to a place without really being there, you can also really “be there” without leaving this building. It’s not just about where you are physically, but where you are philosophically. Are we really meeting our community where they are at? Are we valuing their journey, meeting their needs, and trusting the Spirit to show us not just their surface questions, but their deeper longings?

Looking at my notes, I think I might end up speaking for about an hour. Need to trim some stuff out! But there's so much good stuff here. Plus playing with Google Earth has been so much fun! I wish I had the pro version so I could do a helicopter tour into the valley as part of my sermon. Ah well...

We have a Dream

2007-01-17T14:52:00.000Z

Probably the weirdest/toughest part of my job (Assistant Pastor at Bishopbriggs Community Church) is that there is no 'quantifiable product' with which to measure my day's work. Someone at a party asks you what your job involves, and it's hard to answer the question. Or you get to the end of a day and think "what did I do today?". At the moment, our church community is trying to make a vision into reality: namely, to see us engage with and bless our local community through things like a cafe, fitness classes, children's care or debt counselling. It's an exciting time for us.

One page in Frost and Hirsch's "The Shaping of Things to Come" (a book I just keep coming back to - thanks for the gift Mark!) struck me today, and I couldn't help thinking of Martin Luther King again.

It's page 188 - and I'll put the full text in a comment (well worth a read, especially if you're in church leadership). Here's a snippet, though:

"My task as a leader is to so articulate the vision that others are willing to embed their sense of purpose within the common vision of the community. Only if they think that the common vision legitimizes their vision will they be motivated by the leader's vision. In this sense, willingness to partake in corporate vision is the greatest compliment that a person can pay to leadership. It is holy ground and should be treated with reverence."

I think Martin Luther King is a great example of this kind of leadership, even if he never saw the "promised land" himself. Sure, he said "I have a dream", but when he gave that dream words (despite their being in the first person) the community sat up and heard their dreams being given voice. Come to think of it, that makes some sense out of Jesus' early popularity too - he gave words to the dreams of the people, and that 'common' vision (the kingdom/dreams of God) was holy ground.

Happy birthday MLK

2007-01-15T16:54:00.000Z

It's Martin Luther King, Jr. Day today (http://www.mlkday.gov/).

For Americans, it's supposed to be a day of demonstration for peace and for community service, and not just a holiday. I'm going to see if I can participate in that this week.

Meanwhile, it's been a fitting day to prepare a sermon on "being a welcoming church". I've been looking at how we, as a community, can be genuinely welcoming and bring reconciliation by practising 'embrace' and not 'exclusion' (in Volf's language) to those different to us. Hopefully MLK would approve.

I thought I'd post a few quotations:

(non)Violence

"We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools."
"Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
"If your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi and nonviolence. But if your enemy has no conscience like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer."

(in)Justice
"True peace is not merely the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice."
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Love
"Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend."
"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant."

Life and Death

"I submit to you that if a man has not discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live."

and, on the eve of his assassination...
"Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."

finally, as a tribute, I thought I'd pop in just one by his namesake, German theologian Martin Luther:

"Everything that is done in the world is done by hope."

"Aesop's Fableization"

2007-01-10T16:03:00.000Z

Children's ministry can really stretch you sometimes. Last Sunday, for example, I had to prepare a lesson on Exodus 32. Here's a synopsis:

Children's lesson material

Idolatry is bad. God corrects it. Application: We should keep clear of idolatry but not be upset with God when he corrects us, because we need it (use illustration from school exercise book).

Historical facts of the story

Moses goes up the mountain. The people ask for a god. Aaron makes a gold calf for the people, and declares a feast day to the LORD (note it was intended as a feast day to Yahweh), it gets out of hand and becomes idolatrous. God is annoyed. Moses convinces God to be merciful. God relents (Open Theists smile smugly). Moses goes down. Moses gets annoyed, destroys the calf and calls the Levites to his side. Moses tells the Levites that God has told them to kill their brothers, friends and neighbours. 3000 are killed by their own priests. Moses tells them they are blessed for doing this. Moses goes up the mountain. God doesn't comment on the slaughter, but then sends a plague as punishment for the idolatry.

Now I don't have a clue what to make of this text - or any text where God seems to be asking people to commit murder/genocide in his name - but I'm content (for the time being) to not know what to make of it and keep my list of questions live. The interpretation of texts like this is a hugely problematic issue in Old Testament study (and, lest we forget, New Testament - remember Ananias and Sapphira?) and should be dealt with very carefully and with humility. The problem for me is when we practise an approach to children's ministry that has no room for a healthy agnosticism and insists on teaching a moral life-lesson from every story in Scripture. Sure, Jesus taught in parables lots of the time - but he didn't use the chequered real-life history of his people to do it.

In her book "Postmodern Children's Ministry", Ivy Beckwith calls this kind of life-application approach to using the Bible with children the "Aesop's Fableization" of Scripture. Did God really put the story of the slaughter at Sinai in the Bible to teach us a moral lesson about his correction of idolatry? If we really believe that what happened that day is historical fact, how can we look ourselves in the mirror and use it to teach such a simplistic lesson to children? Surely we should be horrified by this, not using it as a moralistic object lesson.

Our younger children's group is tentatively called "Noah's Friends". But (as one children's leader pointed out in a meeting last night) all Noah's Friends died. [Ahem... Oops!]. I am not innocent of this kind of Fableization. My daughter Pippa's room is decorated with scenes from Noah's Ark. All very cute and cuddly. Apart from the nagging thought that they are scenes from a global disaster ending in the deaths of countless people.

Am I being a spoilsport? Or is this a valid hermeneutics/children's ministry issue?

Trampolines vs. Brick Walls

2007-01-04T13:45:00.000Z

One of my best Christmas presents this year was a copy of Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis. This is an excellent book. I finished it by Boxing Day and don't really have the time to list all the great points it made. One helpful image Bell uses (on pp. 22-28) is the picture of the doctrines of the Christian faith as springs in a trampoline, rather than bricks in a wall.

Springs aren't the point of the trampoline - jumping is. Springs help you jump. Springs can stretch when examined, pulled about, whatever. In fact, their stretchiness is kinda the point. If they weren't stretchy they'd be rubbish springs and useless for jumping. The springs are very important but they aren't the whole deal.

Bricks, on the other hand, are very different. Try to take out one brick or 'stretch it' and it's liable to crumble; and with it the whole wall. Bricks are the point of a wall - their purpose is to be immovable and impenetrable. Mess with them at your peril. The other thing about walls is that they exist to keep us in and/or keep others out. For it to keep doing this job (one I don't think Jesus spent a lot of time on) it must be defended, kept immovable. So you end up talking about how right your bricks are, because without them the wall comes down and the whole endeavour ("brickianity") is lost.

As Bell puts it, "you rarely defend a trampoline". No, you jump on it - and invite others to come and jump too.

It strikes me that the trampoline image is more faithful to the early church fathers. These guys had this tremendous experience of living in the way of Jesus Christ - the experience of "jumping" - and developed the doctrines of the Christian faith (the springs) which best described what they knew to be true. And we should learn from them and use the springs they developed as long as they are still good for jumping. But the doctrines weren't originally the point (although it seems like they quickly became more "brick-like"). Following Jesus was the point.

Because, as Bell puts it on p. 27, "God is bigger than any wall. God is bigger than any religion. God is bigger than any worldview. God is bigger than the Christian faith".

On being hosts and guests…

2006-12-19T16:28:00.000Z

For those at BCC you'll see the following in the church newsletter this week (hey, we emergent types are all for recycling!)...

I was deeply struck by the story in the paper this week of the Orkney minister who opened his home for Christmas lunch to all on the island who were lonely. There’s something about radical – even reckless – hospitality that speaks of God to me. After all, God is pictured in Luke 14 as a host who holds a party and instructs his servant to “go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame” and even pulls people in from the streets to fill his house. What recklessness! Our God: the radical host.

In this story of course, the invited guests refuse to go to the party. Are we prepared to allow God to be our host? Can we receive gifts from him? Or do we, like Peter, say “No, you shall never wash my feet” (John 13:8).

I watched ‘The Da Vinci Code’ the other night (I know I'm a couple of years behind - always have been!). Apart from its obvious confusion of fact and fiction, the thing that struck me most was that, for the characters in the story, the big scandal – one the Church would kill to cover up – was that Jesus might have been married (or even a father). For me, the greater scandal is that God might have (and did!) become man. The ‘scandal’ of Christmas is that the divine and human touched. God, the consummate host of creation, became its guest: a guest in a stable, a guest at a wedding, and a guest at many a supper. Mary was, for nine months, host to God. God made himself vulnerable – and was a guest of humanity.

This Christmas, and in the year to come, we will have many opportunities to be hosts to our community – and maybe “entertain angels without knowing it” (Hebrews 13:2)! We will also have time to be guests of God – as he seeks to go on (as he always has) giving us gifts and inviting us to feasts. Let us be humble guests, allowing the Saviour to “wash our feet”. And let us, like God, take the risk of radical hospitality and welcome in “the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame” without judgement. Above all, “by thought, by prayer, by every tried and untried means, let us do all that we possibly can to make known that astonishing mystery, which is also a historical fact, that God became one of us so that we might become like Him.” (J. B. Phillips).

Emmanuel: God is with us! Happy Christmas!

image: Christina Saj, Madonna and Child (1998)

"Prayer life"

2006-12-12T16:14:00.000Z

...words which used to make me feel instantly guilty!
I don't know about you but I've never been able to get a good "quiet time" routine into my life. I can't sit quietly in the morning before work - my mind either fills with the days challenges or falls asleep.

So recently I've started a 34-week Ignatian prayer retreat - but one that continues through my working day and not as I step away from it. I'm in week 5 now, so I thought I'd share a little about the prayer retreat so far.

Ignatian prayer uses what some call the "background" (that part of your thought life that usually gets filled with the last song you heard on the radio this morning). In weeks one and two, I tried to fill this thought space through the day with memories of my life so far and using my imagination to picture God with me in all of it, good and bad, bringing me to this time and place as the person I am today. I moved then to considering creation - allowing the world around me (including urban things, not just idyllic pastoral scenes) to show me God, present in all creation and all creation created to allow me to worship and serve him more. I'm in quite a tough bit now - Ignatius talked of a kind of holy 'indifference' which leads to balance and peace in life. He said:

"We should use God's gifts of creation however they help us in achieving the end for which we were created, and we ought to rid ourselves of whatever gets in the way of our purpose. In order to do this we must make ourselves indifferent to all creation, to the extent that we do not desire health more than sickness, riches more than poverty, honor more than dishonor, a long life more than a short life, or anything at all in and of itself. We should desire and choose only what helps us attain the end for which we were created."

I'm still working on this one! I'm slowly unpacking what I think Ignatius was getting at, but there's something about being "indifferent" that is counter-intuitive to me. Maybe that's the point. Thoughts?

Anyway, common themes of this kind of contemplative prayer are:
using imagination
sharpening my consciousness (of myself, of creation, of sin - noticing God!)
gratitude
journeying with God

I am finding this new way of praying immensely liberating - no more measuring my spirituality by how many (or few) minutes I have spent in prayer this week. I am finding a life of prayer that permeates all that I do (ok, I'm making a pig's ear of it some days and have to consciously get it going again). I wonder how many other people are in this sort of rut.

The online version of the retreat (which I have sync-ed to my PocketPC with AvantGo) can be found here.

For fellow youth pastors, Mark Yaconelli's book "Contemplative Youth Ministry" takes these themes into the practical sphere of youth ministry in an equally liberating way (more on that in another post I think).

Practical Theology

2006-12-12T15:55:00.000Z

It's been the longest break in SFT posting since inception. May be something to do with a) new job b) new house and c) new baby (her blog is running nicely though!).

I was speaking at a youth event the other week and before I spoke I was asked a few interview questions. One of them was "if you were a kitchen implement what would you be and why?". My on-the-spot answer was "a whisk - because I like stirring things up", but my wife said I should have answered "microwave". It seems she has noticed that I want everything to go "bing" and happen NOW!

Having spent a lot of time in the last couple of years thinking and theorising I am now doing my best to put some of it into practise. This can be quite frustrating. It's more a slow-cooker than a microwave. Sometimes I even have to check the slow-cooker is plugged in. As a result I think the direction of SFT may shift more towards practical theology and less theory. I'm sure that's a good thing, but I don't quite know where to start - I reckon I've probably got 5 years' worth of ideas already (and they keep coming)!

So here's a list of what's on the top of the messy pile that is my mind these days (I think I'll post in more detail on these over the next week or so):

1. Building an authentic community of worship and discipleship which genuinely involves all ages
2. A new kind of prayer life, Ignatian-stylee
3. Developing a personal vision statement
4. Trying to be a good youth pastor, but maybe not a great 'youthworker'
5. Church and the arts

Anyone who knows me will know that that's an abbreviated list!

Thanks for checking back here from time to time. I'm looking forward to some more conversation soon...

J

Emergent Logo Conspiracy?

2006-09-13T16:26:00.000+01:00

The "friend of emergent" logo appears to have disappeared from the internet. It's not on my blog anymore (it used to be on my sidebar) and the html code for it has strangely wiped itself off my template. Seriously. Where once there was a whole line of code there is now just half a line and a gap. Weird.

Also, It's not on the emergent site any more. And I can't find any anywhere else, including the blogs of Emergent and Brian McLaren.

see for yourself: here and here.

Is this sabotage by anti-Emergent types? Possibly.

Or is it a clever trick by the people at Emergent themselves? Is it some kind of time-released theological computer virus deconstructing our desire to label everything and turn a generative fluid conversation into a branded 'movement'?

Personally, I like the fact that it's disappeared. I think the "image unavailable" cross-in-a-box thing that is generated by internet explorer is the most powerful 'logo' the emerging church conversation could have. It says "we don't have a logo", "we are not a brand", "image unavailable".

I am a friend of emergent, but I'm quite pleased my "Friend of Emergent" logo has been deconstructed.

Preaching in the Emerging Culture

2006-09-13T14:19:00.000+01:00

I'm preparing my first sermon as Assistant Pastor at BCC at the moment. I'm enjoying my preparation so far - been swimming in the text through some Lectio Divina and using the online labyrinth to guide my meditation. Highly recommend both.

There's a sticking point though. I grew up with a style of preaching (which was excellently done Dad!) very much rooted in the logical reasoning, linear thought and rhetorical style of the modern world, and profoundly influenced by the church structures that accompanied it (or did the preaching shape the church? - more on that in a sec), for example a centralised message (the pastor does all the talking while the rest of us sit and listen).

Now that my world has changed, and I see the church very differently, how am I to preach?

This is the question bouncing in my head as I prepare for next Sunday. Gibbs and Bolger, in Emerging Churches, describe the contextual mandate excellently:

"The church continues to communicate a verbal, linear, and abstract message [I would add 'centralised' - JD] to a culture whose primary language consists of sound, visual images, and experience, in addition to words. Meaningful activity assumes the convergence of sound, sight, and touch through activities, rituals, and stories. Current patterns and styles of preaching communicate with diminishing impact. Pastors must understand the comprehensive nature of language to be heard by the culture." (p. 20)

I just read Doug Pagitt's excellent book Preaching Re-Imagined, which is a great start at asking the tough questions about our cherished preaching style (which he calls "speaching"). Certainly, the question of cultural relevance is at the heart of the book. But a more central issue being the kind of communities formed by such a style. Briefly, he argues that preaching is "a socializing force and a formative practise in a community" (p. 25) and that a centralised, controlling preaching style produces communities of people who are disempowered and consumerist. The Biblical notion of the "priesthood of all believers" (1 Pet 2:9) is not put into practise in our preaching (the Reformers tried to get this important truth back into the church, but 500 years on we're still not there).

[I would add our worship into this same equation - just look at how we sit in rows like an audience, singing along but generally being consumers of worship experiences rather than worshippers.]

Pagitt provocatively calls this kind of one-way speech-preaching "an act of relational violence" (p. 26) He's not advocating an end to preaching in emerging churches, and nor am I. But how should we preach?

Still no "Boom"

2006-09-13T11:38:00.000+01:00

Oh dear.

Don't know what more to say on this whole affair, which has been widely blogged. It would be funny (well, it is really isn't it?) if it weren't so sad. I was thinking of blogging about the nature of prophecy, reading contextually and intelligently, and the harm caused to people's lives and God's reputation by this morbid fascination with apocalyptic date-setting. But instead I'll let the picture speak for itself and leave a link to this wonderful open letter.

[head in hands]

How does it feel?

2006-09-12T16:22:00.000+01:00

fresh beans for CST

2006-09-04T16:30:00.000+01:00

Attention all CoffeeShopTheologians...
Important news on the CST site... :)

Non-violent protest and Israelology confusion

2006-09-04T15:28:00.000+01:00

I don't think I've posted on the Israel question before, partly because I recognize the sensitivity of the topic, partly because there's lots of great conversation happening on the subject over at Boxologies, but mostly because I haven't the foggiest what I think about the whole deal.

I've been chatting to a few people lately and I think I have the beginnings of a trajectory of thought. Allow me to share some fragmentary thoughts...

I don't buy 'Replacement' (or 'Covenant') theology. Nor do I buy Dispensationalism either [sorry for the theology speak - don't want to go into detail about these positions too much]. I've been looking for a third way.

After many conversations throwing Bible texts around, I started asking the question from a theological viewpoint. If there is a future for the Jews, what would it look like? Certainly it'd be part of God's bigger dreams for all creation - dreams for its total restoration.

Now, (and bear with me on this one) I am reasonably convinced there is a place for the Jewish people in that disputed piece of land but if that is the case, is the only option the violent expulsion of non-Jews/land-grabbing/sabre-rattling (with reactive violent anti-Semitism on the other side of that coin)? What if this 'possessing of the land' looked less like military and political conquest and more like non-violent, turning-the-other-cheek, suffering servant victory? (after all, the suffering servant imagery in Isaiah is already claimed by the Jews). What if, instead of reacting to attack with retaliation, Israel unilaterally responded by refusing to get revenge?

I'm not being idealistic (well, maybe I am, but there's a real hope too). The kind of non-violent reform this suggests may take generations to have an effect. Maybe it would endeer the international community to the case of Israel. Maybe not. Maybe it won't work in the way we expect. Maybe the 'possessing of the land' would actually look like its loss. Maybe it'll look like failure. But then again, so did the cross - and that was a victory through self-surrender second to none. Perhaps there's a political model in the cross that we've not seen in action on a national scale before. Not by might, not by power but by the Spirit of God...

This is political power that looks like weakness (and a tough manifesto to get elected on - but that's another story). But it's cruciform. It's a suffering servant mentality, and one that can effect a real victory in surprising ways, as proven by Luther King, Gandhi, Mandela, the students of Tianamen Square...

In this way, they can be a living picture of the reconciliation God dreams of for all creation - every person and every chunk of land. The New Jerusalem needn't be without a shadow in the present one.

Thoughts?

Belief/Hope

2006-07-25T10:09:00.000+01:00

Sorry for my silence on SFT these last few weeks. We've been moving house, and I have taken up a post as Assistant Pastor at Bishopbriggs Community Church in Glasgow. In fact, I'm sitting in my new office right now. Yes I have finally left studentdom and entered a brave new world of gainful employment! It's quite a time of changes for us at the moment - a new house (and a new world of DIY) a new city, a new job, and a baby on the way any day now (see his/her blog here). But I hope I'll be able to continue posting my thoughts on the trail.

Here's one that occurred to me today as I was reading some comments on Universalism (yes, I'm still bouncing that one around!) on the Generous Orthodoxy Thinktank.

Do we need a distinction between "Belief" and "Hope"? How are these two things defined, anyhow? Is belief more certain than hope? Is it just me being postmodern and questioning certainty? (are you sure about that? ;) ... Then again, Titus 1:2 says that knowledge rests on hope. And Romans 5 seems to put hope at the center of the Christian life. Or am I just prooftexting? (and yes, I did use a concordance!)

Jurgen Moltmann says that "From first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore also revolutionising and transforming the present." (Theology of Hope, p. 2). My guts tell me that this Belief/Hope dichotomy is either unneccessary or at least overplayed. What do you reckon?

Image: "Hope" by Christina Saj (www.christinasaj.com)

WWJB?

2006-06-21T18:27:00.000+01:00

At a youth camp, an enterprising youth pastor came up with the idea of making bracelets with the intials 'WWJD?' on them. The "What Would Jesus Do?" idea has since become an enormous success worldwide, with bracelets (and other paraphernalia) available across the english-speaking world. It is practically the standard for moral decision-making in many circles, and young people especially find great comfort and challenge in its simplicity.

The call to imitate Christ is certainly a biblical one. But I was reading something yesterday that challenged my understanding of what this means (Kenda Creasy Dean's Practicing Passion). The Greek term for imitation used is mimesis. Crucially, this kind of imitation is not Xerox-style mimicry, but more like identification. Imitating Christ is less about copying the things he did and more about taking on his attributes, imitating the person he is. This isn't quick-fix morality, but becoming "little Christs": a much more complicated approach to the Christian life.

How useful is the concept of WWJD anyway? Do we really want our young people to copy everything Jesus did, including turning over tables in temples, clashing with religious and civic leaders, hanging on a cross? Maybe we do - but in asking 'WWJD?' let's not just screen Jesus for the culturally 'safe' moral choices he made - let's look at the whole picture.

But even the moral issues get cloudy. Are we supposed to transpose the ethics of 1st Century Palestine to our 21st Century global cutlure? "What would Jesus Do" about genetic modification, homosexual Civil Parnterships, global ecological threats, international business ethics...? Some may think they have a fast answer to these issues, but it certainly isn't found in any direct WWJD?-style 'Biblical' ethic.

This goes well beyond wearing a bracelet with "WWJD?" or, come to mention it, "Make Poverty History" on it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against bracelets per se. But I'm not sure they do justice to huge questions such as ethics or poverty. They're just too cheap, to easy to wear (and take off!). How many of us are still wearing our white Make Poverty History bracelets? (I'm not) How many took that campaign any further than a one-day march, web banner or petition (I didn't). Is this the approach we want to take to our imitation of Christ?

Real imitation of Christ means identifying with who he is - in his life, but also his death and resurrection. What would happen if we moved beyond the simple morality of a 'WWJD?' bracelet and wrote across our lives (and deaths and resurrections) the slogan "Who Would Jesus Be?". There's no simple answer to that question, but you can guarantee it would involve total surrender of ourselves in passionate love for 'the other' (even surrender of our cherished moral standpoints? or our cherished understanding of the Christian faith? - and if this sounds too far read Endo's Silence or Dietrich Bonhoeffer).

'WWJB?' He'd be a self-giving passionate lover, especially of the least deserving. But in giving himself he would find himself caught up in the endlessly selfless love of the Trinue God. And in Christ we can identify with that, But it won't produce simple morality - it'll produce intense, passionate martyr-like "radicals and prophets" (Dean) in us and in our young people. I'm up for that kind of imitation.

Throwing in the cowl, or kicking the habit?

2006-05-26T02:33:00.000+01:00

The santa fe trail has been a little quiet for the last couple of weeks. Sorry about that. There are a few reasons - one is that I've been busy chatting and posting on other blogs a bit, as well as being busy with assignments and stuff. Another reason is best summarised by my previous post - just wanting to make sure thinking doesn't become an idol.

Here's a few thoughts that are coming together in my head at the moment. Firstly, there's been a roaring discussion on what has been call "Network Church" over on Boxologies - worth a read, especially if you're going to join us for Coffee Shop Theology this weekend. Secondly, I've been writing an essay on Charles Spurgeon and his involvement in the "Down Grade Controversy" of the late 1800s. No, I hadn't heard of it either. Johnny does a good summary (as well as some good reflection) here.

So what's the connection?

Here are my questions: is the move away from congregationalism (represented by network church) the final decisive step in kicking our addiction to empire-building (as has been suggested)? Is it protest? Or is is a retreat of some sort; even a surrender to the individualism of our age?

Spurgeon (at least according to one historian I read) seems to have chosen the path of protest. When he left the Baptist Union, he formed no alternative denomination and generally dissuaded people from following him. In a sense he made a (quasi-monastic?) protest rather than seek to remain in the BU and critically engage with the "down grade" in an effort to reform.

All well and good, and protest is often necessary, but the problem was that he seems to have paved the way for the reactionary (protest) Fundamentalism of the 1920s, and the equally saddening (protest) theological liberalism - both of which were totally modernist responses and still cause us pain today. I wonder what would have happened if Spurgeon had stayed in the BU and engaged more constructively with the rising liberalism. Would both sides have found a less reactionary path?

In protesting against anything (whether the congregation, or the modernist church status quo - a la emergent) there seems to be this danger of polarization. God forbid that I should become an Emergent Fundamentalist, or a Network Fundamantalist, or a Monastic Fundamentalist - and (worse) that those who follow me would entrench this further.

Here's a comment from Gibbs and Bolger's new book: "People are both hungry for relationships and yet at the same time ill prepared for the costs involved. In a culture in which casual relationships or contractual relationships are the norm, it is difficult to build relationships on deep foundations that can survive disagreements and disappointments. People are more prone to walk away when the going becomes difficult than to work through a crisis to the point where a new depth of understanding is reached."

This is a challenge to us all, whether networky types, urban monks, or emergent churches. So there's the thing on my mind as I look for a job after graduation - protest or reform? In the words of the Clash: "Should I stay or should I go?"

Confession

2006-05-18T13:39:00.000+01:00

God, forgive me...

When I preach grace (but behave without it)
When I talk incessantly about community (but act alone)
When I cry out for social action (but only with words)
When I seek dialogue (but keep my fingers in my ears)
When I dream big dreams (but do not obey your simplest word)
When I use my ecclesiology as a stick with which to beat your Church
When my doctrine of God is exalted above my God

For theology without theophany

Hank goes church shopping

2006-05-12T15:24:00.000+01:00

Couldn't help but post this...

Comments welcome, but I just thought it was funny.

(if the link doesn't work click here)

McLaren soundbites

2006-05-12T01:52:00.000+01:00

I was down at the emergent conference in Teeside today, with a few friends. Well, yesterday technically - we just got home and it's nearly 2am now. It was a great day - not least the conversation in the car (try being stuck in a small Citroen for 6 hours with two theology students, an arabic/politics graduand & your theology lecturer! - torture for some, bliss for freaks like me.)

Brian McLaren was the speaker, and he did three sessions covering a large array of topics. I don't want to indulge too much in present-day hagiography (my wife already teases me enough), but one thing that struck me about the man was the lightness with which he engaged his critics - particularly those who would brand him a heretic and consign him to the hottest parts of hell (literally). While most of the things he was teaching were relatively familiar to me, I thought I'd share a few snippets of his comments, and see what conversations they can start (quotes are as accurate as I could be with pen and paper - sorry Brian if I misquote!):

(on change, and critics of it)
"Resisting change changes the resister... and the change agent"

(on Scripture's content)
"The Bible preserves the voice of the doubter (Ecclesiastes) and even of the wrong (70% of the book of Job)"

(on Scripture as dialogue)
"you don't hear the word of the Lord unless you hear the conversation"

(on Scripture and the church)
"how does Scripture serve the church?" (not the other way around!)

(on Spiritual formation)
"we are all made into the image of the God we believe in"

(on 'Generation Y' and their apparent contentedness)
"What do you give to the person who has everything? A knowledge of who to thank. And a knowledge that it is unsustainable and comes at the expense of others and the earth."

(on the theological task)
"The idea that we have to get it RIGHT is a religiously transmitted disease"

Any of this strike a chord?

Credo...

2006-05-04T19:29:00.000+01:00

It's my birthday today. Maybe it's because I am now entering my 30th year, but I've been daydreaming lots lately. One of the things I've been dreaming is a "what if?" scenario for taking CoffeeShop Theology to the next level and developing an emergent-style missional community. Ah, dreams....

Anyway, as part of this exercise in dreamthinking I've been looking at the whole question of doctrinal statements and creeds. Should we have one? If so, do we write our own or adopt one from the church? If so, which?

My first reaction was to go for the "no statement" statement. But then there's the question of how you know you are still being a Christian group in any real sense of the word unless you declare something like a doctrinal statement.

The bigger questions are these: are creeds 'useful'? All too often Doctrinal statements seem to be used as a means of exclusion. Is this necessarily the case? Or can they be used as a some kind of 'center', around which we can welcome and embrace all without defining boundaries?

Doubt and Leadership

2006-04-27T21:42:00.000+01:00

"Leaders shouldn't do their theology in public."

A friend of mine was preparing to lead a 'new Christian' small group discussion recently, and this issue came up. When faced with their theological or textual questions, should leaders make public their doubts, questions, 'explorations' and uncertainties? Or should they keep those issues to themselves and present a 'front' of doctrinal confidence? Maybe such confidence is a necessary qualification for leadership... or maybe it's dishonest.

What makes for better evangelism/discipleship? Doctrinal clarity and certainty? Or honest (public) doubting? What are the implications for things like our coffee shop theology?

Ecclesiological Dreamin'

2006-04-14T13:03:00.000+01:00

Anyone who knows me will know that I'm a bit of a dreamer. I make no apology for this, but sometimes dreaming/envisioning can be an all-too individual affair. The dreamer is a maverick, running wildly ahead, and usually ends up frustrated, burnt-out and leaving the rest of his community in his/her wake. There's only so far this will take us.

Brian McLaren, in chapter 21 of his book The Last Word and The Word After That tells the story of Neil and the group of Christians who he "knows with". The idea is that "learning and knowing are ultimately communal experiences, social experiences". So I thought I'd open the floor for other dreams/visions, and see if we can "dream with" each other.

In that light, I'd love to hear your (short-ish) answers to this "what if...?" question:

If you could start from the ground up, what would church look like?

I'm not just thinking of theological reflection (although that's good too), but any kind of response to the question of how we "do" church: format, theology, practises, setting, size... you name it. Why not get your friends/spouses to comment, particularly people who are finding that 'traditional' forms of church are losing (or have never been in) touch with them.

Dreaming dreams...
J

Derren Brown: Messiah

2006-03-30T13:05:00.000+01:00

This is the title of a show I watched last night (which, incidentally, would be an excellent resource for studies of postmodernism!). Basically, the idea of the show is that Brown uses his psychological skills to raise questions about our acceptance of belief systems. He pretends to be (among other things) a medium, a UFO abductee and a Christian evangelist and in ease case wins the support of influential people in each of these 'faith groups'. By showing how reproducable these experiences are through psychological sugestion, he is not debunking or mocking any of these belief systems, but what he is doing is raising questions about our acceptance of power and authority.

Most interesting for me was the sequence on Christianity - where Brown (who was himself an evangelical Christian until his mid-twenties) uses suggestion to create "physical conversion" experiences in a group of atheists (getting them to fall over, collapse to their chairs and subsequently profess a belief in God).

Now I don't agree with all Brown says or does, but I do think there is a message here for us to hear. When we have (a) a theology of "conversion-as-event" (which, I believe, is not given the same weight in Scripture) and (b) a church model which has a great focus on the authority and personality of the man in the pulpit, we open ourselves to Brown's criticism. It is demonstrably true that "conversion" experiences can be acheived through psychological manipulation, and we need to be careful that we don't unwittingly produce a Christian-veneer version of Brown's show. Of course it would help if we didn't place too much weight on such experiences in the first place.

I currently go to a church where most believe that the spiritual gifts of tongues, prophecy etc. have ceased. I, for the record, disagree. But you don't need to be charistmatic to be at risk of psychological manipulation. All you need (as Brown shows) is a powerful personality 'up front' in a position of authority. I wonder if models of church which focus on the pulpit and preaching (sometimes almost exclusively) are inherently liable to create such a manipulative environment. What do you reckon?

Then there's the question of questioning. I think that honest questioning of our faith (if done constructively) leads to growth in faith. But how much questioning is healthy? What can we do to provide suitable environments for honest questioning - and not just for 'new converts' or 'seekers' but all believers?

I have my thoughts on these issues, but in light of Brown's show, I'll keep them to myself (for now) and ask the questions... ;)

J

P.S. There's more on the show on Derren Brown's webpage here, and I read a good (and short) review of the show on the channel 4 website here.

P.P.S. The other show I watched last night was a Newsnight special on anti-war protests by Iraq veterans - which contained many other examples of people accepting without question the views of those in power and authority; in this case, later totally (and sometimes angrily) reversing them!

Hello World!

2006-03-21T23:52:00.000Z

This is just a temporary post, which I'll delete in a while, so you don't have to reply. I just wanted to flag up a couple of new features on SFT.

Firstly, there's the cool map at the bottom of this page, which shows where people are logging on from (and how many).

Secondly, there's the GuestMap. Here you can leave me a message or greeting along with a little pin in the map so I can see where you're from. Click the button below to leave me a message (and if you're the visitor from Saudi Arabia/Qatar please sign my GuestMap, I'd love to know how you found me!)

Peace
J

Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking

2006-03-19T23:00:00.000Z

This is more of a 'rubber-meets-road' post, and I'd love to hear your thoughts/experiences.

All this exciting theological insight has a worrying flip-side. I sometimes find myself moving beyond critical thinking and slipping into just being plain critical, and this leads quickly to bitterness. This often happens in conversations with like-minded friends, and what results is generally a "let me tell you all the things that are wrong with the church"-type rant.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on how we can think deeply and critically about how we 'do' church and theology, and apply this thinking to our church settings, without slipping into this kind of unChristlike ranting.

Scrapbook

2006-03-09T18:13:00.000Z

I thought it would be nice to have a place for us to store up poems, stories, quotations, photographs, paintings, or anything else that seems to strike a chord. Just post a comment or a link if you find something.

Whose Good News?

2006-03-06T22:42:00.000Z

"The good news depends on who you are"

This was a comment on OpenSource Theology which I thought tied in nicely with a few comments that are dotted around on the SFT. So I thought it might make a nice new thread. The full discussion on OST can be seen here. This is the context for the above comment:

"The good news depends on who you are. Jesus showed us that salvation depends on who you are becasue different people need salvation from different things. For some people salvation was "sell all you have and give it to the poor". For others it was "go and sin no more". For some it was physical or mental healing and for some it was political/social justice. Jesus recognized that all of us need salvation from different things. The good news is that there is help through some sort of transformation process and it can be found in the message of Jesus."

Is this definition of the gospel sufficient?

Scripture's "Different Theologies"

2006-02-18T13:16:00.000Z

Stuart made this comment which I thought was worth starting a new thread for:

"I wonder why we often try to match up scripture passages with one another. What I mean is, what about the notion that all of the different writers of scripture had their own theologies, just like we do?! So the Spirit inspired all sorts of different folk to write in the way they did because of the way they understand life in the Spirit. If this is true, then we have a web of theologies in scripture. This is cool because diversity is a huge strength for the church."

see Stuart's original post

Coffee Shop Theology

2006-02-06T22:59:00.000Z

"Theology is a community affair"

(Jurgen Moltmann)

Visit the CST mini site for information on our next discussion

We believe theology is truly thrilling. We also affirm that theology is not just the task of the academic and pastor - it belongs to us all. And theology does not just happen in Bible College, university and church hall - it happens wherever people engage with God.

In the spirit of the incarnation, and following the lead of Mosaic's Public Theology thing, the web's Open Source Theology, and the apostle Paul's trip to the Areopagus, a few of us are trying to take theological discussion into the public domain; into the place where dialogue happens - in our case the coffee shops of Edinburgh.

We seek to wrestle with our thinking about God through informal conversation which encourages open questioning and, where opinions differ, sincere respect. We seek to create an open community where we can share our passions, concerns and thoughts about the church. We seek to create space for 'the other': a cross-confessional environment where we can challenge each other, open each other's eyes to new perspectives and explore new ways that we can engage with both our shared Christian tradition and our contemporary culture. So if you are waiting for your hazelnut latte and hear a bunch of people in the corner getting excited about God, that'll be us. Get your coffee to sit in, and pull up a chair.

If you are interested in being part of a lively, informal and welcoming discussion on matters relating to (mainly but not exclusively) Christian theology then reply to this thread or email me and we'd love to have you with us. Of course, you could just show up!

Universalism?

2006-02-03T00:04:00.000Z

Ok, ok, so I'm showing some first day excitement. But this isn't technicially a new thread - the conversation started after our CSW meeting with a couple of guys in the car a couple of weeks ago. These were a few of the questions that came out that night (which are deliberately provocative):

1) What is 'original sin'? Is it an individual (quasi-genetic) inheritance or a community (all humanity) concept? Where do Romans 5 (esp v 18) and 1 Cor 15 (esp v. 22) fit in?

2) Is God concerned with "getting people into heaven" or something more like relationship with him/others here and now?

3) If it's the latter, are we all somehow in a relationship with him? Is anyone, therefore, 'lost' at all? Or are some merely 'further away'?

A nice light one to get us started! Thoughts anyone?

Blessed are the Geeks!

2006-02-02T21:12:00.000Z

I think those Computer Nerd-types might be (unwittingly) onto something here. Sorry if you're one of them. Actually, I must confess to being one of you - I first read about this kind of thing a few years back during my Linguistics postgrad. Anyhow, while I was getting this blog ready for its first post I came across the following two commments on some Computer Science websites. (type "emergent" in Google and you get the emergent church websites first. Hit the "UK Only" button and you get computer science pages. Shame.)

From UMIST, Manchester: "The centralised control of complex processes has long been known to be self-restricting. Communication bandwidth expand at ever increasing rates and induced minor non-linearities create catastrophic effects - there is an inherent fragility in any central-executive-driven system. Distributed computing was, and remains, an attempt to overcome these problems. Though much progress has been made, such systems can still exhibit serious limitations (e.g., high communication bandwidths) and undesired emergent behaviour."

From beart.org.uk:
"What can emergent systems do that other systems can’t? They are robust and resilient. There is no single-point of failure, so if a single unit fails, becomes lost or is stolen, the system still works. They are well-suited to the messy real world. Human-engineered systems may be “optimal” but often require a lot of effort to design and are fragile in the face of changing conditions. Importantly, they don’t need to have complete knowledge/understanding to achieve a goal (e.g. social systems in warehousing). They find a reasonable solution quickly and then optimise. In the real world, time matters - decisions need to be taken while they are still relevant. Traditional computer algorithms tend to not produce a useful result until they are complete (which may be too late, e.g. if you're trying to avoid an oncoming obstacle)."

Is there something in this dark corner of geekdom that the church needs to hear? Comments?

Welcome to the Santa Fe Trail

2006-02-02T20:41:00.000Z

Firstly, welcome to the Santa Fe Trail, my little slice of the blogosphere.

Secondly, let's clear up the whole 'Santa Fe' thing.

Santa Fe is a city in New Mexico, USA, which I've never visited. So why name my blog after it? Well, there are three reasons:

Santa Fe is a key city in the history of the US, being the first place to be settled by the, er, settlers... ahem. It's my belief that the church today faces its own Rio Grande as it crosses over from the modern to the postmodern period. Just like the Spanish settlers, some serious rethinking will be required in our New World (but unlike them, we're motivated not by colonial, but by post-colonial desires). Travel websites tell me that today's Santa Fe is a vibrant artistic haven (something I long to see in the church) and also very confusing to navigate through (just like, I believe, the church's future).

Santa Fe is also the home of the Santa Fe Institute, a research lab looking into complex and emergent systems. I came across their work while doing my (abandoned) Linguistics PhD and was struck by some of their insights. While I do not agree with many of their scientific tenets, their approach to science has much to teach us about our approach to faith communities. Read here for the SFI research aims. They describe themselves as a scientific community "emphasizing multidisciplinary collaboration in pursuit of understanding", and an "institute without walls". For those familiar with recent church developments in the UK, that last phrase may ring a bell. Not sure who nicked it from whom.

Finally, Santa Fe is Spanish for "Holy Faith". Which is not only cool given the above comments, but it also reminds me of the Nicene Creed. While some of the vocabulary used in the creed is probably in need of revision for today's context, I still think it's the best this blog can do by way of doctrinal statement... (and if you disagree, go ahead and post!)

"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

But having said all this I don't think we ever really arrive at finalising our "holy faith": we're always on the trail, pilgrim-pioneers, never quite reaching Santa Fe - and that excites me. So hopefully, while we're on the way, we can get some good conversation going.