postmodernism

I've not blogged much recently and there's a very good reason for that, blogging is a great distraction from doing real work. I always seem to think that I'll just put something down quickly and an hour later I'm still composing (what I think is) the most exquisite post ever. Unfortunately I've got lots of work to do and deadlines looming large over me so I've been trying to avoid actually writing anything that might take up too much time.

I think I might have time for a little thinking about postmodernism though, and it'll help me with my work cause I've got to include my thoughts on it in my thesis (because a lot of people who write about emerging church mention it as a contributing factor).

I'd rather not mention it at all but I feel I should because too much talk of postmodernism is misleading. In fact, I think a lot of the talk about postmodernism by christian leaders and authors is wasted and they'd be better off talking about culture in other terms.

I don't think I understand what postmodernism is, that's not because I've not understood the 'what is postmdernism' chapters in all those christian books that promise to have the answer to what the church of the future will look like, but because I've not read or engaged with Lyotard, Foucalt or Derrida. I have no idea what they actually said, only the popular interpretation that is doing the rounds in christian circles - use pictures cause postmodern generations are media-saturated, short attention span, samplers of culture; don't say you have the truth, they/we think there is no truth; no to authority; no to science; no to religion, (but yes to spirituality); lets deconstruct everything and revel in the inconsistencies and fragments. So please excuse me if I've mis-represented postmodernism at all, I think that probably is the case, but that's the understanding of postmodernism as presented to many christians.

I'm not going to say those things are wrong, but they don't give a full picture of society as I see it. For example, take that short attention span and love of pictures and images that postmoderns are supposed to have, if that was true then we'd all be watching 10 minute silent films and nothing more! Nobody would be reading all those harry potter books that are so popular, nobody would be writing or reading blogs. And what about that rejection of modern enlightenment thought - universities are still churning out scientists and doctors, people still choose to study and practice engineering and computing. The science machine is still rumbling on, pushing development in all areas - can we really afford to ignore that?

I recently took part in a seminar where we were discussing different personality types. I looked at different figures in church history and saw how people had met God in different ways. My co-host did something about personality typing based on the myers briggs indicators and that really made me think about who we are as a people. We are diverse, we think differently.

Myers briggs just gives categories of personality that people can identify with, but people in different categories will react differently to things - some like to see the big picture (relate well to metanarratives? not very postmodern!) and others like to get lost in the details (I can see that in postmodernism as I understand it). Some think in logical structured ways, others like to explore a problem from many different angles. Some people need structure, others like imagery. Some need facts, others need experience.

My own wee theory about postmodernism is not that it doesn't exist, but that what we see as a postmodern change in society is actually all those people who repond to imagery, story and experience standing up and saying - actually, my needs are important too. To understand and connect with people, we need both sides of the story, we need emotion as well as knowledge, we need to understand that other people know different, contradictory 'truths' to us and be gentle in our assertions of truth.

The Church can't continue to blame postmodernism for all its problems. Even people who need facts and knowledge need to have them presented in an engaging way. Even people who like listening to sermons need to have good sermons to listen to - don't blame people's short attention span if they can't listen to you ramble on, if they're not listening it's probably more likely that you're being boring!

Having said that, I realise that I'm being really boring so I'll sign off now and do something more important, I've got a thesis to finish for tomorrow!

Simplicity

Richard has got me thinking about all sorts of things. He's that kind of guy, with a brain that never stops, and that kind of perpetual motion of the thinking muscles can be rather infectious. One thing he's got me thinking about is how to portray a simple gospel message, including all the main points of the Christian message but that's simple enough for anyone to understand. So, I thought I'd have a go:

God exists. That's something that I'm pretty sure of now, sure enough to spend several years of my life dedicated to finding out more about Him, but I wasn't always so sure. First it took a tentative acceptance that God might exist, then it became faith that God did exist. There are 'proofs' of God's existence, but honestly, they're not that convincing. What really convinced me that God exists is the change he has made in me, we have a relationship, me and God, and it's not all one way. You can't have a relationship with a fictional being, God is not an imaginary friend, imaginary friends don't change how you are or how you feel.

I'm getting ahead of myself here, this is the end of the story, and you need to hear the beginning. If you trust me that God exists, then trust me when I tell you that God created us. In fact he created everything, but especially he created us, and he made us for a purpose, to love - to love Him and to love one another, and because He created us, He loves us - like a mother seeing her child's face for the first time, that kind of love.

It could have been a blissful state, creator and createe living together in mutual love, God caring for us and us responding to God, trusting him and talking to him regularly. So why aren't things like that? There's a little word that Christians use that sums up what when wrong and that word is 'sin'. Sin has two meanings, it means the overall breakdown of that God/mankind relationship and it also means the things that we do that are the result of that broken state. Most people know the second meaning of the word - they know that murder is a sin and theft is a sin but they don't know that even if you can't put your finger on any one nasty thing like that that you've done sin is still a part of your life. It's still a part of my life too because even though I'm a christian and I believe in God, that doesn't make me perfect, there's still a long way to go to fully restore my relationship with God. I've got a lot of bad habits to break and a lot of rebellious thoughts to bring under God's control.

I don't know when we lost our love for God, when we became hard-hearted, I don't know when we turned our love for God into love for money, power or sex but I know that happened and we see the results of it all around us. God would not be a loving God if he wasn't angered by our behaviour to one another and distraught by our rejection of him but God never lost his love for us, never gave up on us, he thinks we are worth saving.

You see there's a bigger problem than we realise about separating ourselves from God and we didn't know it until God told us about it. God is the source of our life and we don't know how dependant on Him we really are, our own resources are finite, every second we spend away from God, we are dying. Of course, we're all physically dying, but we're also dying spiritually, we need some kind of help otherwise that void between ourselves and God will only get wider and we will cut ourselves off completely from the source of all life and all hope. If there is any such thing as hell, surely that is it - to be completely removed from God. Because I'm a christian, I do believe death is not the end for us, the life we live is going to continue but that does require God's intervention and to live a full life after death requires us to assent to being refilled with God's life here and now.

So far I've described a problem and its solution, but I haven't explained how that solution came about, what it was that God did that made it possible for us to turn back to him.

It happened through one man - Jesus. This man was special, people could see it in him, he was different, he cared. He had an air of authority but wasn't aloof, his teaching was refreshing and something about him drew people to him. He did things that only God could do and said things only God should say and a few of his closest followers guessed the truth, this man who was just like them was God himself. They must have shaken their heads to try to get this ridiculous thought out - how could a man be God? how could God become just an ordinary man?

People noticed that Jesus was different, special and that he had something they didn't, something they wanted. What he had was a never-ending supply of spirit, and therefore a never-ending supply of life. There was no abyss between Jesus and God, he was born with all the disadvantages that we are, with all the temptations to sin, in the same frail body and with the same weak mind yet he was all-consumed by his relationship with God, he was completely reliant on God's spirit - his own spirit - within him. Directed by that spirit he always chose the way of love for others, not love for himself.

That obedience to God's direction even led him to not fight when men came to take him away, when he was sentenced to death, and when he was beaten and nailed to the tortuous cross. God died. We are so distant from God that we didn't recognise him when he turned up and we killed him. It was our sin that put Jesus on the cross -and I say our because I mean mine too, it wasn't just a handful of people years ago that killed Jesus, he died because of your broken relationship with God, and because of mine.

That could have been the end of the story and if it had been, we would all have been lost but Jesus death was not the end. Resurrection means coming back from death, but it's more than just the reanimation of a body, it's the beginning of a new and different and fuller life and that's what Jesus began. Jesus resurrection is a mystery, I can't explain the mechanics of it, I can't understand how Jesus could be resurrected from death and although I know Jesus was special, I don't understand why he could be resurrected and we couldn't - except that it's sometihng to do with his purity, his closeness to God and his supply of inexhaustible life. That is we couldn't until Jesus had first been raised because Jesus did something for us when he died, not just for himself. He offered us a gift of the same kind of life and purity and closeness to God that allowed him to break through death's grip. It was our sin that killed him and he is able to forgive us for that, to restore the relationship that we need with God that gives us life.

Learning to live with God in our lives is slow progress, we have learnt many rebellious traits that will take a long time to unlearn, we have taught ourselves that it is better to look after number one than to care for others and we need to relearn the value of love. When we look again to God, he accepts us, forgives us and fills us again with his life and we begin to die to sin, dying the death of Jesus so that we can share in his eternal life.


I know that's not short, but I hope it is simple. You might not think it is simple and I will accept that I have probably waffled around some of the ideas in here, trying to express inadequately what someone great could have probably said in two sentences. No matter how much I think about and try to understand, I know that what I have given falls short of the real good news of God several times over. It can never be more than a story that points to the real truth that is only found completely in Jesus, and I'm pretty sure that some minor points won't quite be right but I've tried to keep my story in line with the stories of Jesus found in the bible. You may know other stories, and yours may disagree with mine in some places. I don't mind that as long as you are convinced that your stories are in line with the bible too. Keep telling your story, keep telling your good news and hopefully all our flawed stories will lead people to Jesus where they can find the real truth and real life and real hope.

Theology stuff

I'm not actually a natural theologian, there are lots of theological questions that interest me, but I find it more interesting to think around a question on my own than reading what other theologians have thought about that question in the past. It's not that I think there's no value in that, on the contrary, it's just that I like to think for myself.

That means that many of the things I post here will be orthodox, sound and in line with the theology I've grown up with and learnt about, other things may be slightly off the wall - and I reserve the right to think mad things because I always see these things as interesting theories and thoughts that might spur me on to further discoveries about God, but not necessarily things that I would stake my life on. I know that might get me branded as a heretic, but according to this checklist I'm one already so I don't think I have too much to fear on that score.

Change of direction

It's not long now until I've got to hand my thesis in. I'm not really convinced this blog has helped much with that process, it seems I've mainly been using it to get things off my chest that are really side issues and I don't want to talk about in the main body of the essay.

I've also been thinking that on my main blog at silkworm.org.uk I've not really posted much that's been all that theological - and when I have I've not had much response to it. So I think I'll keep this blog as a place I can work out all my theological angst without boring anyone who's not actually as interested in theology as me. And if there are people who are dead keen on theology, then they can read this without bothering too much about my hobbies and the films I've watched.

Paradoxical Worship?

In my reseach for this thesis I have read many things. Some of those things seem to contradict one another, but I'm not entirely sure they do because I can see the validity in both and my experience affirms both sides, so in order to get my thoughts on the matter straight, I thought I'd write about it here.

They tell me that we're living in the turn of an era, that process of doing a giant cutltural u-turn that some have called post-modernism. I think perhaps too much has been made of reflecting on postmodernism by people (and I include myself in this) that don't really understand it. But that's a point for another time, not for now.

One one hand, worship theorists say that postmodern people communicate well by imagery and subtlety, learn as if through osmosis from a variety of sources and have a short attention span. Therefore, we need to make worship that communicates well with that pomo society even if we don't really get it ourselves, we need to stop making worship that appeals to us churchy folk and make a sacrifice to make worship with pictures and soundbites instead of words and meaty sermons.

On the other side is those who say that the seeker service, which was worship designed to make church outsiders comfortable didn't actually attract that many outsiders and mainly appealed to churchy folk instead. Basically, it didn't work. Or if it did, it doesn't anymore. Therefore we shouldn't be making worship that we don't respond to, when we put our all into worship in a meaningful way and don't try to make worship accessible then people from outside will see our commitment to an alternative way of life - and that will attract them to find out more.

It's funny that both methods seem to advocate the same things - turning down the lights and bringing on the candles, dj's and art. I think that with both methods there are real problems, those problems only get ironed out when the two models come together.

Problem with the first method: Have you ever seen older people trying to be young and cool? It just doesn't work. The problem with the first method is when you get people trying really hard to be something they're not, that doesn't help people to worship, it's just laughable.

Problem with the second: The church has been just doing things its own way for a long time and it's never really attracted all that many interested parties in. No matter how authentic your spiritual experience, it's going to be hard to convince people that you're not a little weird!


You've really got to have a bit of both. If you make your church exclusively for outsiders then only the most tenacious insiders will stay and not feel neglected - church doesn't just exist for outsiders, christians need to grow spiritually too. If your church exists exclusively for its members then it will seem cliquey and its subcultures will be strange; traditions will develop and not be called into question and the church will calcify and growth will be stunted.

Writing is happening!

Woo, I have written something! Ok, it's not so exciting so far. I have some definitions of both alternative worship and emerging church and I'm trying to explain what they are to people who don't know and most importantly, how those two terms overlap but don't quite mean the same thing. That's not that easy, mainly because it is a very hard thing to define, being so fuzzy and emerging and all, but also cause even people who write about it draw back from making any firm definitions. Nevertheless, if you're doing something about emerging church, people would like to know that you've at least got some idea of what you're talking about!

here's one definition of emerging church, or one aspect of it at least, from Micael Moynagh's book emergingchurch.intro:

The big difference, at least to emerging church in its mission mode, is that many New Churches continued to operate on a “you come to us” model. Members liked their new way of being church and used evangelism to encourage non-churchgoers to join them. They “souped up” the model of church but not the underlying approach: “We’ll get a group of Christians together, express church in a way that we enjoy and invite others to come along.”

and ... for alt.worship we have steve collins on alternativeworship.org:

Alternative Worship is not a style, but an approach whose stylistic implications can be very various.

It is what happens when people reinvent church for themselves, in forms that fully reflect the people they are and the culture they live in. That's the people they really are and the culture they really live in, not sanitised Sunday-best versions!

It's an attempt to make spaces where people can be real, and relate honestly to God and one another without 'religious' masks or imposed forms of behaviour. In practice this involves a complete reappraisal of what a church service actually consists of - what it's for, how it's led, what kinds of things can happen, what kind of language is used, where people sit and what the space looks like.

and finally ... dan kimball in emerging church (the book) who says emerging generations ...

Want fluidity and freedom rather than a neatly flowing set program. They want to see the arts and a sense of mystery brought into the worship service, rather than focusing on professionalism and excellence. This will shape how a worship gathering is designed.

This organic approach could be called a “vintage-faith” worship gathering. It resonates more in a post-seeker-sensitive culture and really goes back to more of a vintage way of expressing our faith during worship as believers have done throughout church history.

Are they good definitions? Or are there better ones out there?

Sanctus 3

My third visit to Sanctus 1 and I remain very impressed with this group of christians (of course I have to say that now cause I know some of them have found this blog). Again it was a very good service, there is so much work that must go into it and I'm impressed how well everything runs together, the music and video clips fit in, and they all just work without any messing around. Whenever I've been involved in something like that - using music and film and other bits and pieces in services, it's always involved people running around like mad things trying to get various bits of tech working and the end result has been a little chaotic.

Silent on the subject

If I seem to have gone silent on the subject of my actual dissertation then that is because of two reasons. The first is that I'm doing more reading than writing on it. I've worked my way through a few books and hopefully will have time for a few more before I have to write anything. The second reason is that, at college, there are other more pressing worries for me to be working on. I've been doing essays on Deuteronomy and Corinthians (about idolatry and resurrection respectively) and I've two more to do before the end of term; a sermon on Elisha and something about the Holy Spirit too.

But I've not stopped my thinking process and I think I've learnt a lot from being a part (even a minor part) of Sanctus 1 recently. This has given me a real insight into how alt. worship functions within an emerging church, and not just as an interesting way of adding variety to the worship of a non-emerging church. I do think there is a difference between the two. In both the worship can be true and authentic - there is no doubt about that. But in a non-emerging setting there can be far too many expectations placed on worship that is different because it is not a natural 'lets do church and see what we think is the best way of doing it' but has often been a fight against people's expectations and traditions.

I've been asked to be part of the 'emerging culture' venue at easter people this year. I remain to be convinced that it's not just a name change to be seen to be cool and up with the latest ecclesiological trends, but it does sound like there has been a real shift in (some people's) thinking - and an acceptance of the change in others. Whatever it is it's not going to be like the 'new forms' venue at Greenbelt, but then it shouldn't be, it should have an 'easter people' flavour and not a greenbelt one!

Sanctus 1 (again)

I made it two months in a row to Sanctus 1's sunday service. And again I had a nice evening. I feel a bit guilty actually, I wonder if this church might just become a place for curiosity seekers like me (and my two friends who wanted to come along this time) and not for the people (I guess) it's intended for - people who don't fit in elsewhere. But everyone's been incredibly friendly and welcoming and I have felt very comfortable talking to people there. I've been very open about my intentions in going (just cause I was interested) and I've told a couple of people there about my wee project.

The service this time seemed to answer some of my questions about last time's service. This service was much more community-focused and we had chance in the middle of the service to talk to one another and share communion in a group (rather than it being a solitary affair). I guess that variety is part of the plan - sometimes one style, sometimes another (but I reckon I'll have to go a couple more times before I find out for sure).

Now I have a dilemma - the next time is 19th december, but I've already said to my friend I'll go to the last ever tribe gig which is the same night. Do I tell her I'm not going to go (and save myself £10) or do I go to the tribe gig anyway cause I said I would (and because the tribe surely consitute a form of alt.worship too!)?

Evangelism, what's that all about anyway?

Andy Hawthorne paid a visit to college this morning, he shouted at us in chapel. Whenever I've heard him he gets a bit shouty, a bit red in the face and this morning he must have piled on the pressure a bit because in the middle of his spiel he got a nose bleed. There is a passionate man, actually shedding blood for the sake of the gospel!

He was talking about evangelism, well he would, that's what he does, what he's known for and what he's successful at. For anyone who doesn't know, Andy Hawthorne is the director of the Message Trust, which does all sorts of things for young people in Manchester. Very cool.

He may shout a bit too much but I did like Andy, a very down-to-earth kinda guy, with amazing commitment and who's vision has made a real difference in many kids lives.

It made me think about preaching. I think I've come to realise that I don't like the preaching job I've got (not that it's a job - it would be nice to get paid for it but I can't see that happening!), what happens is that I go to churches full of old ladies and one or two old gentlemen and I try to encourage, challenge, bring vision and excitement for God, and they all tell me it's been a wonderful service and they really liked the hymns I picked. I'm obviously not communicating very well with them.

There are people I think I could communicate with really well (and not have to shout at them) but where on earth do you find a crowd of 20-30-something non-christians who are willing to listen to a crackpot bible-basher? I can hardly stand up in the middle of starbucks and start preaching!

For me the issue is not really how to communicate well, but where to go? "Go to the people" they say ("they" being Christian experts on mission of course) but where are the people? mostly in places where they don't want to be disturbed. I'm pretty sure that Christian mission won't be effective unless it can use the media and usual channels of entertainment and information to promote itself. That means taking media (old and new) and technology seriously and not just thinking that because we have powerpoint in our church we're 'hip and with it'.

These random thoughts were brought to you by the letter 'j' and the number 5. Thank you for listening.

Liquid Church

Sometimes I don't know where to post things. That's the problem with having multiple blogs. Especially when I have a general one that loads of people read and this little one that's specialist but nobody really knows about!

I read Liquid Church by Pete Ward. Considering that I've been gradually becoming more interested in emerging church stuff I'm surprised it's taken me this long to get round to reading it. I've read other books about 'future church', 'church next', '21st century church' and so far they've all been a load of hot air.

The reason I'm having this posting dilemma is that this (Liquid Church) is not like the rest. It is a great book, and therefore I should tell as many people as possible about it - which means posting a review on my main blog (http://www.silkworm.org.uk/blog/) but the subject matter fits better here so I shall post it here for starters.

Reasons I like liquid church:

The book isn't particularly heavy on the theological side, but good theology has a priority - the idea of liquid church may actually be reactionary against culture, but it isn't portrayed that way, in this book, the theology comes first, then and only then is the current culture consulted. This is proper theology too - it's easy to read but draws on a wide range of theological traditions (with real quotes and everything!)

Pete Ward does not mention postmodernism (yeah!!! woo!). The book does try to understand society and culture but doesn't resort to simply repeating the introductory chapter of a sociology textbook from the eighties. Thank goodness for that.

The insights into culture were actually things I could recognise from my own life and that of my friends; the importance of networks of communication, becoming accustomed to constant change and a more risky way of life (there are no permanent jobs, people move around more freely etc.) and, to my surprise, an acceptance of consumer culture - and a broader understanding of consumerism than simply 'materialism is evil!'

"Church leaders will need a fundamental change of heart if they are to start to take consumer culture seriously. Instead of opposing materialism and treating consumer choice as evil, we need to begin to embrace the sensibilities of consumption. This means that we must develop a church life that connects with what people want, and one vital ingredient will make this change possible. the church must change its emphasis from meeting people's spiritual needs to stimulating their desires." (p72)

That desire is really important. Yesterday I went to my church for the evening service. It was all about worship - how important it is to keep on worshipping (especially if we don't feel like it! I'm sure you've heard that before). Given that that was the theme of the service it was ironic that I found it very difficult to worship.

The preacher had had the experience lots of ministers do that as soon as people find out she's a minister they start asking if they really need to go to church to be a christian. She said that on one occasion she surprised people by saying yes - that part of being a christian is a commitment to worship - with other christians.

My problem is not with the answer she gave, but with what lies behind the question. Honestly, I do think you can be a christian without being part of a church, but I wouldn't really want to. When I've heard most people ask that question (or ones like it) all I can hear is the guilt behind it - like a child desperately hoping to be given an excuse to get out of going to the dentist! (Please tell me I don't have to go to a church, please!!!). How do we stimulate desire for God so that going to church isn't like going to the dentist but something you'd actually freely choose to do?

Where the book falls down somewhat is when it comes to the practicalities of what 'liquid church' might look like. I understand the reasons for that, we don't really know what it might look like, but I was hoping for something more tangible - examples and ideas.

I also felt that though there were some good points about worship (my own particular focus) the examples of worship given were somewhat weak - all variations on the same theme of - you can have stations and pray in different ways at each station. Liquid church should release us to be more creative in worship - not less! surely it should encourage more variety and not simply be a manual of 101 ways to light a candle.

Sanctus1 ... Continued

I need to blog about that service I went to on sunday before I either completely forget about it or my memory becomes so warped that I remember things that didn't happen.

I arrived at about 10 to 8 and the service was due to commence at 8. That's incredibly early for me, my usual time for arriving at church is about 5 minutes after the service has begun. I was one of the first non-involved people there and I was shown into a room with seats around the edges, beanbags and rugs on the floor in the middle and a projector set up to project onto a big screen at one end of the room. The room was fairly dark but with ambient lighting in the corners faintly illuminating the church architecture. A steady stream of people began to come into the room, most of whom seemed to know each other and there was a fair bit of chatting going on. I got talking to the girl sitting next to me, she was very pleasant, she wanted to know how I'd found out about them.

As the service began the chatter stopped and the room fell into a reverent silence that would last for most of the rest of the evening (until the tea and coffee broke the spell).

The service began with lighting three candles to symbolise each member of the trinity. We were then told the legend of St Christopher. I had heard the bit of the story before - about St Chris carrying a wee lad across a river only to find out it was Jesus he had been ferrying. But I hadn't heard the rest of the legend, about how our St Christopher got the job as human bridge in the first place.

The purpose of this saintly story was to introduce our theme for the evening 'All Saints', relevant with it being close to all saints day. After this brief intro I was still wondering how the rest of the service would be shaped but I soon found out that from this point on I was expected to get up and move around. There were several small romms set aside in different parts of the building. Each room laid out with a different activity.

The first room I entered had a very short (<2 meters) athletics track marked out on the floor in white tape. I didn't really get the reason behind this demarkation of lanes on the floor but perhaps it was simply to mark out a pathway for each traveller to journey down. In that room we were told we were travellers, so we should take a pebble and add it to the cairn. The carin wasn't very big by this time but it was the first room I had gone to, I imagine it would have grown beyond the small handful of pebbles I added my offering to. As instructed, I marked a friend's name on a card and added it to a 'prayer shrine' of people we should try and help along their journey.

I made my way into a second room. The room was already pretty full of industrious people kneeling on the floor. As I found room to kneel down alongside them I saw what they were industriously making - origami cranes. I did read the reasoning behind this prayful paper folding but the exact meaning escapes me - something to do with Francis Asissi and a completely unrelated story of a japanesse girl who had folded a thousand cranes in order to have her wish granted. I wrote my prayer for peace on my blue sugar paper and then spent an agonizing 20 minutes trying to follow instructions that said things like 'fold the bottom corner of the top sheet over the top corner ...' I did eventually fold an acceptable paper crane - but not without the help and guidance of a few others who had folded before me.

The third room had a tv playing a looped video of Madonna's 'like a prayer' and a cross decorated with many different images of all types of people. The 'like a prayer' video features a statue of a black saint coming to life, and is supposed to be about combatting racism. I'm afraid it didn't make me think much about racial equality - only about Madonna's use of religious iconography and how much of it is an attention-getting act.

The final section was a presentation about some modern day saints - but I only saw a couple because the wandering around section of the worship was drawing to a close. I had thought that would be the end of the service but it wasn't. When we came back together we had a slow and respectful communion. One by one we went forward in silence to help ourselves to the bread and wine. I have to say the wine was the best communion wine I've ever had. It was proper full-bodied red wine, not the sweet sickly stuff I've had elsewhere (or the horrible ribena-like stuff we have at my church!)

That was the worship over with and there was chance to chat again. I really enjoyed that bit - especially so when I was invited to the pub to continue the conversation.

I did have a good night. I enjoyed the worship and I thought it had a lot to offer - but I did wonder if it placed a lot of emphasis on personal prayer and introspection - no matter how creative - and not enough on corporate worship and looking outwards toward God.

Sanctus 1

Ok, so it's not like real work but I feel like I have simultaneously progressed with research for my thesis, worshipped and made some new friends too. Not bad for a sunday night.

I have been to Sanctus 1's monthly worship service in Sacred Trinity at Salford. I think the best bit of the night was chatting to people before and after the official service bit. I even tagged along with people to the pub.

The worship was pretty cool too, lots of tech and candles and a relaxed atmosphere, things to do and watch and read and listen to. There's obviously a huge amount of planning and idea gathering that goes on for each service. I think I'll go to one of the smaller wednesday meets too, if only because then I can see the people I met tonight again.

Some of the people I met were first-timers like me. I was amazed to find that one couple live less than a minute's walk from my house - not bad considering we'd both driven the length of the city to be there.

I think I need to expand my thoughts on the worship tonight, but I'll save that for another time because I can feel my eyes getting heavy.

night night

Not sure I can do this!

Just had a bit of a panic - what do I know about anything? what makes me think I can write about this topic - it's as slippery as trying to catch soap in a bath - on an ice-rink. As soon as I think I've got somewhere and pinned something down, I realise I'm completely wrong. Aarrggh.

Ok, Ok Louise. Look at the nice pink friendly letters that say 'Don't Panic'. Go back down to the library and immerse yourself in the accumulated wisdom of all those dusty books - you'll be fine.

Got to get down to real work now.

My proposal was accepted, signed in triplicate and copies sent off to various files in different offices in dusty corners of the college. I guess this is so that if I decide to pull a fast one (No, I didn't really agree to write 10,000 words on alt. worship!) then several people can prove I was wrong and demand a wad of double spaced paper from me.

10,000 words might not sound much to seasoned academics or anyone who's ever written a book (which seems to be most people in ministry these days) but I've never taken on so large a project. I know from terrible experience that I can write a 3,500 word essay in a day - but that doesn't mean that I should spend three days on writing up this thesis. General advice from lecturers etc. is to get on with it. now. So I shall.

I can make a start by updating the links on this site to include more alt. worshippy things. It's not much but it is a start.

Indecent Proposal

Well ... Ok, perhaps 'indecent' is a bit strong. But after a long talk with someone more learned than I, I am making changes to the proposal I posted. I can't possibly cover the whole spectrum of ecclesiology and how it applies to emerging church, so I am going to look at the worship aspect alone. I know it doesn't cover all emerging worship, but I think I'll look at the alt.worship scene.

So I've got to think of a new title, description and to revise that booklist a bit.

Title:
Alternative Worship in the Emerging Church

Outline of Subject Matter:
An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the alternative model of congregational worship as practised by emerging church communities. This analysis will include a theological evaluation of the culturally driven aspects of alternative worship.

Outline of Research Method:
Investigation of the current understanding of alternative worship by its practitioners, acknowledgement of the cultural climate which has shaped alternative worship and gaining understanding of the theology and history of worship in order to provide a standard against which to measure the validity of alternative worship.

Preliminary Bibliography

(need to work this out yet!)


Ok, that sounds a little more manageable. Well, as long as I don't need to write a complete theology of worship in the process.

Dissertation Proposal

This week I must submit a complete dissertation proposal. I have a title, even if I'm not 100% convinced that it is a narrow enough focus for a big topic. I think it is narrow enough to rule out the most common ground I will come across.

Here's my proposition:

Title:
A reflection on the practice of the emerging church

Outline of Subject Matter:
A theological and biblical reflection on the current practice, ethos, community and worship of those expressions of church that are loosely grouped under the banner of 'emerging church'.

Outline of Research Method:
Primarily books written by leaders of emergent thought but also to partake in the worldwide community discussion as it takes place over the internet, through emerging church websites and blogs of some emerging church leaders and theologians.

Preliminary Bibliography
Gibbs, Eddie and Ian Coffey. Church Next: Quantum Changes in Christian Ministry. Inter-Varsity Press. 2001.
Ward, Pete. Liquid Church. Paternoster. 2002.
Kimball, Dan. Emerging Church, The: Vintage Christianity for New Generations. Zondervan. 2003.
McLaren, Brian D. The Church on the Other Side: Doing Ministry in the Postmodern Matrix. Zondervan. 2000.
Williams, Rowan et al. Mission-Shaped Church. Church House. 2004.
Sweet, Leonard et al. The Church in Emerging Culture: Five Perspectives. Zondervan. 2003.
Brewin, Kester. The Complex Christ: Signs of Emergence in the Urban Church. SPCK. 2004.
Jamieson, Alan. A Churchless Faith. SPCK. 2002.

Consumer Christianity

We do live in a consumer society. If I want a pair of jeans, I can choose to go to one of a number of different shops and can choose how much I want to pay, which brand I would like and what colour they should be. I can choose a £10 pair of blue jeans from Asda or I can go for the £100+ designer option, from Kendals or one of the posh shops on King Street (Manchester) or any variation in between. I believe that I have the right to buy whichever pair I can afford, and whichever I choose on the basis of fit, colour, style and even label.

I will concede that there is danger inherent in such a society, that we expect such abundant choice in everything but that choice might be harmful to us or detrimental to others - should we be able to choose how much tax we pay for services or which laws we should obey?

The Mission Shaped Church book has a section about consumer culture (p9-11) , equating consumerism with choice and calling it the dominant idolatry of capitalist societies. The report does say that the poor are unable to be consumers because they are unable to buy things. (I do wonder just how many poor people those who wrote the report know. The poor people I know are the ones most sold out to consumer culture! The ones who most earnestly desire designer labels, cable TV and holidays).

When consumerism is defined as the desire to accumulate possessions, to be seen to be as cutting edge as possible and a fixation on fashion then I would agree that it is destructive. However, when consumerism is described simply as choice (as it so often is) then I think we have to be very careful about demonising it or we will miss something very important by equating our ability to make choices with idolatry.

For those of us who are Christians, at one point (or several) we made a choice to follow Christ rather than our own paths. We made a choice to accept his sacrifice and offer of free forgiveness. Whether that was a conscious decision or one made gradually over the course of years, we did make that choice.

For those of us who are churchgoers, at one point, or several, we have made decisions about which church we will attend, what denomination we will belong to, which theology makes most sense to us, even which service we will regularly attend. We choose churches on the basis of music, preaching, liturgy, accessibility, childcare provision, traveling distance, our own family tradition and upbringing, friend's recommendation, number of people in the right age bracket, and a whole host of other reasons. Even if we were born and brought up in one church, we have at some point made the decision to stay where we are. We have all made choices, that does not mean we are all idolaters.

I'd like to apply a little more caution to an out and out denunciation of consumer culture. I think there are many positives as well as negatives that arise out of this culture we live in. I like to be able to choose which pair of jeans I will buy, rather than having to wear a one-size-fits-all pair. I also like to be able to choose the church in which I will worship.

I'd better go, I've chosen to go to the evening service tonight and if I don't leave now I will be late.

About me

I've been interested in the whole emerging church thing but one thing I need to work out is whether I am a real participant or someone standing at the edges looking in. The problem is I'm not sure. Depending on what your definition of emerging church is, I may be a fully paid up member or a total stranger. I'll tackle the definition of emergent soon but first I'll do justice to a definition of myself.

Currently, I am 29. I am a rather mature student doing a degree in theology at a small, friendly, conservative evangelical theological college. This is my second degree, my first was in maths.

I am also a Christian, a useful attribute for a theology student. I was brought up in the methodist church and, even though I've tried to leave a couple of times in my life, I never quite made it out of the door. I'm quite happy about being a methodist now even though the unending bureaucracy and inflexibility really gets me down.

I am a preacher, I have a certificate to prove it. That puts me in the position of being seen as a church leader without any of the having to visit sick people in hospital (I never know what to say in those situations). It certainly has the unexpected (to me) effect of people giving my opinions more weight. I'm not sure that's a good thing at all, I don't want any special treatment but it does mean that I have to take full responsibility for anything I say - I know it will be listened to.

So far this all puts me firmly in the camp of the traditional modern church, not the fun and funky, free-flowing, postmodern emerging church, so you may well ask why I think I have anything at all to say about it.

About this time last year, I went to hear Jonny Baker talk about what he and his colleagues do at grace and about alt.worship and the emerging church. I realised that there were many points of contact with what we do at my church in worship. Once every few months, we do something called No Compromise which is team planned and led, uses music, video and all sorts of other media with the aim of connecting people with God in a new way. More frequently, we also have cafe church. In my mind, cafe church would be more effective if it were actually held in a cafe rather than the church coffee lounge. Nevertheless, for a methodist church it is quite radical to have a monthly service with no music and no sermon.

My church does dabble in alt.worship in these ways and both expressions of worship are accepted, appreciated and welcomed. They do not make my church into an emerging church though. It appears that to be accepted as an emerging community, an alt.worship congregation should distance itself from the background that nurtured it. My church, as is, wouldn't be an 'emerging church' unless some people broke away, started meeting in a darkened warehouse and called themselves 'fr3sh' or 'ambient' or something. Perhaps that is what needs to happen, I don't know, but I am interested in ventures that emerge from within the church, not necessarily just alongside it.

My other interest is in the internet. I've worked as a website developer for quite a few years. One of the projects I've been involved in is generation cross, a website that aims to provide community and support for Gen X christians. Over the year it's been open, I've come to the realisation that, at its best, such a community is as legitamate an expression of church as any other. We do need to work out the finer details, how to encourage real world links as well as virtual ones and how to worship corporately online, but it's a start and it's one I'm very excited about.

There are probably more factors that are relevant to my journey but I think these are the most pertinent.

On balance, I think my position is not one of being firmly entrenched in the emerging church camp, but I'm not so far away that I can't relate to it.

I came across this article (What (again) is emerging church?) yesterday when I was looking for another definition of emerging church. Here's a snippet:

Many, of course, feel that they are not so much emerging as barely escaping with their lives, with the chariots and horsemen of Egypt hot on their heels. Others are cautiously venturing through the gaps that have opened up in the rusting border fence that has confined them for so long. Some are coming empty-handed and desperate. Others are bringing much of their past with them, loaded on to handcarts, and it remains to be seen how much will survive the journey.

I thought that in this context, I'm one looking at all the people in front of me who are already so far away, but I'm not willing to rush off and leave the people I am journeying with behind me.

Missile Shaped Church

I have found a purpose for this blog I created. I was thinking it would be good to have a place where I can comment on what I'm thinking and writing about emerging church without boring my usual blog readers silly.

I also harbour vague ambitions that, open source style, I can get comments, feedback and thoughts that I can loop back into my thinking and take it forward. Sounds a bit like getting help with your homework though so I don't know if anyone will oblige!

I will begin by telling you that I've been reading "Mission Shaped Church". So far it's pretty good, but, being an Anglican report, it does dissapear off into a particularly Anglican world at times. I have some thoughts about the report's outright rejection of a consumerist mentality, then a few pages later saying how important it is that variety is maintained in theology and practice to cater for all the different niches of society. Sounds more than a little contradictory to me.

I think this is a topic for a larger post because I have certain views on the demonisation of consumer christianity that is so popular at the minute. I'll leave you waiting with bated breath for more on that later.