I had a brain burp.

Are we (really) converted to Jesus. Consider this angle...

In the Middle Ages the everyday language reflected the Christian life. The world was permeated with transcendence reminders; the sound of church bells, the music, the literature, architecture, everyday language and expressions ("God be with you", upon my soul," etc.). All these reflected the central elements of a story much larger than our own story. It wasn't football season it is was Advent season. Western culture no longer has the same worldview.

We've lost the larger story of mystery and transcendence. It didn't happen overnight but through the centuries. The Enlightment dismissed the idea that there was an Author. Western world rejected the mystery and transcendence of the Middle Ages. Mystery and transcendence was replaced with man's confidence in science, progress, and pragmatism (the Age of Reason). In the era of postmodernism we've been left with our smaller stories. It's not Pentecost; it's time for spring training. Our lives now revolve around the smaller stories of politics, little league baseball, soap operas, and rap music? Our best expression today is not, "God be with you," but, "Have a good day." The only story beyond our own is the evening news; which make no sense outside the context of the larger story. They are simply arbitrary collections of scenes and images, which lack a bigger picture to fit in.

Because we live within the framework of this western worldview we all, to one extent or another, become convinced that who we are is inextricably tied to our own self-redemptive story. Becoming a Christian doesn't alter a lifetime of western world influences and images, nor does sitting in a church building or a house church. Unconsciously, we live our daily lives within the context of our smaller story attempting to manipulate life’s circumstances and surroundings eager to make our existence a more palatable one with a secondary hope that maybe the One who can spin the earth and resurrect the dead will show up and rescue us from life’s pain.

Coming to know Jesus means we detach our hearts from every competing smaller story. It’s today’s Christians only hope of moving the human existence of our smaller story into the context of the bigger story; where a purposeful adventure (called the Christian life) is lived. Only in the bigger story does pain and suffering make sense. Only when our stories become a part of the larger story will a grassroot movement rise to the task of turning their comunities (and the world) upside down.

It's a little unnerving (for me) to think that a movement naturally flows from the bottom up. Not sure if that's a commentary on my faith (probably is).

I am praying for God to disrupt and unnerve us.

"Surely we need theologians with humility and imagination, and poets with the discipline and intellectual integrity of scholars."

I like the way you phrased this :) Those of us who are gifted as stewards of faith communities in particular need to live out of both the head and the heart. This isn't an easy thing to do...

"What is a theologian supposed to do these days?"

You know, reading these posts I recognize the ambiguity of my own calling, really.. my ambiguous relationship to myself. I tend not to trust my left brain dominance, but in my insecurity I sometimes live out of that place. I've wondered whether my own journey on the road to wholeness will empower me to greater faithfulness, or whether greater faithfulness is really rooted in stronger connections.. a more faithful community. In other words, perhaps my own completion is more bound up with a local expression of the body. Perhaps the complementarity and wholeness that is really necessary for any local church is just that.. a corporate wholeness. "If all were an eye.." If all were left brained or right brained, if all were head or heart.. if all were poets, or theologians.. We really do need one another, our strengths and our weaknesses, but we all tend, as john pointed out, to think "that is the true bug" or "this is the true bug." Its tough for the left brained people to really value the more process intuitive, more process oriented left brained ones. But until we walk in that kind of love and mutual honoring, I wonder if there is really hope for change..

"Is it the role of the theologians to keep us rooted in the Big Story while the poets shape 'new stories in faithful missional communities'?"

Maybe .. but I suspect its the role of all us to stay rooted, and shape those stories together as we live in the life of Jesus day by day. "To be a member is to have neither life, being, nor movement, except through the spirit of the body, and for the body." Pascal

I'm thinking we still have a skewed view of what it means to be a theologian. Does it mean that we are ivory-tower dwellers who are not practitioners? It may have degraded to such a thing, but I think it is just that - a degradation. I don't believe there is such a thing as a non practicing theologian in scripture. We have those who are living the life - living out the call of building the Kingdom, in the community as well as outside. But they are teachers, thinkers, contemplatives, those who work out problems and have the gift of helping to disseminate the solutions to their siblings.

I'm not sure about the poets instead of thing. I'm not sure the two are mutually exclusive - poets and theologians - perhaps we have some hybrids about. I think theology is important. It's important for us to know what we believe and why - to know the underworkings and not merely the surface of our faith. Real theologians help us all with this. They are not what we have made them to be. That might not be too bad but it's not nearly as useful as what I've been referring to.

Len wrote: 'Ultimately, we may need poets more than we need theologians... we need people who are rooted in the Big Story, inwardly transformed by the Spirit of God, and shaping new stories in faithful missional communities.'

I like that. But still, where has the Big Story come from? Who told it to us? Did they get it right? Can we really trust them? Or do we imagine that we can simply go back to the source and read it with undistorted vision? Maybe, but I think it's very difficult to escape the voices in our heads saying, This is what it means, or That is what it means.

My feeling is that we could understand things a lot better than we do. The product of that understanding would not be a new dogmatism; it would have the vitality and relevance and interdependence of a conversation or a story-telling or a weblog. But there is a danger that postmodern Christians will become as unthinking and complacent about their Big Story as modern Christians are about their statements of faith. Surely we need theologians with humility and imagination, and poets with the discipline and intellectual integrity of scholars. Or is it simply that we need both?

So this is my question: What is a theologian supposed to do these days? Is it the role of the theologians to keep us rooted in the Big Story while the poets shape 'new stories in faithful missional communities'?

[11/23/2002 11:35:12 PM | john o'keefe]
i will admit that i posted this on "ginkworld: inside the mind of punk monkey" first - but i needed to post it here also - it just fit.

"there i was, sitting high on the top limbs of a tree looking down on the world wondering where i would travel next. as i was looking over the trees, i noticed in a clearing two bugs walking and fight with each other over who was a true bug. the first bug said, "i have six legs and three body parts, and that is what makes a true bug." the other simply looked and replied, "how silly. i have six legs and three body parts also, that does not make you a true bug - i have antenna, and as every living thing should know - antenna are what makes a true bug." the first bug thought for a second and answered, "i do have antenna, but not only two. mine are hair like antenna all over my body, so that must be a true sign of a true bug." the second simply shock his head with disbelief, "how could you be so silly? that is not the true sign of a true bug." but, just before the second bug could continue a large bird came swooping out of the sky and eat both bugs. as it stood there i asked, "why did you eat those creature?" the bird replied, "they were bugs." then i added, "but they were arguing over which was a true bug. neither thought the other was a true bug." to which the bird replied, "it doesn't matter much what they thought, they were bugs and they both tasted like a bug." and with that the bird flew away."

pax
john

One of the newer missional networks does a good job of distinguishing between mere doctrinal correctness or even doctrinal allegiance and incarnating the gospel faithfully in our current cultural context..

"We are not focused on doctrinal uniformity. While acknowledging the indispensable importance of doctrine, it is our conviction that poor doctrine—conceived of in the typical systematic sense—is not our chief challenge. Our chief challenge is to rediscover the simple, but profound story lines that Scripture contains. Creation, fall, redemption, and future hope are dramatic narratives that we can apply to all areas of life. No one lives from a set of abstract theological propositions, especially when they have been torn from their context of an ongoing Story. We actually live from a sense of Story that shapes our imagination. As Christians, we seek to let the biblical Story shape our imagination. We don't have to write it again, but we have to be faithful actors who enter into the story and make it a lived reality. Or, in the image Paul uses, we are now in the position of young architects discovering a wonderful foundation already laid by a master architect. We have to creatively work out what sort of building was intended and faithfully build upon that foundation. In our journey toward discovering ever-growing clarity of biblical truth, we do not claim to know everything. Our desire and heart is to walk in humility and to invite others to journey with us as we press forward toward the fullness of truth, toward the day when we shall know Christ as we have been known."

Ultimately, we may need poets more than we need theologians.. we need people who are rooted in the Big Story, inwardly transformed by the Spirit of God, and shaping new stories in faithful missional communities.

"the church must put itself at risk by going out into the world."

YES!

Oswald Chambers wrote that we are to be broken bread and poured out wine for the world. I don't think he meant that only individually.. after all, Christ is a body.

Jean Vanier writes that security is the greatest danger.

"But when a community has enough members to do all the work, when it has enough material goods, it can relax. It has strong structures. It is fairly secure. It is then that there is danger." Community and Growth

Our wealth and security are killing us; these idols have almost prevailed in my generation.

I agree with Jody's point about the seige mentality of the institutional church, and the need to work both inside and outside the sanctuary - if I followed the argument correctly. But I'm inclined to play the part of the pedant and dispute the reading of Matt.16:18 ('upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hades will not [prevail against or withstand] it').

1. “Gates of Hades (pulai hadou)” looks to me like a semitic idiom for death or proximity to death. For example: ‘…[the Jewish martyrs] cried out in a very loud voice, imploring the Ruler over every power to manifest himself and be merciful to them, as they stood now at the gates of death’ (pulais hadou)’ (3 Macc.5:51; cf. 3 Macc.6:31; Job 38:17; Ps.9:13; 107:18; Is.38:10; Wisd.16:13; Odes 11:10; Ps. Sol.16:2).

2. I think that katischuô with the genitive must have a dynamic sense: ie. 'prevail against' or 'overcome' rather than withstand (cf. Jer.15:18 in the Septuagint).

Jesus is saying, therefore, that the 'gates of hades will not overcome the church'. But his point is not that the church must be always on the defensive. I think what he is saying is that as the disciples undertake a mission that will bring them into conflict with hostile political and spiritual forces, that will put their lives at risk (cf. 24-27), they can be reassured that nothing, not even death, will ultimately overcome the community that is based on the confession of Jesus as the Christ. The statement is important, therefore, precisely because the church must put itself at risk by going out into the world. So maybe we're back where we started but by a slightly different route.

(If this sort of comment is out of line in a postmodern theology discussion, tell me, and I won't do it again.)

A few weeks ago I asked the congregation if there were any ministers in the audience. To the credit of one gal, who was cogzinant of my question and the biblical teaching, she slowly raised her hand (half way). Soon all the others sitting next to her raised their hands. Later I was told the one gal who raised her hand first told the others, "...hey, this is a trick question." The other two hundred assembled that day didn't raise their hand. That's significant.

If the Xians assembled in the catacombs in first century were asked the same question what they would do? Would they look around for their "Minister" or would they all raise their hands without giving the question a second thought?

I've decided that the primary problem among Xians today is not apathy, although there may be plenty of that, but institutional forms that have usurped the "priesthood of all believers" to the point that Xians don't even know the teaching, much less practice it! No wonder we don't understand **"road stories."

****In the last half of Luke’s story and throughout the book of Acts we encounter a series of “road stories.” Everyone is going somewhere: Jesus on the Emmaus, Philip on the road to Gaza, Peter on the road to Cornelius, Paul on the road to Damascus. These road stories beg an answer to the question; where is everyone going? The answer is they are moving away from their spiritual center, Jerusalem, and out into the world.

Todd

"There's got to be theology behind the madness."

Agreed, but so often the theology, good and necessary and even sometimes right, hasn't taken us to good places. Or worse, it has remained just good theology divorced from incarnation.. thus gnosticism. Then too, good theology has sometimes been oppressive because "knowledge is power" and those who know and can put it into words have used their superior knowledge to control the show. After all, who can argue with the theologians? Particularly when they have several letters after their names ;) (Maybe in fact theology is too important to be left to the theologians, who after all are subject to the temptation to guard their turf just like others with power. But the gospel view was always from the bottom up).

That's why in some ways I think that the incarnation of kingdom purposes is more important even than the words. When we have to point to the mystery that is incarnate in our lives, then we have something to talk about. We have to not only have the answer but BE the answer, be God's YES to the world.

The best criticism of the bad is ultimately not new answers but a new way.. a practice of the better way. And this is finally the best reason to leave old structures too, so that when asked we don't just offer more words.. another answer.. but something concrete..

"how can we "do church" in order to best facilitate the production of these recreated people??? "

We do it by being it, because ultimately we don't want merely redeemed individuals but transformed communities. Reconciliation is meaningless apart from transformed relationships.

Fred…

I hear a lot of vision in you, and a willingness to take risks and move in new directions. I wish for you a place to explore those new directions, because I believe you will create an invitational space that will empower and release others to build something more relevant to the changing culture around you.

At the same time, this would minimize your personal frustration and launch you into a place of ministry that is more conducive to your own heart.

So, I think the question you need to ask yourself is this: Is God calling you to stay and bang your head against the wall? Sometimes he does do so.. Or is God using your frustration to send you a different message? Is he trying to birth something new through you? It isn’t likely to be born if you stay where you are.

Kevin, I am personally really glad to hear you questioning church as outreach program. A church is first a community, and as we love one another we become naturally inviting to those around us. Mission is rooted and grounded in community. Where this isn’t true, mission becomes merely a program and we lose interest. On the other hand, if we merely go in nice communal circles we forget what our love is for. Mission also empowers community.

Alan, “God’s purpose is to re-establish His kingdom on earth.” I remember hearing somewhere that “The Kingdom of God is creation healed.” I like that.

A friend of mine likes to opine, “The church is the dating service.. but sometimes she thinks she’s the date.” LOL. Here’s one from Howard Snyder:

"Church people think about how to get people into the church; kingdom people think about how to get the church into the world. Church people worry that the world might change the church; kingdom people work to see the church change the world. "

len

I'll provide a little background and then pray for wisdom and godly advice.
I've been a part of a church that has transitioned from a traditonal institutional church to a contemporary institutional church. Situated in the applachain mountains (West Va.) sets us a little further back on the postmodern curve. Many good changes have been made but most of the change has been in form. Great worship, superb worship leader, a peer group who wants to move forward but at times seems afraid and admittedly doesn't know how to get from point A to point B.

The problem I am facing is that I am only one of seven shepherds. In this leadership group there's also 3 paid ministers. We meet once a week to discuss members; problems and ideas. With the plurality of leaders and such a diverse group it's not often we end with conclusions. Often I pass ideas along. The comment is something like, "Fred's making us think out of the box." But that's where it dies as with most other ideas. We have a campus ministry and I made the suggestion that we pay $25 a head to have a college student share their perceptions, experiences and understanding of church and Christians. The investment to learn from someone outside our four walls about perceptions and impressions of us and, at the same time, afford us opportunities with the pre-Christian is, I feel a good investment. I suggested Credit Card Debt Revival where we pay off someone's credit card once every month or two. I suggested we create safe places for the pre-Christian similar to the Andrew's idea stated in his blurb of The Court of the Gentiles. No movement. They listen, but it seems to end there. We did discuss an inheritance the chuch is going to receive in the next couple of months and, interestingly, there was decsion there.

As a fisher of men; my tackle box is filling with new tools and ideas. More and more it's a passion and desire of mine to incorporate and take ideas from theory to practice. But, my is it frustrating! I have to be honest and admit that I am not sure how or when one can proceed in a group such as ours. Should I expect the consensus of the group? Should I take risk and act on my ideas without the groups blessing? Anyone want to jump in here ____

Although I think (and I've experienced this) there will be and maybe should be a certain degree of "reaction" at the beginning of something new, it can't stay in the realm of reaction or it goes nowhere. I think that's fort of what you're saying Todd. There's going to be a degree of getting rid of the old in order to make way for the new - I think that's fine and good - needs to happen. BUT, if we have as a foundation for these new things we are doing only the disgust for former things, we have a lousy foundation - winds will blow - we will fall down.

There's got to be theology behind the madness. I mean by that - we have to have a good solid positive reason for doing what we're doing, and we must know what it is. Why am I starting this new church or community of faith? What is my purpose? What is a "church" anyway? You've got to have a good idea of what that is before you do these things. Why "simple church"? To be cool? To NOT be something else that's not so cool?? I hope not. There is a thick, deep theology behind why this movement is happening in the church at large. Let's get hold of that and go forward.

Here are a couple of quesitons: What is God's purpose? What is He trying to accomplish? and What can I do to best help bring that about? - well, do that. I think His purpose is to re-establish His Kingdom on earth - to bring it all back into line. I think His purpose is to recreate us into the people He intended us to be (spiritual formation - transformation). I think the church, the Christian community, is a tool for that purpose - a formation ground. So, that being so, how can we "do church" in order to best facilitate the production of these recreated people??? Our ecclesiology should flow from the answer to that question. (Thanks Todd Hunter!)

i agree...i think there are times of age-level learning/community/fun....but, i'm not convinced yet that the corporate worship is the time for it...

i think it needs to be a both/and to truly grow and bless all people. i was not raised in the church so i have a different idea of what it's all about. when my wife and i started to attend a large church we noticed that as we walked in the door - she went to the right, with the women, i was pulled to the left with the guys and our daughter was sent to 'the room" as she called it - only to comr togather as we were leaving - a family church that broke-up the family - interesting. now, i would agree that there may be times when breaking people into groups would be good - but the main problem we found is that it became a program. when we finally stood our ground and refused to "break-apart" we got strange looks and even fell out of fashion with some people.

balance is good, as long as we do not place more value on the plates we use on the scales -

pax
john

I don’t have a particular problem with segregating children from adults. There are always going to be some things that can be done more effectively or more efficiently in a socially homogeneous group. I’m pretty sure that if we made children and adults do things together all the time, we’d all be clawing at the walls before long. But I do think that continuity of discourse is an important postmodern virtue. As soon as a pragmatic segregation (eg., for the purpose of teaching) becomes a ‘cultural’ or ‘social’ or ‘linguistic’ segregation, then community begins to suffer. Part of the postmodern agenda, surely, is to knock holes in the cultural boundaries between church and not-church, but also within the church – between traditionalists and progressives, between moderns and postmoderns, between thinkers and feelers, between word-based and Spirit-based spiritualities, between different social and racial groups, between men and women, and between young and old. Let the children be part of the conversation, I say. Incidentally, last Sunday at the Ichthus church in London we go to, we had kids being prophesied over, waving banners, and writing their thoughts and drawing pictures from God on a big roll of paper as part of the service. Old-fashioned charismatic kitsch maybe, but it all helps overcome the disjuncture between their spiritual life (if they’re allowed to have any) and ours.

The whole 'uncomfortable' thing has always poked at my mind. Aren't there people in other contries who are willing, literaly, to die for the chance to worship? But most Americans don't like it if we have to sit w/in 6 feet of anyone else.

Is it postmoderns who are bothered by children in worship or is it only the long-time-churched?

I don't think I have the answer, I'm just thinking out loud.

when arron and i were discussing the idea of children in church, the blog came into our talk. the idea of children in worship is one that interests me greatly. it is amazing to me, we spend years telling kids they are not welcomed in church (because we have a "special" place for them) then, when they are older, we wonder why they won't step foot into the church. if we see the emerging church as a movement closer to community and family, then putting children in the back room will not due - no matter how uncomfortable some may become -

pax

Hey people - on the children thing, a little while back some of us were talking about this thing, blogging about it individually and it ended up being formed into a team blog called What do we do with the kids? It lasted a little while and then kind of petered out for some reason. Maybe we just talked it out as much as we needed and that was it. There is some interesting stuff on there though - worth a read to anyone interested in integrating children into the life of a Christian community. Like I said, it's sort of a "dead" blog but all the posts are still there - check it out from the beginning at the bottom.

i have been pondering this question for a while now. it seems that what i never hear in the postmodern discussion is the voices of children, its as if we dont have any or they are being ignored, maybe its not that serious maybe its just that a lot of postmodern people dont have kids yet. i have always wondered why we segregate kids out of our corporate worship, the only time they seem to be wanted inour church is when we need a quarom (sp) for a business meeting. maybe its an outgrowth of public education and the way it segregates everything by age. maybe we are too stuck in the isolation mold and when we think kids are ready to do real worship maybe its because they just dont want to be involved with big church because it so boring for them. maybe the whole model of songs and a sermon needs to go away so we can explore new ways of corporate interaction with GOD. maybe i am asking too many questions. :) anyway thanks for bringing this one up we need to think long and deep about it or we will create another irrelevant expression of worship that kids and then adults will ignore.

theology of children in postmodern worship...

just want to throw out an idea that john & i kicked around a bit this weekend...in our church, we have all ages in our worship service: from babies to the oldest. here's why:
i want to raise my own child in the context of "the church" as family, a movement of all ages, instead of the concept of "church" as babysitting and "big church". traditional christians that "try" (consumer-oriented; "great band", "relevant" teaching type comments) our church love it -- unless they have kids..then they want to drop them off in a "class" for the hour.

as we kicked this around, john brought up Jesus' words about bringing the children to Him. we laughed that he didn't appoint Andrew a children's pastor, Peter for youth, etc. etc.

any thoughts? anyone else working through this in the corporate worship setting?

did God ever play one of those games on you?


did you ever have one of those experiences where you thought one thing, and something very different happened? well, i had one this weekend at the "upstairs leadership conference." my first thought was that i was going to be in the middle of a bunch of southern baptists, and this is going to be weird. but i tell you what, it was actually great. sure, there were some who could not get past the shaved head, the earrings, the black cloths - and more - but all in all, i was made to feel very welcomed and very accepted. many people actually like what i had to share about postmodern theology, and ministry in a emerging church.

but the best part of the whole experience was getting to know to groups of people - and let me share a bit about each group:

THE BRIDGE: this group of people is fantastic. aaron norwood, and all the people, were open, loving, kind, welcoming and best of all - postmodern. it was great to talk with people who "get it." anything i wanted, they went out of there way to get me - a pure servant heart - and need i say, "a kicking worship band."

THE GATHERING: this groups was wonderful. they were like sponges, wanting more and more of all God was offering. doug and his team invited me to share with them at their church (word of grace) when i was finished at the confrence. i was made to feel very welcomed and the meeting we had that night was one filled with questions and wonderful insite.

as i look back on the weekend, one thing came to be, that if nothing else would have happened this would have been worth it all - the bridge and the gathering got to know each other, even if just a little - a new relationship can now start to form. some of the people attend both services and not their leaders know each other - and like each other - and the process of building the kingdom can now take hold. i praise God for all he is doing and all he is striving to do, as time moves on.

pax
john

One thing it took for me was to get out of the safety of my comfort zone. It's a long story but two significant things for me were that a) i read the biography of troy perry who founded the metropolitan church (a gay denomination) - i think the book is called 'don't be afraid anymore' and b) i went to a gay church to see what it was like and meet some people. and surprise surprise guess who was there? God! I had and still have theological questions and even differences maybe - that's not what i want to get into discussing - but having crossed a border and looked back things look very different to what they did before making the journey.

it seems that no matter how much we talk and how much we do, interaction with the gay community scares us, enrages us, maybe it should enliven us. i taught a 5-6th grade sunday school class once on sin and tried to make the point to the kids that GOD sees ALL sin as SIN and that some arent worse or less worse than others, yet when i mentioned this one the kid said it was a sin and worse than others. when i talk about it with adults it is clear that many evangelicals see homosexuality as the mother of all sins. why do we always need to categorizes everything? is it the capitalism we worship or is it something more basic in our dna. talked to a man once who runs an international ministry who is very outspoken against the gay community, well one day the leader of the local gay community meet with this man and asked him to stop targeting them and focus on adultery for a while. well the backlash from the christian community to my friend when he began to speak out about adultery was far worse than anything the gay community gave him. arent we just suppose to love others no matter where they are, what they believe, who they love? am i missing something, shouldn't the church be celebrating tammy faye's work instead of questioning it?

Reading the Tammy Faye story, somehow reminded me of the missing minister story I read about a few years ago and then saw on the news magazine 20/20.
Barre Cox, a 33-year-old youth minister at MacArthur Park Church of Christ in San Antonio, vanished on July 12, 1984, leaving behind his wife and 6-month-old daughter. His car was found vandalized on a deserted country road, and his ID was located in a nearby ditch. Local police, the Civil Air Patrol and the Texas Rangers mounted a massive search, but ultimately gave up on the case.

Sixteen years later he's discovered in White Rock Community church (gay community) as the preaching minister. [...more]

tammy faye, you caring, loving, heartful person - so wonderful. i like the articale in charisma online dealing with tammy's ministry to gays - it's wonderful to know that there is actually life after ptl. she is right on the money when she says that the church needs to be a hospital and not a courtroom. while i can't picture anyone giving her a hard time for her calling, i am certian there are people in the church who will condem her for her actions. i remember being told by a member of a church i served as senior pastor that i was not welcomed in her house because i hugged and held the hand of a man with aids - so closed minds are all over the place.

i think what tammy is doing is right on target - she is not condeming those outside the church - instead she is loving them and caring for who they are - let God work in their lives and let God change who they are, on God's time and in God's terms - as understood between God and the person.

pax
john

check out this article that i just read on charisma online it says something about second chances and loving one another......

any thoughts?

peace,
chuck

I just received the following e-mail from a brother whom I repect as much as anyone.

I am really not that impressed with all the new externals for doing church. What I see as needing changing is the institutional mindset, the religiosity, the doctrinal traditions that are not rooted in Scripture. I believe we can have a newness birthed by the Spirit with external forms both new and old. Last Sunday I visited at my son's church in Dallas -- a Bible church with 2,000 members, a loud band, projected songs (of which I only knew one) and a preacher who dressed casually -- in a sanctuary that looked like a warehouse and a "stage" with no pulpit. The previous six Sundays I had been attending the Episcopal Church of St. John the Divine, which had about 1,200 present in a sanctuary with an ornate altar down front, processional and recessional with robed choir, vestmented clergy, cross-bearers, etc., kneeling-benches, going to the altar and kneeling to receive Communion. I totally believe God was present and experienced in both places, but my personal aesthetics and emotional bent were served much more at the Episcopal Church rather than the Bible church. My wife, on the other hand, would vote for the Bible church rather than St. John's if those were her only two options.
What I want to see is Spirit and spirit, Christ-centeredness and Bible-teaching, a loving fellowship and a sense of reaching out with the gospel others. And I see that in both my son's Bible church and at St. John's Episcopal.

If I could add commentary to the above it would be ... "The traditional church continues to meet the needs of many; likewise the post office continues to run even though we've got e-mail, what the emerging church is doing is e-mail, and the established church has the postal routes."
...I can't remember whom to give credit to for that thought, but I like it...what say you?

Hey.. things are getting busy here :)

SOmeone offered pancakes... allow me to accept your offer, and raise you two eggs.

Two years ago when we left the traditional setting we pondered what we wouild do with all the time we freed up. A few weeks later my wife awoke one morning, rolled over and looked me in the eye and said.. how about we host a pancake breakfast downtown for the street crowd?

I returned her gaze and said brightly... "Yep." Two weeks later we were in an underused space downtown flipping cakes on Sunday morning at 10 AM. We started Christmas morning and continued til we lost the use of the space at the end of May.

Part of the glory of the experience was the discovery of a premade pancake mix imported from our neighboring province of Alberta. What is unique about this mix is that it uses both whole wheat and rapid rising yeast. These are simply the best pancakes you could ever experience.

When we discovered how good they were, it inspired us to greater feats. Every week we made real whipping cream and fresh apple sauce to go on the cakes.

You can imagine the response downtown. "er... is this heaven?" LOL

Cost us a fortune to feed a hundred people a week though.. you know, about $10 US ;)

john, I wanna join in the affirmation from the crowd. Many thanks for hosting the PM mail list, and thanks for this list. The gift you give us in your thoughtful and compassionate presence is immeasureable. Thanks for your honesty, unpretentiousness, and your kingdom heart. You've blessed me.

On the topic of "outer courts." The other thing we did just before we left the IC we start a prayer meeting among others feelling the outward pull. It resulted in a public meething we called "Solomon's Porch." That too ended after about six months, though there are signs of rebirth. But our thinking was similar to the outer courts idea, and of course you can find several references to the Porch in the book of Acts.

the way i did it was to use a free service provided by enetation. as far as i remember you just sign up and then follow the instructions which are basically to copy and paste a couple of lines of code into the blog template.

ok all, here's my problem. i would love to add a "comments" section to this blog - after each post a others can comment - but i am having a hard time figuring out how to get it to work for each post - HELP. if anyone knows how to do it, and is willing to help set it up - i would be happy to set you up as an admin and you can help with the code - help, anyone?

pax
john

ps - just email me and let me know you can help - thanks.

dan -

we have a place conneted to this blog where thread can be built and conversations preserved - it is the postmodern_theology egroup on yahoo (the connection is in the "the goals" are to the right). i know of most of those blogs - and i will add a list on the right - if anyone knows of other community blogs - let me know

pax

andrew, i like the idea of moving deeper discussion on this topic (court of the gentiles) to your opensourcetheology site.

the inability to thread on blogs makes ongoing conversation and cycles of building thought rather cumbersome. perhaps these communal blogs that keep popping up should try to move serious threads or comments to a system that can be aggregated and preserved? or not. the other thing is the overlap. the few communal blogs i am a part of have some overlap that could be fruitful:

postmodern_theology.blogspot.com
christianity.blogspot.com
opensourcetheology.net
kingdomspace.com

cheers.d

hi jonny checking in to join the fray. interesting to encounter someone else in london. maybe we should hook up andrew as we're in the same city - be nice to hear some more about what you're up to.... strange it takes a postmodern theology blog initiated on the other side of the atlantic to find out about you though :-)

I appreciate the comments, people. Let me respond to a couple of points. Incidentally, you're welcome to post feedback on the OST site if you really get exercised about it – I don’t want to clog up this blog with my problems.

First, the issue of ‘safety’, which was never really a major part of the argument, needs some clarification. The court of the Gentiles was ‘safe’ in the literal sense that it was as close as the Gentiles could get to the place of God’s dwelling without incurring the death penalty. It seems to me that that represents a rather powerful idea, one which is validated by Jesus’ words about it being a house of prayer for all nations – so perhaps it is safe in the sense that it has theological legitimacy. But my bigger concern is that this space should be safe from overzealous, predatory, proselytizing Christians and from the stifling effect of Christian culture, etc. Apart from that, I would not disagree with what has been said about the ‘unsafeness’ of entering the temple courts, the difficulty of the Christian way, and so on.

Secondly, my feeling is that the primary value of the outer courts analogy is that it stands as a corrective to the prevailing mentality of the church. The point is, Dan, that broadly speaking we are too ‘entrenched in our patterns of religious practice’. Because this is a biblical analogy, because it starts from the church’s perception of itself as a sanctuary within the world, the exclusive dwelling of the Holy Spirit, the picture may help believers find a way out of the closeted, closed-minded environment of the church back into the normal world. A ‘court of the gentiles space’ may not provide anything that ‘the people of the way should not already be doing over a few drinks at the local pub’, or whatever. The problem is that, by and large, they’re not doing it. You’re way ahead of us. It raises an interesting point: arguably the believers needs the court of the Gentiles more than the Gentiles do!

Thirdly, at the moment here in London I’m assuming that this ‘space’ will need to be both structured and unstructured. Yes, I think it should fundamentally be a way of life in the way that Dan has described (‘24/7 every fricking place we go’), but my fear is that if there is not some level of intentionality and organization about it, people will eventually drift back into their churches, back into their customary ways of thinking, and shut the door behind them. We need to learn how to do it. But there are various ways of providing that input and organization – and how we do it will depend a lot on the cultural and religious context in which we’re working. I guess, though, I would like to see the implications of this sort of thinking worked all the way up from the natural everyday interaction of ‘people of the way’ with those around them, through larger community structures (which may look not at all like church), to the more rarefied level of culture, worldview, ideas, etc.

Thanks for listening.

hey all.

fred commented on liking andrew's quip about creating a space between the church and the world. andrew used the metaphor of the court of the gentiles of the second temple in his post.

it may be simpleton dan coming out here, so forgive me if this sounds too easy, but isn't this "space" of which andrew speaks, albeit in its simplest form, merely our lives? the patterns of existence that we choose to enact? this really isn't an organizational movement is it? do we need to run out and create some inbetween organization that facilitates the creation of this space? are we really so inbred as communities that we have no friends outside of our little groups? are we so oddly entrenched in our patterns of religous practice that normal kingdom hospitality is not this very space of which we are speaking? go to a bar with your community! take some of your community to your next office party! what is it that a "court of the gentiles" space would provide that the people of the way should not already be doing over a few drinks at the local pub or on the course or at gameworks or any number of natural cultural events/locales?

i resonate with andrew's idea. in many ways we do this in our community here in c.texas (in fact i am far more concerned about our inner courts than figuring out the outer court). i think that we would frighten most conventional church goers in the very fluid oddity that is the warp and woof of our community life. we may be the exception, but most of us have a lot of friends on the margin of the church and firmly entrenched in other religious communities. the safe space of which andrew speaks is the hospitality we engage in; the sharing of life; the long walk over many years together. the problem i have with a generalized, organizational "safe space" is that it is a space without face. it is like Seeker Sensitive Service 2.0.

maybe i missed the point. help me andrew. what is it about this inbetween space that is unique? i read your post on ost. well structured. your 3rd point sums much of it up i think:

The Court of the Gentiles was not a place of organized, official, programmed activity—other than the selling of sacrificial animals and the changing of money for the purpose of paying the temple tax, of which Jesus appears to have disapproved. We might think of it as essentially a place of presence, being, community, communion, congress, prayer, meditation, a place of proximity to God. The Court of the Gentiles is where the temple overlaps with the world. It is a place where people may safely approach the presence of God, but it could also be regarded, at least in our postmodern context, as a place of escape both from the world and from the sanctuary-a transitional arena, where people move between the secular and the sacred.

my thoughts are simply this: we don't need a place of "presence, being..." we are that place 24/7 every fricking place we go. MY LIFE is where the church "overlaps with the world." your life too. we embody the presence of the other. our gathering everywhere we go opens the "safe space" of which we now write.

cynical dan pipes up: no one will come to a physical space crafted by a church as a "safe place." "the world" does not give a shit. they would rather the church actually dare to do something unsafe for a change. perhaps something that will really change the world? perhaps something that would get a few people crucified? "the world" (man, i hate that phrase) yawns at our little strategic organizational architectures as they walk away. maybe someone is actually changing the world down the street...

no insult intended.
fight me. ;-)

peace-d

not sure the idea of safety sits well with me. were the temple courts really a safe place to come and listen. didnt a person risk being identified with the radical nature of the teaching make it risky to be even seen listening. i understand what is behind the idea of creating a place were people can explore, yet the idea of safety seems contrary to nature of what will be risked, sacrificed and changed if they decide to join in. maybe i am wrong but one of the problems i had to overcome as i decided to follow was the idea thats is all free and easy to do, now i feel at times as if i was lied to in the beginning. maybe we are talking about two different things maybe not. anyway just a thought

I took part in an Alpha course meeting last night (do you know what I'm talking about?) which illustrated very well I think the need to develop some spiritual 'common ground' between believers and non-believers and then learn how to live there. It was one of those situations where the believers wanted to be reassured and the cantankerous non-believer (an Australian who was an adherent of some obscure eastern sect that believed, among other things, that all religions are equally viable routes to God) wanted to know why Christians were so damn smug. We did our best to hold a civilized conversation but it was across a huge gulf. The questions and answers simply weren't connecting. Alpha has a lot going for it: it goes a long way towards providing a natural and neutral environment to explore the meaning of faith, but often it only serves to highlight the fact that neither Christians nor non-Christians know how to behave when they get there.

I'm in dude - postmodern - theology - hashin' it out - I'll try to say something worth reading. Pax et Gratia vobiscum! – this is me

I love Andrew's idea about recreating a "safe" space between the church and the world where believers and non-belivers can interact (in the pattern of the Temple and the court of the Gentile). Can we flesh that idea out?

There was eubonics now there's post'bonics; or PSL (Postmodern as a Second Language). Someone want to define the following and add to the list?
Genonomics--
Double-Ring--
Abductive--
EPICivities--

andrew perriman, and others, have asked the million dollar question, "By the way, how are we supposed to use this blog? Is it meant to be interactive, like a discussion board? Or just a number of personal blogs interwoven?" - ok, that is actually "questions" - your right.

the answer: yes. yes, it is designed to be interactive, like a bb - people bouncing ideas off each other and seeing them grow. yes, it is designed to be a place where personal blogs can be interwoven to build community and connection. think of it as an organic garden - some plant, some water, some watch, some harvest - and all benefit from the bounty. for me, one thing that keeps coming to the surface is the idea of community - we all talk about it, most of us write about it and yet most of us live in our limited physical communities - i believe that the internet is a great place to expand that community base. i love the idea that no matter where i may travel, i could have developed a friendship with someone in that area - that's very cool. i am going to az this next weekend november 11 and 12) to speak at a leadership conf (called "upstairs), and i am going to spend time with aaron norwoord (he's the man to eamil for more info - email address is on the side under "the gang") and others i have met on line - i am excited, not because i get to talk, but because i get to share time with aaron and the people at the bridge.

for me, and i think for most, i would love this community to define what is happening here, and not by words but by actions. while i may have some basic ideas, it is all of us who contribute and give it life. the more voices, the more ideas, the more involved, the easier it will be to define what we - as a community - are looking to accomplish. this is a "breeding ground" for ideas for doing ministry in the emerging church - so if we all work together we can strive to be something more then just "me" and "you" we can actually become "us."

what do you think? what do you see as the possibility of this blog?

pax
john o'keefe

Someone has said that a heresy is any deviation from an accepted standard within a religious group. I can think of at least three distinct areas where deviations within a group and resulting conflicts can take place.

1. A shift in the accepted doctrinal stance
2. A departure from Biblical moral standards
3. and when there’s a departure from normal relational standards.

When Gandhi said, "… if it were only for Christ, I would have gladly become a Christian." He was reacting to the latter of the three. Arguably, (and it's of my opinion) relational heresy is the greatest obstacle to the spread of the Gospel.

Jesus said that you could judge the genuineness of his disciples by their relationships. (John 13:35). Doctrinal purity is necessary; moral purity is essential; but we can have both without relational purity and fail to be His disciple. Paul described this in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 when he speaks of three kinds of churches; the doctrinally correct (verse 1), the spiritually gifted (verse 2), and the socially attuned (verse 3). Without relational purity, Paul says, we’re nothing.

Through the years we've all experienced random acts of love and kindness within our Christian communities. But the present emerging church, it appears, is modeling a standard of relational purity that has the potential of demonstrating the transforming nature of the gospel unlike the previous generations. This is key if there is going to be a penetration of postmodern America. For the Gospel message is best proclaimed out of a community of love.

Hello folks, and thank you, John, for the invitation. Not much to blog about at the moment but I will be checking in, and weighing in, from time to time.

John, I also want to say thanks for the invitation to join this blog. I'm not especially good at keeping up with these things, but I'll do my best. I'm in London working with Christian Associates on a church plant, also scratching our heads wondering how to establish an 'open community of faith for the emerging culture'. Churning out the slick phrases is easy, making it happen is something else! I'd like to hear more about what Abigail's up to in Sheffield.

What intrigues me at the moment is the possibility of mapping out an area between the church and world, that is neither church nor world, where believers and non-believers can interact in a spiritually and relationally significant way. I have tried to develop this idea elsewhere after the pattern of Herod's temple, which had a large outer courtyard (the Court of the Gentiles) where Jews and Gentiles could mix. I would like to know whether a model like this might not offer a useful way to reconceptualize being church in a postmodern environment. Anyway, that's where I'm coming from - or is it where I'm going? No matter.

By the way, how are we supposed to use this blog? Is it meant to be interactive, like a discussion board? Or just a number of personal blogs interwoven?

Hi, just wanted to say thanks for the invite to join this blog. My name is Abigail (a.k.a. Cedarlily), and I'm in Sheffield, UK. This blog is pretty timely for me: there's currently a lot going on at my church (St Thomas', Crookes), and there's a gang of us scratching our heads as to how exactly we're going to do church. Things are shifting, we're desperate for things to be more organic and less constrained by meetings, but we're still in the early stages. So to be able to hear what you guys are up to, and maybe ask some (hopefully not too ignorant) questions, is really cool.
I'm also really interested in the postmodern theology side of things, as I've just started a MA in Critical Theory & Cultural Studies, and I'm finding it hard to know how to appraise all these theories in the light of the Kingdom. So if this is a space where you're grappling with various -isms and philosophies under God's perspective, that'll really help my head from exploding!
Anyhow, will step back into the sidelines now, just wanted to say hi.
Toodle pip
Abigail

WOOOO. I made it! Hello. This is Tall Skinny Kiwi . What are we going to talk about?

i praise God for all he is doing here, through all who are here - saturday night this was a prayer, sunday night the blog was opened and now, monday night, God has blessed us with a group of 17 people who will contribute to the thought and development of this thing we call "postmodern theology" - and more will join in the comming days. we have a powerful opportunity to do something wonderful - something life changing - something God centered. i am excited at the emails i have been recieving from people, and i know this will be a great place to meet and write - if you know of others who would like to join in, have them email me -

"Holy God, this is yours and we are yours. bless what we do, and let it be what you are doing. we desire this to start with you. give us the words we need, and the hearts we desire, to share, to grow and to love in grace and in peace - amen."

pax - john o'keefe

wow, this is great... another blog to check out and write on...i enjoy it...

just before we started to go to the church we attend now, my wife and i had decided that we were not going to settle into another rut of obligation...we didn't want to feel we had to be there in fear of judgement if we missed...our problem lies in having to get four children up, dressed, ready and then pretend to be super spiritual when we arive in the parking lot..

some of our better arguments have been on the way to church (go figure).

so, we knew that we wanted something different, something where we felt we belonged without feeling the pressure to measure up to unrealistic expectations. we needed change...

change tends to make me run the other way. i didn't want to start over again. i didn't want to be caught up in some poilitics driven group...even though i wanted something different, i didn't want change...my therapist(Jesus) and i are working on that little quirk..we went from church to church, yet never felt welcome..sure there were the smiles and hand shakes, but the feeling wasn't there..there was no genuineness in the actions shown...we had the feeling that if we never came back that no one would would ask where that odd couple with the 4 kid were..

i remember talking with a friend of mine about a church he had started a couple of years ago..the only reason we never went before was we thought that having a church service at 1pm was too rebelious.(that coming from the token punk christian 13'r family).
we went and fell in love with the very first encounter..we didn't have the argument on the way to church. we didn,t have to hurry to get there because we had to fight with one of our children to get dressed (in fact they dress themselves) not only that but we also found a community, not just a group of prople speaking some unknown dialect of christianese, but a community of like minded souls looking for a relationship with God and others...

i know , i know good for me, huh..

we don't have all the answers, but we are willing to admit that..we don't always practice what we preach, but we are striving to do so(we all need a starting point)...we do love each other and others....not in words but in action..

so for $19.95 i can send you my book,"how to be super spiritual in an spiritually deprived community" ...it will bless ya...

ok, I AM KIDDING!!! i don't know what came over me...please forgive me...

i say all this to agree that, yes we need to "shift" we need to change our perspective...we need to look at what we do and ask why we do it...like right now, i am looking at why i ramble on like this...it's genetic! mom did it, dad did it(who said opposites attract).i do it and my kids do it..

my wife does it also, but will deny it.

a side note: after church we all head downstairs to have a meal...every week..

that is where the real ministry is..

pancakes anyone?

God bless,
chuck

rhythm is a mysterious thing for me lately, meaning its been hard to find, i think there is a certain rhythm to life and i have wondered at times about music and how certain songs just calm me or pump me up and if its the rhythms inherent in the music. not sure if that makes any sense but if it does what does that say about our theology, shold it have certain rhythm that make it accesiblle to people and if your rhythms are different will you fail to connect to it. its liek worship music, contemporary, traditional etc maybe its just about rhythm. maybe rhythm is something we have missed for too long in our desire to quantify, instead of trying to prove a GOD of order why not just enjoy a GOD of rhythms

This weekend I got thinking about rhythm in my life..

Maybe it was the bicycle ride in the cold weather that did it; pumping those pedals up and down.. up and down.. round and round we go..

I realized that in that rhythm there was also movement. I was making progress toward Blockbuster, looking for an obscure video that they apparently had hidden somewhere.

It seems like we all forge our own rhythms; and those rhythms give us a sense that all is well in the world.

For example, in my family Saturday morning is pancakes and a family brunch. We rarely have a breakfast on this morning, and we almost always sit down together for a meal. It's more reliable than almost any other meal in the week.

It could be that I make great pancakes. Ok.. I KNOW I make great pancakes. But it's more than great pancakes that brings us together.

It's a commitment to being a family; to knowing one another; to sharing a relaxed meal and catching up on events of the past week that we may not have had time to share.

It strikes me that we have some rhythms that are individual, and some that are communal.

Over time rhythms can shift. I have a hard time changing beats, but there is real value in making those shifts.

Changing the usual rhythms also shifts perspective. When we step outside the normal routine, we see things in a new light.

Initially we may only notice our discomfort and pine for the old ways. I'm loathe to think about leaving our Saturday brunch behind, for example. But there may come a time when we have to make that shift.

Two years ago we abandoned a rhythm that had given shape to our lives for all our married years.. 16 of them. We quit attending a Sunday service.

Whew.. that was a confusing time. We didn't know if we were coming or going, up or down, black or white, wrong or right. We just knew we needed a change.

Eventually our questions birthed some answers, and those answers birthed new questions. We looked at our faith in a new way, and we looked at the church from a new place. We even began to read the bible in new ways.

At the same time, we became aware that we were upheld by older and more foundation rhythms.. internal rhythms of prayer and reflection, community and dialogue. We became aware of rhythms so deep they were like unheard music.. music older than time itself. We became aware of being upheld in the hands of Love.

Eventually we find a center that anchors our soul, and we can relax and let new cadences emerge. It becomes an exciting process of discovery and of wonder.

Meantime, we enjoy the pancakes and the sharing around our Saturday brunch.

new - checking if all is right in blogger land