John...i think we would do well to substitute the word "church" in your previous definition of theology.....it works, as well:
church: simple, relevant, timeless, transparent, honest, flexible, scriptural, collective......

a good theology:

what does it take to create a "good theology?" i believe many churches have "bad theology" - some have very bad theologyies - but that's another post. here is what i have been working on centering on the development of a postmodern theology -

it needs to be:

simple: complexity coems from our individual desire to please everyone, and in turn pleasing no one.
relevant and timeless: to be today while knowing yesterday
transparent and honest: no hidden agendas, no hidden thoughts
flexible: not ridget or fixed
scriptural: based on a solid reading of the teachings of christ - a "christology" if you will.
collective: breed and based in community.

more to follow - as i think about them.

pax

Laurie

I read your post and it brought me to tears.. Not exactly a solution, but I want you to know that the heart of the Lord is broken for you and for so many because we have strayed so far from the most basic definition of Christian living.. "See how they love one another!"

I hear your heart to be in real community.. a people on a journey, and committed to one another and to being the church together.. a community of life, light and love and in that light a witness to the darkness around them.

The modern church is really all but incapable of such a thing. And so there are many of us.. you would probably be surprised just how many... beginning to build something new.

It is about making a new start.. and not merely new paint for the old thing. No one puts new wine into old skins...

So my encouragement to you.. and my prayer for you.. is to find just a few others who are trying to be the church for one another.. and then in that growing strength to begin to reach out with that love. One hand reaching in.. and one hand reaching out.

It's hard to make that new beginning. Why? Because we have all died trying to renew the old thing.. and now we have less faith and less strength for a new venture.

And even rebuilding means some simple structures.. and we have no faith in structures.

So it takes a kind of leap of faith into newness. ANd maybe that leap is truly a faith leap... a divine spark and a gift from above. And, as you point out.. you can't make that leap alone. The leap is made relationally not only individually. So the divine gift is first a gift of community.

So Lord of the church, connect Laurie with the few who are going to new places.

Yes, this is good stuff, and it's good to be thinking through all the various ways we connect with our communities. There is not just one way, and we need to flex to the various needs presented to each group of people God puts in our path, whether electronically (for some), or merely those in proximity to each of us. The methods and approach will vary. That is what we all need to understand, and learn to follow the leading of the Spirit in our own lives.

I grew up in the kind of church where, if someone noticed a need/problem, a committee was formed, a program was developed in hopes to do something to meet that need. I grew up with that kind of behavior modeled to me. That may not be so bad, and some people may have been reached in that way. But now I am struggling with re-learning behaviors and habit patterns. Subconsciously I find that I wait for someone else to do the things I need to take responsibility for on my own. Now I see that in many situations I need to just step out and do things...without depending on some organization to do it with me or for me!

Len, I appreciate your approach and desire to invite people in...this is just the kind of thing I want to be doing. But I struggle. It's difficult to do on my own. I feel isolated and alone and without support. I feel that the Christian community around me is not "there" for me to lend a hand. I don't know how to go about following through with the vision I have. This may just be me--my struggle and difficulty may all be in my head--but I find I want to blame my inability to act on some deficiency in the local church.

So...the challenge for local churches today may be to model this behavior of caring and supporting one another--in prayer and in action--on more of a personal level (without feeling we need to develop programs and have committees!). I have, for some reason, begun to reach out online to get some of that support. And there is some there...through prayer and ideas and so on. But how do I get my local Christian community to be *there* for me, when I feel they aren't? I NEED TO BE THERE FOR THEM!

Andrew,

as I reread your post this morning I see a lot more there. Good stuff. Our networks are diverse and multilayer. I guess I would restate the challenge like this:
"How do we sustain and influence this diverse and multiplayer network, reconnecting Christian and non-Christian elements, while maintaining a real and incarnational presense in embodied communities of faith?"

My wife and I have to date taken the approach of simply inviting people into our home on Sundays. Then during the week we connect with individuals who need our time and attention primarily, and then as we have time and energy with others. And we encourage those connections randomly within the community also.. though to date we still are the center of that initiative. THis needs to change.. but because our group is mostly needy and only about 30% Christian, it's a challenge to build that kind of caring.

Andrew wrote
"Maybe, then, the real problem is not the distance of the pastor from the church but the distance of the church from the world."

Interesting rephrase.. but I don't think the two can be separated.

I agree that we participate in more than one community. Anyone who is on the net much and is serious about their relationships will soon be connected to a broader network of relationships.

But we all have limited time and energy. Our most significant opportunities to share the gospel are where people can see us living the gospel; and that witness was never meant to be an individual one.. it was meant to be corporate. So, while its important and significant for my family to connect personally with our physical neighbors, its even more important that we witness in our relationships to a different way of life, different priorities, and real caring for one another.

That means we need a community base. It's very difficult to build a community base of witness if we are spread through a 15 mile radius.

My point is incarnation.. a physical, historical and fleshly manifestation of the truth. Lacking this we only have a modern propositional apologetic and reasonable sounding excuses about truth and witness. The church must be an embodied presence, and faith is participation in truth embodied in a faithful community.

So, I am not arguing that we abandon our multiple or electronic communities. I am arguing for a center of embodied presence. If we fail in that one, the others wont' be worth much.

We associate postmodernism with a high level of diversity, fragmentation and complexity. I suppose a pastor will feel strongly connected to one particular expression of Christian community. But surely for most people now the experience of community is far from straightforward. As a family we have the community of people in our flats, our neighbours, we are part of a loose network of friends in the area, most of them parents of our children's friends, we belong to a conventional church fellowship, we are part of a church-planting core group which I hope will develop into a rather extensive cross-border community, we also feel connected to a genuinely global community of friends that we have met in various parts of the world and try to keep in touch with.

For me the challenge at the moment is how do we sustain and influence this diversified, multilayered network, and in particular how do we reconnect the Christian components with the non-Christian components. But I think it has a bearing on the preceding discussions in that it suggests that a much more integrated, interlinked, networked approach is needed - at least, this is where 'postmodernism' is leading us. Perhaps in the long run we will have to break apart the close-knit, consolidated traditional church communities so that people can make new connections. Maybe, then, the real problem is not the distance of the pastor from the church but the distance of the church from the world.

I posted some links (I think) to some radical islamic stuff.. radically critical of fundamentalist islam.

I agree that if we look only at the extremes we have a distorted view. I recently blogged on this that we have to maintain dialogue with those in the middle and not demonize the entire group.

Interesting debate re: living in the community where we are connected and serve. I think we have made it workable to not do so, but I think there are many things we do much less well when we don't live in close proximity.

Let's face it.. we just don't take the physical reality of teh community we serve as seriously when we drive 10, 20 or 30 miles to our home. I assume that we have to know and love the physical community we live in.. get involved in issues critical to its life, and not just the inner llife of the church but the physical life of the community where that church is rooted.

But if there are riots or death in the streets.. and we can drive 30 miles away and forget about it..

aaron from phx here for my not-even-monthly check in....

jeff raises good questions -- i think they are applicable in many places. here in phx, it seems, that the metroplex is so connected with freeways, etc., that 25 miles is like next door. i live about 20 miles from where my church meets on Sundays, but we meet for community groups all over the city; mine is about 5 miles from my house. weekly activities are regularly all over the city. while most of our church live on/near ASU campus, we have many driving from as much as a 50 mile radius.....

distance does create some challenges, but it also offers more opportunity to serve people in a wider area. i guess it depends on your motivation for living "away" from your church (although, if church is a verb, not a noun, then i live in the same house with my church, the same neighborhood, and the same city).....whatever.

i got to thinking the other day after speaking with a man who was a pasotr in a town about 65 miles outside of las vegas. he was "the pastor" of the church, and lived in las vegas. he said that he would travel to the town on weekends, but he like living in vegas. here's the problem i am having with all this - i think if you are pastoring a church you need to live in the community the church is located - for me, it's a given. when we were living in chicago we live across the street from "the lasalle street church" (a "large" church located on lasalle between "moody church" and "moody bible school"). the church was all right, but the pastoral staff did not live in the area - many lived in the suburbs a good hour or two away. how can one minister to a people, if you don't live with the people? if we were to send a person to mexico, we would expect them to live in the town they were ministering too - why do we have a different expectation with our pastors here? i will admit i am still processing all this, and i would love to know what others think - as a postmodern people (pastors) should we live with the people we minister too? your ideas would be greatly welcomed.

jon, i agree - the links cause pain. when we search for what is bad in different faiths, we need to hold a looking class and see ourselves. we look at the islamic faith and see only the far right, yet we in usamerica (within the christian faith) have the far right (those who claim christianity is for the "white race" - as if there is one - only) to the far left (those who just talk about what needs to be done, and do nothing). when we look at extremes to define the whole, we miss the point. we should never see the extreme of anything as the all of anything.

if we look at christianity in usamerican, as an example, we see major problems with the faith that could cause those outside to not want to come in - we speak a good game, but do very little to solve any problems - i know, some will say that over the past many good works have been formed to help with the poor, the hungry, the hurting and the homeless - really? many of the "chriatian hospitials" are some richest for profit organization around (most are not even owned byn the christian organization they are named for). we have given billions to "fight hunger, homlessness and cloth the needy" - yet all we did was create huge business' that care more about keeping the structure going then solving the problem. before we look at the "evils" of those who have a different tradition then we do, we truly need to look into our hearts and clean our own house.

pax

i checked out the links len posted and found them all a little disturbing, i think you can take any religion and turn it to promote your own agenda, christianity is not imune to this, look at the history of the church. there will always be radical elements in every group religious or not. what concerns me is our ability (usamericans) to turn the thing back at the "evil doers" capitalism and consumption do more harm each day than any suicide bomber of religious fanatic can ever do.

len i would answer your question about islam being a cloak for the antichrist with a resonding no!

How postmodern are you? [...find out here]

And more on the subject of Islam, a friend sent me these links..

***
I don't know what to think anymore... is Islam a cloak for the antichrist?

http://www.islamexposed.com/Pictures/face-of-Islam.htm

http://main.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/prologue.htm

http://www.geocities.com/enough_net/right-islam

On the pacifist issue and the current American policy... someone sent me a newsletter looking at ISLAM. I'll quote from it then comment..
...
Islam As A Philosophy by Bryan Hupperts

"Nazism was as much a spiritual movement as it was a political philosophy, yet no one has a problem labeling these goose-stepping, brown shirted goons as ‘bad guys.’ And what did the Nazis believe? They believed in world domination, in the eradication of a specific group of people, specifically the Jews, that it was either "Submission to their way of thinking," .. or death!

"Submission. Oh yeah, that’s what the word Islam means. Anyway, we quote the horrible historical statistic that the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews, while forgetting that they also murdered 4 million Gentiles (mostly Christians). While cloaked under a false spiritual guise misusing the name "Christian," they were in fact a spiritual and political philosophy devoted to world domination.

"Quit thinking in terms of tolerance for a moment. Thank God our national leaders during World War II weren’t concerned with being tolerant or we would all be speaking German, Russian, or Japanese! Forget Islam as one of the world’s ‘great religions’, and think of it as a political and spiritual philosophy. Now, if Islam really means ‘peace,’ explain this:

"Muslims are bent on destroying Israel and her allies (meaning they want to exterminate the Jews). So were the Nazis. Muslims also believe that their beliefs need to be exported to the whole world and all people brought under their domination. The Nazis didn’t invade Poland and France for the water! Muslims also believe it is perfectly acceptable to kill non-believers, or to lie to further the cause of ‘jihad’ (holy war). Further, they applaud when their own children are sacrificed ‘in the flames’ of suicide bombings. Come to think of it, so did the Nazis."

There is much about Bryan's argument that is convincing, and of course I haven't included the entire letter here, but there is also much about his position that bothers me.

First, much of his argument applies equally well to fundamentalist Christians. Let's face it, there are hundreds of thousands of American Christians who are quite ready to go to war in the name of Jesus. How are these so different from the Islamic fundamentalists?

Second, his argument paints all Muslims as equally guilty by association with their religion. This simply isn't accurate. It may be politically useful to paint all Muslims as Nazis or as warmongers filled with hate, but it simply is not the reality. When we divide the world into black and white we inevitably leave out a lot of data that doesn't fit our paradigm.

Let's take it from the other side. Currently Bin Laden paints all those in the west as hateful, irreligious, immoral warmongers. Is this accurate? Of course not. There are many who pray for peace, and who do not see imperialism as a good thing. Bin Laden sees America as a Christian nation. Is this accurate? Of course not. Canada and America are secular states, Canada more so.

In the end, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the separation of church and state are worth preserving. Muslim's have a right to their beliefs and demonizing them as a group doesn't move toward dialogue or understanding.

I read Bin Laden's letter at the Observer. There is much distortion in it. But what surprised me were the points where I sympathized.

when people see you, do they see christ? i'm not talking about some "metophor" - i'm talking in your face, 100%, in all you do christ. do they see christ in you? for those of us who walk in faith we need to remember that it is not what we "say" that defines postmodern christianity, it is what we "do" that defines it. we have to remember, no matter how much we would like it another way, we are not the only ones defining christianity - theose outside the church are also defining postmodern christianity also. our goal should be to find common ground, to here the voices of those who are not "insiders" and seek there wisdom. on a "modern-evangelical" plane, this is impossible, because all we do is defined by us, not others. but on a postmodern post-evangelical view, this is not only very possible - it should be a requirement. if we are truly striving to define who we are, we need to see how others see us.

i remember once sitting in a group discussion with a group of people i had just met, and we were all sharing first impressions. the idea was that we first write down how we saw ourselves - and to as honest as we could. then, we would share with each other - and the requirement was that we could not get mad at what others said - and let me tell you, i was one pissed puppy. but then i realized, the way i saw myself was not the way others saw me - i realized that my defination of "john o'keefe" was not the defination of "john o'keefe" others had. this little experiement opened my eyes and allowed me to change so that who i was, was what others saw -

i think andrew perriman at "open source theology" is doing some every cool stuff, that excites me - and gets me thinking about possibilities. i have to admit that over the past i did not read his site, for many reasons (mostly i got burned out on reading and needed a break) but i am glad i found it again - and i would suggest all find it again. it is quikly becoming a "first read" for me in my day. as i start to develop a deeper undersing of what he is writing - i love it.

now, i will admit that i may not have the whole "open source theology" down, but the idea of having an open source is exciting - sharing the "codes" of our faith so others can help build it - too cool for words.

pax

some people are having a hard time posting. if you are one of those people, please email me (gink@ginkworld.net) and let me know -

pax

we get tons of site addition requests at ginkworld.net - and i thought this domain name was cool - www.noisychildrenwelcome.com - hope umc in ca, i think this speaks volumes to the heart of the church - i know we were talking about what to do with kids in church, and i have not read the whole site - but i felt this was just too good to pass-up.

pax

i am pro-peace and very anti-war - in fact, friends accuse me of being one of those "peace radical" - as we get closer to what seems to be a war here in the usamerica - i was wondering what others thought of this little mess we are in - justified (i am in the process of writing an article against the "justified-war" doctrine) war? justified violance? justified revenge? well, just wondering

pax

there's an old cletic tradition of (what my grandfather use to call) "walking to no place." the idea was simply to go out for a walk and go where the road leads - of if you want, where off the road leads. it was a time you could spend with yourself and God - a way of getting closer to both. sometimes he would disappear for hours. when asked where he went, he would just smile and say "that's between me and God." (my grandmother always said he was at the pub) when he came home he was happier, and seemed at peace in a deep and meaningful way - i wounder if the idea of a labyrinth is the same? it's worth a walk, it's worth the time to get to know yourself, and who knows, you could get to know God a bit better -

pax

Child slaves making our chocolate?

And you thought they only made running shoes...

www.radicalthought.org