The Complex Christ | Signs of Emergence

"Money Having No Impact on Youth Crime" | "MPs Reject Need For Father in IVF"

Two pieces followed one-another on the radio this morning:

MPs voted last night to remove the clause that required IVF clinics to consider the need for a child to have a father and a mother - essentially opening the way for women to have the treatment without any father-figure being present in the prospective child's life.

And a recent report has found that, despite record investment, youth crime has continued to rise. "The government's record on youth crime and tackling the multiple needs of children caught up in the youth justice system is less impressive than many would have expected."

And no one suggested there might be a connection.
I am depressed.

Technorati: Crime | IVF

So What's Worse...?

Your one-time minister saying some outrageous things about 9/11,
or being married to a man who had his cigar smoked in the Oval Office?

I don't get it - surely Bill should be the persona non grata on the campaign trail?

Technorati: Clinton | Obama

Clinton Defaults to Conflict: This is Washington, not Hollywood

"One of the things that makes Mrs Clinton so psychologically fascinating is her tendency to portray everthing in terms of conflict and confrontation. And one of the characteristics that makes her so interesting politically is that she is a much better candidate when things are going badly than when they are going well." From BBC News.

This is precisely why I think you Americans should not vote for Clinton. When she says in an interview that she would completely destroy Iran if they attacked Israel, her rhetoric is getting dangerous. It is highly unwise politics to threaten another nation in order to win votes in your own.

The world does not need another US President who defaults to conflict. It's fine in Hollywood: the victim finds their metal and fights back. It's just not good enough if the White House is going to be a force for good.

"America deserves a President who doesn't quit." Perhaps Hillary, but it also needs one who knows when stopping fighting is for the greater good.

Go vote Obama.

New MA at Kings

Kings College have a new MA which they wondered if I'd be happy to flag up, which I am.

It's in 'Politics, Theology and Faith-Based Organisations', and you can read more about it in the doc attached below.

Should British Kids Salute the Flag? | Identity | Symbols

A recent government report has proposed that teenagers should make an oath of allegiance to 'Queen and Country', in order to give them a 'sense of belonging.'

I'm aware that something similar exists in the US education system, though the only reason I'm aware of it is by it's bitter-sweet use in movies to suggest some apple-pie nostalgia that's going to be blown up in our faces.

I actually think it would be a very bad idea, for a number of reasons. As a teacher, knowing both the sorts of people who work in schools and the sorts of kids who attend them, I think it would be totally impossible to implement with a straight face.

However, leaving the possibility of people not taking it seriously aside, the question remains about what it would actually mean. Would we be insisting the teenagers 'take the pledge'? What would happen to those that refused? Would immigrants or temporary residents have to take the pledge too? Are we seriously suggesting that teenagers might think twice before acting in an anti-social manner, before buying cheap alcohol and marauding around high streets, because of it?

In these sort of public liturgies, the words themselves are merely symbolic, and are meant to be a public statement of some already deeply held truth. The same is true in marriage and baptism. So aren't we asking our children to actually lie if the are forced to say the words without the belief? And if so, is this not simply going to lead to deeper problems later?

Children in the UK are suffering an identity crisis. They are insecure, adrift and alone on the ocean of free-market consumerism, battered by peer pressure, told not to hold on to beliefs or foster relationships or risk being sunk by commitment.

An oath to Queen and Country is an insult to them. How about instead a commitment, a public statement by government, reciprocated by a public commitment by parents, to do better by our children, to love them and support them, to adopt laws that would support families rather than atomising them in the drive to make people work?

Once again, it's the children who are taking the rap. And, as I think the parable of the sower suggests, we shouldn't expect so much of our young seedlings.

Technorati: Allegiance | Britishness | Government | Oath | Parents | Teenagers

What Are The 'Grand Challenges' for Theology for the 21st Century?

Wired reported a couple of days ago on the conclusions of Google co-founder Larry Page's working group on improving life on earth, and the list of '14 Grand Engineering Challenges of the 21st Century'. They included things like making solar energy affordable, reverse-engineering the brain and providing energy from fusion. Energy, quality of life, quantity of life, in summary.

This got me thinking: what might a list of the grand theological challenges of the next 100 years look like? Well, I'm no Larry Page, but I mailed out a bunch of people in my address book, texted and called a few others, and had lunch with one, asking them, very simply, what they thought should be on the list.

Actually, not that simply. Because I also asked if they thought whether such a list could even be created. Page's list is more simple: science - our knowledge of our physical world - does progress. We have better materials and technologies than we used to. But has our understanding of God actually moved forward? Or do people simply dig ever-deeper into their rutted positions?

So what did people say? You can find the unexpurgated version here, but, edited down a little:

Brian Maclaren (writer) Grappling with Jesus' good news of the kingdom of God, realizing how it differs from the popular Western gospel of "how to go to heaven after you die and be happy and successful until then.

Nic Hughes (designer) I wish that someone, some group, something, somewhere would develop a theological project that captured the imagination. All the good ideas are elsewhere. Cross-discipline theological labs please?

Vanessa Elston (teacher) In very basic terms how do we move from a reformation/protestant/enlightenment emphasis on the salvation of the individual to one of communal participation in salvation.

So This Is What The World Wants: One Dimensional Men? | Bartlett and Williams

As the Archbishop heads for Synod this afternoon to defend himself and, according to some exaggerated reports, save his job, I've been mulling over exactly why he has been under such pressure for his comments on Sharia Law. Even the shallowest examination of him as a man would reveal a hugely intelligent thinker and a thoroughly, deeply spiritual life. Why would such a man want the UK to come under Sharia Law and start 'stoning women', as the tabloids would have it?

His words have been twisted out of all recognition of course. And yet pundits line up to judge that he has been foolish - of course his words have been twisted. Everyone's are. Which is why people say nothing. And thus runs the plot tension of a whole stack of West Wing episodes: Bartlett knows what should be said, but is advised he can't. Then at the last minute a way is found that he can, and all is good. In other words, we know this stuff should be said, and feel good when it is on TV, so what is stopping people talking intelligently in the public domain?

I tried to touch on this in the book. I think Marcuse's analysis in One Dimensional Man is really good. He writes that there are basically three ways that the dominant powers push people down - flatten them into nicely manageable one-dimensional beings. All three ways are lies, and they run like this:

The first lie: "Things are too big and complicated for you to be able to change them. Things have gone too far to change anyway."

The second lie: "If you do try to change things, you'll be risking all you've got - your own status and position and financial security."

The third lie: "And if you still persist in taking these big topics on, and are prepared to pay the cost, people will just laugh at you."

These are the main reasons why people simply don't do anything: it'll cost me, it's too big, people will laugh. And it's been interesting to note how these three lies have been spun out to attack the Archbishop. 'You don't understand enough about Sharia Law / Islam / the legal system to comment'. 'You're foolish for speaking out - don't you know you'll be putting your job at risk?' 'What a Burkha' etc.

But what is more interesting to note are the groups of people spinning them. As a general rule it's been legal pundits, the broadsheet media and more right-leaning politicians who've spun the first, the church and more left-leaning politicians who've spun the second, and the tabloid media who've spun the third.

What have all these people got in common? Something precious to lose. And this is the nub of the whole furore: in a country under tension from immigration, from European integration, people feel their identities are under threat. And what is perceived as the last bastion of Englishness? Our own legal system with its wigs and theatrics. The political right and the jurists are afraid of losing this precious control over how to tell people what is right and wrong, the religious right are afraid of Britain straying further away from hard-line evangelicalism, the political left are still frightened they won't be taken seriously and will lose their hold on power, and the tabloid media poke fun and stir up a storm to sell papers.

None of them are really interested in what Dr Williams had to say - which was a quite brilliant and brave talk on culture, belonging and identity. Not because they have no interest in it, but precisely because they've invested too much interest in keeping the status quo. Like Bartlett, I hope Rowan stays true to his message, and doesn't stop forcing us to see the multiplicity of our dimensions.

Technorati: Archbishop | Canterbury | Marcuse | Media | One Dimensional Man | Rowan Williams | Sharia

Mission as Entrepreneurial Activity?

Ben has an excellent and honest post here outlining his doubts about the 'missional entrepreneur' that is in popular parlance.

I've posted a comment outlining some thoughts on how the role of the artist might help us imagine this in a new way.

Technorati: Ben Edson | Mission | Entrepreneur

More Papal Bull... "If It's Not Catholic, It's Not A Proper Church"

The Times reports today that "The Vatican has described the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as “not proper Churches” in a document issued with the full authority of the Pope."

"The Orthodox church suffers from a wound because it does not recognise the primacy of the Pope. The wound is even more profound in Protestant denominations, and it is difficult to see how the title of ‘Church’ could possibly be attributed to them.”

Great work. Really nice. It's difficult to see how the title of 'Christian' could possibly be attributed...

Technorati: Pope | Ratzinger | Catholic | Orthodox | Protestant | Division

Is The Emerging Church Hopelessly Utopian? [3]

Hopelessly Utopian [1]

Hopelessly Utopian [2]

Thanks for the comments on the above posts. In response to Cheryl and Becky, yes, of course every church movement has felt 'no one else has ever felt this way before'. And it's actually important to recognise that, as Gray does in Black Mass, suggesting that 'the utopian instinct in modern politics, which has itself presented itself in secular and often explicitly anti-religious form, must be understood as a kind of sublimated religious impulse.' Gray, as I've written, goes on to say that we need to move beyond any grand visions, any utopian ideals, but the point I think he misses is within his own words: utopian dreams are part of what it is to be human. They are part of the divine ache within each of us.

So, if the Emerging Church is hopelessly utopian, that's partly because it's hopelessly human, and hopelessly divine. We couldn't be any other way.

Trouble is, these grand visions often lead to states/power structures enforcing their own purity codes on others, and, in church parallels, people getting hurt and religious warfare/bigotry breaking out. Which is why Jay Winter argues for us to go after 'minor utopias', "a modest strand of visionary thought that sketch out a world very different from the one we live in, but from which not all social conflict or all oppression has been eliminated."

Because, as I've written in the book, I believe the Emerging Church needs to be a 'dirty' church, having a 'minor utopian' vision will hopefully allow us to avoid some of the pitfalls of sterile religion, and avoid becoming a fully denominated, bounded group.

So what might this look like?

I'm really glad Nic brought up the concept of TAZs in the comments on the first post. The article describes these Temporary Autonomous Zones as "like an uprising which does not engage directly with the State, a guerilla operation which liberates an area (of land, of time, of imagination) and then dissolves itself to re-form elsewhere/elsewhen, before the State can crush it."

In other words, as the article continues, TAZ is, in the ancient sense, 'festive': "it envisions an intensification of everyday life, or as the Surrealists might have said, life's penetration by the Marvelous [...] It lies at the intersection of many forces, like some pagan power-spot at the junction of mysterious ley-lines, visible to the adept in seemingly unrelated bits of terrain, landscape, flows of air, water, animals. [...] The patterns of force which bring the TAZ into being have something in common with those chaotic "Strange Attractors" which exist, so to speak, between the dimensions."

I don't think it's too far to push the TAZ concept to say that Jesus was involved in TAZing. The incarnation event was 'life's penetration by the Marvelous', which existed in festival for a while before the authorities radared it and tried to crush it. Jesus' miracles can be seen in the same way: foretastes of another world, TAZs breaking through, complex, strange, without fixed dimensions.

I believe, as John L pushed towards in his comments, that the Emerging Church will not be hopelessly utopian if it follows Jesus' TAZ vision. Never institutionalising, never forming solidly, always festive, always uprising, always liberating, always slipping away, Trickster-style before the authorities can crush it. But, as John rightly points out, this will take a totally different sort of leadership, and membership. One that resists trying to permanently inhabit the spaces that should only be TAZs. Permanent spaces have to be state-sanctioned; they are not penetrated by the Marvelous.

Of course, 'utopia' means 'no place'. If we are dreaming of 'winning', and turning everyone on to our way of thinking, we are trying to create permanent, pure places that will divide and oppress. If, on the other hand, we are about more modest, local visions, about creating festive TAZs, then these temporal, radical 'non places' are, by that definition, utopian.

So, is the Emerging Church hopelessly utopian? In many senses, I hope so. The utopian instinct is part of our divine humanity for things to change - and thank God for hopelessly utopian figures like William Wilberforce - but we must temper this desire with our also very human instinct to grab power. If we can find that middle way then I, for one, am in.

Technorati: Black Mass | Festival | Jay Winter | John Gray | TAZ

UK Floods Are God's Attempt to Wash Away Homosexuals?

You may not have picked up on this Stateside - unless you've been trying to follow coverage of Wimbledon - but it's been raining here in the UK. A lot. Every day for weeks.

There have been floods, and some people have died. In one tragic incident a man got his foot stuck in a drain and, despite a 4 hour attempt to free him, the waters rose and he drowned. A school boy was swept away by a river. Neither of them were gay.

The Bishop of Carlisle, Graham Dow, commented on Sunday that the floods were "a direct consequence of mankind’s lack of respect for each other, for the planet and for God."

This much I would actually agree with. Proper respect for one another and the environment would have meant our weather patterns were not altered and these freak weather events would not be happening with such frequency or ferocity.

What I find disappointing is Dow's linking of this to judgement. He goes on:

“This is a strong and definite judgment because the world has been arrogant in going its own way. We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation, as well as environmental damage. We are in serious moral trouble because every type of lifestyle is now regarded as legitimate. In the Bible, institutional power is referred to as ’the beast’, which sets itself up to control people and their morals. Our government has been playing the role of God in saying that people are free to act as they want. The sexual orientation regulations (which give greater rights to gays) are part of a general scene of permissiveness. We are in a situation where we are liable for God’s judgment, which is intended to call us to repentance."

I'm afraid I simply don't buy the line that God sends disasters which kill indiscriminately in order to force particular people to change their behaviour. It's an angry, violent image of God that I just don't believe holds up with the pattern we see Christ living out.

Plus it's one that puts people right off faith - see blog reaction here and here. "Thank God for nutters" "Ha ha ha I tell you they really are clutching at straws to try and make people believe in their ridiculous heirarchal one male god story telling Xtian bullshit" The Independent even compares him with a suicide bomber.

Nice work Graham. Really helped out here.

Technorati: Anglican | Bishop | Dow | Floods | Gay | Homosexuality | Judgement | UK

Arbuckle: Refounding | Common Roots of All Religions | Why Do We Always Screw It Up?

Thanks to Mark for a great post around Gerald Arbuckles "From Chaos to Mission - Refounding Religious Life Formation".

He includes this diagram, which prodded me to think not only about how renewal occurs within religion, but more generally about how religions are founded.

Mark notes: "Arbuckle talks about three stages; 1) Initial unease, the separation stage. One could talk about a sense of disconnection and a growing awareness of the dissonance between the action and the foundation story of the community/group. 2) The liminal stage or reflection stage "that moment between old patterns of reality and new ways of looking at reality". In this stage Arbucle says there is a point of choice; do we seek to retreat, to wallow in nostalgia, to cling to past securities, do we try to stand still and maintain the status quo, to be paralysed by the chaos or do we "move forward with risk and hope in an uncertain world"? 3) Re-aggregation, or re-entry. A new application of the vision and story of the community."

I wish I'd read it before - it resonates well with the Advent/Incarnation/Emergence path that I identified in the book. More generally, If we think about Abraham, and his unease at life in Ur, and Jesus and his unease at the way Judaism had gone, or about Mohammed, and his dissatisfaction at the way the Makkan's were living, or about Guru Nanak, coming back out of the river after 3 days, claiming 'There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim'... We could go on.

All of these people had some sort of 'epiphany' and saw beyond the local claims of a bounded worship to something unified. All of them radically went through Arbuckle's stages as outlined above, and all of them suffered for it.

And in each case, those who have come after them claiming to lead and carry on their movement have solidified that boundary, have 'kept order' once that place has been found, and made it difficult for renewal to continue.

Why? Why do we always screw it up? Why do we always have to tie things down and bind them? And how long before this happens to the Emerging Church?

Technorati: Abraham | Arbuckle | Hinduism | Islam | Judaism | Mohammed | Nanak | Sikhism

Full Time Christian Leadership?

On a slightly behind the scenes UK Emerging Church discussion forum, the issue of leadership/ordination/vocation has reared its ugly head.

I've posted on this fairly extensively before (post here / Self-Organizing Leadership series here), and I've a fuller article coming out on the subject in Relevant Leader shortly but wanted to just re-iterate some key thoughts:

1. I'm a very strong believer in the 'ministry of all believers' model. Some would claim it to be idealistic in a modern world of busy professionals. I think precisely the opposite. Why? Because...

2. Full-time paid leaders very much risk creating a situation where the busy congregation with their 'real' jobs out there say "Hey, we pay you, so we expect you to lead us in return"... In other words, we too easily abdicate our spiritual journeys to someone else.

3. So what is required? Firstly, I strongly believe many full-time leaders ought to step down to part-time. This will ease the huge resourcing pressures people feel to pay them. And secondly,

4. 'Followers' need to step up and stop being so passive.

5. I think Jesus' critique of the Temple system left us with a radical model where 'we all have access to God' and where no Christian needs another to mediate God to them. That's the curtain you can hear ripping.

6. But, ironically, I think it's Paul's letters where we have drawn most of our model, and in Paul we have a 'Pharisee of Pharisees' who would naturally have found it very difficult to shake off that style of leadership. I don't think he ever quite did, and we've been left worrying over the interpretation of his various hangovers ever since.

Technorati: Paul | Relevant

Freedom of Information ¦ Sodom and Gomorrah ¦ Power and Accountability

'Thought for the Day' this morning was an excellent piece  by Martin Palmer.

MP's have recently voted to exclude themselves from their own Freedom of Information legislation - a move that has angered many. It seems the law-makers want everyone else to be accountable save themselves.

Palmer made an interesting connection with Abraham's bartering with God over Sodom and Gomorrah. As he whittled God down to 'I'll not destroy the city if there are 10 just people there', Abraham inquires of God "Will the Judge of all the earth do right?"

Palmer saw this as an absolute benchmark: justice must be done justly, and those with power must be clearly seen to be acting justly. "If this was true of God, how much more true must it be of our human leaders."

Absolutely. This "pernicious little amendment" must be stamped out if trust and accountability are to be preserved in our legislature.

[Grid::Blog::Via Crucis 2007] It's Not the Winning That Matters, It's... | The End of Strategy [5]

Just got back this afternoon from darkest Wales, where there was no internet, no mobile coverage, and virtually no radio reception either. Just a wonderful beach, and an old clap-board cottage. Great medicine.

Nice to come back to some good debate though. I just wanted to write a final post in the series (may be) to respond to some comments and clarify a few things.

Firstly, of course Jonny is right: 'no strategy' is a strategy of some sort. But we also mustn't be bound by these apparent linguistic traps. They are not as binding as our tongues would have us believe...

I had to choose a word, and strategy is the one I picked. What I meant by it was the competitive spirit, the desire to have a 'winning formula'. As I've said, I think this is something that Paul never quite exorcises, and this has then infected the Evangelical church, which has always seemed to me to exalt Paul's letters above all else. This has perhaps had two effects:

1. Evangelicalism has always been competitive. It wants to win. It hates losing. And thus white men have grasped hold of it and led it with more and more programmes.
2. Many, many people have been very turned off this. The Paul that is preached seems so different from the Jesus they thought they were following. It is perhaps not too much to say that people leave Evangelicalism for the emerging movement to get away from Paul and get back to Christ.

In Peter, on the other hand, we see an emphasis on love. And it is this that I would want to see hallmark the emerging movement:

1. An emphasis on quality of relationships, not quantities and numbers
2. An emphasis on distributed leadership that always shuns power and seeks to collaborate
3. A move away from credentials.
4. An emphasis on taking part, not winning.

Strategy is always about the self. It is about celebrity. And I would want to suggest that no Emerging Church project should ever need a publicist, ever need a media event.

Malcolm's comment really resonated with me. The institutional church wants to be able to strategise this new movement. It needs to. It needs the money. And ever since Constantine's patronage, it been enmeshed in finance. Abjectly poor people funding the building of ever-more elaborate cathedrals for power-hungry bishops... Same old.

This is not what we see in the incarnation. What we see there is the viral, powerless, bottom-up Christianity that I tried to describe in the book. And it begins today on Good Friday, with the crucifixion of the Temple-bound, profiteering God, the end-game of the Babel-onian plot of human power against divine love... But love will not be played with. She appears to wither, and then spring again, eternal.

The powerful will play with our faith. But Easter reminds us that God slipped their trap to shower love for free. No rules. That's grace.

Peace.

Technorati: Christ | Constantine | Politics | Power | Strategy | Good Friday | Evangelical | Paul | Via Crucis

The Trouble with Black Boys | Where is Stage 4 Pentecostalism?

Tragically, last night a 3rd boy was shot dead in South London, the latest victim of a possibly-connected spate of black on black youth killings. The police have responded by saying they are going to have armed patrols on the streets now. Like that's going to work. Two of the boys were shot in their beds.

This morning I was reading the page proofs for the US release of the book, and came across this end-note to a part of the book discussing Fowler's stages of faith:

I am perhaps stepping beyond my remit, but in my work teaching in an inner city comprehensive I have seen many, many examples of students from families from strongly ‘Stage 3’ Pentecostal churches who, in their latter years at school, develop real problems with discipline. I wonder if this is because they have so few role models at the latter stages of faith, and once they begin to appreciate the complexities of their situation in the city, have few resources for helping them cope with it and so end up kicking hard against the system. It is for others to comment in a more informed way on these casual observations, but perhaps absence of any Stage 4+ expressions of faith in Pentecostalism is doing young people in troubled communities a great disservice.

Perhaps I am speaking out of turn, perhaps there is a 'Stage 4' / doubting path within the black churches?If there is, I've never seen it. All the literature you see - and masses of it - is all about 'Holy Power Apostolic Life Church International Healing Power Ministry Prophecy with Big Pastor Somebody and his Shiny Suits.

And I think this is a very deep problem. In my, admittedly small, experience working with teenagers, there needs to be a path from infancy (dependency on the mother) into adulthood (walking alongside the father). Adolescence is the difficult in-between stage, the stage of doubt. The stage where all that Stage 3 certainty is debunked.

It is here that all systems are challenged and all authorities are questioned. And I think ideally this tricky place is best negotiated with one hand still on mother, and one hand reaching out to father. Not only that, but the other social structures that these becoming-adults are part of also need to walk this stony ground with them.

If I am right about the lack of any clear path beyond Stage 3 in the black churches, then, combined with the horrific statistics about absenteeism among black fathers, these young men are being let down on two out of three counts. Believe me, I've met the mothers, and they are desperate. Their boys - who tend to be angelic up to age 11/12 - suddenly leave them, and they have no way of helping them.

Other cultural factors are at work here too. It seems that music is letting these boys down too. If you are middle-class and white, then you have a whole catalogue of depressing, soul-searching music to act as your soundtrack for this journey. The Smiths, The Cure, Radiohead... all these are bands who are playing music for that journey beyond Stage 3. But, tragically, there is almost no angst-ridden hiphop or garage. And again, in the absence of other support structures, this leaves these boys with almost no resources to negotiate this journey into adulthood.

So what do they do? They do what anyone else would: help each other. That's what a gang is: a self-help group when no one else is around to do it.

The solution? Obviously this is a massive problem that is very deep-seated. This Sunday is 'Amazing Grace' day, and thousands of churches will sing out heartily to raise awareness of modern-day slavery. Quite rightly, but old-world slavery still has it's fingers of shame and worthlessness round so many necks. What will not work - and what is just political posturing to pander to us middle-class whites - is arming police. The solution must lie within. The black churches must find some way of holding on to young men beyond 12 years old and resource them with wise guides-men to listen to their doubts, affirm their challenges to authority, and lead them out of the maternal into adulthood.

At least, that's what one white, middle-class, Anglican teacher thinks.

Rest in Peace, Billy Cox.

[PS - great representation from the 'From Boyhood to Manhood Foundation' on Channel 4 news tonight. They need our support.

Technorati: Amazing Grace | Billy Cox | London | Pentecostalism | Shooting

Should Mission be about Funding? | Small is Beautiful

Over at TallSkinnyKiwi Andrew has posted some thoughts on How To Ask Foundations For Money.

This isn't the first time Andrew's posts have made me feel a little uncomfortable. And it won't be the last. And I'm glad about that. He's a guy who keeps me itching. But, I have to say, the post did flag some questions for me about some of the foundations of the emerging movement.

Andrew notes:

This kind of thing really wears me out but its a necessary part of mission work and getting the job done. My previous mode of working was to ignore the Foundations and do everything without money as much as I could. But Donors also want to play a part in the Great Commission. Especially the more exciting stuff that I have been involved in this past decade -the mission of God in the global emerging culture - and I have a responsibility to make space in the playground for them also.

It seems trite these days to go back to asking what Jesus would have done, but I think it's a serious point. The gospels suggest that the merry band shared a common purse, and that they probably welcomed gifts. But did they go out fundraising? I wonder if it's a point about gift theory. If you put together a Christmas present funding proposal to your parents about how exactly they are going to get that great gift you so want, and what a boon it would be to your life, is that present still 'gift'? I think something of the gift is destroyed by the proposal.

Vaux was a very small project. I remember going to see the Bishop of London at the House of Lords and him sitting down saying 'So what do you want to see me for? Do you need some money?' His jaw almost hit the floor when we said we didn't. We accepted gifts, sure. But we never went out fundraising. Why? Because it seemed right to live within our means.

I love Schumacher's principle of Small is Beautiful and sometimes wonder if much of the industrial mission machine has moved away from this. The subtitle of his work is 'A Study of Economics As If People Mattered', and it is of course the relational that is central to all we do. How much funding should we need for that?

If these donors want to 'get in' on the global emerging culture, why not just give freely? Oh - because they want to make sure their money is being used wisely. How can they do that? As Andrew hints, they need to get relational. But much more so than they might already be doing. Forget the funding forms and spin culture.

I recently went to speak at a large, modern, beautiful church and was speaking to one of the congregation about the building. 'It's horrendous!' they moaned. 'It's costing us so much to keep up'. So sell it. Live within your means. Accept gifts. And if that means scaling back some big projects, fine. The Church™ will survive.

Technorati Tags: Consumption, Mission

The 3rd Economy: Gift, Market and Plunder [1] | Christian Leadership and the Leisure Class

As some of you may know, I've been working on a novel for the past few months, playing with themes, among others, of the links between identity and consumption. One of the books I've picked up to feed the furnace has been Thorstein Veblen's 1899 satire Conspicuous Consumption (an excerpt from his longer work The Theory of the Leisure Class, available as part of the lovely Penguin 'Great Ideas' series), and I'm glad I did, as it's nudged me to re-thinking some of the ideas on gift within The Complex Christ. These are unrefined thoughts, but I wanted to set out a few posts on what I've mulled over.

Firstly, an outline of Veblen's ideas.

His thesis begins with an examination of what he calls the 'leisure class' which 'is found in its best development at the higher stages of the barbarian culture; as, for instance, in feudal Europe or Japan. This leisure class is basically what we might now call the aristocracy, but his labeling is quite deliberate and, I think, rather contemporary. What obviously separates them - and Veblen gets us to think about this in more ancient cultures, rather than just in terms of stately homes etc. - is their employment:

'The upper (leisure) classes are by custom exempt from industrial occupations, and are reserved for certain employments to which a certain degree of honour attaches. Chief among the honourable employments in any feudal community is warfare; and priestly service is commonly second to warfare.'

Actually, Veblen continues to list four main lines of activity for the leisure class: government, warfare, religious observance and sports. And, as World Cup fever truly grips (perhaps for only 4 more hours as England face Ecuador at 1600) it is interesting to note our continued fascination with the leisure class - we might call them celebrities now I suppose - who play for £120000 a week.

I want to explore the links Veblen identifies between warfare, consumption and leisure in another post. What interests me briefly here is whether Christian leadership is still seen as part of the 'leisure class' -  a get out from real work, an escape of some sort.

Perhaps I'll do no more than present the question; what I would like to add is this fascinating quote from a letter a great friend and critic of Thomas Merton wrote to him. It talks of 'the monastic', but made me think on the insularity of some full-time Christian work:

"The point of being a Christian in the city is to try to humanize modern technology and modern society, and you [Merton] are trying to escape this. Let us admit that at the outset I am radically out of sympathy with the monastic project. […] All monasticism rests on a mistaken confusion of creation with this world, and so they suppose that by withdrawing in some symbolic fashion from creation they are leaving the world. But creation is precisely not the world, but its antithesis, and so what they do is essentially the opposite of salvation. They withdraw from creation into the desert taking ‘this world’ with them and then they dwell apart from creation, but in a newly erected kingdom of the prince of this world. You have not withdrawn from this world into heaven, you have withdrawn from creation into hell."

Rosemary Ruether writing to Merton. In Merton: A Biography, Monica Furlong, p 287

Technorati Tags: Books, Consumption, Leisure, Merton, Ministry, Ordination, Religion, Veblen, Work

Leadership Day This Saturday

Looking forward to spending this Saturday discussing leadership issues at the first Blah... learning day, with Anna Draper, Jonny Baker and Paul Roberts. I'll be sharing some thoughts first published here.

Book [ here ]

Technorati Tags: Emerging Church, Ministry, Theology, Westminster

Bi-Vocational Leadership | Si's 'Life More Ordinary'

Excellent post from Si Johnston here.

"So in closing, I think our new terrain for mission requires a serious look at the training grounds for leaders, the growing of new streamlined infrastructures for supporting less full-time leaders which in turn must be coupled with a pro-active move towards ‘bi-vocational leadership’ for more people."

As I mentioned to him, shame the post is well over 300 words. Few bloggers appear to want to read that much text ;-)

Technorati Tags: Part-time Work, Ministry, Work

A Polite Message to Condoleezza Rice About Democracy

Condoleezza is currently enjoying a tour of the North of the UK, hosted by Jack Straw, UK Foreign Secretary, and they have faced anti-war demonstrators at every turn. Condi's response:

"The protesters make my point. Democracy is the only system that allows people to be heard, and heard peacefully."

It's not just her. This has been the default response to any protest over the war: 'well at least they have the freedom to protest.' And I am totally sick of it. Why? Because it is an utterly cynical disenfranchisement of the political process.

Yes people are freely allowed to protest. But the logical conclusion of this position appears to be that Governments are given a free hand to do what the hell they like, as long as the little people are given some space to have their pathetic little protests about it. And this is precisely what so many people feel about this Labour government's responses to Iraq, to education, to health, to terror legislation.

The end result is not a love-in about how great democracy is, it is people becoming so fed up with the impotence of the 'democratic' system we have - a system that shouts loudly and proudly about the voice they give to dissent, but then utterly ignore it - that they simply give up on democracy. And take matters into their own hands.

Condi is wrong. These protests do not prove her point. Unless, of course, her point is that people disenfranchised from the democratic protest and rendered impotent by it, who see their views and opinions ignored by a powerful elite in the pockets of the rich, are very likely to find potency in terrorism and direct action. Yes: finally an admission that Iraq led directly to the London July bombings.

So, the polite message? Go home Rice. We don't want or need your lectures on democracy. You may have talents and skills, but you're hardly the best ambassador on this one.

Technorati Tags: Condoleezza Rice, Democracy, Iraq War, Islam, London Bombings, Terrorism

Emerging Leadership Day | Churchless Faith Follow-up Book

Two quick links:

Firstly, I am looking forward to sharing some thoughts on leadership in emerging organizations at the blah... learning day.

I'll be joined by Maggi Dawn, who will reflect on trying to re-imagine leadership in the ancient structures of the Anglican church and Ana Draper of L8R, who has recently completed her MSc in psychoanalysis, guiding us in some thoughts about leadership from a psychoanalytical/theological perspective.

It's on 29th April at Moot Towers, St. Matthew's  London SW1P 2BU

To find out more and to book a place visit blah leadership learning day.

Secondly I'm really excited to hear that the follow-up to Alan Jamieson's groundbreaking book 'A Churchless Faith' is set for release very soon.

“This follow-up to A Churchless Faith is both fascinating and disquieting – fascinating because it shows that people rarely stand still in their journey of faith, whether or not they attend church. And disquieting because it underscores once again just how irrelevant or unhelpful the institutional church has become for so many reflective and intelligent believers today. This book provides further valuable insights into the growing phenomenon of church leavers, whose protest the church ignores at its own peril” - So says Dr Chris Marshall (St. John’s Senior Lecturer in Christian Theology, Victoria University, Wellington)

Stay posted by visiting Prodigal Kiwis often - the excellent blog by Alan Jamieson and Paul Fromont. Good people. Fine thinkers.

Technorati Tags: London, Theology

President vs Archbishop | The End of Patriarchal Leadership?

A couple of recent posts I've read to link together:

In an excellent post here Will Samson explores the failings of the religious right in US politics.

"Beyond the public moral failures, however I believe that 2006 will be the beginning of significant political failures for the religious right. I believe we will begin to see an undoing of the last 30 years of political organization by this segment of the church."

And Jordan Cooper put me on to this post by Andrew Sullivan, which outlines the root belief of this 'political organization by this segment of the church':

"The key element that binds Christianism with Bush Republicanism is fealty to patriarchal leadership. That's the institutional structure of the churches that are now the Republican base; and it's only natural that the fundamentalist psyche, which is rooted in obedience and reverence for the inerrant pastor, should be transferred to the presidency. That's why I think Bush's ratings won't go much below 25 percent; because 25 percent is about the proportion of the electorate that is fundamentalist and supports Bush for religious rather than political reasons."

Finally, I noted a link on Sanctus 1's blog to this interview with Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury) in The Guardian in which he not only describes himself as 'comic vicar to the nation', but also replies to a question on whether an Archbishop should provide moral leadership by saying:

Technorati Tags: Anglicanism, Bush, Church, Democracy, Politics, Power, Theology

In Defence of Alt.Worship | We Haven't Even Begun to 'Emerge' Yet

I was disappointed to read on Jonny's blog that Graham Cray wanted to down-play the significance of alt.worship and emerging churches in the future of the church. And I'm glad Jonny attempted to correct him.

Just a couple of observations.

According to Jonny's notes, Graham Cray said:

"Mission vision not church angst. Emerging churches good but only part of picture. Alt worship etc part of picture but not future... Postmodern is passe - paradigm shift has taken place"

I agree with some of this. Alt.worship is not the future. But it has been a very vital catalyst. And catalysts rarely get the credit they are due when the history is told. They are the invisible spaces that allow reactants time to create newness. Without them the process of change would take much much longer. However, this energy they bring to speed up the process should not be interpreted as 'angst'. It is disingenuous to suggest it.

I would also want to take Graham to task on his view that 'Emerging Churches are good but only part of the picture.' If he is right that the postmodern is passé and a paradigm shift has already taken place, then the church that emerges from this shift is, by definition, all there is going to be. The big problem is that people are, I think, far too easy with the definition they are using.

The chapter I wrote on Advent in the book - about waiting for the old to pass and the new to come - is pertinent I think. And I don't think people in the institutions have shown enough patience to wait yet. They think the transition has already happened. That we are already 'emerging.' I don't think we are even close. Unless there is a proper 'wait' then what emerges will still be too much infected with the old forms. And I think this is happening now. People are tacking together programmes of café-style stuff and a few nightlights and thinking they are 'emerging.'

I'm afraid I'm sceptical. I just don't think that's going to work. We need a far deeper change to occur. One that reaches wide and deep. And given that this was led by the same old white men, I'm afraid I don't think that can possibly have happened yet.

Technorati Tags: Rebirth

A Party-less Politic? | The Emerging Church Shows the Way

Just been listening to a very interesting report on the BBC about The Power Commission's report into British democracy which has been published today. The parallels with Alan Jamieson's work on Churchless Faith were astounding and, as I mentioned in my book, the church really does have an amazing opportunity to model a mode of change and being to the rest of society, rather than copying it in twenty years time.

The Power Commission - funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Foundation (JR was a fabulous Quaker-Philanthropist-Chocolatier) - initially asked MPs why they thought voter numbers were down. 'Apathy' they said.

Rather like the ministers Alan asked, they reasons they gave for people not participating were totally wrong, and laid the blame at the wrong door. The Commission found very little political apathy. On the contrary, people are up and involved in politics all the time. It's just that Westminster don't call that 'politics', because it's not the 'Politics' of Downing Street in the corridors of power.

Their first recommendation then is that Westminster needs to realize that the solution is not to 'get people more interested in politics' - ie drag people to Westminster to see all the great stuff they do (cf. get more bums on seats in church) - rather, Westminster needs to get back out there and get involved in the issues people are involved in locally.

You simply cannot - whether in church or political parties - expect people to sustain membership of organizations they feel totally alienated from. Unless there is genuine opportunity for meaningful participation, why should people hang around? I have often argued with MPs - especially over the Iraq War - that they are in dereliction of their duties if they vote against the will of their constituents. Our democratic system is currently topsy-turvy. We vote for parties who set out an agenda for action. What the system originally intended was for people to elect a representative to send to Westminster to speak for them. In other words, the motivation for action came from the people. We have lost this original intention, and are poorer for it.

The solutions the Power Commission recommends? Unsurprisingly if you've read The Complex Christ, a move from the top-down to the bottom-up, greater low-level interaction, and feedback loops. . More power to the local, and mechanisms whereby dirt can be dished and people listened to and action taken. Interestingly enough, they suggest that more MPs should blog, but beyond that, they think that there ought to be a system whereby the public can force Parliament to debate an issue if a certain number of people get together and sign for it. Furthermore, they recommend changes that would allow people to stand for election more easily without being swamped by the big parties.

One commentator was an academic who commented that 40 years ago we were debated the role television might have in politics (see previous post). It clearly had a profound one, and he argues that e-Democracy will have similarly profound effect not only on our politics, but on the way we see ourselves as citizens too.

Clearly, the Emerging Church movement has made big steps forward in this area already. e-Spirituality and the emergent, underground blossoming interest in the spiritual has had a profound effect not only on our theology, but on the way we see ourselves connected as Christians too. Spirituality and theology are no longer the holed up in Ivory towers to which only the sacred few have access; what we must do is help politics move the same way. It is, of course, a movement that is irresistible because it's the way of co-operation, the way of inter-relation, the way of the divine. And it is, of course, a movement that will be always resisted by the powerful.

Technorati Tags: Democracy, e-Democracy, London, Politics, Power, Spirituality, Westminster

Carpenter from Nazareth Needs Joiners

Contender for worst Christian sign ever.

In case you've been wondering, it's DIY week. Or half term - never can remember what it's really called these days. Certainly not holiday... Will need a relaxing week's teaching after all this. Carpentry, wallpapering, re-wiring, insulating... The list goes on. And on.

I remember hearing one David Pawson speak - yup, the guy who wrote 'Leadership is Male' (thankfully 'Limited Availability') - who said that he was very happy for people to come and stay with him and his wife, but only if they were prepared to do a day's work. He backed it up with some proof-text, and claimed he'd deny you your dinner if you hadn't done enough work. A dinner his wife would doubtless have to have cooked. The same wife who he wouldn't let pull the switch on an electric chair, though he'd do it himself.

One of those bizarre Christian talks you never forget.
Think I've earned my pie tonight anyway.

Technorati Tags: DIY, Emerging Church, Work

100 Reasons You Should Be At This Event

1. Si Johnston promises me it's going to be good. And, even though he's an Anfield boy, I'll trust him on this. Click his link for further details.

2. Soliton. Worth it.

3. The Craic.

4.-100. Make up for yourself to justify the trip. And then Carbon Neutrailise it. GoLowImpact™

Contact Si via his blog (link above) to give him an idea of numbers.

Friday 3rd March. Social.
Saturday 4th March. Sessions 10am - 5:30pm. Meal 1pm
Venue: Kelly's. Portrush, Northern Ireland
Cost: Gift. (Reason 101)

See you there.

Is It Time for Positive Discrimination at Emerging Church Events?

I'm thinking aloud here, rather than criticizing a particular event. We're all guilty, and all need to change. But following a link on another blog to this EC conference and its 3 white male key speakers made me wonder: is it about time we tried positive discrimination?

For those unfamiliar with the idea, it's something the Labour and Tory parties have both tried in an attempt to achieve a representative balance of MPs. ie more women, more ethnic minorities.

It's something I've talked to a lot of people about at Greenbelt at their 'brainstorming' days for new speakers etc, and the various arguments always come up: people should be there on merit, there just aren't the women/ethnic minorities out there who want to speak, men are just more forthright and enjoy the form more...

Trouble is, we're left with an unchanging white male situation. And I just don't think that's good enough. The arguments pro positive discrimination seem strong: if you have such a policy for a while then the people will be raised up and discovered - which has certainly proved the case in parliament - and there has been such tacit discrimination pro-men for such a long time that proper action needs to be taken to redress this.

So... should people be deliberately, voluntarily making sure that for each big EC event there is a proper, representative balance? After all... wasn't this meant to be about new forms of Church?

Technorati Tags: Emerging Church, Justice, Discrimination