risk and adaptation
Edward de Bono, no theologian, but definitely the leading specialist in creative learning processes, remarks that if there is a known and successful cure for an illness, patients generally prefer the doctor to use the known cure rather than seek to design a better one. Yet there may be much better cures to be found. He rightly asks how are we ever to find a better cure if at each critical moment we always opt for the traditional treatment? Think about this in relation to our usual ways of solving our problems. Do we not constantly default to previous patterns and ways of tackling issues of theology, spirituality, and church? To quote another Bono, this time from the band U2; seems like we are “…stuck in a moment and (we) can’t get out of it.” It is little wonder that our pre-commitments to the Christendom mode of church and thinking restricts us to past successes and gives us no real solutions for the future. We always seem to default to its preconceived answers. Genuine learning and development is at best a risky process but without journey and risk there can be no progress.
Comments
28 Responses to “risk and adaptation”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
we are explorers
- Alan Hirsch said: Shades of U2's song "I... shapevine v.2
- Penney Winiarski said: Great resource Alan....
- Andrew said: Have been into the...
- Frank Viola said: Looks great, Alan. Lance... fundamentalism: a true expression of Christianity or not?
- Janet said: Well, at the risk of...
- Matt Stone said: I think its more than...
- Andrew said: Thanks Matt for that...
- Andrew said: A reason I find US...
- Matt Stone said: Andrew, see http://en...
- Matt Stone said: See http://en.wikipedia...
The more conservative evangelical end of the church in particular has this bizarre “anti imagination” streak… as if imagination / fantasy is some kind of work of the devil, rather than a core feature of people created in the image of the Creator.
I taught for a number of years at a prep - 12 Christian school, and (before my time) a nutty group of parents went through the school library to toss out all books that had witches in them, fearing it would entice the children into witchcraft. No concept that these might have a function even in fairy tales as a personification of evil… no, Grimm’s fairy tales were out, etc. etc. The staff revolted when there were plans to burn C.S. Lewis’s the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe!
The failure to encourage imagination in children doesn’t serve us well in developing leaders with a capacity to respond creatively to new challenges.
The other problem is that when we are under pressure and/or afraid we naturally and unthinkingly tend to go to our default position… that which we have inherited… that which feels most natural to us.
In part, there are obvious interests at stake. But I think also, in part, deep down, it’s the conscience.
It’s so powerful — we want to justify all that we’re already doing, and have done, even when it’s not necessarily a “sin” issue. It’s an all-too-natural reaction.
I’m constantly amazed, too, by the way we engage new ideas, and, without refuting their salience or worthiness, try to shoe-horn them into the model we’re already using. Idea “engaged”, status quo preserved.
I have to remind myself that this is how *I* often learn: I’m challenged, I defend myself and how I already do things and then…I walk away thinking about it. Weeks later, I’m actually bouncing the heretofore threatening idea off others, beginning to accept it.
I have to remind myself of that, because…dang, it’s frustrating…
The moralists also apply pressure in the labelling of traditional ways as “orthodoxy, legitimate, godly…” creative thinking is not welcomed it is “heresy, illegitimate, ungodly…” I cannot help recalling that a young Jewish Teacher was once described in very similar terms, by the orthodox religious leaders of His day.
As a great Celtic genius (not Bono!) once noted;
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
An unreasonable Celtic Son
Without journey and risk there can be no progress…
I wonder whether our predominently middle-class context is more likely to breed complacency rather than risk-taking. Afterall, most churches seem to be able to pay the bills okay. Perhaps not until people begin to perceive their situation as one of survival will they take a journey of risk. I think I read somewhere that major missional movements tend to occur on the margins, would this be why?
Alan would you see part of your own role as someone who helps people to become aware of their reality, and therefore interested in risk-taking (knowing that people will always be interested in survival)?
Brant you have ten books in you my friend. You MUST write. Actually all the people who engage here are marvelously eloquent. Its a joy.
And CS, I didn’t know George Bernard Shaw was a celt. One learns things everyday. But one good quote deserves another. Cesar Pavese once said that to know the world, one must construct it.
Jesse…
perhaps we are in need of revising our institutional approach to more resemble an ecclesiastical Robin Hood - rob the rich churches and give to the poor, when we can’t pay our bills perhaps we’ll take nmore risks!
Alan… It’s good to learn something new everyday… Cesar Pavese is new to me… a cosmopolitan influence to dismantle my Celtic parochialism…
Though my commitment to parochial, yet somehow also eclectic, trivia persists sufficiently to advise (with marvelous eloquence)some new knowledge for this fine day. Not only was Bernard Shaw born a Celt, he was also a motorbike rider and enthusiast. He is rumoured to have given Lawrence of Arabia a Brough Superior SS100, the very same model that Lawrence was riding when he had the fatal accident that ended his life. In the pursuit of anonymity, Lawrence used numerous pseudonyms in his lifetime, including “T.E. Shaw” in honour of his friendship with Bernard Shaw…
Who knows when a question might arise in the pursuit of life (or trivia) that may be answered by just such information!
A parochial yet eclectic Celtic Son!
Alan,
The church suffers terribly from a lack of missional imagination. For instance, we cannot imagine a church without a building, and buildings are a huge expense, so we fail to plant churches. Church structure is the most difficult thing to change, and there is a woeful lack of imagination there! We can add missional activities on top of our current churches–though even on this there is resistance–but try reorganizing your church’s existing meeting times and places around mission, and there is a fierce wall of resistance.
Thomas Kuhn, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, discussing the nature of paradigm shifts. He concludes that people will continue to believe old paradigms, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the old paradigm is flawed. Eventually the old paradigm reaches a state of crisis.
Note the following quotes from Wikipedia on paradigm shifts:
“When enough significant anomalies have accrued against a current paradigm, the scientific discipline is thrown into a state of crisis, according to Kuhn. During this crisis, new ideas, perhaps ones previously discarded, are tried. Eventually a new paradigm is formed, which gains its own new followers, and an intellectual “battle” takes place between the followers of the new paradigm and the hold-outs of the old paradigm.”
Kuhn said, using a quote from Max Planck: “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
I work with churches to bring about missional renewal, and I believe some progress can be made in this area. However, it is likely that only the new generations of Christians who understand the post-Christendom and postmodern shift that has taken place in society will be able to truly become missional. The old way of thinking will not likely go away–even in the face of massive evidence that the old models of church are not working–but will have to “die off,”
What do you think of Kuhn’s theory being applied to the missional movement?
Ahhh Celtic Son, I not only enjoy you, I think I am beginning to understand you.
Jesse: sorry for missing your comment, we must have been on at the same time. I see part of my role as disturbing people’s sense of equilibrium and this initiating a learning journey. But also saying to them that risk is neccesary to live a good wholesome, adventuresome life. The church is sooooo risk-averse, and in this exhibits a real lack of faith and courage–because faith is risk and courage. I make it a personal discipline to take risks every year. Some of them have been utter failures! Some have oopened new vistas of learning and new experiences of God.
Another quote (and CS is going to claim him as a Celt I am sure) Elton Trueblood said that “Faith. is not merely intellectual assent to a set of propositions but the supreme gamble in which we stake our lives upon a conviction: It is closer to courage than it is to mere belief”
James, that is seriously disturbing but I sense that what you are saying is basically true. Its very sad isn’t it?
As far as where we are at with the ‘missional imagination’ of church. I believe that somewhere in the last few years we have passed the ‘tipping point’ where there is significnat adoption by the key thinkers of our day, so that I believe it is now only a matter time before the paradigm is fully adopted. I know this sounds a tad triumphalistic, but I sense its truth with all my intuition. It really doesn’t matter what the old school thinks anymore. They can kick against the goads all they like. Its now ievitable. Hallelujah!
I was glad to read James’s comment about missional imagination. I think its one of ‘the’ key areas of renewal. I’ve been frustrated in the past, when seeing young people who were completely unchurched come to faith, then see them start to ‘do’ church in ways that are almost exactly like fairly trad versions of church. The reason is mostly coz that’s how they saw others doing church. They didn’t know any other way and assumed that what they saw was how to do it. And once they’d started that way, it seemed a lost cause trying to get them to reimagine any other significant change to it.
Another case is our current one, where an established congregation is being forced out of its building because the building is no longer financially viable (its rotten and falling to pieces). So the congregation is having to become mission-oriented with literally nothing to go with into the new context of a UK High Street. There are all sorts of problems with the approach I know, but in the context of this thread, they are having the hardest time trying to reimagine what the new form of church may take, and how to struggle with the journey of discovery.
At this feast of the Baptism of Jesus, pray that God baptises the imaginations of his people so that they see with the eyes of the Spirit what their worshipping lives in Christ can become.
Alan, first, thanks for your kind comments. I’m praying for discipline to write.
Second, I’m enjoying all these comments, but particularly your “triumphalistic” statement. (I’ve voiced it, but wondered if anyone else thought it, or maybe I was crazy.)
I advise anyone who’s unsettled at the rising numbers of people doing church in a fresh way: Buckle up.
Hi Alan…
my parochial dysfunction is not quite so severe yet that I claim ALL good things as Celtic… it’s just at the stage where I tend to claim all Celtic things as good…
Related to this discussion, the Celtic imagination has contributed many great revolutions to the scientific structure of our world - penicillin, antiseptic, anastaethic, telephones, television, sealed roads and of course golf and whisky! What inspires me is that each of these inventors created significant change in history, effectively they ushered in a new paradigm.
I agree with James Nored about the difficulty of developing missional imagination in the church. I thought that the only way to imagine a church without a building would be to do it! We planted a church in a community 7 years ago, which has developed a personality of it’s own… not at all like I expected. Even then, I have discovered, people - including those initially “unchurched” - very quickly grasp a concept, that their church is not really a proper church, until it has a building. In the last couple of years there has been increasing underlying discussion about “having our own space.” Initially I’ve been able to ignore it, but sense there’s a growing issue.
In part the desire to own a church building seems to arise out of people’s connection to the “great Australian dream” of home ownership. Many of the people connecting with us are from an aspiring middle class, who aim for their kids to have the benefits they have not had. This thinking easily transfers to the concept of “spiritual home” too.
As we have gone on over the years more people have connected, so we’ve had to find different spaces for our gatherings - spending time together over food and drink, has always been important, so we’re always trying to find facilities that suit that need. There’s also a need to set-up and pack up various equipment, required for 100+ people gathering and sharing together, in a hired space. We gather now in the 5th different place in 7 years - for many reasons I like the “discomfort” associated with relocation, but while others accept it, not many people see it as a positive.
One solution people see to avoid regular relocation and set-up/pack-up is to own a permanent church building. Despite clear presentation of the facts that a building brings great burdens of its own in many ways, it presents finite limitations to our capacity to connect with people and it depends upon an attractional approach, people’s desire for security, and less work, over-rides mission and common sense.
We have a great relationship with a local primary school and use their facilities, which grew from an intentional missional relationship. We run a playgroup with the school in their hall and provide resource to the school and families, financially and in other ways. The majority of people connected with the church appreciate this relationship, and get involved in a number of the joint ventures we have. However, occasional ventures have a novelty value that encourages participation, that regular gatherings don’t have - especially when there is work involved in preparation and cleaning up!
We’ve initiated some ventures with other local churches too, in an effort to infect others with mission… while there has been a little success in influencing them with missional approaches, I fear that the reverse has also been true. It’s a bit of a catch 22 though, as to respond to the negativity by not engaging would be anti-missional!
In hindsight I’m feeling that new church plants need to have an extreme over-emphasis on missional thinking and activity… In developing church plants I think we need to do away with the language of “church plants” - not because I don’t believe that the church is the answer, it is - the problem is that the language of “church” carries so many unhealthy preconceived ideas. We need to help people connect with the concept of ecclesia and restore the biblical basis of church, rather than have to explain what is meant everytime we use the word “church.”
There’s a need to help people connect with the missional heart of God, to connect with a missional relational network, and then to develop a heart to connect their existing relational network in “natural ways”. I’m not sure of the best terminology to express new ways of being, but there’s a need for us to continue to develop that… as part of ushering in a new paradigm.
Its clear to me that mission is caught rather than taught, but also that it needs a pretty significant missional encounter - perhaps more than one - to overcome the cultural urge to focus on personal comfort and security. My present thinking in this respect, is that one way to do this is to travel, with a bunch of the influencers, into an environment of abject need as a means of helping to meet need, but also to refocus our own priorities. To bring that encounter, and the response to it, back to bear in our home environment and influence others.
I’m more than happy with your triumphalism Alan… your pentecostal roots need to be revealed from time to time, besides I pray that you are right. BUT even if you’re wrong about the tipping point having been reached, it will only be achieved by people like you pushing others on to tip the balance and I’m all for that.
A Celtic Son
I think we have to be careful how we look at the adoption of the missional mind to Christianity as a whole. We don’t want to let good cultures die simply because they’re ‘antiquated’, because they too bring good things to the table. For example, in my experience, missional churches are not very good at organizing themselves around a structure that is sustainable, but are constantly improvising new leadership models, making ‘in the nick of time’ decisions rather than long-term goals. I know that long-term goals are difficult in a culture that changes as quickly as ours does, but I also feel that it’s not unrealistic to think short- AND long-term.
In regards to doctors, I’m fairly certain the crossover is small; new cures take lots of time to develop, lots of resources, and the chances of success are small, especiall if a cure is needed NOW. If an existing cure actually works, I myself would much rather go with that. But the ‘cures’ of modern Christendom don’t really work, do they? Maybe in some places, but not that many. However, if there is no cure, which I think is what you’re really getting at, I admit, I’d rather spend the effort finding a new cure than continually applying old ‘cures’ that have no effect.
Oh yeah, since everybody keeps leaving these cool quotes, I suppose I should leave one of my own. Paraphrasing CS Lewis (because I can’t remember the exact quote),
“Of all the places one might live, the present is the most like eternity. One might live in the past, but even that has some value as one can learn from it. The future is the least like eternity, because it is uncertain, and living there creates worry. Planning the duties of tomorrow is the province of today, and as such, is not living in the future, but is a duty of the present.”
Celtic Son,
Part of what you said about the ecclesiastical Robin Hood style made me chuckle but another part of what you said I took dead seriously. I was reading yesterday a book called “The Irresistable Revolution” and author Shane Claiborne points out that tithes and offerings in scripture are unmistakably intended for redistributing resources to the poor and not to go towards buildings and staff for the church. When we pay our bills (tithe to ourselves maybe) are we embezzling from the poor? Claiborne talks about a fast until all could come to the table together.
Paying bills seems to be infused with our notion of church. I’m a youth worker in a church for those on the margins that sustains itself (barely)through the giving of other churches in the community. We’ve just been given a grant to do a church plant - we get the full time minister/evangelist and some degree of financial security short-term. Long-term it is supposed to be self-sustaining and evangelical. My concern is that when you put the two needs together you begin attempting to recruit those with money knowing that those on the margins cannot offer much in the way of financial security. A church on the margins becomes more middle-class monotony (that’s my fear anyway).
I’d love to chat to those with experience or imagination regarding church on the margins. I think that I personally lack imagination or can’t escape my preconceived ideas of doing things. What do you do when you can’t necessarily pay the bills? Am I too trapped in my institutional understanding?
Oh, and your comments were very helpful and very true Alan.
God bless.
Jesse
Hmmm… I submitted a response to Alan and James Nored’s earlier comments, based on my present experience. It seems to have disappeared into the ether(net!) I tried to resubmit and the blog software suggested I’d already submitted it… it was by far my best work and… (not really
perhaps the occasional loss of a contribution might be designed to help to keep me humble!
Revisiting the medical metaphor; aggressive strains of disease can grow resistant to treatments, so the same problem requires a new approach. Perhaps, once upon a time, Christendom may have been an appropriate approach to treating humanity’s concept of separation from God, that time has long since past, so there’s no point in treating a disease with a “cure” that’s not a cure!
Despite the “quote” from the great mind of CS Lewis, I don’t agree that we “might live in the past”, because, despite what he says, those who live there tend not to learn from there, which is why they choose to remain there… However, I do agree that we need to learn from the past, so we’re not revisiting an approach that has already been tried and has failed, and also not missing clues from elements that might contribute positively again today.
In church terms I agree with Alan that there are elements we can learn from “forgotten ways.” I do think that our actions in this regard must be based on a right understanding of who we are and what our purpose is (which requires a right understanding of God, but that’s another discussion.) We can only diagnose where we are unhealthy, when we have an accurate understanding of what a healthy specimen looks like.
Returning to our roots is significant - without a healthy root there is no fruit. The same strain of plant, will develop differently when planted in different environments, so each of us must be conscious of the environment in which we have been implanted. Matters of principle ought to be consistent and practice unique. I am conscious of my different environment and wonder where principle and practice begin and end.
With the above in mind; Chris wrote, “missional churches are not very good at organizing themselves around a structure that is sustainable, but are constantly improvising new leadership models, making ‘in the nick of time’ decisions rather than long-term goals.” I agree and I don’t!
I think the leadership “model” is unalterably servanthood, but the expression of it must constantly be evolving, just as we are each called to evolve into our own destiny in God (2 Cor 3
esp. vs 16-18) which is to be like Him - since we were created in His image to begin with! The skeleton may be slower to develop and change than the external appearance, but it does grow and change throughout a lifetime.
The core issue, for me, often comes down to having a heart that is other-person centred - easy to say, not so easy to live. As individuals in a materialist culture we become so self-centred, and our churches become self-centred. The resources are focussed on the church - rather than outwards on the community. We need to change the church, change the culture, by changing ourselves - this is what the Bible calls repentance… this is what Jesus calls “taking up your cross daily” and Paul describes as “dying to self.”
As far as goal-setting goes, personally I find goals helpful, so I set goals. In the past I haven’t set goals and there have been consequences… it would probably be more accurate to say there haven’t been consequences. I like sport on TV and without goals to achieve I’d be a whizz at the sport section in trivial pursuit. It might win me the orange piece of the pie, and relaxation has it’s place, but I do remain discontent with a life, solely in pursuit of the trivial.
A Celtic Son
Hullo-o-o Jesse,
my Robin Hood comment was not without some underlying cycnism. I’m encouraged though by your basic church model - where other churches contribute to support a church on the margins. I’m not convinced though that financial support should necessarily be directed to a full-time staff member first!
When planting a church is the philosophy based on mission to the community, or attracting people to a Service? Do we seek to be Jesus in community or invite a community to come to Jesus? Is the church - in biblical terms - described as developing on an organisational basis… or is it organic first? Why do we require a “professional” to be paid first - here’s our first ongoing bill!
I ask these questions of myself too… I am paid part-time by the church we planted - 3 families together - 7 years ago in our community. I was unpaid for the first 2 years - the first 6 months we met in homes. The church’s bills were negligible, so we were able to be generous to our community. Generosity became part of the nature of the church - 7 years on we have two paid part-time workers and many volunteers and are still able to be generous in our community.
I think we need to pay our bills BUT we don’t need to incur certain bills just because that’s what we’ve always done. We have a rented office which is used by a number of people, it’s not just the pastor’s domain, it’s a point of contact for many people. Our gatherings are in a school hall - our workers are part-time and have other jobs. All of this keeps bills down and the people grounded. We run a fine line between living within our means and applying faith to see certain projects happen.
The posting I had written and lost earlier, lamented people’s desire to own a church building. I expressed my concern about my own underestimation, of the enormous effort required, to continue to invest missional focus in people who are raised in a materialist, self-focussed culture. You will need to be conscious of the very fears you have expressed, and continually and constantly work against them. It will be hard and it will be rewarding. My philosophy with bills is not to head into areas where bills will be accumulated, unless I am confident it is where God is engaged, it is missional, it is fruitful…then my focus is on God, mission and fruit not so much on paying bills!
slainte
A Celtic Son
Hi Alan - I’m enjoying (is that the right word?) reading this blog as a crusty who’s actively involved in trying to influence a traditional group of churches in a missional direction. From time to time I hope to post a few ideas from this side of the fence and see how the reactions go!
This whole idea of paradigm shift fascinates me as an amateur student of psychology and the human mind…..One of the prerequisites for change is simply dissatisfaction with the present state…inculcating that in our existing churches is very hard work. There is something about the human condition which is wired to settle down into comfort zones - and we do it very well! Our whole western culture is so consumer-comfort driven - and it has infected the church terribly - at a personal level it is a battle to keep it in perspective on so many fronts. We need the constant challenges to review our thinking and culture in chrch and I’m grateful that folk here are doing so - but let’s acknowledge for a moment how hard it is for the average christian in our western culture to divest the comfort….lots of dynamics in this. Discipleship is fundamental…
My way of taking a reality check is to go overseas and get my hands dirty in areas of poverty and real need - to wake me up again - but then I come back to the swamp!!!
Hey there Celtic Son,
I would love it if we didn’t have to pay someone. Maybe paying a “professional” is a product not of trying to establish and maintain an organisation for the sake of having an organisation but rather a response to how busy and burnt out we are. I am so inspired by the notion of a mission-based organic community but I feel deflated by how little time and energy people have for it. While Consumer Christianity seems to be the default system of Christian identity in the Western world, maybe it’s not simply because we all long to be self-focused passive recipients. I think the missional church struggles because we’re all so busy and the “professional” church remains because we need to pay someone to do what we don’t have time for (but should be doing organically!). I only say this because I know so many who are dissatisfied with being a passive recipient on Sundays, yet don’t have a whole lot of time for much else at all. It’s not that spirituality itself is the optional extra but rather the expression of spirituality in community and mission is hard to fit in for a lot of people. I’m not saying this is how it should be but that’s why I’d say we feel the need to have the ongoing bill of a professional in our midst. I could be way off the mark though!
Peace,
Jesse
Hi Jesse…
My response to your post will be challenging - can I suggest…
Whatever rings true… consider
Whatever causes pain in your heart… examine
Whatever is just crap… forget
Whatever is plain rude… forgive!
Like I’ve noted before, all of our situations are different and I’m asking questions, rather than assuming I’m right and pointing fingers. If anything the finger pointing should take place more regularly in front of a mirror! As I respond to some of the points you’ve made, bear in mind that I accept that I’m not perfect in any of this either…
In your situation you need to decide what is right for you guys, making decisions based on applying right principles in your unique situation. In some cases the apostle Paul was clearly unpaid and made tents, in others he asserted his “right” to be supported for the work he was doing. What’s right in your context is for you to decide…
I tend to challenge what our authentic motivation is in what we do and in the excuses we make for ourselves. For the church to grow we need to cut out the disease that is preventing it. Consumerism is a significant disease that affects our whole lives - busyness and burn-outness are simply symptoms of that deeper root. I look for it in myself and others, as I believe that the individual heart is the place where authentic change for individuals and communities takes place…
I don’t think that self obsession necessarily implies passivity in life… in fact, I believe that much of our busy and burnt-outness is a consequence of striving to fuel our self focussed desires. Passivity in pursuing Christ then, is often a consequence of a focus that is primarily centred on things other than Christ and mostly - in our culture - it’s on material benefits for self or for others, that make us feel better about ourselves.
You wrote “we need to pay someone to do what we don’t have time for…” some people have gardeners and cleaners, others pay preachers. I wonder though if it’s the same thing? Does it make sense if the reason we don’t have time is that we’re off earning money to pay the person “to do what we don’t have time for!” Though the motivation, for people who retain gardeners and cleaners, seems often to be that they can pay them significantly less than they earn themselves - which I’m sure we wouldn’t do to the servants we appoint to look after our spiritual lives! Perhaps, if we were content to live more basically, we wouldn’t need to earn so much and could give more priority to spending some of the redeemed time connecting with God and people and helping others connect?
I agree with you that it’s “not simply because we all long to be self-focused passive recipients,” but I think it’s a matter of priorities and I’d suggest the reason we’re too busy to participate is that our priorities are elsewhere first. This may be blunt but we long to be something else in our lives, so spirituality is way down our list of priorities. We long to be comfortable, successful, wealthier than those we compete with, well-dressed, skinny, attractive - whatever else media advertising tells us we are supposed to long for, so we have not time to long for active spiritual lives.
In all honesty I challenge the notion that people can be “dissatisfied with being a passive recipient on Sundays, yet don’t have a whole lot of time for much else at all…” on a couple of fronts;
1. Authentic relationship with God in Christ is not just about Sunday - that’s just a couple of hours out of 168 in a week… we ought to BE Christ followers 24×7 - who gather together regularly, to share what it means to follow Christ, to develop authentic relationship, to confess to one another, to maintain some level of authentic accountability to one another, to encourage one another etc - then carry that on into our lives the other 160+ hours available to us, to be an influence in the world… (admittedly though some people do require sleep!)
2. In my western materialist environment - which I’m assuming is yours too - we are not forced to accumulate the debt we do, therefore we are not coerced into jobs required to pay the bills. So, it’s our choice and we need to accept responsibility for the consequence of the choices we make! I’m afraid healthy and wealthy people saying to me “I’m too busy” doesn’t inspire me to consider they are wise!
I’d suggest to you, contrary to your assertion, that in truth “the expression of spirituality in community and mission is hard to fit in for a lot of people,” precisely because, in reality, “spirituality itself is the optional extra!” Less would be required of paid staff, if members of the body took their gifts and calling seriously. However, leadership in the church can tend to exacerbate the problem, in a number of ways - there’s a co-dependent complicity with people who’d prefer not to do what they’re called to do and pay someone instead. There are opportunities to perpetuate a myth of the necessity of having professionals, including continual promotion and justification of this from the pulpit - like self-fulfilling prophecy. Leadership IS necessary, and sometimes people do need to be supported to enable them to spend the time in leadership BUT people don’t always HAVE to be paid to lead, just because that’s the way we’ve always experienced it.
I was challenged in this area by a couple of people - one a young person who came to a gathering of our church, and was genuinely offended that ministers of the gospel didn’t do it for free. The other was a mormon who stated that their elders, bishops and other dignitaries who ran the local church were unpaid… the question was, if they can do it, why can’t we who claim to be passionate in our love for Jesus? Fair questions I thought…
A Celtic Son…
Hey there Celtic, thanks for the time you took with your response! Your words were most welcome. I agree with you particularly about priorities and thank you for pointing it out - our preference for being busy and the material benefits that come our way. The challenge regarding our priorities is important - I just haven’t met a whole lot of people interested in buying into it (pardon the consumerism pun)! They are fair questions and like I said, I’m not saying this is how it should be, I can just understand why we feel that we need to have paid pastors etc.
May we redeem our time and energy for the glory of God.
Cheers,
Jesse
Celtic Son! Wow! That’s a post not a comment. thanks mate.
I would contend that we dont try the new and imaginative for two primary reasons;
1. We live in world that says success is better than failure and this has crept into our theology in that we say if God is in it it works and if it doesn’t work He is not in it. (I will not unpack the way we misuse the terms success and failure here but this does need to be done). If we try the new and imaginative we are bound to have many failures and few successes in the beginning therefore there are few who would try!
2. Unless the change of staying the same is greater than the change of changing most will choose to stay the same. The majority do not see, feel or accept the pain that is in the status quo and in fact many of the ‘masters’ of the current do their best to ensure the pain is dulled, ignored or explained away.
Therefore based on these two facts alone (and I know there are others) those who use the imagination and try new will be the brave or foolhardy who are prepared to be seen as failures…..but know there is no other option for them!
Jesse…
a couple of things - your grace encourages me. I am prompted to respond that the grace with which you face up to the challenges will be a determining factor in the quality of difference you are able to make.
Also I have a magnet on my fridge, given by a friend, which reads; “One in four people are unbalanced, think of three friends, if they seem OK, you’re the one.” Apart from being amusing, it has inspired me as a lesson in moving forward… in your case, with your discomfort in the current situation, I might rephrase it to say; “Very few people initiate change, consider the people around you… if they are all content in the status quo, you’re the one!” I have discovered that - like a boat - when you move forward it’s easier for others to be pulled along in your wake. In the words of one greater than I “go forth and multiply!”
Alan…
I love God, I love His body, I am inspired to write and have planned to take time out this year, to gather my thoughts in some semblance of creativity that might be fruitful to others… I appreciate your encouragement.
Angryandshallow…
I agree with much of what you’ve written. I also think that we need to redefine creativity and what it truly means to imagine. I agree that we need to define success and failure - it was pointed out to me at one point that one of the prominent “faith” preachers is noted as claiming that the biggest failure in the Bible is God!
I’d suggest to you that the problem goes deeper… many people would say that they do “try the new and imaginative” regularly. The problem is that it is “new and improved” in its packaging, but the content is still the same old stuff that went “off” a generation or more ago! There is a lot of energy and imagination that goes into “doing” church in fresh and new ways… even some of the emerging church stuff I see and read about falls back into this category. It is different in presentation but fundamentally the same.
I have argued with Alan on other threads in this blog, and will continue to contend, that we need to revisit our foundations. I believe that the church we have inherited is built on sand, and that we are repetitively, in each generation, trying to build using the same bricks on the same faulty foundation - just making it a different shape. The storms come and the house falls down - in reality it is probably more accurate to suggest that a generation dies, and a new one moves in and redecorates to suit current fashion.
Our practices will not fundamentally change until we change the fundamentals -
We need to rediscover who God is… not who our dominant evangelical or catholic or liberal ancestors have told us He is.
We need to rediscover who we are… not who our dominant evangelical or catholic or liberal ancestors have told us we are.
We need to rediscover our purpose… not what our dominant evangelical or catholic or liberal ancestors have told us our purpose is.
I am convinced that it is only as we rediscover ourselves, truly in the image of a creative God, that our creativity and imagination can be released to get beyond the confines of the box. A friend once challenged me with this thought - “imagine a new colour, one that no-one else has ever seen before!” That’s outside the box, that’s where creativity lies, that’s where eternity is… and it lives in the hearts of human beings, which is why we need to rediscover who God is, who we are and what our purpose is…
slainte
A Celtic Son
Wow.
How do we rediscover God, ourselves, and our purpose?
Jan, I think one of the best ways to do this is to put ourselves ‘at risk.’ Out of our comfort zones. To do courageous and silly things for God and the cause of Christ.
“A great deal more failure is the result of an excess of caution than of bold experimentation with new ideas. “The frontiers of the kingdom of God were never advanced by men and women of caution”.
Oswald Sanders. Spiritual Leadership,
Hi Janet…
The 64 thousand dollar question!
Alan seems to think that I claim every great thinker as Celtic, (and it’s interesting to see him quote from Colonel Sanders, I do like his chicken in small doses.) However, in the words of a lovable green Ogre - who undeniably has Celtic inspiration - it’s a bit like an onion; it has many “layers.” Here are a few more of my “heretical” thoughts…
At one level I agree with Alan about ditching caution and taking risks. At a deeper level we need to base our risks on a different foundation from the one we have inherited. We are in need of a radical re-appraisal of what the Bible says about God, people and purpose - because what we have inherited is flawed. The translations we use, the commentaries and books we read, have been written by people who come with prior theological concepts… of course I do too, and I need to be aware of that and try to work with my own preconceptions – much of which only happens as I expose my thinking to others who have a different view. We need to come prepared to review our thinking, based on the truth about God – supported by a proven consistent understanding of the Scriptures, across the breadth of the Scriptures – the pick’n’mix approach we’ve been encouraged to rely on is inadequate.
We suffer from a deficient concept of “knowledge.” We have been taught in a system that separates information from activity and from passion, we’ve been educated in western intellectual ways - in book and classroom learning. We need a return to the hands-on apprenticeship model that Jesus learned and operated – which is where the Forge concept of internship and short intensive courses is a potential winner. I would venture the opinion that one of the keys to the success of the early church, and the Chinese underground church, is that they adopted that hands on, face-to-face, life-to-life discipleship that Jesus modelled.
The Hebrew concept of knowledge is more holistic, healthy and all encompassing. In Gen 4
we read “Adam knew Eve and she conceived.” Knowledge in those terms happens in relationship, in community – not just individually – knowledge is shared intimacy and develops relationship, fundamentally knowledge is fruitful, it creates/procreates. This is an ontological function of humanity, as God’s initial Word spoken over us, and repeated several times in Scripture is “be fruitful and multiply.” We don’t read or hear that because it comes in the first chapter of Genesis, and evangelical ontology begins in chapter 3!
In response to questions effectively asking, what is the most important thing on God’s heart for humanity, Jesus states that we should know God and love God, with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbour as ourself. This is a core concept in living a healthy and fruitful life, yet our evangelical heritage pays it lip service… it is just another sermon. All of these aspects need to be present, we can’t separate these layers, and they are all necessary, simultaneously. Knowing God and loving God with ALL of the core of our being AND with ALL of our emotional life AND with ALL of our intellect and choices of will AND with ALL of our strength and actions – ALL of these need to happen together to comprise “knowledge.” What we call knowledge and learning is a long way short of that – in fact I have met many highly intelligent, articulate and accurate, theologically astute people who lack life and love and are really boring people! They often know lots ABOUT God, I’m not convinced that they KNOW God, because there is not the “abundant” life about them that Christ came to release in us. They tend to be more concerned with what information they know, than they are about the people they are talking at! I say that from personal experience – I catch myself doing it sometimes! The great thing about blogs is that people don’t talk back until you’re finished making your own point!
Given the opportunity to speak of the key elements most important to God, Jesus makes no mention of “the fall” or of “sin” but that is exactly where evangelical theology starts! (Nor does he mention prosperity or sexuality or chuch building decorations, or many of the other issues we focus on!) The focus of Christ is on God and people; it’s on answers not problems, it’s the heart of the gospel. When we genuinely engage with God personally – with all of our heart and all of our souls and all of our mind and all of our strength – we are caught up in His majesty, our vision is filled with the magnificent beauty of the risen Lord. As a consequence we cannot help but be moved by the beauty of creation, or the plight of those who don’t know Him. We cannot fail to be moved by the things that move His heart, the plight of widows and orphans, the need for equity and justice, the troubles of the oppressed. These are all part and parcel, they all happen together and cannot be separated out – we need it all. (A side effect of the power of a true vision of God is that we are so caught up in walking out His calling, that we have little time for criticism of the way others walk out their calling!)
To adequately “love our neighbours as ourselves” – we need to know who we are and we need to know God’s love for us. This phrase has been used as a mantra for teaching basic self-esteem in the church, focussing on a self-centred, or at least me-first approach to Christianity. “To love my neighbour as myself I need to love myself first!” That’s not consistent with the character of Christ – what He’s actually saying is that we need to love our neighbours as “we ourselves are loved…” It’s not so much that we need to love ourselves first, as that we need to know how much we are loved by God. To live healthy and fruitful lives, people – created in His image, by a missional God of relational community – have an inbuilt need to know God and to know that they are known by God. As we know we are loved by God, so we can extend a healthy love to others…
When you begin to unravel some of the information we’ve inherited – which is where I’ve found Karl Barth, T.F. Torrance, Stanley Grenz among others are helpful – you find that there’s a lot of stuff that just doesn’t fit, there are things we’ve been told that are inconsistent. It’s intellectual information removed from emotion, removed from heart, removed from passion, removed from action – it is majorly deficient, it’s why purely “academic theology” is dangerous. There are elements we are led to believe about God that are contrary to the character of Christ and therefore can’t be true about God! On this false foundation is built a whole philosophy of who we are and what our purpose is that perpetuates that falsehood. We find ourselves worshipping the Jesus Christ who died to bring life, and that more abundantly, by arguing about who sits where in ecclesiastical monuments and what colour of decoration should be used!
What is the root of this? It is said that Adolf Hitler and his propagandist Joseph Goebells operated on the premise “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” It’s the mantra of media and advertising, the song of secularism… it’s a lie of the devil and it’s alive and well and living in the church.
We need to know God as He truly is – in all of the greatness that we find in the Scriptures and in Christ. We need to know who we are, created in God’s image, therefore capable of great things, when we are freed from the crap that history and heritage and life experience has piled on top of us. We need to know that our purpose, in loving God and being loved by God, will have consequence in how we treat people and live our lives 24×7. Instead of living, as Thoreau suggested most people do, “lives of quiet desperation” followers of Jesus Christ ought to recognisable for living large fruitful lives of loud serenity.
Pax
A Celtic Son…
Thanks CS and Alan… I do appreciate your thoughts. If I was to attempt to summarise this simply… emerging myself more deeply with God and with others passionate about God and the mission of Jesus are the key “transformative” priorities. And to be bold in following Jesus.
It’s funny how the truth is often simple once you wade past all the distractions surrounding it. (Lucky for me… I’m basically a simple person!)