Lama's log

As I checked out the blogs this morning I came upon the 'deep church' stuff for the first time. I will be reading some of the books that are recommended on the sites starting with 'Remembering Our Future: Explorations in Deep Church'. From the limited amount I've read on blogs I'm not sure how 'deep church' differs from emergent church except for a desire to be taken theologically seriously. There seems to be the same emphasis on spiritual relevance and I want to question if the concern with spiritual depth and reconnection with earlier church also desires to translate into Christ centred living which will really mark out and call the church to account. I hope to find it here (there is a note of tiredness in my searching for this though).

I borrowed without permission the cartoon above from Jason Clark's blog (check out the links under emerging church). If readers have arrived at deep church way before me I would appreciate input on it, also go to Andy Goodliff's blog he has dedicated a site to 'Deep Church'.

'The preceding chapters examined the nature of the good news of the reign of God as demonstrated and proclaimed in the Gospels. They then related this message to the end of the sacred/secular divide, arguing for a holistic spirituality.'

This is how the chapter began. I have to say that unless I have not read this stuff thoroughly enough it felt like the author was talking of a different book. There has been little discussion of the Gospels and more telling than examining.

The main points of the chapter seem to be that in the emerging church:

Leadership is more facilitative than dictatorial.
Modernity gave an unhelpful view of leadership which made people flea from a God of power and seek solace in secular/ Godless space.
Leadership should move away from one persons domain to a team which seeks to disseminate power and look for collective decision and will.
Leadership needs to be about passion and gifting not willingness and position.

As a Baptist I look at this and say, 'Actually we're doing most of that already'. And there's the rub. After a while even the most freeing structure is structure and can maintain conformity and drudgery. It was interesting to listen to Simon Hall talk about Revive on Saturday. As a community they started out as extremely fluid, so fluid that they have no fixed base, no structures etc etc. At this point in their life they are now looking for a permanent base in building, they are in process of putting more structure into their church body and are looking to join something bigger than themselves in order to be able to branch out and connect with future possibilities. Their theology of church is changing to meet the needs of the community by way of building in structure. This somewhat seems to fly in the face of emergent as deconstruction, alternative leadership etc

Well, perhaps not totally. I think all this points towards emergent stuff needing the backbone of denomination but the denomination needing the voice and challenge of the emergent church. Simon said that he felt the emergent church had not yet found a place but was still looking for where it is going. I hope that this 'wing' of church expression never finds it's home, we need the prophetic nonconformists to challenge our notion of a safe Jesus and a church of the middle classes where all are welcome if you are well educated, over 50 and like committees

I am now at a stage where I long to finish this book so it is an act of will that I am going to get through the last three chapters. The reason. It is now a little repetitive and I find what I am reading the book has already said at least once before.

OK, having said that this chapter was worth a look. In a nut shell it talks of worship needing to be a place/space where all things from the world are made holy and are brought to worship as authentic gifts. Creativity and inclusivity of participation then are vital.

This is all good stuff and I enjoyed reading some of the examples of this. My wonderings though from my own context and experience are around the fact that this may just be a taste thing. Some people like a set form every week that has been done in the same format for the last 300 years, others will appreciate a more fluid approach. Is there something beyond this?

That probably comes in the word authentic. If people really give their best to God then that in itself may be transformative beyond themselves. Recently two of my closest friends have taken on duties in the Anglican and Catholic tradition respectively. From both parties there was talk of it being privilege to be doing it. There was an aspect of pride in that they had been entrusted with these roles. As a baptist it takes a while to appreciate the notion of excitement being induced at having to dress up and perform ritual. Done in the way of privilege though, there may well be something transformative about this way of worship.

Yesterday I preached in the evening service, the student minister led. He is a kind of emergent guy and the service reflected this heavily. The things I noted was

There was much more space
There was much less sung music
The notices became a point of contact with God (fairly amazing)

There was also a feeling though that this was all still new. He needed to explain things a lot so people felt comfortable. In terms of creativity in worship there also has to be a safety that people will be OK and allowed to stand at the side. I also wondered how you could express worship this way week on week without it just being a differents style rather that 'creative'. These questions aren't a result of the student minister, more from a desire that emergent church could be possibly more than a side show.

This chapter deals with changing the model of worship where only those who play an instrument or preach can participate and where the talents of the rest of the gathered community are left untapped and unrepresented. This, says the authors increases the division between sacred and secular and divorces spirituality from life as it is lived.

In order to facilitate participant led worship you must operate out of groups of no more than 30 and utilise gifts of those present. It moves away from making worship something to be consumed for those outside, instead it is authentic expression of people from where they are at.

What do I think? ............ It's a tough one. I agree in principal, I think. I have never thought that you need to be 'flash' in worship for it to be effective (helpful in allowing people to meet with God). It is also good news for those who feel they struggle because they are a small gathering. This model releases them from having to have the normal Sunday worship where they have to find musicians and preachers and if they don't they somehow haven't been church. They could just spend their time 'being church' instead.

On the other hand, the church maligned in this book, the church of soft rock and easy preach, is one to which many are drawn and I believe it still has a place amongst us. It is not that this model is bad (as the authors suggest) more, I feel, that it is just one model and doesn't offer enough depth or breadth, to cater for all.

Consumerism in worship is bad, the book says. By this they mean that, to come and take from a service without any commitment or participation, teaches us passivity. It encourages us to sidestep discipleship. There is something in this but it is worth remembering that some people come to worship, so exhausted from life that what they need to do is find a place to rest and receive.

Even wiith all the questions around this though, I feel there is stuff worth pursuing. It is true of many/most churches that the communities focuss on the training and equipping of the minister to the detriment of the community. Why not pay for members to do courses, get equipment, go on retreat, do theology? If as Baptists we really are into the Priesthood of all believers then I think we could be doing it better and the emergent church may have a few pointers as to how.

The is the title of the next chapter in the book 'Emerging Churches' and one which I enjoyed. I don't think they can claim the issues raised here are prevalent only to the emergent church as the questions raised are ones I recall echoes of through my teens.

Basically the chapter puts forward the desire of the emergent churches to link word and work. Emergent church stuff is often linked as 'trendy' or a way of satisfying spiritual tastes rather than being meaningful to community building and community serving. The authors work hard to say that emerging churches seek to look at both strands together and state that, 'Authentic kingdom living provides both the credibility and the opportunity to point inquirers to Christ.'

During our 'away day' yesterday, we reviewed the roles of the leaders. One strand of the church is seen as 'service' and there was an interesting discussion about the fact that most of the things listed under the banner of service for people to get involved in, were actually about church housekeeping. What Mary pointed out was that these things really need to be seen as in house jobs which we all need to share, much the same as you might share out the labour in your home. This is not to undervalue them in any way, many of the minor stuff is vital for us to function well, however, they are tasks we should all shoulder the burden of and see as separate to our call to go out. Service then, needs to look more to the needs of others outside, the poor and the vulnerable in the community. How is the church being friend and Christ to these people.

This I think is the kind of questions which this chapter seeks to explore and it does it quite well.

This is the next chapter in the book Emerging Churches that I have been looking at. To be honest the other reading I have done has now meant that a lot of the book is going over what seems to be old ground. Still I will persevere.

The chapter is basically summed up in the title. Emerging churches seek relational models rather than structure. This works, except to note that, some of the churches don't deconstruct but rather reconstruct their format in order to hold things together. For example Kevin Rains at Cincinnati talks of how the home groups connect with Vinyard and give money etc. It's not that there is no structure, just that it is a different structure.

It seems that there needs to be some sort of 'spine' for churches/communities to connect with for there to be continuity.

Massive emphasis is put on strong interpersonal relationships and accountability. This strikes me as very exciting in terms of the possibility of radical discipleship. The notion of commitment beyond issues of what we can get out of others/church opens up the possibility of living a faith rather than belonging to one.

The problem with books about stuff, is that you get presented with a positive picture rather than a true picture. There must be struggles and issues and locating these through reading is hard work.

People tell me that the issue of sexual sin is more rife in this setting given the close proximity of the relationships. This is so however, in any community. I'm not sure if it would be more of an issue in this model of church. It does speak the need for strong accountability and structure and then of course we get to the grit in the pearl. For as soon as there is structure, liquid church moves into solid church, or sludgy church at best.

It seems there must be a relationship with structure, but what kind and how if we also seek fluidity?

I found this chapter a little irritating on the emergent church front, simply because it seemed to profess so overtly that postmodern expressions of church are good whilst modern expressions are bad. To give an example, the authors site Zygmunt Bauman in 'Modernity and Ambivalence' who states that the Holocaust was a rationally planned experiment in a modern context and could not have occurred outside of this context.

Boy this made me mad. I have spent a bit of time looking at the holocaust/Shoah and am pretty definite on the fact that this is over simplified in the extreme and a cheap shot at modernity. I take issue with the fact that modernity is bad. It just is, just like postmodernism just is. What we then do is recognise where we are at and look at what the bible says to us in that context and discern challenge and hope.

OK rant over.

The chapter deals with how emergent churches seek to welcome. The Eucharist is central in this with hospitality at the heart of it. All are welcomed a the table. It was interesting to note that one church sited trained all its members in hospitality. Which to me seems a little stifling and prescriptive for post-modernity.

I also need to get a handle on where the fixed point is in this movement of Salvation through Christ. A large emphasis is placed on multi-faith relations. Recognising God in other faiths. I am about as liberal as they come but there is a point where a boundary is needed or the whole thing becomes meaningless.

An emphasis on being rather than converting is brought out again. 'Can we love people and let the Holy Spirit do the converting?' I like the idea but I'm not sure where it ties in with discipleship or scripture which overtly states that we have a responsibility to disciple. There is the notion that we should actively witness beyond just living our own lives isn't there or have I got this wrong? I get the fact that 'evangelism is in the form of presence rather than proclamation' but if I think about Plato's cave, the guy who got free and saw what was really going on behind the curtain felt impelled to go back and speak to the others about what reality was, he was driven by liberation. If we have an experience of salvation in Christ, if we really do enter into some sort of relation with the divine, then wouldn't this compulsion be a part of that? The work and lifestyle would be too, but I think there is something of needing to share with others what has been so profound and positive and real.

I agree that the church must listen more and humility is pretty key. There was a lot I liked in regard to the possible challenge to the main stream church but so far I haven't seen the movement (at least expressed through this book) defer to scripture on any level. It is grounded it seems in culture primarily and overtly. Where the challenge lies then I am not sure. Christianity as counter culture, radical, are these things that trouble the movement?

This is the next chapter of the book in 'Emerging Churches' that we have been looking at and it seeks to deal with the idea that the emerging church is a proponent of Sacralization; of making all life sacred, not just the space that lies behind church doors. There is a short passage on the nature of the church when couched in modernity (i.e. it is an institution seeking to give answers, it claims authority and displays a systematic approach to theology) and the argument to display how emergent church models seek to deconstruct this authority and ask many more questions. There are more stories to be told and a process by which truth is discovered, not given.

The authors point out that in the way in which an emergent church might hold gatherings then, the use of gadgets and high tech. stuff is in order to engage with the culture around not dominate or 'wow' the audience. In this model then, services might well not enforce music in the same way as we do traditionally. Music is a way to question and to seek rather than to be given to a congregation. There can be greater use of 'secular music' rather than hymns written by Christians specifically for worship, thus reclaiming spirituality in the 'normal' spheres of life. Emergent church worship then, wouldn't be seeking to be trendy but rooted in contemporary culture so that people could connect with it.

The chapter goes on to look at the Nine O'clock service as was, and looks at the aspects of it which were true expressions of emerging church and the aspects of it which retained a very 'modern evangelical' authority base.

For my part, I am enjoying reading this stuff and am increasingly becoming an advocate. The 'but' for me is, it is not the only way to express good authentic Christianity and sometimes I feel there is a sense in which that is implied. I am also a little cynical of this expression of church with regard to radical (a return to roots) discipleship. If you have bunch of relativist questioners expressing theology through and in their culture, at which point do they submit to an authority greater than them? If meta narratives are rejected then how do we, and for that matter why do we, give ourselves in costly discipleship. There is a risk that in the emergent churches cynicism towards authority we could deny ourselves the possibility of submission and thus freedom in God....

'Emerging churches' kicks off with a look at the culture we're in. This always makes me a little nervous when attached to issues of what we need to do with our churches. The thing is, I'm not sure we are continually called to modernise or fit in. I think we are called rather to disciple and follow Christ. If we look around at the churches/denominations that are growing they don't all fit the pattern of being culturally integrated.

Fundamental faith expressions are way out in terms of the 'cultural norm', yet they grow. The Catholics are experiencing revival through the sacraments. How does this fit with the cry to 'modernise modernise modernise'? Stephen Croft in his book 'Transforming Communities' makes the point early on that the churches which were studied that were growing, were not those which had responded or altered their way of doing church. They didn't conform to a model or outlook. They were rather, communities who were functioning well within themselves. That is to say, they were doing community well. Because of this they were attractive to others and people were joining.

The big 'however' though, lies for me in the fact that, in the end, I feel that although there maybe many questions when we call the churches to get with it, this is still what they need to do. I think Gibbs and Bolger are right when they point out that 'the church itself [is seen] as an obstacle to faith' p21 and that the way many churches are choosing to communicate with congregations is simply running outside the frame of reference for most people in our communities.

Gibbs and Bolger point out the reasons why churches today must study modern culture and take it seriously. If we are disciples who, like Christ, are to pitch our tent amongst the people (John 1:14) then we'd better know where and how to camp.

They have a point.