Yesterday I had a discussion about ordination with a minister who works with a large, commissioned, predominantly lay team. The inevitable question arose regarding the difference between lay and ordained callings. The minister's response was plain, "I have thought about that, but I am what I am and how they understand their ministry is not up to me."
For me, the decision to seek ordination was for the reason that the work God was calling to me to do was going beyond my authority and my training. As such the process towards ordination has been equally as important for me as the end result. Yet I have friends that feel called to develop their training but retain lay occupations and not seek ordination. How are we to understand this development in God's activity in the world?
The key difference raised by the minister was recognition by other denominations. It is a great sign for ecumenicalism that certain priests are willing to use UCA ministers as a standby for emergencies as the UCA's ordination is into the church universal. This is different to that of our lay specified ministers, as they are commissioned only within the context of a congregation or ministry.
Perhaps I'm finally coming to an understanding of ordination that ties things together a bit. So here's a few points (any discussion)
Ordination is an act of obedience of the church to God where it sets aside people for spiritual leadership.
As such, it is a celebration of the activities of God in the past, present and hope for God's activity in the future of the church.
The call on the individual, and the church's recognition of that call, are both key to ordination.
As such, there is recognition of God's activity in the prior life of the ordinand, celebration of the presence of God in the present, and an anticipation of God's further work in the ordinand.
This is only a developing thing, but it shows the need to hold together that ordination is an action of the church, but it is an action performed in obedience that is a sign of faith and celebration in God. As the final minister put it, " I can still feel those hands upon my head." In ordination we have a recognition of the faith that the church has in God when they accept people to fill this style of leadership, and the faith that the individual holds to accept it. It is obvious talking to these ministers from many different styles of placements, that ordination serves as a constant reminder of this faith that serves as a touchstone by which their whole ministry is shaped.
I am thankful to all those who assisted me in these discussions.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
More thoughts on Ordination
We did something a bit different today. As a group, we discussed ordination with two ministers at once. The strange thing is every time we do this, people seem to think its some type of test. Is there really one right answer for this question? There is an interplay of activities, but in hearing two people with very different views of ordination there was still remarkable agreement.
One of the ministers had a view of ordination very much in line with prior discussions, with views of ordination in terms of a change in relationship with the church and admittance to a community where the minister submits to the discipline of God and the church in concrete ways.
The second minister had a different view of ordination, very much based on the service. To this minister ordination is a commitment to the Father, through the call of the Son and the equipping of the Holy Spirit. As such, ordination is a celebration of the historical, current, and ongoing work of God in the world. For this person, the vows were less important than the response, "With God's help I will." So, the focus is turned from the work of the person to the work of God in ordination.
This then has to live in dialogue with the sad fact that people do fail in ministry. Does this mean that our theology of ministry has to neglect the activity of God? If we understand God as being effective and infallible, the great temptation is either to place God under obligation to act in certain ceremonies or to deny God's activity in ceremonies when things don't work out as we would expect or wish. Do we really wish to make God so small are target that God just falls into the background?
Of course, to me, the history of a covenant people shows an appreciation of God working through brokenness. All of humanity share in this brokenness, and both our discernment and responses to God are subject to our nature. Maybe at this stage, the journey of ministry may be analogised to the parable of the sower. Humanity's responses to grace are notoriously variable.
Finally, we spoke on the fact that ordination is entry into an order, a vocation rather than a profession. It is to a position of difference within a community. Partially, it reminds me of what it is like to be an effective boarding master: a boarding master needs to be open enough (and enough of a member of the community) to be approachable, but also separate in order to exercise the particular authority given by a school.
Then we spoke on the signs of ordination: the alb, the stole, the cross, the collar. What does it mean to be ordained and to choose not to adopt any symbols? Is the use of symbols for a time and place, for a purpose? So, what do I choose to wear and when? I must admit I'm pretty minimalist, but I am starting to consider this in addition to the other uses of symbols of authority.
One of the ministers had a view of ordination very much in line with prior discussions, with views of ordination in terms of a change in relationship with the church and admittance to a community where the minister submits to the discipline of God and the church in concrete ways.
The second minister had a different view of ordination, very much based on the service. To this minister ordination is a commitment to the Father, through the call of the Son and the equipping of the Holy Spirit. As such, ordination is a celebration of the historical, current, and ongoing work of God in the world. For this person, the vows were less important than the response, "With God's help I will." So, the focus is turned from the work of the person to the work of God in ordination.
This then has to live in dialogue with the sad fact that people do fail in ministry. Does this mean that our theology of ministry has to neglect the activity of God? If we understand God as being effective and infallible, the great temptation is either to place God under obligation to act in certain ceremonies or to deny God's activity in ceremonies when things don't work out as we would expect or wish. Do we really wish to make God so small are target that God just falls into the background?
Of course, to me, the history of a covenant people shows an appreciation of God working through brokenness. All of humanity share in this brokenness, and both our discernment and responses to God are subject to our nature. Maybe at this stage, the journey of ministry may be analogised to the parable of the sower. Humanity's responses to grace are notoriously variable.
Finally, we spoke on the fact that ordination is entry into an order, a vocation rather than a profession. It is to a position of difference within a community. Partially, it reminds me of what it is like to be an effective boarding master: a boarding master needs to be open enough (and enough of a member of the community) to be approachable, but also separate in order to exercise the particular authority given by a school.
Then we spoke on the signs of ordination: the alb, the stole, the cross, the collar. What does it mean to be ordained and to choose not to adopt any symbols? Is the use of symbols for a time and place, for a purpose? So, what do I choose to wear and when? I must admit I'm pretty minimalist, but I am starting to consider this in addition to the other uses of symbols of authority.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Another Poem
Can I Pray for a Stranger
Can I pray for a stranger?
Across the carriage
with no sobs
pain appearing only in her eyes
slowly it escapes
to be dabbed away with a tissue.
Can I pray for a stranger?
So young and yet so hurt
so I pray
and poetry leaks into my mind.
Can I pray for a stranger?
no words
minimal looks
there's nothing I can do for her.
So I pray for a stranger
the train slows down for a stop
a young man walks in
enfolding her in his arms.
I should pray for the stranger
with problems not for me to solve
a reminder I am not the world's saviour
the puppet recognising the puppeteer.
Can I pray for a stranger?
Across the carriage
with no sobs
pain appearing only in her eyes
slowly it escapes
to be dabbed away with a tissue.
Can I pray for a stranger?
So young and yet so hurt
so I pray
and poetry leaks into my mind.
Can I pray for a stranger?
no words
minimal looks
there's nothing I can do for her.
So I pray for a stranger
the train slows down for a stop
a young man walks in
enfolding her in his arms.
I should pray for the stranger
with problems not for me to solve
a reminder I am not the world's saviour
the puppet recognising the puppeteer.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Ministry as marginality
It's unusual for me to read theological books for fun (?) or interest, but I had a look at a new book in the library called "Clergy: The Origin of Species" by Martin Percy. Here's some of his final paragraph, which I found interesting:
Marginality is, it seems, part of the character and construct of being a minister. Clergy, to function as effective ministers, often discover their roles and tasks to be about becoming central in the more marginal and ambiguous moments of life. Clergy occupy that strange hinterland between the secular and the sacred, the temporal and the eternal, acting as interpreters and mediators, embodying and signifying faith, hope and love. They are both distant and immediate, remote yet intimate. And in occupying this most marginal and transitory ground, and sometimes helping to close the gaps between these worlds, they become humanly and spiritually necessary even as they live out their (partly willed, partly imposed) social marginality. It is a unique yet evolving paradigm. It is nothing less than to follow the call of Jesus: to belong both to the wilderness, but also to the city. To be a citizen of some place; but also of heaven. To be of the people; but also for their sake, to be wholly other.
Any thoughts?
Marginality is, it seems, part of the character and construct of being a minister. Clergy, to function as effective ministers, often discover their roles and tasks to be about becoming central in the more marginal and ambiguous moments of life. Clergy occupy that strange hinterland between the secular and the sacred, the temporal and the eternal, acting as interpreters and mediators, embodying and signifying faith, hope and love. They are both distant and immediate, remote yet intimate. And in occupying this most marginal and transitory ground, and sometimes helping to close the gaps between these worlds, they become humanly and spiritually necessary even as they live out their (partly willed, partly imposed) social marginality. It is a unique yet evolving paradigm. It is nothing less than to follow the call of Jesus: to belong both to the wilderness, but also to the city. To be a citizen of some place; but also of heaven. To be of the people; but also for their sake, to be wholly other.
Any thoughts?
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
On Ordination as marriage
Yet another ordination discussion. I am becoming quite aware that I am using analogies to describe ordination, but this is a work in progress. Today's discussion with a minister was one that answered a few of my questions from the last couple of dialogues. If ministry is allowed to be exercised without ordination, why do we insist on people becoming ordained to exercise certain ministries on more than a short-term basis?
This discussion began with the usual discussion on the life-time commitment, but was drawn into new areas once we began to play with ordination being analogous to marriage. In our current community the only significant difference between a de facto relationship and marriage is the commitments made by each party and the blessings prayed for by the congregation (along with witness and some other functions). What is the difference between a ministry intern or a lay ministry agent in a supply arrangement and an ordained minister? Of course, the answer is the ordination service and the commitments the ordinand makes to the church and the church makes to the ordinand, plus the witness and prayers of the congregation.
If this is considered to be the case, the vows are also analagous to the wedding vows. Would a couple be willing to take the wedding vows unless they were in love and seeking to spend their lives together? One would hope not, and the vows assist the couple in clarifying their relationship prior to marriage as well as being a reminder after the service of the commitments they made to each other. As the minister said "remember ministry is about being, rather than doing." In the case of ordination, this occurs after significant effort is made by the candidate and the church in the years prior to the service. The vows, in the time of preparation, provide a moment of crisis for the ordinand: "is this really me?"
This lead on rapidly to the final stage of the discussion, where we played further with the analogy. If the test is that of identity rather than capacity, the act of ordination can be seen as a stage in the growth of the relationship between the ordinand and God and between the ordinand and the church. The act of ordination should not occur until both the church and the ordinand discern the call of God for the life-time ministry, and represents the acknowledgement of both parties to this commitments. However, this reflects relationships that stretch back well prior to these were expressed and both the church and the ordinand look forwards to the future growing in relationship with each other and with God into the future.
An extra point: this was the first time one of the ministers asked me what I was thinking about ordination myself. For me, my call has been affirmed by my candidature so far and I hopefully look forwards to growing in ministry until both the church and myself feel ready to take this step in the presence and providence of God.
This discussion began with the usual discussion on the life-time commitment, but was drawn into new areas once we began to play with ordination being analogous to marriage. In our current community the only significant difference between a de facto relationship and marriage is the commitments made by each party and the blessings prayed for by the congregation (along with witness and some other functions). What is the difference between a ministry intern or a lay ministry agent in a supply arrangement and an ordained minister? Of course, the answer is the ordination service and the commitments the ordinand makes to the church and the church makes to the ordinand, plus the witness and prayers of the congregation.
If this is considered to be the case, the vows are also analagous to the wedding vows. Would a couple be willing to take the wedding vows unless they were in love and seeking to spend their lives together? One would hope not, and the vows assist the couple in clarifying their relationship prior to marriage as well as being a reminder after the service of the commitments they made to each other. As the minister said "remember ministry is about being, rather than doing." In the case of ordination, this occurs after significant effort is made by the candidate and the church in the years prior to the service. The vows, in the time of preparation, provide a moment of crisis for the ordinand: "is this really me?"
This lead on rapidly to the final stage of the discussion, where we played further with the analogy. If the test is that of identity rather than capacity, the act of ordination can be seen as a stage in the growth of the relationship between the ordinand and God and between the ordinand and the church. The act of ordination should not occur until both the church and the ordinand discern the call of God for the life-time ministry, and represents the acknowledgement of both parties to this commitments. However, this reflects relationships that stretch back well prior to these were expressed and both the church and the ordinand look forwards to the future growing in relationship with each other and with God into the future.
An extra point: this was the first time one of the ministers asked me what I was thinking about ordination myself. For me, my call has been affirmed by my candidature so far and I hopefully look forwards to growing in ministry until both the church and myself feel ready to take this step in the presence and providence of God.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
On Ordination as accepting responsibility
I had another discussion on ordination with a minister this afternoon. It was interesting, after my previous discussion, to have what seems to be a continuation of the point I picked out of the prior discussion.
The minister commented that when he was in my position, ordination was seen as the end of a long path, but that his view developed as he lived in the position. He was keen to point out that the act of ordination is an act of "setting apart", not of a change of nature, but the key point for him was the acceptance of responsibility of leadership on a permanent basis. He also emphasised the responsibilities taken in order to preserve the church and represent the church in a place.
He expressed this both in the discussions on the nature of ordination and of the vows, and placed a high emphasis on the fact that (although lay people may take particular authority) the ordained have a lifelong commitment to the mission of Christ. The phrases often used were along the lines of 'backstop' or 'the buck stops here', so I naturally had to throw in my 'divine polyfiller' aversion. He replied that the minister takes accountability for the areas the minister sees as vital (particularly those expressed in the vows of ordination and induction) and leaves room for congregational participation before making decisions. His question back to me was "How to you handle failure?" as it is necessary for initiatives to be tried and allowed to fall over.
One area that this person was strong on was on the commitments made by ministers to participate in the life of the wider church, and the part ministers play in the councils of the church. One element he particularly sees in the vows is the articulation of the particularity of ordained ministry, and he sees the continued development of this articulation to be part of the task ahead for the ordained within the church. He also charged me to always consider that a minister's accountability is to the presbytery, not the congregation.
The final part I would like to reflect on was an analogy for the ordained within the body of Christ. He described the ordained as being the skeleton and the non-ordained the flesh. Neither can be effective without the other, but the act of ordination (with its historical precedence) provides stability and strength to the church. This, to me, naturally places a high emphasis on training, support and continual formation of those who are ordained. This has strongly interacted with the thoughts I have been having about the reformation period and the part that the loss of focus of the clergy played in those events.
In the final reflection though, what part does the church (and the gathered congregation) play in ordination? Does the church merely allow people to take these oaths of high responsibility and receive witness to the faithfulness of Christ, or is there something more? I certainly hope so, I can't do this on my own strength!
The minister commented that when he was in my position, ordination was seen as the end of a long path, but that his view developed as he lived in the position. He was keen to point out that the act of ordination is an act of "setting apart", not of a change of nature, but the key point for him was the acceptance of responsibility of leadership on a permanent basis. He also emphasised the responsibilities taken in order to preserve the church and represent the church in a place.
He expressed this both in the discussions on the nature of ordination and of the vows, and placed a high emphasis on the fact that (although lay people may take particular authority) the ordained have a lifelong commitment to the mission of Christ. The phrases often used were along the lines of 'backstop' or 'the buck stops here', so I naturally had to throw in my 'divine polyfiller' aversion. He replied that the minister takes accountability for the areas the minister sees as vital (particularly those expressed in the vows of ordination and induction) and leaves room for congregational participation before making decisions. His question back to me was "How to you handle failure?" as it is necessary for initiatives to be tried and allowed to fall over.
One area that this person was strong on was on the commitments made by ministers to participate in the life of the wider church, and the part ministers play in the councils of the church. One element he particularly sees in the vows is the articulation of the particularity of ordained ministry, and he sees the continued development of this articulation to be part of the task ahead for the ordained within the church. He also charged me to always consider that a minister's accountability is to the presbytery, not the congregation.
The final part I would like to reflect on was an analogy for the ordained within the body of Christ. He described the ordained as being the skeleton and the non-ordained the flesh. Neither can be effective without the other, but the act of ordination (with its historical precedence) provides stability and strength to the church. This, to me, naturally places a high emphasis on training, support and continual formation of those who are ordained. This has strongly interacted with the thoughts I have been having about the reformation period and the part that the loss of focus of the clergy played in those events.
In the final reflection though, what part does the church (and the gathered congregation) play in ordination? Does the church merely allow people to take these oaths of high responsibility and receive witness to the faithfulness of Christ, or is there something more? I certainly hope so, I can't do this on my own strength!
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
On Ordination as admission to a community
The post-field group at college shared a discussion on ordination with a minister yesterday. The minister we spoke to designated two key significances of ordination, the way in which ordination is one of many occasions in which the church affirms the calls of individuals, and the way in which this affirmation places the ordinand within a community of tradition that goes back 2000 years. He sees the key feature of that community is that of function: the call to be attentive to God, and to call communities to be attentive to God.
This lead on to a discussion on the vows of ordination, as the vows move from the generalities of reliance on Christ to the specific functions of ministers in the UCA. The continuing theme was that of spiritual leadership within different contexts, and we were reminded of the many ways that communities can tempt ministers away from the focus.
Yet, when we got to the end, the question in mind for me was "What is the difference between ordination and commissioning?" The response was immediate, "Ordination is for life, but commissioning is for a specific purpose or context." This was said with passion, this was important. This is more than just a job, it is a membership in a community of those who have agreed, and the church has agreed, to set their lives apart for the purpose of spiritual leadership.
So, in this case, the rite of ordination is a rite of admission. The vows serve to remind the minister and the church of the roles and responsibilities, and the minister serves this out in a life of spiritual leadership. Once again, I am struck by the honour which I have been called to, and to which the church is affirming at the moment.
Do you confess anew Jesus Christ as Lord? That one's easy, it is only through the grace and call of Christ that I may understand myself with such company.
This lead on to a discussion on the vows of ordination, as the vows move from the generalities of reliance on Christ to the specific functions of ministers in the UCA. The continuing theme was that of spiritual leadership within different contexts, and we were reminded of the many ways that communities can tempt ministers away from the focus.
Yet, when we got to the end, the question in mind for me was "What is the difference between ordination and commissioning?" The response was immediate, "Ordination is for life, but commissioning is for a specific purpose or context." This was said with passion, this was important. This is more than just a job, it is a membership in a community of those who have agreed, and the church has agreed, to set their lives apart for the purpose of spiritual leadership.
So, in this case, the rite of ordination is a rite of admission. The vows serve to remind the minister and the church of the roles and responsibilities, and the minister serves this out in a life of spiritual leadership. Once again, I am struck by the honour which I have been called to, and to which the church is affirming at the moment.
Do you confess anew Jesus Christ as Lord? That one's easy, it is only through the grace and call of Christ that I may understand myself with such company.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Some reflections on worship and church today
Over the last few days I have been observing the extravaganza that is the World Youth Day in Sydney, been reflecting on a potential move into ministry within the context of a cluster, been reflecting on the parable of the sower from both Markan studies and last week’s lectionary reading, attended the funeral of a key member of our congregation, and have attended a lecture by Rev. Dr. Michael Wheelan on Christian Spirituality in the Australian context.
It is apparent to me that inside many congregations the church is seen as those who attend worship services and those who attend related groups (with or without a profession of faith) are seen as associates, rather than core members. As such, participation in worship services is seen as the pinnacle of contribution and (by corollary) participation or leadership within the related groups is seen as a good thing, but not necessarily core business.
As I have watched WYD, I have reflected on the habit of festivals in the traditional European religious context, or even events such as “White Sunday” which I have seen within the Samoan Australian context. These are events which simply would not work without the participation of the whole community. If we are serious about the whole of our community being equipped by the Spirit for the growth of the whole church, I am finding myself wondering why we have structured ourselves so that our most public expressions of faith are so reliant on an elite few (those selected for public participation in worship, plus musicians and clergy).
At the funeral, I had the privilege of having a short discussion with the brother of the deceased, who is a member in a neighbouring congregation. As we shared, he informed me the peak of his faith life is on a Wednesday morning. At that time a group of about 15 gather to work at the church doing cleaning and other associate maintenance, and then share in morning tea afterwards. This is a group with a definite purpose for existence and, while we may bemoan the focus on property that is a key part of our life as a community, this man went on to describe how this group supports each other when times get tough. The little radical within me asked then how this group would be effected if they were challenged once in a while to create something for the worship life of the congregation and also found ways to recruit new members. He was from another congregation, so I kept silent.
At the lecture last night, we were asked by Michael to consider how we can live an authentic life as a spiritual organisation within the Australian context. He argued that the church, when it loses its spirituality, is soulless. He also argued that spirituality is not just about an individualistic relationship with God, but is also about relationships with others and the planet. Wheelan’s argument against individualistic styles of spirituality is that they are deficient in that they do not involve relationships with others and the sacrifices these entail. He also argued that organisation is an essential part of the human condition.
After the lecture we had a bit more discussion, and for me two key and apparently contradictory descriptors seem to have arisen: a yearning for safety (leading to the cult of self-sufficiency), and a yearning for belonging (as seen in the tribalism at times such as ANZAC Day or other common events such as WYD). This has lead me to consider the dinner-table level of polite discussion that seems be our predominant way of communication within the church. If we are to consider ourselves a community that is called to proclaim the gospel within our time, how are we to find ways to communicate the gospel within our current cultural situation.
Postmodernism has been criticised for the way in which it challenges the human mind’s ability to determine ultimate truths. If we consider God, and our salvation through Christ, to be our ultimate truths, this poses an extreme challenge to claims of a provable faith (please note, the words rational faith have been deliberately avoided as the irrational/rational has been set up as a evil/good dichotomy within the modern imagination) and a severe challenge to a faith based on axioms rather than relationships. Is this the next great leap for the church? Just as Israel needed to reform during the exile, and the church (in its different self-understandings) to the “Enlightenment”, Renaissance and the Industrial revolution, do we need to re-interpret what faith has to mean in the “post-truth” world? I believe that we have to realise that postmodernism does not deny truth, but actually embraces a whole variety of things that were dismissed during the Enlightenment and subsequent periods.
Firstly, this involves a different set of appreciations. Instead of asking questions of why people find things beautiful (for example), it appreciates that beauty is something in the eyes of its community at its time and values beauty as a truth in itself (albeit one that is not measurable or provable). This leads to a second and more radical set of questions. Continuing on from the prior example, money is seen by the post-enlightenment (or “modern”) mind as a rational truth in that it can be measured and its behaviour explained while beauty is eminently unmeasurable and thus should be excluded from calculations.
In other words, the world needs to get on with making money as its primary business, and the pursuit of beauty is seen as a luxury (almost a frivolous pursuit, to be limited to that which can be achieved by excess production). In the post-modern mind, this is an aberration as the assumption of measurability is under threat. As soon as people are involved, there are effects that are beyond simple explanation. Money can be critiqued as being a social construct that needs to be in dialogue with other values, and thus needs to be lowered from the exalted status it received in economic rationalism. (Money was made for humanity, and not humanity for money, to blatantly steal a phrase) It is obvious to me that both worldviews exist (and the postmodernist in me says that very few people would fall into either of the caricatures I have presented), but this is a profound cultural change that is changing the mode of the next generation’s thinking from propositional to dialogical, from assumptions of human intellectualism’s certainty to a distrust of ideologies and concretism.
Wheelan’s proposal for the future direction of the church is for us to become more dialogical in the way in which we relate to the broader community, being willing to be converted by Christ, who has preceded us into the world, in our conversations with the other. However, it is my fear that the urge to be accepted (and conversely, and more powerfully, the fear of rejection that often even stops us looking on ourselves truly) is the greatest enemy of such genuine conversations and before this stage we must first create spaces where such conversations may be held. It is only through an understanding of love and the unconditional acceptance due to other children of God that such spaces may be made – and I hope my fear that the church needs to be convinced of this first is not justified by reality.
So, how does this relate to my vision of worship in a postmodern church in clustered congregations? How would it be if a bible study group larger than the group of those preaching was used to generate ideas for the sermons from various preachers (lay and ordained)? How would it be if groups also gathered to create liturgy, settings, music and other aspects of worship? How would the worship life of the congregation look if ways were deliberately sought to use the abilities of the various associated groups in a visible manner on a regular basis? For example, what would it mean to those who bring morning tea if the food was brought forward with the offering or even the communion elements on occasion? In this world, the higher skill may be to creatively seek to see how others may contribute, than to emphasise one’s own contribution. Can we really learn to reach out and include the world without considering how we reach out to each other? Is it possible for us to recreate the sense of community that comes with a festival that incorporates all aspects of the congregation? These are things to consider as we head out into the future.
It is apparent to me that inside many congregations the church is seen as those who attend worship services and those who attend related groups (with or without a profession of faith) are seen as associates, rather than core members. As such, participation in worship services is seen as the pinnacle of contribution and (by corollary) participation or leadership within the related groups is seen as a good thing, but not necessarily core business.
As I have watched WYD, I have reflected on the habit of festivals in the traditional European religious context, or even events such as “White Sunday” which I have seen within the Samoan Australian context. These are events which simply would not work without the participation of the whole community. If we are serious about the whole of our community being equipped by the Spirit for the growth of the whole church, I am finding myself wondering why we have structured ourselves so that our most public expressions of faith are so reliant on an elite few (those selected for public participation in worship, plus musicians and clergy).
At the funeral, I had the privilege of having a short discussion with the brother of the deceased, who is a member in a neighbouring congregation. As we shared, he informed me the peak of his faith life is on a Wednesday morning. At that time a group of about 15 gather to work at the church doing cleaning and other associate maintenance, and then share in morning tea afterwards. This is a group with a definite purpose for existence and, while we may bemoan the focus on property that is a key part of our life as a community, this man went on to describe how this group supports each other when times get tough. The little radical within me asked then how this group would be effected if they were challenged once in a while to create something for the worship life of the congregation and also found ways to recruit new members. He was from another congregation, so I kept silent.
At the lecture last night, we were asked by Michael to consider how we can live an authentic life as a spiritual organisation within the Australian context. He argued that the church, when it loses its spirituality, is soulless. He also argued that spirituality is not just about an individualistic relationship with God, but is also about relationships with others and the planet. Wheelan’s argument against individualistic styles of spirituality is that they are deficient in that they do not involve relationships with others and the sacrifices these entail. He also argued that organisation is an essential part of the human condition.
After the lecture we had a bit more discussion, and for me two key and apparently contradictory descriptors seem to have arisen: a yearning for safety (leading to the cult of self-sufficiency), and a yearning for belonging (as seen in the tribalism at times such as ANZAC Day or other common events such as WYD). This has lead me to consider the dinner-table level of polite discussion that seems be our predominant way of communication within the church. If we are to consider ourselves a community that is called to proclaim the gospel within our time, how are we to find ways to communicate the gospel within our current cultural situation.
Postmodernism has been criticised for the way in which it challenges the human mind’s ability to determine ultimate truths. If we consider God, and our salvation through Christ, to be our ultimate truths, this poses an extreme challenge to claims of a provable faith (please note, the words rational faith have been deliberately avoided as the irrational/rational has been set up as a evil/good dichotomy within the modern imagination) and a severe challenge to a faith based on axioms rather than relationships. Is this the next great leap for the church? Just as Israel needed to reform during the exile, and the church (in its different self-understandings) to the “Enlightenment”, Renaissance and the Industrial revolution, do we need to re-interpret what faith has to mean in the “post-truth” world? I believe that we have to realise that postmodernism does not deny truth, but actually embraces a whole variety of things that were dismissed during the Enlightenment and subsequent periods.
Firstly, this involves a different set of appreciations. Instead of asking questions of why people find things beautiful (for example), it appreciates that beauty is something in the eyes of its community at its time and values beauty as a truth in itself (albeit one that is not measurable or provable). This leads to a second and more radical set of questions. Continuing on from the prior example, money is seen by the post-enlightenment (or “modern”) mind as a rational truth in that it can be measured and its behaviour explained while beauty is eminently unmeasurable and thus should be excluded from calculations.
In other words, the world needs to get on with making money as its primary business, and the pursuit of beauty is seen as a luxury (almost a frivolous pursuit, to be limited to that which can be achieved by excess production). In the post-modern mind, this is an aberration as the assumption of measurability is under threat. As soon as people are involved, there are effects that are beyond simple explanation. Money can be critiqued as being a social construct that needs to be in dialogue with other values, and thus needs to be lowered from the exalted status it received in economic rationalism. (Money was made for humanity, and not humanity for money, to blatantly steal a phrase) It is obvious to me that both worldviews exist (and the postmodernist in me says that very few people would fall into either of the caricatures I have presented), but this is a profound cultural change that is changing the mode of the next generation’s thinking from propositional to dialogical, from assumptions of human intellectualism’s certainty to a distrust of ideologies and concretism.
Wheelan’s proposal for the future direction of the church is for us to become more dialogical in the way in which we relate to the broader community, being willing to be converted by Christ, who has preceded us into the world, in our conversations with the other. However, it is my fear that the urge to be accepted (and conversely, and more powerfully, the fear of rejection that often even stops us looking on ourselves truly) is the greatest enemy of such genuine conversations and before this stage we must first create spaces where such conversations may be held. It is only through an understanding of love and the unconditional acceptance due to other children of God that such spaces may be made – and I hope my fear that the church needs to be convinced of this first is not justified by reality.
So, how does this relate to my vision of worship in a postmodern church in clustered congregations? How would it be if a bible study group larger than the group of those preaching was used to generate ideas for the sermons from various preachers (lay and ordained)? How would it be if groups also gathered to create liturgy, settings, music and other aspects of worship? How would the worship life of the congregation look if ways were deliberately sought to use the abilities of the various associated groups in a visible manner on a regular basis? For example, what would it mean to those who bring morning tea if the food was brought forward with the offering or even the communion elements on occasion? In this world, the higher skill may be to creatively seek to see how others may contribute, than to emphasise one’s own contribution. Can we really learn to reach out and include the world without considering how we reach out to each other? Is it possible for us to recreate the sense of community that comes with a festival that incorporates all aspects of the congregation? These are things to consider as we head out into the future.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
A Brief History of God (Trinity Sunday Prayer)
(Image of Creation)
When the world was created and humanity was born,
people became aware that the world was bigger than themselves.
They proposed a creator,
but who was this God?
(Idolatry Image)
Some saw an overlord, a greater being to be served,
a model for a system of using those who are downtrodden.
A god that justifies the status quo
and punishes those who step out of line.
(Moses Image)
But a group of people who saw a different God
one who adopted a nomadic people
a God who loved the helpless
and called to a radical way of community.
(Nativity Scene)
Then we believe God came to earth at Christmas
divinity wrapped in primitive nappies
transcendence wrapped in flesh
the infinite becoming a child.
(Jesus’ ministry)
So, who was this man?
A godly man showing us how to live a good life,
or God living among us, taking the good and bad,
and even death.
(Good Friday)
And how about that death?
Was this the world’s rejection of all that is good,
or God’s thundering “yes” to the universe,
reconciliation coming through a sacrifice of love?
(Pentecost)
We have just celebrated Pentecost,
the coming of something new,
yet God’s transformative power
was mistaken for drunkenness.
(Flame image)
So what is this Spirit,
God’s action within our very hearts
or an evolutionary trend to help us get along?
Lord, help us to believe.
(Church Image)
And who are we?
A human institution craving power for itself,
or a community continuing God’s redemptive work.
Lord, make us your church.
(Trinity Image)
We gather here today to celebrate the Trinity,
three persons but one God,
God that astounds our expectation, and befuddles our imagination,
Lord, you are worthy of our life, our thanks and our praise.
When the world was created and humanity was born,
people became aware that the world was bigger than themselves.
They proposed a creator,
but who was this God?
(Idolatry Image)
Some saw an overlord, a greater being to be served,
a model for a system of using those who are downtrodden.
A god that justifies the status quo
and punishes those who step out of line.
(Moses Image)
But a group of people who saw a different God
one who adopted a nomadic people
a God who loved the helpless
and called to a radical way of community.
(Nativity Scene)
Then we believe God came to earth at Christmas
divinity wrapped in primitive nappies
transcendence wrapped in flesh
the infinite becoming a child.
(Jesus’ ministry)
So, who was this man?
A godly man showing us how to live a good life,
or God living among us, taking the good and bad,
and even death.
(Good Friday)
And how about that death?
Was this the world’s rejection of all that is good,
or God’s thundering “yes” to the universe,
reconciliation coming through a sacrifice of love?
(Pentecost)
We have just celebrated Pentecost,
the coming of something new,
yet God’s transformative power
was mistaken for drunkenness.
(Flame image)
So what is this Spirit,
God’s action within our very hearts
or an evolutionary trend to help us get along?
Lord, help us to believe.
(Church Image)
And who are we?
A human institution craving power for itself,
or a community continuing God’s redemptive work.
Lord, make us your church.
(Trinity Image)
We gather here today to celebrate the Trinity,
three persons but one God,
God that astounds our expectation, and befuddles our imagination,
Lord, you are worthy of our life, our thanks and our praise.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Retreat Poem 2 (of 2)
Followers of a Party-Trick God (based on John 11)
This happened so the glory of God may be revealed.
Lazarus broken,
his family distraught.
A hope deferred to the future met that day.
This happened so the glory of God may be revealed.
How obscene is that?
Children backed over by cars,
lives wrecked by disease,
families broken,
townships swamped.
The towers of our predictable, scientific world come tumbling down.
This happened so the glory of God may be revealed.
Your church scandalously divided,
squabbling to own those who can only be Yours,
excising themselves from Your world.
This happened so the glory of God may be revealed.
A world mistaking knowledge for understanding,
reducing wonder to statistics,
humanity to commercial value,
and beauty to symmetry.
Lord, do wondrous things through us,
the church cries out each day.
Fill us with your power and your glory,
so that we may point to you.
Lord, do wondrous things through us.
Pour us out for the hurt and unloved.
Expose us in our fragile humanity.
Lead us to die for those who hate us.
No, Lord, can't you just let us be?
Allow us to devise wise techniques and programs,
granting deliverance safely through statistics and strategy.
Mine be the glory.
Your faithfulness will not let us go.
Your love draws us in,
there's nothing left for us.
So, let us walk to Jerusalem with you.
Lord, replace our pride with your compassion,
substitute our control with your love.
Shake, shatter and rebuild us in your image once more,
so that your glory may truly be known through us.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Retreat Poem 1
Dry bones (A reflection on Ezekiel)
Go and speak the word of life to the dry bones.
What a ludicrous concept!
Pouring one's life out for that which has died,
existing more for what it was than it is.
Go and speak the word of life to the dry bones.
Speak words of hope and joy to the tired, the fragile, the discourages.
"If only I were twenty years younger..."
But Go and speak the word.
Help me to see you in the dry bones
That which lasts when all else has faded away
Molecular buttresses and niches for life
A potential that only you can realise.
Help me to see you in the dry bones
the quiet faithfulness of the inobtrusive attender
the questing desire for a community that has gone
the fact they have been gathered by You.
Help me to see you in the dry bones
A holy man with the tax collectors and prostitutes
A body broken by the machinations of the world
Life being thrown away for dry bones.
Fill me with your word of life
Allow me to dwell in your love:
Not as a place I go to visit,
but that which I abide in wherever I am
Fill me with your word of life
may it overflow from me on the plains of my life.
Do with it as you will,
and may your will be done in me.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Gandhi's seven deadly sins
One of my uncles gave me a book of 365 ways to change the world as my Christmas present.
I have been reading it each day in order to see how the agents of change in the secular world express their hopes and relating it to Christian discipleship.
Today's reflection was on the seven deadly sins (and also the seven virtues and righteous actions) out of the medieval Christian tradition, and an encouragement to drop one. I don't want to reflect too much on this, but on Mahatma Gandhi's seven deadly sins which were listed in the middle:
I have been reading it each day in order to see how the agents of change in the secular world express their hopes and relating it to Christian discipleship.
Today's reflection was on the seven deadly sins (and also the seven virtues and righteous actions) out of the medieval Christian tradition, and an encouragement to drop one. I don't want to reflect too much on this, but on Mahatma Gandhi's seven deadly sins which were listed in the middle:
- Wealth without work
- Pleasure without conscience
- Science without humanity
- Knowledge without character
- Politics without principle
- Commerce without morality
- Worship without sacrifice
I found this particularly interesting as the first six of these take on the commonly accepted virtues of the modern secular world and suggests that they need moderating values to stop them becoming vices (as I believe they do), and I suspect most members of religious groups would have no problem agreeing with them. Then comes the call from Gandhi on religion, worship that does not change your life in a real and practical fashion can easily just become a claim that God is on your side - and that leads to dangerous territory indeed.
What do you think? Can you think of anything to add to Gandhi's list?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
